Remember, the Bible is an ancient text, so the criteria for determining the reliability and accuracy of the Bible must be the same used to examine other ancient texts of history. In general, the accuracy and reliability of an ancient text is confirmed by two factors; (1) how close to the events recorded are the copies that exist and (2) how many copies of the text are available for comparison. In other words, the smaller the amount of time between the events and the earliest copies; and the greater the number of copies that exist, the more accurate and reliable the text. In addition to manuscript evidence, I will use three other criteria that collectively will adequately meet the challenge facing the Bible. I will use the acronym M.A.P.S., for Manuscript evidence, Archaeology, Prophecy, and Science.

 

Manuscript Evidence

Manuscript evidence refers to the documents that exist that give us the Biblical text. None of the original writings of the Bible exist today. But that is not unusual for ancient texts. In fact, of all the ancient writings studied in every major university, none of the originals have survived. For writers such as Plato, Herodotus, or Caesar only a few copies (less than 10 of each) exist.  Fortunately, the Bible has literally thousands more. The advantage of having so many fragments of copies is cross checking for accuracy; the fewer the copies, the less certain one can be as to the original text. Scholar Bruce Metzger states,

“The works of ancient authors are preserved to us by the thinnest possible thread of transmission…In contrast…the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.37[/ref]

Agreeing with Metzger, Greek scholar F.F. Bruce says, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation of the New Testament.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.37[/ref]

Ironically, with such a wealth of manuscript fragments at our disposal, the Bible is constantly attacked by critics, while on the other hand other ancient texts with vastly fewer fragments or copies to examine are received as accurate with little challenge. Glenny remarks,

“No one questions the authenticity of the historical books of antiquity because we do not posses the original copies. Yet we have far fewer manuscripts of these works than we posses of the New Testament.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.36[/ref]

So if the same criteria skeptics hold the Bible to would be applied to all other ancient texts, scholars would cease to teach them in our universities. As John Warwick Montgomery puts it,

“…to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.35[/ref]

In fact, if you counted the Greek manuscripts and manuscripts in other languages the total number would be just under 25,000 manuscripts (MSS)[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.34[/ref] Noted Bible scholar Norman Geisler states, “…the abundance of manuscript copies makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy.[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.35[/ref]

In addition to ancient copies of the Biblical text itself, there exists Christian literature from the first and second century containing portions of the Bible that were used by the early Christians. Lectionaries were a type of “Sunday School” lesson that were used throughout the year for teaching the Bible. According to Metzger, they contain, “all of the New Testament many times over” except for Revelation and parts of Acts.[ref] Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p.31.[/ref] Also, writings of the Church Fathers attest to the accuracy of the ancient texts. The Church Fathers are those people who carried the torch of Christianity after the Apostles died. Some of the Church Fathers were actual students of Apostles. Polycarp, for example, was a direct student of the Apostle John, who wrote the Gospel of John, the epistles of I, II, III John, and the book of Revelation. According to Greenlee,

“These quotations are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts (MSS).”[ref] Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p.54[/ref]

Furthermore, the New Testament was written in other languages for missionary purposes. As a result, versions in Syriac, Latin, and Coptic (or Egyptian) exist as early as the 4^th century that can be used to compare with the other sources of Biblical texts and writings for accuracy. Even given the 400 year time span between these translations in other languages, they still beat the competition (i.e. other ancient texts) regarding the proximity to the events depicted by about 1,000 years.[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.38, 41[/ref]

In summary, given the nearly 25,000 manuscript in Greek and other languages; given the extra-biblical sources in Lectionaries, writings of Church Fathers, and manuscripts in other languages, the New Testament is beyond any doubt the most reliability and accurate ancient text in history. Biblical expert Ravi Zacharias, said,

“In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.”[ref] Can Man Live Without God?, R. Zacharias, p.162[/ref]

