Can You Believe the Bible?

“IT IS absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” How do these words by biologist Richard Dawkins affect you? If you believe the Bible, likely you believe in creation rather than in the theory of evolution. Does that mean that, as a believer in the Bible, you are ignorant, stupid, or insane?

Consider, too, this statement: “New Testament scholars have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jesus of early Christian documents is to some extent a fiction of the Christian imagination.” These words in The Weekend Australian were spoken by Dr. Robert W. Funk, a university professor of religious studies and author of a number of books on religious interpretation.

Dr. Funk originated a project known as the Jesus Seminar, a group of more than a hundred Bible scholars who together scrutinized the sayings of Jesus reported in the Bible. Among other things, they concluded that the Lord’s Prayer was not composed by Jesus; that Jesus did not say that the meek would inherit the earth or that the peacemakers would be called sons of God; and that he did not say: “I am the resurrection and the life. He that exercises faith in me . . . will never die.”​—John 11:25, 26; Matthew 5:5, 9; 6:9, 10.

Even though their conclusions may shock you, they are not unusual. They are the result of modern Biblical criticism, and similar ideas have been taught in religious seminaries for some time. Perhaps you have hardened yourself to hearing the Bible contradicted by scientists. But when religious leaders cast doubt on the truthfulness of the Bible record, you may wonder whether it is time to reconsider your own position. Is it logical to believe the Bible when so many intellectuals in the field of religion evidently do not?

Dubious Presuppositions

As an example of an authoritative-sounding statement by a Bible critic, consider what S. R. Driver said about the book of Daniel. Traditionally, this book has been considered to have been written by Daniel himself in Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E. (Daniel 12:8, 9) But Driver claimed that it was written much later than that. Why? One “proof” offered was that the book contains Greek words, and Driver asserted: “These words, it may be confidently affirmed, could not have been used in the Book of Daniel unless it had been written after the dissemination of Greek influences in Asia through the conquests of Alexander the Great.” Alexander made his conquests about 330 B.C.E.

Driver’s statement could not be more positive. Yet, to back it up, he mentions only three Greek words, all of them names of musical instruments. (Daniel 3:5) Since the Greeks had close contact with western Asia from early in recorded history, how can anyone validly assert that musical instruments with Greek names were not used in Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E.? What a flimsy basis for querying the timing and writership of the book of Daniel!

Another example is the treatment of the first five books of the Bible. Traditionally, these are said to have been written for the most part by Moses about 1500 B.C.E. However, critics claim to see different writing styles in the books. Also, they note that God is sometimes referred to by his name, Jehovah, and sometimes by the Hebrew word for “God.” From such observations they deduce that these Bible books are really an amalgamation of documents written at different times and put in final form some time after 537 B.C.E.

This theory is widely believed, yet no one has explained why Moses could not refer to the Creator both as God and as Jehovah. No one has proved that he could not write in different styles if he was treating different subjects, writing at different times in his life, or using earlier sources. Moreover, as John Romer said in his book Testament​—The Bible and History: “A fundamental objection to this whole method of analysis is that to this day not one scrap of ancient text has been found to prove the existence of the theoretical strands of different texts so beloved of modern scholarship.”

A basic assumption of many Bible critics is explained by McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia: “Investigators . . . start from the assumption that the facts of history which lie behind the narratives are purely natural facts, similar in nature to other facts known to us. . . . Does a writer state as fact an event which lies outside the range of known laws of Nature? Then . . . the alleged event [did] not happen.”

Thus, many suppose that miracles could not have happened, since they lie outside the range of known laws of nature. Similarly, long-term prophecies must be impossible, since humans cannot see far into the future. Any miracle must be a legend or a myth. Any prophecy that was clearly fulfilled must have been written after its fulfillment.a Hence, some argue that the prophecies of the book of Daniel were fulfilled by the second century B.C.E. and that the book must therefore have been written then.

But this kind of presupposition depends upon an article of faith: that God does not exist, or if he does, he never intervenes in human history. Surely, the whole point of the Bible is that God does exist and is active in human history. If this is true​—and the evidence shows that it is—​much of the basis of modern Bible criticism is invalidated.