Is the bible the word of God?
The Christian Documents
Christians rely mainly on the four Gospels for the historicity of Jesus. However, the original documents of which the books in the New Testament are claimed to be faithful copies are not in existence. There is absolutely no evidence that they even were in existence at all. This is a statement, which Christians cannot deny nor disprove. Is it conceivable that the early believers lost, through carelessness or purposely, every document written by an apostle, while guarding with all protecting jealousy and zeal the writings of anonymous persons? Is there any valid reason why the contributions to Christian literature of an inspired apostle should perish while those of a nameless scribe are preserved, why the original Gospel of Matthew should drop quietly out of sight, no one knows how, while a supposed copy of it in an alien language [Greek] is preserved for many centuries?
Jesus himself, it is admitted, did not write a single line. He had come to reveal the will of God, a most important mission indeed. Yet he not only did not put this revelation in writing during his lifetime but he left this all-important duty to anonymous chroniclers, who made enough mistakes to split up Christendom into innumerable factions. Think of the persecutions, the cruel wars, and the centuries of hatred and bitterness, which would have been spared our unfortunate humanity, if Jesus himself had written down his message in the clearest and plainest manner, instead of leaving it to his supposed disciples to publish it to the world, when he could no longer correct their mistakes.
Moreover, not only did Jesus not write himself, he has not even taken any pains to preserve the writings of his "apostles". It is well known that the original manuscripts, if there were any, are nowhere to be found. We have only supposed copies of supposed original manuscripts. Who copied them? When were they copied? How can we be sure that these copies are reliable? In addition, why are there thousands upon thousands of various readings in these numerous supposed copies? What means do we have of deciding which version or reading to accept and which to reject? Is it conceivable that a God would send his Son to us, and then leave us to wander through a pile of dusty manuscripts to try to find out why He sent His Son, and what He taught when he was on earth?
The only answer the Christian church can give to this question is that the original writings were purposely allowed to perish. When a precious document containing the testament of Almighty God, and inscribed for an eternal purpose by the Holy Ghost, disappears altogether there is no other way of accounting for its disappearance than by saying, that its divine author must have intentionally withdrawn it from circulation. "God moves in a mysterious way" is the last resort of the believer. This is the one argument, which is left to theology to fight science with. Unfortunately, it is an argument, which would prove every cult and "ism" under the heavens true. The Mohammedan, the Mazdaian, and the Pagan may also fall back upon faith. There is nothing, which faith, cannot cover up from the light. However, if a faith, which ignores evidence, is not a superstition what then is superstition?
The Catholic Church, which pretends to believe [and which derives quite an income from the belief] that God has miraculously preserved the wood of the cross, the Holy Sepulchre, in Jerusalem, the coat of Jesus, and quite a number of other mementos, can explain why the original manuscripts were lost. I have a suspicion that there were no "original" manuscripts. I am not sure of this, of course, but if nails, bones and holy places could be miraculously preserved, why not also manuscripts? It is reasonable to suppose that the Deity would not have permitted the most important documents containing His Revelation to drop into some hole and disappear, or to be gnawed into dust by the insects, after having had them written by special inspiration.
A good illustration of the mythical or unhistorical character of the New Testament is given by the story of John the Baptist. He is first represented as confessing publicly that Jesus is the Christ; that he himself is not worthy to unloose the latchet of his shoes; and that Jesus is the Lamb of God, "who takes away the sins of the world". John was also present, the gospels say, when the heavens opened and a dove descended on Jesus' head and he heard the voice from the skies crying, "He is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". Is it possible that, a few chapters later, this same John forgets his public confession, the dove and the voice from heaven and actually sends two of his disciples to find out who this Jesus is. [Matthew 11] The only way we can account for such strange conduct is that the compiler or editor in question had two different myths or stories before him, and he wished to use them both.
A further proof of the loose and extravagant style of the Gospel writers is given by the concluding verse of the Fourth Gospel: "There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." This is more like the language of a mythmaker than of a historian. How much reliance can we put in a reporter who is given to such exaggeration? To say that the world itself would be too small to contain the unreported sayings and doings of a teacher whose public life possibly did not last longer than a year, and whose reported words and deeds fill only a few pages, is to prove one's statements unworthy of serious consideration.