But having many manuscripts available is only part of the issue. The second factor to consider is how close to the original writings do copies exist? If the time between the events recorded in the text and the date of the earliest copy is small, then the accuracy of the content can be trusted. Again, the New Testament is way ahead of the pack. Greenlee says, “The oldest known MSS of most of the Greek classic authors are dated 1,000 years or more after the author’s death…for the Latin authors it is somewhat less…In the case of the New Testament…some virtually complete New Testament books as well as extensive fragmentary MSS of many parts of the New Testament date back to one century from the original writings.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.37[/ref]

One of the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist W.F. Albright gives even stronger support for the New Testaments accuracy saying, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about AD 80…”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.52[/ref] Albright continues, “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40’s and 80’s of the 1^st century.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.52[/ref] That’s within the life span of most of the eyewitnesses of the events documented in the New Testament! 

Why is this so important when answering Bible critics? Because critics will say that the facts of the Bible and the beliefs about the Deity of Jesus were embellished over the centuries until Jesus went from being a “good moral teacher” to the “Christ, God in the flesh” figure worshipped by Christians. They will equate this evolution to the “Telephone Game” played by many which has as its aim the changing of an original story by the transmission from person to person, until by the time the tale arrives back at the original source it is nothing like the original story. But this is a false comparison because the Biblical text was not transmitted that way. There were checks and balances inherent in the process that prevented perversion of the text and its content.

One of those checks was eyewitnesses to the events depicted in the New Testament. Remember, there were the Apostles and many disciples of Jesus still alive from the crucifixion to about 100 AD, which by even liberal standards, is 20 years after the completion of the New Testament. In addition, the enemies of Jesus, either Roman or Jewish, were still alive as well. Consequently, if any embellishment or errors in the details or events in the New Testament were added, the enemies of Jesus and/or the followers of Jesus would have stood up and said, “That’s not true! I was there! It was nothing like that!” But nothing in any ancient writings ever mentions such a dispute. If, as the skeptics like to claim, embellishments entered into the text, it would have been too easy for anyone to expose it as a lie. And given that the earliest texts are identical to the later texts of the New Testament these “embellishments” did not enter the text at any later time. The Apostle Peter put it this way, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty (2 Peter 1:16) Even Jesus’ enemies could not contradict the miracles He performed or Jesus’ claims to be God in the flesh. In John 9:16 the Bible says, “Therefore said some of the Pharisees, ‘This man is not of God, because he keeps not the Sabbath day.’ Others said, ‘How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?’ And there was a division among them.” Earlier in the same gospel it says, “There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that you do, except God be with him.” (John 3:1-2)

Now regarding Jesus’ claim to be God, the New Testament is full of examples. But three examples in gospels will suffice. In John 10:31-33 the Bible says,

“Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me? We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.“

Notice what just transpired in the passage sited. Jesus is responding to attacks on Him; not by the ordinary Jewish citizen but by the religious rulers (called “the Jews” in the New Testament). Jesus defends His identity by the miracles He did in their presence, AND THEY DO NOT DISPUTE THE MIRACLES JESUS DID. Rather they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for CLAIMING TO BE GOD!

Let’s look at another example. Jesus is before a “kangaroo court”, a court merely going through the formality of judicial procedure in order to do what they have already plotted to do, that is, kill Jesus. But in order for their hands to look clean in the eyes of the public, they try to get Jesus to convict Himself of blasphemy, by claiming to be God. This passage from Mark 14:61-64 reads,

“Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

Looking closer at this passage, it appears that Jesus is claiming two different titles for Himself; the “Son of Man” and the “Son of the Blessed One [God].” In actuality, these are two ways of saying the same thing. The “Son of Man” title is not Jesus referring to His humanity, but it is a direct claim to being God. It is a reference to Daniel 7:13 in the Old Testament.

