2 Timothy 3:16 is not referring to "The Holy Bible"

If the Holy Bible, as we know it today, formed by counsels of men (no women), with agenda of their own, with simple majority votes for what to include and what to discard, were the Scriptures referred to in 2 Timothy 3:16, we would expect that those said Scriptures would make sense.  After all, if the Bible is God-breathed, wouldn't we expect that nothing in those pages would ever contradict itself?

In simple terms, we can declare that a contradiction proves a fallacy.  If a statement about something is true and yet another statement about that something contradicts the first statement, one of those statements must be false.  It doesn't necessarily disprove the something being statemented, but it does prove that the two statements are both false until one of them can be proven true, rejecting the other.

Unfortunately, the Bible cannot, as a single organism, be declared to be contradiction free.  Those who claim it is, are doing themselves a disservice when the time comes to defend their belief system, being that they have to use pretzelified explanations to spelunk through many of their holy book's premises.  If the Bible contradicts itself, then we must reject the Bible as the sole source of truth.  We cannot view it as God's word (I'll explain why, in a bit). 

Does that mean we reject everything from the ancient pages of this book?  Absolutely not!  But it does mean that you can decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.  You do not have to take the Bible as one organism, but can take away anything you desire from it or nothing at all.  But again, you simply cannot treat it as holy words from an all knowing, all powerful being.  This cannot be true.

Let me explain in six verses:

Malachi 3:6 - For I am the Lord, I do not change...

Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

We can use Jesus Christ in this example because, according to John (yes, using the full Bible as a single organism), Jesus was God as God was Jesus.  They both, together, whether they were one or two, transcended all of history, past, present, and future, as God.  Thus, if God does not change and Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, God simply cannot change.  If God cannot change, then nothing in what is considered his word can say one thing about God and then, somewhere else in that same "Word" say the opposite.  If he cannot change, he cannot change.  Now that we have established the iron-man status of God, let's move on.

Deuteronomy 6:16 - You shall not put the Lord your God to the test...

Luke 4:12 - And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Matthew 4:7 - "Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test'."

We have now established that testing God is forbidden.  But what about Malachi?

Malachi 3:10 - "Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need."

Here, we see God telling the Israelites to test him.  Now, it has been argued that God was really just telling them to test him with something good and in Deuteronomy, he was referring to testing him with something evil.  In saying this, the person making the argument misses a key point of logic.

After all, when God tells the Israelites to test him, what exactly is he saying?  Simple.  He is saying, if you give me the tithes you are supposed to give me, as I decreed in my law to you, nothing but good will come of it.  But then, he also tells his people to test him with evil, rob him, don't give him his due tithes, and what will he do?  Curse them.  Not just the individual who isn't tithing, but the whole nation of Israel.

As you can see, God clearly contradicts himself in the Bible, provided you are treating the Bible as an infallible, inerrant, singular organism - the holy and final words of God.

This begs many questions.  What is 2 Timothy 3:16 really referring to?  I have illuminated just one of the many contradictions in the book we know as the Holy Bible.  Is the Holy Bible the Scriptures?  It doesn't appear so.  Then, if not, what of the Bible is true, and what of the Bible is simply fiction, a work of men's minds, attempting to make the best word picture of things not able to be explained by the limited knowledge of their day?  If the Bible is not God's word, can we really stand on any of it as unadulterated truth?  Can we simply use logic and reason and take from the Holy Bible what we desire to live by and nothing more, nothing less?

The Golden Rule is a great example of what I would harvest from the pages of the Bible.  What about loving your enemies?  What about not killing and really not killing.  Take it as common sense, not as an absolute truth from a god who has broken every one of his laws - especially the killing one.  How about giving to others and being sacrificial when people are in need.  Turning the other cheek comes to mind.  What about working your rear end off to be successful?  Many awesome ideas about life can be gleaned from this book's pages.  And yet, many other ideas about life can be discovered in other books, from other people, from culture, from your own brilliant mind.