And it is worth your while to note also that the documents which have come down to our time and which claim to be the biographies of Jesus, are not only written in an alien language [in a language which was not that of Jesus and his disciples], but neither are they dated or signed. Jesus and his twelve apostles were Jews; why are all the four Gospels, written in Greek? If they were originally written in Hebrew [or Armenian], how can we tell that the Greek translation is accurate, since we cannot compare it with the originals? In addition, why are these Gospels anonymous? It is admitted by scholars that owing to the difficulty of reading these ancient, imperfect, and conflicting texts, an accurate translation is impossible. However, this is another way of saying that what the churches call the Word of God is not only the word of man, but also a imperfect word, at that.
The belief in Jesus is founded on secondary documents. Altered and edited by various hands, on lost originals, and on anonymous manuscripts of an age considerably later than the events therein-related manuscripts that contradict each other as well as themselves. It was this sense of the insufficiency of the evidence, which drove the missionaries of Christianity to commit forgeries.
If there was ample evidence for the historicity of Jesus, why did his biographers resort to forgery? The following admissions by Christian writers themselves show the helplessness of the early preachers in the presence of inquirers who asked for proofs. The church historian, Mosheim, writes that, "The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act to employ deception and fraud." [Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, p. 347.] Again, he says, "The greatest and most pious teachers were nearly all of them infected with this leprosy." Another historian, Milman, writes that, "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed" by the early missionaries of Jesus. "It was an age of literary frauds," writes Bishop Ellicott, speaking of the times immediately following the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Dr. Giles declares that, "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were written with no other purpose than to deceive." Moreover, it is the opinion of Dr. Robertson Smith that, "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." Books, which are now rejected as apocryphal, were at one time received as inspired, and books, which are now believed to be infallible, were at one time regarded as of no authority in the Christian world. It certainly is puzzling that there should be a whole literature of fraud and forgery in the name of a historical person. If Jesus was a myth, we can easily explain the legends and traditions springing up in his name.
The early followers of Jesus, then, realizing the force of this objection, did actually resort to forgery in order to prove that Jesus was a historical character. One of the oldest critics of the Christian religion was a Pagan known to history under the name of Porphyry; the early Fathers did not hesitate to tamper even with the writings of an avowed opponent of their religion. After issuing an edict to destroy the writings of this philosopher, a work called “Philosophy of Oracles” was produced in, which the author is made to write almost as a Christian; and the name of Porphyry was signed to it as its author. St. Augustine was one of the first to reject it as a forgery. [Geo. W. Foote, “Crimes of Christianity”] Do these forgeries, these mythical writings who freely admitted to have been the prevailing practice of the early Christians, help to prove the existence of Jesus? Moreover, when to this wholesale manufacture of doubtful evidence is added the terrible vandalism, which nearly destroyed every great Pagan classic, we can form an idea of the desperate means to which the early Christians resorted to prove that Jesus was not a myth.
The Uniqueness of the Bible
One of the defence’s bible apologists, like McDowell, uses is to claim that the bible is unique. They parade before us an array of "scholars" to testify to various features of the Bible that qualify it to be considered "different from all others" [books], as if anyone would seriously try to deny that the Bible is unique, i.e. different from all others.
What Does Uniqueness Prove?
The short answer to this is nothing. However, what do they mean by the "uniqueness" of the Bible? They mean that its storyline, its survival, its circulation, its influence, etc. are not just slightly but radically different from all other books. McDowell and others develop points like these at length (aided by the testimony of carefully selected "scholars" who, of course, have nothing but words of praise for the Bible) only to arrive at a rather anti-climatic conclusion themselves. "The above does not prove the Bible is the Word of God," he states in one of his book, "but to me it proves that it is unique (different from all others; having no like or equal)." So all of the "evidence that demands a verdict" on this particular point leads McDowell to the conclusion that none of the evidence about the uniqueness of the Bible proves that it is the word of God, but the uniqueness of the Bible certainly proves that it is unique. Christian apologists regularly use this “circular type” conclusion.
The biggest problem with these kinds of publications is that even though there is an utter lack of evidence or logic, it is still being accepted by the readers as being true. Physiological principles of persuasion [used by Christian apologists] are enough for the Christian reader to ignore the fact that nothing thy say, in any way proved the divine origin of the Bible. Just the fact that so many "scholars" testified to the uniqueness of the Bible and that well “respected” writers claim it, it is believed. We can compare his strategy here to that of a trial lawyer who makes a statement in court that he knows the judge will not allow the jury to consider. However, the lawyer also knows that no matter how much the judge tells the members of the jury that the statement is inadmissible as evidence, they will still remember it and even, unconsciously, consider it.