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days [God the Father], and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”

Notice from this passage, that this “Son of Man” approaches “the Ancient of Days” [God the Father] and is given things belonging only to God Himself; that is, dominion; glory [the Bible says only God is worthy of glory]; a kingdom in which everyone shall serve this “Son of Man” [Jesus said to Satan, “For it is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.”]; this kingdom is eternal and shall not be destroyed. So that’s why the religious leaders sought to kill Jesus. Not only was he claiming to be God by the title “Son of the Blessed One”, He was also claiming to be God by assuming the title “Son of Man”

Now let’s look at the final example from John 5:16-18. Here Jesus has just finished healing a man who had been ill for 38 years. After healing him, Jesus tells the man to pick up his bed and walk. According to the religious leader’s misinterpretation, this instruction was a violation of the Sabbath Day law. When they find out it was Jesus who healed and instructed the man, they confront Jesus about it.

“So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted Him. Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God.”

Notice again, they do not dispute the miracle that Jesus performed and they are not confused about the implications of Jesus’ titles for Himself; they know He is making clear and distinct claims to being God in the flesh, therefore, worthy of stoning. It’s been said, any time you doubt if Jesus is making a claim to Deity, just watch the reaction from the religious leaders (Sadducees and Pharisees) and they’re reaction will clear up any confusion. Ironically, these religious leaders express no joy for any of the infirmed people being made well! Instead, they seek to find ways to accuse Jesus of crimes worthy of death.

Well let’s put all these pieces together so we don’t get lost in the details. Remember I asked why it was important that evidence proves the entire New Testament was completed no later than 100 AD? It was because Bible critics claim that two major beliefs about Jesus; namely His ability to do miracles and His own claims to being God in the flesh, were merely embellishments that were inserted centuries after the fact to attribute qualities to Jesus that really didn’t exist. But the evidence from all Biblical experts, even liberals, puts the completion of the New Testament no later than 100 AD, long before legend or embellishment has ant time to develop. Not only that, New Testament manuscripts dating 400 years after the events are identical to the earlier copies of the New Testament, showing no sign of change or addition to the text. But most important, the text of the New Testament was completed within the life time of Jesus’ fiercest enemies whose goal was to destroy and discredit Christianity. If any embellishments, errors in events or details, myths or legends would have been inserted, they would have exposed it immediately.

Likewise, if Jesus never claimed to be God in their presence, any reference in the New Testament would have been ridiculed and exposed. But nothing like this ever occurred. In fact, the three passages I sited give evidence that Jesus’ ability to perform miracles and His own claims to being God in the flesh happened simultaneously in the presence of His enemies. And Jesus’ enemies did not dispute His miracles or that He claimed to be God.

So it can be firmly established that the Bible has far earlier copies in greater abundance than any other ancient text and these other ancient text are readily accepted by scholars for their general accuracy and reliability.  Further, the early completion of the New Testament prevents the insertion of legend or embellishments regarding Jesus’ Deity or ability to work miracles which is not disputed even by Jesus’ fiercest enemies. So the evidence demonstrates that the New Testament is accurately transmitted to us from the original writing. But what about the Old Testament, does it fair as well?

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls, the greatest archaeological find of the last century, also prove to be the single greatest piece of evidence for the accuracy of the Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of complete books and fragments of the entire Old Testament that date 1,000 years before the oldest known copies. For years Bible critics doubted the Bible with the same tired arguments of the past; since the Bible has been copied so many times over the years, the present copy should be vastly different than the original, therefore it can’t be trusted. When it was discovered that the Dead Sea Scrolls were over 1,000 years older than the then oldest copy, critics burst with anticipation of finding countless errors upon which they could hang their skepticism. Unfortunately, for the critic, just the opposite occurred. As it turned out, upon comparing the two copies, it was discovered that they were virtually letter for letter identical even though there was over 1,000 years of history between them! Gleason Archer states,

“For example, even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were 1,000 years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. They do not affect the message of revelation in the slightest.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.70[/ref]

The Jews could produce such accurate copies through the centuries because of their high regard for God’s Word and by developing a system of checks that would guarantee complete accuracy.

