Is The Bible True? / Part 2

Is The Bible True?
PART 2

Last month, as we approached an answer to this question, we looked at two types of truth, the Greek gnosis and the Hebrew emeth. We then considered which type applies to the Bible. This month we will consider seven objections to the position that both must apply.

Seven Objections

1. It gives history and science a right of veto over the gospel.
If you adopt this position, you are giving unbelievers an excuse to hide behind debates about history, biology, etc., instead of confronting them with God’s sovereignty over their lives as the real issue. You are agreeing that you have no right to state God’s claims over them so long as they can throw one so-called “fact” at you, however skimpy. And given that history is mostly unknown, and science is forever revising itself, this means permission to delay confronting God forever.

2. It makes the reader sovereign over Scripture.
It allows the reader to demand that Scripture answer his questions, rather than requiring him to listen to the answers Scripture gives. Imagine an officer commanding a soldier to stand at attention, but the soldier asking, “Do you mean me, sir? Now, sir? Right here, or two steps forward, sir? ...” and so on for hours. Without actually refusing to obey, and while speaking respectfully, this soldier is still guilty of disobedience and insubordination. By requiring the officer to answer his questions before complying with the order, he is asserting that the officer must comply with his requests before he is required to obey the officer’s order. He is implicitly asserting authority over the officer, rather than recognizing the officer’s authority over him.

I see Christians letting unbelievers play this game on them all the time. When stating that God is Creator, they get side-tracked into debating evolution vs. creation. In doing so, they become like the spineless officer.

It happens so often, I can barely stop myself from screaming: “Ignore the red herrings. Just say that God stands over you as Creator to creature. The purpose of Genesis 1-2 is not to tell you history or biology; it’s to tell you how to relate to God now. First accept that conclusion. How creation took place can be discussed later; let’s get the relationship right first.”

3. It allows people to hide behind an excuse of “not enough information.”
If we allow unbelievers to avoid the key issue of faith until all their questions are answered, they’ll ask questions forever. We owe it to them to make them face reality. In real life, people make all sorts of decisions with incomplete knowledge. They eat a meal without having perfect knowledge of every ingredient; they buy stocks without perfect knowledge of what their value will be in ten years; they buy tickets to next week’s football game without being certain that they’ll be alive to watch it. Life’s all about deciding based on the information at hand – even eternal life. You don’t need perfect information, only enough to make a reasonable choice.

4. It demands that Scripture fit in with the unbeliever’s preconceptions, rather than making the reader accept Scripture’s perspective.
Perhaps the most obvious preconception is the demand that Scripture be historically accurate. But “historically accurate” to our generation means “video-realism” – a demand that the story be exactly as an invisible observer would see it. This very current definition results from the “scientific method” soaking into our subconscious. It implies that what can’t be seen doesn’t exist, and assumes that we can understand everything about the world.

Previous generations were not so narrow-minded; they accepted that there are some things beyond understanding, and some forces we can’t perceive. For example, a modern person, seeing Lazarus raised from the dead, would be astounded. As a result, he might use all his power, investigate and test everything, to find out how it happened. If he never discovered the method, he’d still believe there was a perfectly logical answer that he hadn’t yet discovered. But an ancient observer would instantly recognize it for what it was; the exercise of power far beyond normal human ability.

Don’t let anyone tell you that the ancients believed in miracles because they didn’t understand the laws of nature. They understood perfectly well that someone dead for three days was beyond any hope of recovery. If they didn’t believe that, they would not have recognized it as a miracle! Rather, it’s we moderns who don’t believe in miracles because we are too arrogant to admit that there is more operating here than the laws of nature.

5. It accepts the scientific insistence that things be explained in terms of process, not purpose.
Today’s mind, particularly the scientific mind, abhors teleology (the study of evidence of design in nature). It sees the world in terms of prior cause determining the subsequent effect, not in terms of ultimate purpose employing subordinate methods. Going back to Lazarus, today’s observer could search all his life to find out “how it was done.” But he would never even dream of asking “Why was it done?” The ancient observer would have understood instantly; it was a display of power to show that Jesus really was one who had authority even over death. But to a modern mind, the mechanics is everything. Purpose and meaning are not even considered: “Seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand” (Mk. 4:12).