Think!  Think for yourself.  Grab wisdom and knowledge from every source available to you.  The Bible is an excellent resource for many things.  It is also a miserable failure in many other areas.  Feel free to reject any or all of it.  It isn't infallible.  It's not inerrant.  It isn't God's word.  It can't be. 

Response to Greg Koukl's, Ancient Words, Ever True - Part 1

Greg Koukl founded, and is the current leader of, Stand To Reason.  He teaches those he considers Christians how to reason in their faith.  The Bible states that a Christian is to give answer to that which they believe at a moment's notice.  Greg's ministry is to equip them with good reason and logic to do just that.


Greg published the article Ancient Words, Ever True, which asserts that the Bible is supernaturally written.  He sees it a road map for life today and hits on six points to build up his premise. 


I will be responding to Greg's article in a series of 6 - 7 posts.  This post will address his introduction to the topic while subsequent posts will address each one of his five individual points, with a wrapping up of my conclusions on his article, Greg's outlook on life, and how his relates to mine.


You can find the full article here.

*****

Greg immediately jumps into the topic by quoting a passage from a very famous book - Mere Christianity by the renowned C. S. Lewis.  I respect Lewis as a writer and more importantly, as a thinker.  While we differ in some of our final conclusions, the fact that he asked questions and wrote about them, as well as lived a life that was much different from what would be considered, in many circles, a "godly" life, causes me to feel a sort of warm kinsmanship with the fellow.


The quote:


"Being aware of God while gazing on the ocean is all well and good,  but if you want to go anywhere on that sparkling sea, you must have a map".


There are a few problems with this quote that are not apparent if you just read Koukl's material.  First of all, the quote is not found in Lewis' writings at all.  It is merely a paraphrase.  One of my readers may ask, "Why even mention this issue then, if it is indeed, just a paraphrase?  If Koukl proves his point with a correct paraphrase, then its fair game, right?"


You would be correct.  Except for the fact that Koukl is squeezing the exact opposite intent of Chapter 23 in Mere Christianity that Lewis was putting forth.  Koukl says that the words of the Bible are the map and uses Lewis' quote as an apt pointer to that end.  C.S. Lewis, was rather speaking of the importance of experience in life and theology.


He tells a story of a man who experienced God in a desert and later found theology to be dry and meaningless.  He agreed with this man and then surmised that theology was a collection of the experiences of hundreds, even thousands of men and women and thus, the collection of experiences could potentially make theology palatable to this desert character.  Koukl, on the other hand, asserts that the paraphrased quote is proof from a great writer that experience was worthless and should be discounted. 


To start out on this footing is a poor foreshadowing of what to expect in this article.


Koukl moves on to explain why experience cannot be trusted.  He sources experiences from three religions he considers to be in error - Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the "fun to beat on" New Agers.  What Koukl doesn't do is to cite people he may consider to be real Christians.  He never cites stalwarts like George Meuller, Elizabeth Elliot, or even Amy Carmichael - who wrote many books about pain and suffering experiences that taught her about who God was, to her.  This is a classic way to use facts to skew your argument toward your agenda.  Perfectly legitimate experiences by real human beings that give them an extrabiblical sense of who God is - for THEM!


Koukl goes further by stating that if the three hatchet religions have different experiences, then they all can't be right.  This is a fair point, until you realize that Koukl is asserting that only HIS idea of who Jesus Christ is is the correct one.  Koukl does not allow for the possibility of his religion being incorrect, nor does he allow for the unexplainable possibility that maybe, just maybe, religion is decidedly personal, and God reveals himself to mankind, individually, with different manifestations, fitting perfectly into that person's life.


Greg attempts to answer those questions I just posed by making a simple point.  "Classically, Christians have turned to details recorded in Scripture as authoritative, objective grounds for truth. God has spoken in the ancient words of the Bible."

What Greg doesn't say is that the Bible was not what the early Christian church used as their authoritative text.  They had God experiences, Jesus’ words as reported to them through a game of telephone, as well as the original Jewish texts.  They had experiences like the tongues of fire at Pentecost, as well as angels opening prison doors in answer to their prayers.