“The scribes could tell if one consonant was left out of say the entire book of Isaiah or the entire Hebrew Bible. They built in so many safeguards that they knew when they finished that they had an exact copy.” [ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.76[/ref]

So great are the factual supports for the reliability and accuracy of both the Old and New Testaments that Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum and manuscript expert states,

“The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.90[/ref]

 

Archaeology

Unlike Mormonism, archaeology is a great friend to the biblical text. Renowned Jewish Archaeologist, Nelson Glueck

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has EVER controverted a biblical reference.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.60[/ref]

Rather than being at odds with history as in the case of all the previous writings discussed, the Bible is looked upon by archaeologists as a ‘go to’ source when seeking to further their knowledge in their field. W.F. Albright says,

“Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to value of the Bible as a source of history.” [ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.61[/ref]

After studying the bible for 30 years, Oxford Professor of Archaeology, Sir William Ramsey says of the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts,

“Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians…Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”[ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.63[/ref]

There are numerous similar statements I could cite regarding the Bible and history and archaeology that time does not permit, however, these are representative of the consensus among scholars. Now briefly review in your mind what scholars have said about other religious writings claiming to originate with God and the Bible clearly is in a class alone.

 

Predictive Prophecy

But the most compelling evidence for the Bible’s divine origin is it’s accuracy in predictive prophecy. The first question I asked was, “If God were to write a book, what would it be like?” Well, it would be a book that wasn’t limited by time. If it originated by man, it would not be able to see into the future and with supernatural accuracy tell the events before they occurred. Other writings have claimed to have prophetic abilities, but when these ‘prophecies’ are examined, it is discovered that the ‘prophecies’ were vague, interpreted to fit the events, or flat wrong. In addition, so called ‘prophecies’ were no more than educated guesses exhibiting ability no different than present day political pundits or news channel economists. But when the Bible predicts events they are clear, precise, and 100’s or 1,000’s of years before the events occur. This is what sets the Bible out of reach from all other religious writings. God says in Isaiah 46:9-10,

“Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.”

I will limit predictions made in the Bible to those that foretell of the coming Messiah. Critics of the Bible have wrongly asserted that the predictions of the Bible were too close to the actual events to qualify as a legitimate prophecy. Well, all the prophecies concerning the Messiah are contained in the Old Testament which was completed about 200 years before the New Testament events occurred. With that in mind, let’s look at a few of the 300+ predictions in the Old Testament that had there fulfillment in the life of Jesus documented in the New Testament.

(1) The place of His birth: foretold in Micah 5:2, fulfilled in Matt.2:1, “Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.” (2) Time of His birth: foretold in Dan.9:25 and Gen.49:10 and fulfilled in Jesus. These Old Testament prophecies taken together give a specific window of time for anyone claiming to be Messiah to arrive. The details of Gen.49:10 would occur shortly after the Messiah came. To the disappointment of most Jewish leaders, the events occurred but the Messiah had not arrived. But they overlooked the fact that several years before these events, Jesus was born in Bethlehem and at the time Gen.49:10 occurred; Jesus was a young boy growing up in Nazareth. (3) The manner of His birth: foretold in Isaiah 7:14; fulfilled in Luke 1:26-35 (4) Betrayed by a friend: foretold in Ps.55:12-14; fulfilled in Matt.26:49-50 (5) The manner of His death: foretold in Ps.22:16; fulfilled in Luke 23:33 (6) The people’s reaction during His death: foretold in Ps.22:7-8; fulfilled in Matt.27:29, 41-43 (7) Casting lots for His clothing while being crucified: foretold in Ps.22:18; fulfilled in Matt.27:35 (8) The place of His burial: foretold in Isaiah 53:9; fulfilled in Matt.27:57-60

When these prophecies are considered, nearly all of them are completely out of the control of the person living out the events. In other words, Jesus could not try to fulfill these by knowing them ahead of time and trying to fit the puzzle. How many people can control when and where they are born? How many people can control other people’s actions after they are dead? So clearly, Jesus could not have contrived fulfilling the prophecies that are beyond human control.

