The following are notes from "Why I Choose to Believe the Bible" by Voddie Baucham:
" ...Any arguments that people make all the time, let me deal with two of those principle arguments, as it relates to the Bible being a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. Because here's the line, the line is, the Bible that we have is not the same as what was written back then. It's been doctored up, it's been changed, it's been changed so many times that what we have now is not reliable at all because the later Christian community actually deified Christ, put the miracles in there, none of which we had early on. Which is why some groups, for example, like The Jesus Seminar, place more stock in the Gospel of Thomas than for example, than the Gospel of John. Why? Well, because the Gospel of Thomas doesn't have all that miraculous stuff so obviously, it was written earlier, because those things were added later. Based on what evidence? Based on no evidence. Based on presuppositions. And so here's the arguments that people will make; ... : Argument # 1 is the Multiple Translation Argument.
Let's deal with the first one. The Multiple Translation Argument. This is a favorite of professors in colleges and universities.
"The Bible has been translated so many times, that what we have now is no longer reliable or even resembles what was there earlier. I'm sure you've played the game where one person whispers into the ear of another person and another and another and another, and so forth. If you have ten people, by the time person number nine whispers into the ear of person number ten, and you go and try to ascertain what was said originally, it sounds nothing like what was given to person number one."
We've heard that before, haven't we? That angers me. And let me tell you why. It angers me because these men ought to know better. Does it matter how many times the Bible's been translated? No. The only reason it would matter how many times the Bible had been translated is if translations are actually translations of translations. For example, if I have here, I have the English Standard Bible here, copyright 2002, if the ESV (English Standard Version) actually went back, for example, to the NASB and was actually translated from that, and the NASB went back, for example, to the New King James, and the New King James went back to the King James, and the King James went back to the Geneva Bible, and Geneva Bible went back to...for example, if that's the way the translations had occurred, than that argument would hold up, but here's the problem: How do we make a Bible translation? You go back to the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts, NOT the previous translation. Which means, those professors who make that argument to young, impressionable students are either ignorant or evil, or both. You've got to be ignorant in order to make such an argument. It's absolutely ridiculous to make that argument in light of the fact that that's how we do translation or you're evil and you know better, but you know these young people are so impressionable and so afraid of you and so ignorant about their own faith that they'll swallow it hook, line, and sinker anyway. ... "
...
" The reason that we have the prophecies that were given and then fulfilled is because they're verifying their claims that these are the very words of God. And some people say, 'Well, no, men actually wrote the Bible and because men put pen to paper, it's inherently unreliable.' If you believe that, go home and burn all your books. Cause last time I checked, men wrote them all. Every last one of them and you need to be consistent. Or (another opposing argument), 'Well, I hear what you're saying, but I just, I'm a person of Science.' And? 'Well I just can't believe such things by blind faith.' Nobody asked you to believe by blind faith. The Bible never asks anybody to believe anything by blind faith. As a matter of fact, the fact that we have a Bible mitigates against the idea of blind faith. If God wanted blind faith, why did He provide, preserve, and protect for us His self revelation in the Bible so that we'd know who He is? He doesn't want us to have blind faith. He wants us to be able to know who He is and trust Him based on the consistency of His character.
...
I choose to believe the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine, rather than human in origin. (Second Peter 1: 16-20) ... "
" ...Any arguments that people make all the time, let me deal with two of those principle arguments, as it relates to the Bible being a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. Because here's the line, the line is, the Bible that we have is not the same as what was written back then. It's been doctored up, it's been changed, it's been changed so many times that what we have now is not reliable at all because the later Christian community actually deified Christ, put the miracles in there, none of which we had early on. Which is why some groups, for example, like The Jesus Seminar, place more stock in the Gospel of Thomas than for example, than the Gospel of John. Why? Well, because the Gospel of Thomas doesn't have all that miraculous stuff so obviously, it was written earlier, because those things were added later. Based on what evidence? Based on no evidence. Based on presuppositions. And so here's the arguments that people will make; ... : Argument # 1 is the Multiple Translation Argument.
Let's deal with the first one. The Multiple Translation Argument. This is a favorite of professors in colleges and universities.
"The Bible has been translated so many times, that what we have now is no longer reliable or even resembles what was there earlier. I'm sure you've played the game where one person whispers into the ear of another person and another and another and another, and so forth. If you have ten people, by the time person number nine whispers into the ear of person number ten, and you go and try to ascertain what was said originally, it sounds nothing like what was given to person number one."
We've heard that before, haven't we? That angers me. And let me tell you why. It angers me because these men ought to know better. Does it matter how many times the Bible's been translated? No. The only reason it would matter how many times the Bible had been translated is if translations are actually translations of translations. For example, if I have here, I have the English Standard Bible here, copyright 2002, if the ESV (English Standard Version) actually went back, for example, to the NASB and was actually translated from that, and the NASB went back, for example, to the New King James, and the New King James went back to the King James, and the King James went back to the Geneva Bible, and Geneva Bible went back to...for example, if that's the way the translations had occurred, than that argument would hold up, but here's the problem: How do we make a Bible translation? You go back to the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts, NOT the previous translation. Which means, those professors who make that argument to young, impressionable students are either ignorant or evil, or both. You've got to be ignorant in order to make such an argument. It's absolutely ridiculous to make that argument in light of the fact that that's how we do translation or you're evil and you know better, but you know these young people are so impressionable and so afraid of you and so ignorant about their own faith that they'll swallow it hook, line, and sinker anyway. ... "
...
" The reason that we have the prophecies that were given and then fulfilled is because they're verifying their claims that these are the very words of God. And some people say, 'Well, no, men actually wrote the Bible and because men put pen to paper, it's inherently unreliable.' If you believe that, go home and burn all your books. Cause last time I checked, men wrote them all. Every last one of them and you need to be consistent. Or (another opposing argument), 'Well, I hear what you're saying, but I just, I'm a person of Science.' And? 'Well I just can't believe such things by blind faith.' Nobody asked you to believe by blind faith. The Bible never asks anybody to believe anything by blind faith. As a matter of fact, the fact that we have a Bible mitigates against the idea of blind faith. If God wanted blind faith, why did He provide, preserve, and protect for us His self revelation in the Bible so that we'd know who He is? He doesn't want us to have blind faith. He wants us to be able to know who He is and trust Him based on the consistency of His character.
...
I choose to believe the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine, rather than human in origin. (Second Peter 1: 16-20) ... "
0 comments:
Post a Comment