THE BIBLE: Unique in Its Continuity
The defence goes something like this: The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years (so the appeal goes) by 40 different writers, living in different places and even on different continents, writing in different languages, working in different occupations, etc., etc., etc., yet despite all of this diversity, the Bible presents a unified theme from beginning to end. The implication, of course, is that such marvellous continuity could not have been achieved without divine guidance.
The central point of this claim is simply not true. Without even attacking the overstated tradition of the circumstances under which the Bible was written, one can easily show that the Bible is not unified in its theme. McDowell stated that the Bible "includes hundreds of controversial subjects" and then went on to explain, "(a) controversial subject is one which would create opposing opinions when mentioned or discussed." McDowell's claim is that such opposing opinions on controversial issues do not exist in the Bible. "Biblical authors spoke on hundreds of controversial subjects," he claims, "with harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revelation."
As you have witness throughout this book, the bible is defiantly NOT in harmony and continuity! I have listed hundreds of controversial topics and we have not even looked at all of them jet.
THE BIBLE: Unique in Its Circulation, Translation, and Survival
McDowell claim that the Bible has been circulated more, translated into more languages, and survived more attacks and criticisms longer than any other book; therefore, the Bible must be the word of God. Any beginning student of logic knows that “truth”, is never decided by the number of those who adhere to a principle or claim. Therefore, there is nothing in any of the points, which even comes close, to establishing the truth of the Bible. Most of what McDowell says can be explained by the personal zeal and fanaticism of those who have believed the Bible through the centuries. Because of their commitment, these believers circulated the Bible, translated it, and protected it more than is usual for books. No one denies that zealous commitment has long been characteristic of Bible believers, but much more than this is required to establish the truth of any philosophical belief.
Christians want to believe that although Yahweh originally instituted Judaism, it is no longer his true religion, but it has been the dedication of believers in this religion that has enabled it to survive through centuries of persecutions and tribulations that have far exceeded anything that Christians have had to endure. Furthermore, the circulation and survival of almost two thirds of the books in the Bible have been the result of dedicated adherents of Judaism, but Christians would certainly not see this as any indication that Judaism is the religion that God now wants people to practice.
Much of what Christians see as biblical "uniqueness" is actually the result of political and social chance and circumstance. Christianity happened to take root and thrive in a geographical area that became more technologically advanced than other parts of the world, and it enjoyed favoured status from governmental institutions that suppressed opposition to it. In such circumstances, it is no wonder that the adherents of this religion would take advantage of the favoured status to propagate their religion as extensively as possible. The growth and prosperity of any institution will always be the result of many factors, so it is naively simplistic of Christians to believe that their religion has thrived only because it is the "true" religion.
As for the Bible's survival of more criticisms and attacks than any other book, McDowell surely knows that public criticism of the Bible has only recently become possible where Christianity has for centuries been the dominant religion. Until the evolution of democratic ideas within the past two centuries and even more recently than that in some places, public criticism of the Bible was punishable by imprisonment and in some instances, even death. As recently as the 19th century, the Reverend Robert Taylor, a clergyman who became a critic of the Bible, was imprisoned in England for blasphemy as a result of publishing materials deemed offensive to Christianity. In such an environment, criticism of the Bible could not have been as widespread as McDowell apparently wants his readers to believe. Now that freedom of expression is granted by most democratic societies where Christianity is the dominant religion, there is no wonder that the Bible has become the target of widespread critical analysis. There is much in it that needs to be criticized.
While western societies have moved in a direction that permits freedom to criticize religion, this has not been so in other societies in which Christianity is just another minority religion. A critic of the Qur'an in an Islamic society takes a great risk and understands that he could be imprisoned or even executed for blasphemy. In such an environment, attacks on the Qur'an will be very limited. If, however, freedom of religious expression should be adopted in Islamic societies, do Christians doubt for a moment that Qur'anic criticisms will increase substantially?
As for the survival of the Bible, it isn't nearly as old as some holy books. Sections of the Zoroastrian “Avesta” are older than even the oldest parts of the Old Testament and so is many of the Hindu “Vedas”. To argue that the length of time a religion has survived is somehow an indicator of its truth, would make many religions "true religions." The history of religion is that they arise out of political and social circumstances of the times, thrive, decline, and die. There is no reason to believe that the same will not happen to Christianity and other ancient religions that have survived for centuries. Information is religion's greatest enemy, and in an age when information is just a few keyboard strokes away from anyone with a computer, this is going to pose a greater threat to Christianity than anything, it has yet "survived."