But what about accidental fulfillment of these prophecies couldn’t Jesus or anyone else fit into these prophecies by coincidence? Well, Peter Stoner, in his book Science Speaks, calculated the probability of eight prophecies occurring in anyone’s life coincidentally. His calculations were examined by H. Harold Hartzler, of the American Scientific Affiliation of Goshen College and concluded he found that “The mathematical analysis included is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound…”[ref] J. McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.193[/ref] In Stoners book using only 8 of the over 300 prophecies regarding the Messiah, he concluded that the chances of these 8 happening to anyone else by chance is 1 in 10¹⁷ power [1 with 17 zeros following] That’s the same odds of covering the state of Texas with silver dollars 3 feet deep, throwing a single marked silver dollar into the pile, blind-folding a man and asking him to try to pick out that marked silver dollar his first try. Obviously, that would be virtually impossible. Well Jesus fulfilled more than just 8 prophecies; He fulfilled all 300+ prophecies![ref] J. McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p.193[/ref]

 

Science

So in addition to the science of statistics, how does the Bible stand up to the Sciences in general? The Bible is not a science book. But when the Bible makes a scientific statement, it holds up against what is known about the universe. Contrary to the prejudice of agnostics or atheists, Science is a friend, not an enemy of the Bible. As Dr. Stephen Meyer, Ph.D. states,

“Science done right, points to God.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for the Creator, p.77[/ref]

The Big Bang Theory shook the scientific community the world over. It absolutely decimated the former presumptions about the nature and origin of the Universe. Previously, scientists believed that the Universe was eternal, that it never had a beginning, they said it was a “Static Universe.” Then 1915, Albert Einstein developed his theory of General Relativity which changed everything because it eliminated the existence of a Static Universe. It fact, his theory said that the Universe must be exploding as if from a common point of origin! Scientists tested his theory empirically to determine if what Einstein’s theory predicted had any scientific proof to support it. In the 1920’s a Russian and Belgian mathematician, using Einstein’s theory, calculated that if you kept going back in time, the Universe would go back to a single point of origin before which it did not exist![ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.105[/ref] Edwin Hubble (for whom the “Hubble Telescope” in named) discovered the “Red Shift” in the Universe which demonstrated that the Universe is expanding away from a common point of origin, like an explosion, in agreement to Einstein’s theory.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.105[/ref] Other confirmations of Einstein’s theory include the slightly higher background temperature of the Universe indicating that the Universe at its earliest stages was extremely dense; in other words, when it began, it was compacted into a “ball.” And the origin of light elements in the Universe can only occur in heat greater than the hottest stars in the Universe, which would exist in the super-heat at the start of the Big Bang.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.105[/ref] Einstein’s theory withstood the scrutiny of science.

The reaction from atheist and agnostic scientists was predictable. Understanding the implications of the Big Bang theory to our understanding of science and theology, they sought to come up with theories that could explain the Universe, in light of Einstein’s theory, without admitting it had a beginning. In fact, Sir Frederic Hoyle, the creator of the Steady State theory says he specifically invented it to eliminate the theological implications of the Big Bang. The Steady State theory is unanimously dismissed for lack of evidence.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.113[/ref] Likewise, the “Oscillating Universe” theory was also invented, but it contradicts the known laws of physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Oscillating Universe theory says that the Universe is eternally expanding and contracting, therefore it only appears to have a beginning. But like any ball dropped off a building that eventually comes to rest on the ground, the Universe doesn’t contain enough energy to “rebound” the Universe for eternity; it would eventually collapse upon itself.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.114-115[/ref] So what are the theological implications of the Big Bang atheist and agnostic scientists are so afraid? And what does this have to do with determining if the Bible originates from God?