6. It is itself unscientific, in that it assumes that today’s reader has the “correct” literary approach and demands that ancient documents submit to modern literary conventions.
You don’t have to read widely to know that not everything ever written is in the form of a report by a detached analyst. In our Australian National Anthem we sing of “golden soil.” We know that this is not only untrue, but also that such ground wouldn’t support healthy crops. When I read poetry, I don’t quit when I read that “the moon was a ghostly galleon” because I know that the moon was in the sky well before such nautical technology was developed.

When I read the parable of the Prodigal Son, the fact that it never happened doesn’t make it less true. Emeth does not depend on literal accuracy, but on how accurately the example illustrates how God wants us to live. To demand literal accuracy is to try to live by bread alone. Those who wave this away by saying that Jesus said it was a parable, completely miss the point. Is it any less true because the speaker admitted it wasn’t?

By pandering to the demand that the Bible narrative obey modern historic and scientific writing canons, we are implicitly agreeing that only one literary form is valid. Is it not more “scientific” to accept that our viewpoint is nothing special, but we should read ancient documents according to the practice and styles of their own times? To assume that Moses was “inspired” to write about creation in exactly the same style as a 21st century research geologist, simply shows how uninspired some readers can be. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev. 3:6) through the letters to our brethren who went before us!

7. The scientific emphasis on “fact” distracts us from the biblical emphasis on faith.
Or as ethicists say, “You can’t get from an indicative to an imperative,” or from “is” to “ought.” Let’s imagine a conversation with two reasonable persons.

One is finally convinced of the complete scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible, and says, “That was informative, but so what?” When we tell him to repent and trust Jesus, he says, “Why?” We warn him that at death he will face judgment, and he says, “So what?” Genuinely perplexed, he says, “All the things in the Bible happened in the past. You’ve given me no historical or scientific evidence of what will happen in the future. Since the future hasn’t happened, it’s logically impossible for you to provide such evidence.” And he’d be right. A prediction is not historical evidence, and in scientific terms it is only of use after the predicted event occurs.

The other remains totally unconvinced about the historicity of the Bible. He thinks the whole thing is a fable, fiction that reveals a deep moral truth. He repents and trusts God who demands that he live a life of love and humility. He believes God will give him the virtue and strength to do so until he dies. What happens after death doesn’t interest him; after all, he’ll be dead! But he is convicted to live a life of faithfulness, a life of emeth.

Which of these two persons is closer to God: the man who is totally convinced of the scientific and historical “truth” of the Bible, but does not trust; or the man who doesn’t believe the history, but knows only that he is called to live a life of faith, love and humility, and commits himself in God’s strength to do so?

I realize that putting the question in such stark terms is very unrealistic; but it does show the difference between the way of knowledge and the way of faith, of Greek gnosis and of Hebrew emeth. Every time we demand (or permit) that acceptance of the biblical narrative is logically prior to faith, we make gnosis more important than emeth.

So What?

What does it mean when we say that the Bible is “true.” It does not mean that the Bible is merely a collection of accurate historical and scientific statements, meant to satisfy our curiosity. The Bible is true in a much more important way; it is the secure, reliable, and righteous guide on how to live a life of emeth – a life of faith, love, integrity and godliness. It doesn’t answer every question, but it does answer every question we need to ask. To demand that it answer questions of our choosing is to demand that God be answerable to us. This limits God’s sovereignty over us, and this is only one step short of rebellion.

More serious is to read an answer into the text that writers (both human and divine) did not intend to give. This is to say “Thus says the Lord” when the Lord said no such thing. This is to take the Lord’s name in vain. These false “answers” are best recognized by asking, “Is this answer only gnosis, or is it emeth? Is it about process, or purpose? Is it about facts, or meaning? Is it about what I know or about how I live?”

Where there is genuine difference of opinion between persons of good faith, this by itself is proof that the answer is not essential to salvation. Better to be humble and cautious, holding your view tentatively and acknowledging differing views charitably, all in the bond of peace.

By Bob Springett

Next month, a new Series: “From Creation To The Flood”