In fact, the Bible, as we know it today, was not completely put together until 1546, 1563, and 1672.  These were just over-arching councils and meetings of men (no women involved, of course).  Other editions of the Bible were put out as history marched forward.  Many translations have come about and not one person agrees completely with another on all of the verses in any text.  Hardly a map set in stone to reveal the TRUE idea of who God is or what he wants for our lives.

Koukl then adds to his premise that the Bible is a road map of life by saying that, after all, God said "Thus saith the Lord..." hundreds of times.  This is obviously problematic because that road map would not work for us today.  As human beings, we have progressed well beyond the understanding of primitive cultures (not that we always act on our enlightened understanding).

Let me illustrate my point by paraphrasing some "Thus saith the Lord..." quotes from the Bible:

1 Chronicles 21 – God gives David three choices because of his sin and ends up killing 70,000 men.  Why?  Because David counted his armies.

Deuteronomy 3 – God orders the destruction of many cities, including the murder of all men, women, and children.  The Israelites get to keep the plunder.

 Joshua 6 – God orders the full destruction of Jericho including all men, women, children, and livestock.  After the totality of destruction and murder, Joshua curses the city saying that any man who rebuilt it would have his firstborn die.

Exodus 21 – Slavery is mandated.

Exodus 21 – If the master provides a wife to the slave, when he is allowed to go free, the wife and kids are the masters.  If the guy does not want to be freed, the master mutilates his face and owns the slave forever.

Exodus 21 – Hitting a father or a mother means death.

Exodus 21 – Cursing your father or mother means death.

Exodus 21 – Beating a slave is perfectly fine, as long as they end up recovering in a day or two.

Exodus 21 – If the owner of livestock has been warned that he has a dangerous animal and that animal causes another person harm or death, the owner should be killed.

Exodus 21 – If this same livestock causes harm to or kills a slave, the owner needs to just pay a fine.

Exodus 22 – Raping a virgin makes her your wife by default.

Exodus 22 – Witches must die.

Exodus  22 – Worship of any other god means death.

Some of those, you may agree with.  But, put them all together and then try and make a case that we should follow all of them as a road map of life.  I don't think anyone would succeed in doing that.


Then, Koukl moves on to prophecies where the New Testament writers affirmed things prophesied or written in the Old Testament.  This is also problematic.  Many prophecies quoted in the New Testament simply do not exist in the Old, are misquoted, do not say what the New Testament writer says they say, or are elsewhere in the text and not where the writer stated they were.

For instance, when Jesus stated that it was written he would rise on the third day, as Paul stated was also written, it just wasn’t true.  It isn’t found in the Old Testament, anywhere.  And, worse yet, extrapolating that prophecy from Jonah in the belly of the whale is just too convenient and doesn’t make any sense.

Also, Matthew says that Jeremiah predicted the thirty pieces of silver fiasco in the Passion Narratives.  But, Jeremiah never said anything of the sort.  Some have said that Matthew actually meant the words of Zechariah applied here.  But wait, the road map?  Can there be a mistake and it still be a perfect road map?  Worse yet, the Zechariah piece is a specific story about something that happened at the time of Zechariah.  Pretending it is a prophecy does not make it a prophecy.

Matthew also stated that Jesus was prophesied to be a Nazarene (from Nazareth).  But, not only has the town of Nazareth never been found, the words and this prophecy also do not exist.  How can a perfect life road map be missing a key ingredient of prophecy that it states it actually DOES include?

There are more, but I digress.

Then, Koukl states the well known verse where Paul says that all scripture is given by inspiration.  But Paul was not and could not have been speaking of his very words he was speaking at that moment.  In fact, several times, Paul says, “God doesn’t say this…I do!”  Did Paul really think he was speaking or writing God’s words?  By his own confession, he did not. My best guess is that, in this letter, Paul was merely speaking of the Jewish scriptures as they knew them (which is decidedly NOT the same as the Old Testament as we know it today).

Koukl: "Of course, just claiming it’s so doesn’t make it so. How do we know? Do we have any evidence God has spoken in the Bible? The challenge can be reduced to a simple question: What kind of book is the Bible? I submit there are only two plausible answers. The Bible is merely a book by man about God, or it is a book given by God through man, to man."

