Defending the Bible
From Wikinfo
- See also: Criticism of the Bible
Part of teaching the Bible is to defend it against criticism of it brought about by those who disagree with it. This is part of what is known as apologetics.
In evaluating criticism of the Bible, it is important to keep in mind why people criticize it. The motives can often give more insight as to what is being criticized, than the direct words used.
For example, homosexuals and feminists (often the same people) oppose not so much the Bible itself, rather they rightly recognize that those who oppose their chosen life styles draw their opposition from clear teachings in the Bible, therefore they attack the Bible to try to mute those who oppose their chosen life style. Another example, when early Christianity pointed to Isaiah 7:14 and Jesus’ birth to a virgin mother as fulfillment of that prophecy, only after then did Jewish opponents to Christianity claim that the Hebrew word used in the original Hebrew Bible meant “young woman” and not “virgin”. Modern critics merely continue that tradition.
Contents |
Translation
Translation is always problematic, in that no translation is perfect. Problems include that terms are used in different ways, or sometimes not existent in the target language, so that the translation can give different connotations than what it had in the original language, even though it is close to the original, or that some translators are less competent than others, or worse in that some translators deliberately mistranslate for ideological reasons.
In the case of the Hebrew Bible, there is the additional problem that the Biblical Hebrew language is only imperfectly understood. Other than a few short letters and inscriptions, the only source of knowledge of the language is found in the Bible, and that is not that great a body of literature, even compared with known examples of other contemporary languages such as Aramaic. Already by the time the Septuagint (LXX) was written, meanings of several terms had been forgotten, one source of errors in that first translation.
Another problem unique to the Hebrew Bible connected to the above is that some modern translators insist on using certain meanings because it fits with their personal ideologies, not necessarily because it fits with linguistic analysis. An example is in Genesis 1:2 where those who follow the Documentary Hypothesis tend to insist that the earth was originally “formless and waste” because it fits with their belief that the Bible took as its sources other religious beliefs of origins from surrounding cultures, while others point to linguistic analysis of other uses of the terms in the Hebrew Bible that indicate that a more accurate translation would be “uninhabited (lifeless) and still”. Another example is from both Jewish and modern sources that insist that the word for “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 really means “young woman” as a way to contradict the Christian understanding of the verse, while a linguistic analysis favors the Christian understanding of “virgin”.
As a result of these and other linguistic and translation related questions, any criticism of the Bible must deal with the Bible as originally written, in other words, in its original languages, not based on translations. That is also why theologians, both Christian and Jewish, are trained in the original languages.
History
To start out with, secular history is not as cut and dry as many historians want to claim. To give some examples:
Jesus started his preaching in the 15th year of Tiberius, Luke 3:1. Was that the 15th year of his sole rule, or did it include the ten years of his joint rule with Caesar Augustus?
The dates given for Nehemiah’s rebuilding of Jerusalem’s city walls range from 390 to 440 BC. When was it actually?
Was Raamses II “the great” the pharaoh of the Exodus in the 12th century BC, or was he the pharaoh nicknamed Sesi, Hebrew Sesiq, who despoiled Jerusalem after Solomon died in the late tenth century BC 1 Kings 14:25–26, or was he also named Neko in 2 Kings 23:29? All of these have been proposed. Pharaohs had several names, often nicknames as well, which often causes difficulties when trying to correlate ancient histories.
These and many other historical questions leave open the possibility that the Bible’s records are accurate, and the history as recounted by modern historians may not be all that accurate. Or in other words, when the claim is made that other histories don’t mention events listed in the Bible, the reason they don’t may be because modern historians are looking in the wrong time periods for their evidence.
Another common objection to the historicity of the Bible is not really historical at all: the Bible mentions many events that many modern historians à priori assume never could have happened, therefore the supposition that they didn’t happen. Therefore critics claim that the events recorded really are myths written long after the events supposedly occurred, or the people named lived, that is if they ever really existed. This objection is really religious, an example of not believing a record because it does not fit pre-chosen beliefs, not an example of historical analysis.
For the most part, however, the Bible is the sole source for most of the history that it mentions, therefore it can neither be corroborated nor falsified by an appeal to other histories.
Fulfilled prophecy
One of the central teachings of the Bible is that God can tell people about what will happen in the future, but only God can do it (Isaiah 45:21). Today, most of the events that were future at the time the Bible was written are now in the past, though there are still a few prophecies yet to be fulfilled.
One caution that needs to be kept in mind is that there are many people going around with all sorts of teachings concerning prophecies which they claim are Biblical, but that others cannot find in the Bible. Those pushing the most controversial claims are often the loudest, while those who carefully evaluate the evidence and find those claims wanting tend to be much quieter, primarily because their primary emphasis is elsewhere, not prophecy, though they also tend to be those who wish to shun the limelight.