The theological implication of the Big Bang is that the Universe had a beginning, it’s not eternal. And since it had a beginning, it must have a Beginner. Since we live in an existence ruled by time, every effect must have a cause; in other words, things don’t happen all by their self. If it occurs in our material Universe, something caused it to occur. And people who believe that God created the Universe [Theists] see the Big Bang as scientific proof for God’s existence. That is why scientists, who are predominantly atheists or agnostics, were so threatened by the theological implications of the Big Bang. All their scholastic life they were convinced that science had put God out of existence. But here was their “surrogate religion” of Science betraying their worldview; God had beaten them at their own game!

The Big Bang can be looked at as another way of stating the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is a line of reasoning for the existence of God on three points: (1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause (2) The Universe had a beginning (3) Therefore, the universe had a Cause (e.g., God)[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.98[/ref] This is the unavoidable implication and conclusion of the Big Bang that is so disliked by scientists. In fact, Einstein himself was shocked by the implications of his General Theory of Relativity when its principles were applied to the Universe as a whole because it pointed toward God. He said,

“It [General Theory of Relativity] irritates me because of its theological implications.” Einstein wasn’t alone, British astronomer A. Eddington called it “repugnant”; P. Morrison (MIT), “I would like to reject it.”; Robert Jastrow said it was “distasteful to the scientific mind.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.112[/ref]

Why did they dislike General Relativity so much? Was it because it was shoddy science? Was it because it was full of errors? Was it because there was no evidence to support it? NO! It was because they knew it was scientific evidence for the existence of God and they knew they couldn’t remain credible scientists if they rejected it.

Now with the weight of scientific evidence in favor of a Creator, why would any honest scientist remain an agnostic or atheist? There are several reasons why. First, not all scientists are honest. Scientists are people; and people have philosophical beliefs that run deeper than their intellectual ones. Eliminating God from one’s worldview creates for them a license to construct their own moral code expedient to their ego-centric goals. What better camouflage for duplicity and selfishness than a materialistic philosophy that assumes God doesn’t exist; with science to back it up? In fact, Materialism dominates the scientific hierarchy to such a degree that any dissenter is persecuted for challenging the status quo; scientists risk ending their careers for believing in Scientific Creationism. Many have been summarily fired from prestigious positions for believing the evidence points to a Creator (Click on link to article in sidebar).[ref] Read what Richard Sternberg  endured for merely publishing an Intelligent Design article; although Sternberg remained an evolutionary biologist and research scientist. “Editor Explains Reasons for “Intelligent Design” Article“[/ref] If you’re a scientist climbing the ladder of success in your field, you will be overlooked for promotion. As a result, there exists a “group think” among scientists that goes unchallenged. In addition to these factors, new scientific breakthroughs in one field take time to percolate to other fields, resulting in continuing of belief in the old models.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.84-86[/ref] The cycle is perpetuated by the even slower correcting of school text books that still include information about the theory of evolution that has been proven to be wrong or even deliberate hoaxes decades ago; thus, indoctrinating future generations of would-be-scientists to ignore any evidence that contradicts Materialism or Evolution because its deemed illegitimate.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, chapter 3[/ref]

One NASA employee discusses his dismissal for entertaining another view of origins

But as we have seen, science has confirmed what the Bible has said concerning the origin of Universe for the last 4,000 years; the Universe had a beginning; the Beginner (God) existed before the existence of all space, time, matter, and energy; and the Universe was created out of nothing, just like the Bible says. Robert Jastrow, a NASA scientist and agnostic, remarked concerning the similarity between current science and the Biblical account of creation and states,

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the origin of the world…astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same.”[ref] God and the Astronomers, R. Jastrow, p.14.[/ref]

But the origin of the Universe isn’t the only place the Bible can be consistent with science. Remember I said the Bible is not science book but when it comments on scientifically verifiable matters it is consistent with the empirical evidence. For example, in the book of Job, the nature of the earth is mentioned in a way that defies human investigation up until the advent of satellite pictures of the earth. In Job 26:7 it reads,

“God stretches out heaven over empty space and hangs the earth upon nothing.”