I disagree with there only being two possibilities.  Isn’t it plausible that SOME of the Bible was given to man through God and the rest is poppycock?  Or, maybe some of it was written by man and little bits of God’s wisdom was injected into it.  Or, it may be plausible that all of the Bible is the writer’s best idea of who God is with their own spiritual experiences that validate those assertions.  That makes it true for that individual, but it doesn’t necessarily make it true for all of mankind.

Koukl then answers his own questions by stating that, if the Bible was human, it had human limitations to it, but if it was supernaturally written by God, "then God is the ultimate author and His word is the last word."


Really Greg Koukl? So, slavery is ok?  Women are to be subordinate to men?  Homosexuality is wrong?  Casting the evil eye at your parents is grounds for being stoned?  If we don’t believe in God, we must be put to death?  Hellfire is reserved for those who do not believe in God or who reject him, including those who never had a chance because they weren’t privy to this perfect road map?

Koukl finally sums up his introduction by stating that he sees six evidences of the Bible being supernatural.  I will address his first point in Part 2.

I realize this is a bit technical, but bear with me.  I think it is an important discussion to have.  Is the Bible inerrant?  Infallible?  What does it mean for mankind if it is not?  And, if it is not, is it probable that Christianity is simply another religion, dreamed up by ancient peoples when they didn't have explanations for all of life's unanswered questions?

Satan and the Problem of Deceit

I was a Christian once - someone who believed in Jesus Christ.  My transformation into a sort of deist has been forming over a period of ten years and has increased in pace in the last eighteen months.  What brought me to my current theological understanding of life was the slogging through millions of questions where there was no good answer and then moving forward to the next question where I discovered something of the same conclusion.

The fact that there was no good answer is not a conclusion in itself.  It just displays the nature of philosophy and theology in general.  We cannot see what we are wont to believe in and thus must take a bite out of a thing called "faith".  I am convinced this "faith" is decidedly personal.

It didn't used to be that way.

Growing up in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church that leaned heavily on Bill Gothard's ultra-legalistic Institute in Basic Life Principles, I was taught that there was only one correct way to think and believe.  Faith was clearly established in the inerrant and infallible text of the Holy Bible.  The fact that hundreds, even thousands of other factions and groups used that exact same holy book, coming to different conclusions - at times, diametrically opposed - did not matter in the least. 

They were wrong.  Everyone else was wrong.  We held the keys to true righteousness.  After all, the way was narrow and tough, unlike the easy, wide way that led to ultimate destruction.

Faith was not personal at all.  It was supposed to be and was preached from many a pulpit as such.  But it was a cookie cutter faith.  You were expected to adhere to exact principles and formulas in order to have the kind of faith that provided you with guaranteed eternal security.  Any slight deviation from this faith was cause for concern for everyone who caught wind of the manifestations of your backsliding.

The worst offense of all was questioning.

It wasn't the questioning that was the problem.  Questioning was simply the symptom of a much deeper issue.  Just the fact that you were curious about the "maybe this isn't all it is cracked up to be" caused those around you to issue the warning:

"Satan is a master deceiver and you are allowing him to deceive you by questioning".

There is a simple problem with this factual statement.

First, we cannot see Satan.  There is no proof that he exists.  We cannot see God.  There is no proof that he exists either.  We have no possibility of establishing that every single word in the Holy Bible was written through the hands of men by God himself.  Even if this were the case, the contradictions and paradoxical natures of much of the theology within its pages would steer any logically thinking individual to a conclusion that seems quite obvious - we just don't know about what we should know.

Since we don't know what we should know, being that there are many interpretations for each of the thousands of verses in the Bible, there is no foundation from which to be deceived.  To say otherwise is to claim that it is possible to have the correct interpretation of all questions that can be answered from Christianity's holy book.  This is a tall task for any reasonable person to conclude as fact.

So, if we have no clue, but only the best ideas of God from the hands of mere men and women, like you and me, faith is decidedly personal and there is absolutely no possibility that we can be deceived.