The idea that Daniel was written later than the sixth century BC is contradicted by the linguistic study of Aramaic that indicates an early authorship[1]. The late date often posited for its authorship is merely one necessitated by a presupposition that Daniel in the sixth century BC couldn’t write an accurate history of what will happen in the future. But if we start Daniel’s 490 years (Daniel 9:23–27) after the command to rebuild Jerusalem under Nehemiah at about the mid-point between the extremes listed above, that Tiberius’ 15th year was after he started his joint rule, then we have it ending with the seven year Jewish revolt of 66 AD, midway through which the temple sacrifices were ceased because of the destruction of the temple, and it was prosecuted on the Roman side by a general who became emperor (coming leader) largely on the basis on the successful prosecution of the war. It also mentioned Alexander the Great (the “anointed prince”), though giving him a date about a decade earlier than given by most modern historians. If Jesus is the “anointed one” who was cut off (killed) after 62 * 7 years after the rebuilding of the walls, then his death was in the third decade AD though the exact year is not listed. So to be consistent, if Daniel couldn’t write about future history, then the book would have had to have been written after 73 AD: but the book is known from the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) as early as the second century BC.
The claim that the book of Isaiah is actually two or three books concatenated into one is again predicated on the presupposition that accurate history before it happened couldn’t be reported by God to people. Specifically Isaiah mentions Cyrus, the Persian ruler, by name over a century before he lived (Isaiah 44:28–45:5). Because the book mentions Cyrus, therefore the presupposition (which really is a religious belief) demands that it have been written after Cyrus lived.
Context
Another way to attack the Bible is to take teachings out of context, i.e. making it seem to say other than what it does. For example, “the Bible teaches atheism, see, Psalm 14:1 ‘There is no God.’” But the complete statement says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” While this is a simple, easily demonstrated example of taking out of context, many other times, the explanatory context can be several verses away to even a different book in the Bible, and the refutation of a simple taking out of context may require much more than a simple sound bite. An example of the latter is the claim that the laws of the Pentateuch are forever, a claim that is based on both mistranslation and taking out of context.
Science
It is somewhat unrealistic to expect that a book whose main emphasis is on history to give a detailed exposition in science. It doesn’t. But even histories mention some facts that can be corroborated or falsified by science, but most of the time the Bible mentions events that science cannot study, and written using common, every day language that is scientifically neutral.
Some of what are called scientific objections to the Bible really are not science at all, because the scientific method is unable to address the questions listed. Possibly the most prominent “scientific” objection centers on the religious theory of evolution that contradicts the Biblical teaching of creation.
Outside of these few specific teachings that many scientists use to attack the Bible, teachings that can be demonstrated as not being scientific teachings, the influence of the Bible has been shown to be very positive towards the development of science. As Biblical ideas were spread following the Reformation, they brought with them attitudes and a mind set that induced those people who had them to analyze the material world and to develop the scientific method. As a result, throughout history, many of the top scientists have also believed the Bible.
Why are critics’ motives important?
What we find is that many times critics attack the Bible, using their stated objections merely as a smokescreen, an intellectual facade as it were, for their true objections.
For example, people do not like being called perverted, following an unnatural life style, homosexuals are no exception to that rule. So when the Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion and that those who choose that life style are condemned to hell unless they repent, instead of repenting, homosexual activists do what they can to undermine the teachings to which they object. As part of their intolerance towards those with whom they disagree, they try to undermine their opponents’ convictions. One of the best ways to undermine those convictions is to push teachings that appear to show that the Bible, the bedrock of Christian theology, is in itself but a collection of myths that reflect a bygone era, not necessarily true and no longer applicable to modern people.
Many times the objections can be summed up with the following, “Because the teachings of the Bible disagree with my personal beliefs, therefore it is wrong.” This was basically the attitude of those who founded the teachings later called the Documentary Hypothesis: they believed a different religion, therefore set up a system to try to correlate the Bible to their beliefs; later people often took the founders’ conclusions, not knowing how they were arrived at, and continued developing the system.
Many people are hoodwinked into believing that evolution is scientific, therefore true, therefore the Bible is false. Many then react with anger at the time they had believed the Bible, then work to oppose it almost as if they want revenge.
Still others were wronged by people who called themselves “Christian” and so conclude that if those actions are Christian, then the book that inspired those actions is bad. Many times those actions actually are inspired by a “cultural Christianity” where the actor himself has little to no personal cognition of the Bible, but recognizes that certain things are “bad” and are therefore to be opposed. This type of action is pushed by certain talk radio hosts and many politicians. Occasionally the wrongs are perpetrated by accident or by mistake, but those are not common. According to surveys by the Barna Group[2], most people who attend church are “cultural Christians” who have not read the Bible for themselves, do not know what it teaches, so are likely to act in non-Biblical ways.
Sometimes the opposition is generated by perceived teachings in the Bible that aren’t really in there at all. For example, there is the perceived teaching that the God of the Old Testament is not portrayed in the same way as in the New Testament. That is a misreading of the text. When one reads the Bible in its original languages, the parallels are even more striking. There are many more examples where popular, or even academic, teachings that appear to be Biblical really are not upon in depth study.
Conclusion
The first step to defend the Bible is to know the Bible. Study it on its own terms, not based on cultural, religious, academic or any other outside influences that may distort what it has to say. That is to make sure that what is being discussed is the Bible, and not some cultural, academic or personal expectation. The second step is to think critically. How many present critics of the Bible have not thought things through critically but just accepted on face value some of the criticisms that they heard? Don’t accept things on face value, just because a majority of scientists claim that evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so, so the same way that just because a theologian, professor or anyone else claims a teaching is found in the Bible, doesn’t make it so. So when a claim is made that a certain teaching is found in the Bible, demand to see where it is found, don’t just take someone’s word for it.