Now there are two statements in that verse that agree with the Big Bang and astronomy. The Big Bang tells us that the Universe is expanding; the Bible says “God stretches out heaven over empty space”. And secondly, we know from astronomy that the earth is suspended in space without the aid of a pedestal. This may seem pointless to comment on, but it is significant because throughout the biblical era, pagan religions believed that the earth was being held up by their ‘gods’. Some said it sat on the back of Atlas, others said it sat on the back of a giant turtle; ridiculous beliefs in light of science.

In another example, the Bible says that the earth’s shape is spherical or round like a ball. Isaiah 40:21-22 reads,

“Have ye not known? have ye not heard? has it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in”

Again, the expanding Universe is mentioned but added is a description of the shape of the earth; circular or round. A better translation of the Hebrew word used is ‘orb’ or ‘sphere’. [NOTE: Bible critics have often made the false charge against the Bible that it teaches that the earth is flat. The passages previously sited are proof enough that that charge is without merit. The source of that criticism arises from the Bible’s use of the phrase “the four corners of the earth” which critics have twisted to discredit the Bible. But that phrase is a reference to the four points of the compass, which is a figurative way of saying ‘in all directions’. Our own modern vernacular uses that same phrase to indicate the same meaning, yet it’s used by skeptics as a weapon to put doubt in the minds of others concerning the Bible.]   These two examples are important in light of the ridiculous notions about the earth and outer-space that other religions teach.

Yet Job and Isaiah, without the aid of any modern telescope or satellite technology, were able to give an accurate description of the nature and shape of the earth, and the movement of the galaxies that we have only discovered within the last century! There are many, many other examples that could be given that substantiate the point; when the Bible makes a scientific reference, it can be confirmed by what we know about science.

Thankfully, there are a growing number of courageous scientists who are going wherever the scientific evidence leads them and publicly making their case for the scientific basis for believing in a Creator. And following this evidence is leading more and more scientists to even challenge or reject the Theory of Evolution; the “sacred cow” of science.

Colin Patterson – Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (speaking to scientist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York) said,

“I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.”[ref] Audio recording and transcript “Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?“, Nov.5, 1981 Presentation at the Museum of Natural History, New York City, Access Research Network, p.3[/ref]

Stating also that no transitional forms have ever been found in the fossil record, he challenged an entire audience of Evolutionary scientists to tell him one thing they know for certain about Evolution. He describes what happened next:

“I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a prestigious body of evolutionist, and all I got there was silence for a very long time, and then eventually one person said, ‘Yes, I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in High School.’”[ref] Audio recording and transcript “Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?“, Nov.5, 1981 Presentation at the Museum of Natural History, New York City, Access Research Network, p.2[/ref]

Commenting on the Theory of Evolution (the off-spring of Materialistic philosophy), Larry Hatfield of Science Digest, says,

“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities…Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.”[ref] Strobel, The Case For a Creator, p.31[/ref]

But I think Dr. Robert Jastrow – Director NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, summarized the ‘battle between science and religion’ best when he said,

“The scientists’ pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the last peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”[ref] Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p.116[/ref]

 

CONCLUSION

So what do we make of what has been studied concerning the Bible compared to other religious writings that claim to be from God? We’ve looked at the Koran, the Apocrypha, the Watch Tower Society, and the Book of Mormon; and in each case they failed to meet the standard of God inspired writings due to their insurmountable errors in the areas of science and history. Therefore, they must be rejected as originating from God to anyone objectively examining the evidence.