THE BIBLE: Unique in its Teachings
A serious study of the history of religions will show that there is nothing unique about the teachings of the Bible. The first 11 chapters of Genesis were derived from Babylonian mythology, as all serious Bible scholars know. The Hebrews thought their god Yahweh could be appeased by incinerating animals in homage to him, but all of the societies around them believed that they too could appease their gods with animal sacrifices. The Hebrews built a temple to their god, but the nations around them also built temples to their gods. The Hebrews believed that their god rewarded them when they acted "righteously" and punished them when they "did that which was evil in Yahweh's sight," but contemporary records like the Moabite Stone and pagan temple inscriptions show that the nations around them believed the same. Not even the highly touted "monotheism" of the Hebrews was unique to them, because Egyptian records show that Pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV) introduced monotheism in Egypt before it had established roots with the Hebrews.
The New Testament story of a virgin-born, miracle-working, dead-and-resurrected saviour-god was not unique to Christianity. Such figures abounded in the pagan religions that preceded Christianity. Even the famous golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) had its counterpoint in the ethical teachings of other religions that required its adherents to believe that they should not do to others anything that they would not want done to them.
Wilbur Smith said, "It [the Bible] is the only volume ever produced by man, or a group of men, in which is to be found a large body of prophecies relating to individual nations, to Israel, to all the peoples of the earth, to certain cities, and to the coming of “One” who was to be the Messiah." There is a twofold problem in what Smith has alleged here. (1) many of the prophecies that have been identified by New Testament writers and Christian apologists are prophecies only in the fertile imaginations of those who have claimed them to be prophecies, and (2) many of the prophecies that were undoubtedly intended by their writers to be understood as prophecies were never fulfilled. [We will have a closer look at the “Messianic Prophesies” in more detail later]
The Old Testament prophecies against Tyre and Egypt are excellent examples of prophecy failure. Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and that it would never be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26:7-14, 21; 27:36; 28:19). We know from historical records, however, that Nebuchadnezzar's invasion destroyed only Tyre's mainland villages, but his siege of the island stronghold was unsuccessful. Even Ezekiel himself acknowledged later in his book that his prophecy against Tyre had failed, and so Yahweh, as compensation for his unpaid labours at Tyre, was going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 29:17-20).
That prophecy also failed miserably, as we will notice later. However, there is a matter of contradiction between Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre and Isaiah’s prophesy. As Ezekiel did, Isaiah uttered prophecies of destruction against the nations around Israel, and one of those prophecies was against Tyre. In Isaiah 23:1, he said, "The burden of Tyre. Howl you ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Kittim it is revealed to them." The prophecy continues in typical fashion through the chapter, predicting waste and devastation, and beginning in verse 13, Isaiah clearly indicated that the destruction of Tyre would be only temporary, not permanent: 13 Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces and they made her a ruin. 14Wail, O ships of Tarshish, for your fortress is destroyed. 15From that day Tyre will be forgotten for SEVENTY YEARS, the lifetime of one king. At the end of SEVENTY YEARS, it will happen to Tyre as in the song about the prostitute: 16 Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered. 17 AT THE END OF SEVENTY YEARS, Yahweh will visit Tyre, and she will return to her trade, and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. 18 Her merchandise and her wages will be dedicated to Yahweh; her profits will not be stored or hoarded, but her merchandise will supply abundant food and fine clothing for those who live in the presence of Yahweh.
We see that Isaiah had a very different opinion of Tyre's destiny. He said that, it would be destroyed and forgotten for 70 years. However, at the end of the 70 years, Yahweh would visit Tyre and it would be restored. Obviously, one could make a much better case for the fulfilment of this prophecy than for Ezekiel's. Nevertheless, Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre poses a serious problem for biblical apologists. They must explain why Isaiah predicted only a temporary destruction of Tyre, whereas Ezekiel predicted an everlasting destruction.
That brings us back to Ezekiel's promise that Yahweh would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as compensation for his failure to receive "wages" for his labours against Tyre. The prophecy against Egypt was very specific: Nebuchadnezzar would lay Egypt completely desolate and remain so for a period of 40 years.
Ezekiel 29:1-11 1In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the twelfth day of the month, the word of Yahweh came to me: 2 Mortal, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt; 3 speak, and say, Thus says the Lord Yahweh: I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon sprawling in the midst of its channels, saying, "My Nile is my own; I made it for myself."
4 I will put hooks in your jaws, and make the fish of your channels stick to your scales. I will draw you up from your channels, with all the fish of your channels sticking to your scales. 5 I will fling you into the wilderness, you and all the fish of your channels; you shall fall in the open field, and not be gathered and buried. To the animals of the earth and to the birds of the air I have given you as food. 6 Then all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am Yahweh because you were a staff of reed to the house of Israel; 7 when they grasped you with the hand, you broke, and tore all their shoulders; and when they leaned on you, you broke, and made all their legs unsteady. 8 Therefore, thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will bring a sword upon you, and will cut off from you human being and animal; 9 and the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a waste. Then they shall know that I am Yahweh. Because you said, "The Nile is mine, and I made it," 10 therefore, I am against you, and against your channels, and I will make the land of Egypt an utter waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia. 11 No human foot shall pass through it, and no animal foot shall pass through it; it shall be uninhabited forty years.
Notice that the prophecy is very specific in stating that Egypt would be "an utter waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia." Ethiopia was on the southern border of Egypt, and Migdol was in the northern delta of the Nile. Hence, the prediction was that the country would be laid waste from its northern border to its southern border. The next verse says that no human foot or animal foot would pass through it for 40 years. There is no historical evidence of any kind to suggest that Egypt was ever desolate and uninhabited for the space of 40 years. Hence, the prophecy obviously failed.
Some inerrantists try to claim that this is a prophecy that will be fulfilled at a future date, but the prophecy was specifically addressed to Pharaoh King of Egypt, and the rule of the pharaohs ended long ago. Furthermore, as the verses below show, the prophecy made Nebuchadnezzar Yahweh's instrument of vengeance against Egypt, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead for 25 centuries.
Ezekiel 29: 12 I will make the land of Egypt a desolation among desolated countries; and her cities shall be a desolation forty years among cities that are laid waste. I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them among the countries. 13 Further, thus says the Lord Yahweh: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered; 14 and I will restore the fortunes of Egypt, and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin; and there they shall be a lowly kingdom. 15 It shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms, and never again exalt itself above the nations; and I will make them so small that they will never again rule over the nations. 16 The Egyptians shall never again be the reliance of the house of Israel; they will recall their iniquity, when they turned to them for aid. Then they shall know that I am the Lord Yahweh. 17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Yahweh came to me: 18 Mortal, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labour hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labour that he had expended against it. 19 Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will give the land of Egypt to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. 20 I have given him the land of Egypt as his payment for which he laboured, because they worked for me, says the Lord Yahweh. 21 On that day I will cause a horn to sprout up for the house of Israel, and I will open your lips among them. Then they shall know that I am Yahweh.
The tirade against Egypt continued into the next chapter. An analysis of the chapter would show other specific details in the prophecy that were never fulfilled, but these are enough to establish that this is a clear example of a prophecy failure. Biblicists like Josh McDowell, who boast of perfect fulfilments of biblical prophecies, depend upon the ignorance of their readers to accept this claim without bothering to verify it, but it is a claim that is patently false.
THE BIBLE: Unique in Its Influence
Apologists has parroted that old Christian claim that if the Bible were destroyed, it could be reproduced in its entirety from biblical quotations that could be found in books on the shelves of city libraries. This may be true, but I seriously doubt if this is a claim that would be uniquely true. Does Christians doubt that the Qur'an, if destroyed, could be reproduced from quotations found in books on the shelves of Islamic libraries? There are even Islamic zealots who have committed the entire Qur'an to memory and could be depended on as sources to reproduce it if it were ever destroyed. This just isn't as apparent to Christians as the "uniqueness" of the Bible is, because we live in a society that is permeated with and dominated by Christian thinking.
In many other ways, however, I am inclined to agree with Christians claim that the Bible has been unique in its influence. Of all the religious holy books that I personally know about, I know of none whose influence has been as negative and detrimental to society as the Bible has been. I know of no book that rivals it in the barbarity and cruelty of the god that it presents as the creator of the world and then has the audacity to call him supremely "good." In that respect the Bible is certainly unique, but this is a uniqueness that biblical apologists like McDowell never want to talk about. They prefer not to mention the unique doctrine of eternal punishment in hellfire for all who do not obey even the pettiest of the Bible god's decrees. They prefer not to mention the uniqueness of the persecutions, inquisitions, intolerance, and ignorance that the Bible has left in its historical wake. McDowell's smorgasbord approach of selecting only those features of the Bible that present it in a favourable light and even at times flagrantly falsifying facts such as his claim of perfect "continuity" in the Bible is unworthy to be called biblical "scholarship." About the only truth was McDowell's admission that the alleged "uniqueness" of the Bible "does not prove [that it] is the Word of God."
