Pontius Pilate once asked, “What is truth?” This question was in response to Jesus
declaring that “the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to
the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me” (John 18:37).
People through the ages have wondered, as Pilate
did, “What is truth?” Is truth absolute or relative? Where can we find truth? Who defines truth?
Most everyone agrees that scientific truth is
absolute. It is truth that one plus one
equals two. It is true that the force of gravity will cause a ball to fall to
the ground when thrown.
Many today, though, believe that moral truth is
relative. It may be true to one person
that abortion is a choice; whereas, it may be true to another person that
abortion is the ending of a life. For
those believing that truth is relative, one’s truth is filtered through
experiences, feelings, beliefs. “Truth in Western cultures usually refers to
consensus whereby competing schools of thought aim to establish consensus and
thereby dominance. So, in this version of truth (which is generally the
scientific/political/social view) we have fluctuating truths that vary
according to the acceptance or rejection of new data. This is something like
how the pendulum of truth swung on eggs. The "experts" first thought
eggs were good, then bad because of cholesterol, then good a few years later.
Truth by consensus is what passes for truth for those that look outside of
themselves for answers” (Davis). But is
that an accurate assessment of truth?
Did the truth of whether or not eggs are beneficial to health change, or
was it merely the perception of truth based on available knowledge that
changed?
It used to be accepted as truth that the Earth was
the center of the universe, that the Sun revolved around the Earth. This was the consensus at the time. Did the fact that it was a consensus make it
true? Absolutely not! Though it wasn't believed, though at the time it hadn't been proven, this Earth has always revolved around the Sun. It is important to remember that truth and belief
are not synonymous. “Beliefs have to be presented and defended. Truth Is”
(Herring).
I maintain that all truth is absolute, regardless of
feelings, experiences, belief, consensus, etc.
By definition truth must be absolute.
But describing truth as absolute does not define truth. So once again,
“What is truth?”
The Bible has a lot to say about truth:
John 17:17 Jesus prays to His Father, “Your Word is
truth.” Earlier John had said that the
Word was God and became flesh; so to say that God’s Word is truth is to say
that Jesus is truth and that Jesus is God.
John 14:6 Jesus clearly proclaims, “I am the way,
the truth, the life.”
1 John 5:6 states, “The Spirit is the truth.”
The “word of truth” is spoken of often in the New
Testament. Colossians 1:5 says that “the word of truth” is “the gospel,” and
Ephesians 1:13 describes “the word of truth” as “the gospel of your salvation.”
One can find many more references to truth within the New Testament, but I
think you get the point I’m trying to make here.
But as I've already stated, belief and truth are not
synonymous, so how can I know that what the Bible says is truth is really
truth. Because I believe the Bible? Because I believe in God? Because I accept what the Bible says: “All
Scripture is God-breathed”? Yes, but not
only based on my belief, because belief can be relative.
I openly proclaim that I have faith and because of
that faith, I trust the Bible to be true.
But my faith is not a blind faith.
My faith, my belief that the Bible is true, is based on other objective,
documented truths that support my belief and affirm my belief to be true.
Because this blog will be devoted to truth and my
love for truth, I want to begin by showing you that the Bible can be trusted to
be true and accurate.
Many will argue that we can’t know that the Bible is
true and accurate because we don’t have the “original autographs,” meaning the
original documents that each of the authors wrote. We don’t have the Book of Acts that Luke
actually penned. We don’t have the
actually letters that Paul wrote to the various churches of his time. All we have are copies. In fact, all we have are copies of copies. So how can we know they are accurate? How can we know there haven’t been changes to
suit different times and cultures? After
all, that was 2000 years ago. Can we
really trust the copies we have now?
Did you know that over a period of only 300 years
over 24,300 manuscripts of the Bible were produced from the originals? Over a period of 500 years over 60,000
manuscripts of the Bible were produced!
Let’s compare that to some other works of ancient literature. The ten of
the most famous writers of ancient times are Homer, Aristotle, Demosthenes,
Sophocles, Herodotus, Thucydides, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Plato and
Caesar. None of their original
autographs exist any longer, but the copies available are universally accepted
to be accurate to their writings. Over a
thousand year period (from the time of their writings to 1000 years later), only
643 manuscripts were produced from their writings. In twice the time, only 1% the number of
manuscripts was produced from ten of the most well known ancient authors’
writings. The writings we have of Plato
and Homer and the rest are accepted as accurate to the originals with much less
proof, with many fewer ancient manuscripts to verify that they are true to the
originals. "There is no body of ancient literature in the world
which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament" (F.F.
Bruce, The New
Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?), so why is it so
difficult to accept the Bible is true to the original autographs?
And all these various manuscripts of the Bible are
99.5% identical!! The majority of the
variances between them are differences in spelling, in punctuation, in division
of text. There is NO major doctrinal
issue that varies among these tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts of the
Bible. One of the earliest complete
manuscripts of the entire Bible is from the 4th century, between 325-360 A.D.