In contrast, when put to the same test, the Bible proves itself to be reliably and accurately transmitted to us from its original writings. It by far surpasses any other ancient document in way of Bibliographic evidence; that is, the science of studying the origin, accuracy, and transmission of ancient texts. It proved to be consistent with the implications of the Big Bang Cosmology. And an increasing number of scientist, with prestigious credentials, are coming to the conclusion that the Bible and Science agree on world-view issues where science and theology overlap; such as, a Creator created the Universe from nothing and all of earth’s life forms; whereas, evolutionary theory is insufficient to explain the sudden appearance of varied life forms without the existence of transitional or missing links. Using the acronym MAPS, we’ve seen that the cumulative evidence of Manuscripts, Archeology, Prophecy, and Science point to the Bible as the only religious writing rightfully originating from God.

But demonstrating the Bible’s divine origin is only part of the issue. There’s an even greater obstacle to overcome than the intellectual hurdles raised by every skeptic or scoffer or honest inquisitor. It’s an obstacle so powerful it can even overcome the omnipotent power of Almighty God; it’s the power of the Will. God’s love prohibits Him from using His power to compromise your will because without your ability to choose, genuine love is impossible. God can not force you to love Him. If He did, whatever resulted from your relationship would not include love. Consequently, God must respect the choices you make by allowing the consequences of your choices to play out; even if they are the wrong choices!

Now notice I said that the skeptic and honest inquisitor raised the same questions about God and the Bible as the scoffer. The former are genuinely seeking answers to thoughtful questions in order to come to a conclusion about what religious truth to “hang their hat on.” So for them once they get strong, direct, and reasonable answers to their questions, they eagerly accept Jesus as their Savior. On the other hand, the scoffer isn’t looking for answers at all. He is merely using the “intellectual difficulties” he has with Christianity as an excuse to live a life independent of God and His “restrictive commands.” He will use any perceived shortcoming of any representative of Christ as confirmation that his rebellion is well founded. Pride will convince him that he was smarter than all the “country bumpkin” minded followers of such an intellectually bankrupt religion. He will consistently hang his disbelief on the thinnest veil of doubt and say he might believe if there was only enough “proof.”

It’s been said that Bertrand Russell, the famous skeptic, said if he were someday to stand before God and were asked why he never put his faith in Him, he would say he hadn’t been given enough evidence. In Look magazine he was asked, ‘Under what conditions would you believe in God?’ and essentially he said,

“Well, if I heard a voice from heaven and it predicted a series of things and they came to pass, then I guess I’d have to believe there’s some kind of supernatural being.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for Faith, p.141[/ref]

Ironically, aside from the hundreds of predictive prophecies fulfilled in the Old Testament regarding Israel and other nations; there are over 300 Messianic prophecies completely fulfilled regarding Jesus’ birth, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection. God has spoken from heaven and already provided the kind of proof Bertrand Russell said was necessary for him to believe in God. In fact, God has even written proof of His existence across the sky! Psalm 19:1-4 says,

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”

But a shortage of “proof” is not the problem.

“On the contrary, the evidence is there if people are willing to see it. It’s not for a lack of evidence that people turn from God; it’s from their pride or their will. God is not going to force anyone into the fold. Love never works coercively. It only works persuasively. And there’s plenty of persuasive evidence there.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for Faith i, p.141[/ref]

The problem is one’s refusal to surrender control. And that would be a fearful proposition if I was uncertain about the character of God. You might think, “After all, what if I surrendered to God and He turned out to be a tyrant? What if God ruins my life after I surrender to Him? I don’t think I can take that risk.” And my response would be, “You must be thinking of a God other than the one in the Bible. The Bible from cover to cover describes God’s thoughts, actions, and intents for mankind motivated and governed by perfect love!

So what’s so hard about saying “yes” to love? The Bible’s message from beginning to end is about God’s love for mankind moving Him to come into this world as a man to die on the cross for our sins and be raised from the dead so that the way back to God for man could be provided. And given the reliability of the Bible, it makes sense that the God behind the Bible is just as reliable. If you would like to come into a personal relationship with Jesus, just turn from your life style that is in rebellion to God; ask God to forgive you of your sins; and invite Him to be your Lord from this day forward. For the Bible says,

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten so that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

Back to top of page