This manuscript is still easily readable (if you can read Koine Greek, that
is). Why is it considered such a leap of faith to believe that the Bible is accurate?
Another reason we can rely on the Bible is because
it is primarily a collection of eyewitness accounts. The authors of the Bible were people who were
actually there and witnessed the events they described. Peter stated, “We were eyewitnesses of his
majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). Luke said, “I myself have carefully investigated
everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3). Most of them were persecuted and
killed because of what they were saying, but none of them changed their story, not
even to save themselves from death.
Would YOU die for something you knew wasn't true? Indeed, would you die for something even if
you knew it WAS true? The fact that
these men were martyred for what they were proclaiming lends much validity to
their accounts and points to the importance of their story.
But we don’t have to rely only on the authors of the
Bible. Irenaeus (c. 120–202 A.D.),
Tertullian(160–225 A.D.), Polycarp (69–155 A.D.), Julius Africanus (c. 160–240
A.D.), Origen (c. 184–254 A.D.), and Clement of Rome (died 99 A.D) are
considered some of the earliest church fathers.
In fact, according to the writings of both Tertullian and Irenaeus (who
according to his own writings, in his youth heard Polycarp speak), Polycarp was
a disciple of the Apostle John. Many of their writings have survived, and in
these writings the early church fathers quote so much of the Bible, that with
their writings alone, we would have almost the entire New Testament.
There are even writings of ancient secular
historians that corroborate the authenticity of the New Testament. Josephus (37–100 A.D.) was a contemporary of
the authors of the New Testament. Josephus writes about John the Baptist (using
that terminology). Josephus states that
John the Baptist told the Jews to exercise virtue toward one another and piety
toward God, he said that great crowds came to listen to John the Baptist speak,
and that many followed John and were baptized by him and that his followers
were very dedicated to him. Josephus also relates a time when the Jews sent
priests to question John. And finally,
Josephus relates John’s imprisonment in Macherus by Herod and his subsequent
execution. Each of these statements by
the ancient historian support what the Gospels relate about John the Baptist,
adding some detail in some instances and omitting details in others, but never
contradicting the accounts of John the Baptist by the Gospel writers. Josephus also mentions Jesus in his writings
twice, thereby substantiating the historicity of Jesus.
Pliny the Younger (c. 61-112), a Roman official and
historian, in a letter to the Emperor Trajan, discussed how to handle those who
refused to worship the emperor because they worshiped “Christos.” In his
letter, he writes, “They have also stated that their entire negligence or
violation was only this: they regularly came together before dawn on a fixed
day to sing verses in honor of Christ as a god, and to unite with each other
under oath, not with any criminal purpose, but to refrain from theft, robbery
or adultery…”
Tacitus (c. 56-117 A.D.), another Roman historian,
wrote of “Christus,” who was put to death under Pontius Pilate. He also related the persecution of Christians
under Nero, including Nero’s false accusation that Christians started the fire
of Rome.
These ancient secular writings add to the verity of
the historicity of Jesus and the early Christian church, which in turn adds to
the credibility of the New Testament.
Several archaeological discoveries substantiate the
accuracy of various historical and cultural references in the Bible. Artifacts
that speak of King David (who experts once believed was a fictional character),
Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem spoken of
in 2 Kings 25, the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel mentioned in 2 Kings 20, the
story of the Assyrian siege told about in Isaiah, Chronicles and 2 Kings
are just a few examples of archaeological discoveries which corroborate stories,
people, and places spoken of in the Bible. A simple Google search will show you
that there have been many more such archaeological discoveries that further substantiate
the Bible’s historical and cultural accuracy.
One very interesting archaeological discovery is
that of an entire set of royal archives in cuneiform tablets that included
records of trade between Assyrian merchants and the Hittites. What makes this especially interesting is
that before these discoveries in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the popular
view was that the Hittites were a fictional people, but since this discovery,
experts have not only affirmed the Hittites of the Bible existed, but that they
were the dominant power in Asia Minor until around 1200 B.C.
A final, very powerful proof of the Bible’s legitimacy
is its literary consistency. The Bible
is made up of 66 books written over a 1500 year period by 40 different authors,
but it all comes together to tell one story, that of God’s plan of salvation
through the Messiah Jesus Christ.
Prophecies of Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, written hundreds of
years before Jesus was ever born were proven true by eyewitness accounts
written in the first century. “There is indeed a wide variety of human authors
and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these…there lies a single divine author
with a single unifying theme” (Stott, Understanding
the Bible).
I am sure there are many other evidences that could
be discussed to support the accuracy and truth of the Bible as the infallible
Word of God, but this is just a touch of why I know I can trust the Bible as my
source of truth.
I am a philalethist, a lover of the truth, and in this blog I will be reflecting on truths I've found and documenting my
discoveries of truth I have yet to find.
I’d love for y’all to join me on this journey. You may not agree with what I find, but I
promise you I will not rely on my beliefs or feelings or biases, but on God’s Word to discover and affirm truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment