True "Right"

I want to try and cover different angles and viewpoints on the topic of “right” and “wrong.” I will play the devil’s advocate as much as I can, in an attempt exhaust all plausible counter arguments.

First, it is quite relevant to talk about these things, especially in a religious context.  It is a topic that will stir up an enormous amount of controversy, and when discussed in relation to different people’s belief systems, inconsistencies will always arise. There will always be vast inconsistencies regarding how to approach and define it. Some believe that “right” and “wrong” don’t exist; some believe that they exist but are subject to change based on context or circumstance. Some believe there is an absolute “right,” and “wrong” is a perversion of right. Most believe that you can’t have “right” and “wrong” without a god of some sort, while some would argue that you can eliminate god and also have an innate sense of “right” and “wrong”. Some believe that we learned these moral constructs over millions of years watching our animal ancestors. Some believe we are given knowledge of “right” and “wrong” through our spirit, or soul. Some people believe that each person will discover their own version of “right” and “wrong” based on how circumstances affect them personally.  Is it fair to say that questions regarding right and wrong are relevant to religious discussions? I would say YES. It is also fair to say that, the way a person defines or approaches “right” and “wrong” is one of the key defining elements or tenets of their beliefs system.

Furthermore, to maintain a functioning society, we must come to a basic consensus about extreme acts of “wrong,” in order to judge and execute justice. We cannot live in a society where people have no repercussions for their actions. This is obvious. Every culture comes to a basic conclusion of how to deal with wrongs in some form or another. While cultures may not practice equal justice, it is known that every person has a longing for true and equal justice.

Every person has some sense that crimes and other kinds of social wrongdoing require a just consequence.  Although the details of each wrongdoing vary, and should be balanced and meted against relevant circumstances, real justice is ultimately “equal” to the offense committed (or else it is not truly just). Yet “equal” justice, whether penal or compensatory, requires universal laws in order to achieve equality in application. Universal laws don’t emerge randomly or by accident. Universal laws, and thus also equal justice, must come from a universal and just Lawgiver.

When our desire for equal justice through the application of universal laws is frustrated, this frustration is an indication of our sense that there is a lawgiver (and judge) above and beyond our society and culture (as well as all others). People throughout history have held the expectation that they will be judged after death. The timeless practice of recognizing injustices in this life, and expecting all injustices to be resolved hereafter by a truly equal justice, reveals an intuitive sense that a Supernatural Being whose universal justice, some day, will be carried out according to His universal laws.

For the sake of clarity on the matter, “Right” and “wrong” is synonymous with “good” and “bad.” “Good” and “bad” are descriptors that cannot exist without there first being a “right” and “wrong.”
 

I am going to start my discussion using various versions of right and wrong, based upon differing opinions. From these common varying premises of right and wrong, I will apply a fictitious version of a real life scenario in an effort to better articulate possible resulting outcomes and behaviors. It is important think about each belief structure in a real life context, and to dream up as many different possible scenarios (fictitious or real) to insure that hypotheses regarding right and wrong will stand up to the wide array of diverging human thought and interaction.

I will start with the most bizarre sounding hypotheses. (in my opinion)

 “Right” and “Wrong” do not exist.  We have only choices and actions that have outcomes. (common with atheists and those who believe there is no God)

In this example, the idea of right and wrong do not exist, but only a continuum of illusive choices exists, with varying outcomes. No act or choice can be viewed on a positive/negative scale. How would people interact under these premises? How would society function? Let’s explore. For example:

I decide I want to force my grown son to work for me for free indefinitely under some kind of modern bondage. I don’t let him leave my property. As a matter of fact, I think that I own him, and he does what I want him to do at all time. I want him to work for me because I do not work.

First, we must remember that we cannot define this act of slavery as bad or good. We can only look at the residual outcomes, or effects of the enslavement. The act itself has no intrinsic value. It is simply an act. Let’s say all the neighbors catch wind of my situation with my son, and they aren’t happy that I am keeping him from living a full life where he is free to make his own decisions. They think it is unjust… wait… This cannot happen, they cannot like or dislike, nor can the make a decision based on a polar scale.  Just by them saying they don’t like it, means they can imagine a better alternative. Thus, they are introducing a “right,” alternative. (What I am doing to my son would be not as good as what they propose.) They can only see what I do as choices with outcomes. They could certainly come to my house and kidnap my son, and take him to the city and set him free. They could also have a reason that did not include liking or disliking, or right and wrong. It would just happen because of circumstances that did not include morality. I could try to explain more of what this implausible world would be like but I think it would be best to use an example of something that we all know well. Imagine this present world, only without humans. All that exists is plants and animals.  Everything just eats, breeds, and survives. Animals have no repercussions for their actions; they do not answer to anyone for their behavior; they do not make choices based on the best ethical outcome; they don’t decide if what they are doing is “right” or “wrong,” or if it will have any negative or positive residual effects on others. The strong survive in this economy; the weak usually don’t. There is no such thing as animal rights among animals. You won’t see a lioness who has guilt and remorse because she didn’t let a foreign lioness from outside her clan eat the last available food source. (Even if the outsider somehow eventually died from starvation because of it) You may even see one lioness kill the other just for trying to snatch a bite of her food. If this lack of moral responsibility was a reality for human interaction, life would not be safe or pleasant on earth. The first person who figured out how to exterminate everyone else to benefit himself would do it. People would kill, rob, rape, pillage, and those who did it the most efficiently would survive.

I want to add: There will always be rare cases where animals do strange things that display some kind of hint that they have a moral compass. I would say, within a large and diverse enough sample size, you will have some of the most unexplainable things happening given enough time. Not that these rare cases should be viewed as an argument for ethical or moral behavior in animals, or classified as something other than a say a “herd instinct,” but just that improbabilities exist and strange things happen for reasons that we may not fully understand. Statistically speaking, aside from random accidents and events that we probably misclassify, animals do not display any level of thought or inner conscience about a “right” and “wrong,” or morality. This fact can be empirically studied, and controlled experiments can be done. Aside from hopeful beliefs, we have no evidence or proof that may tell us otherwise.

If humans were to adapt to the laws and behaviors of the animal kingdom, the result would be, complete chaos (compared to what now is reality). This made-up world where “right” and “wrong” does not exist, simply cannot be a reality for a human society, and it is certainly not the world we live in now.   

I want to add one more thought that will help us understand how complex human interaction can be, and how “right” and “wrong” are exercised on a daily basis. Think about the current U.S. justice system and the practice of law. Let’s say for example, back when you were in high school, you decide to study law. You quickly find out by talking to your career counselors, that this particular career is all about reading. You have to read, read, read. You have to study case law, law journals, past trials, new legislation, etc. The reason for all the studying and extra reading is in part because our current justice system is based in part on rulings of past cases. You will win court battles as a lawyer if you have excellent understanding of previous cases.  Case law works like this: (in a basic sense) If some bizarre dispute between two parties was decided a certain way in a previous case, then subsequent like cases will defer to rulings in those previous cases. The system is set up this way because there are always unique circumstances that require judgments to be made over moral “grey” areas between right and wrong. (This is pivotally where most religions disagree) There will always be circumstances that make the verdict even more difficult and complicated. We use case law to help reach a verdict and save time in these unique cases. We now start to see that there is always a situation where justice needs to be served, but all parties are not in agreement. Not just disagreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, but between the jury, judge, and the general public they represent. It is of the utmost importance that our hypotheses regarding right and wrong be applicable to all people and circumstances. If they are weak, the hypotheses will be exploited and torn apart by the amazing complexity of human interaction. People won’t have to try to tear them apart; they will just tear themselves apart over time when people disagree. When a person, or group practices weak, or flawed premises regarding “right” and “wrong” (to the fullest extent) human “rights” are always violated. This can lead to lethal violations of human life. This has happened in history for thousands of years. Atrocities are committed by people who claim they know what true “right” is. Hitler and the holocaust is a good example this, or Muslims and the act of jihad.

Ok, let’s move on to the next version of how some humans classify “right” and “wrong.” Let’s say:

“Right” and “wrong” exist only in the individual. That is, the individual will discern what is “right” and “wrong.” The standard is your/his/her life. On an individual basis, you are morally right to act in ways that enhance your own life and morally wrong to act in ways that destroy it. Each person must sift through everything he has learned, and knows, and makes his/ her own moral judgment. In this case we won’t include a “supernatural force” as an influence.

I am going to use virtually the same example that I used in the previous scenario.

I force my son to work for me indefinitely under some kind of modern bondage. I don’t let him leave my property. I think that I own him, and he does what I want him to do at all time.

My neighbors somehow find out what I am doing, and they are not happy. They are outraged. They believe that he should not be my slave, because they think slavery is wrong. They think that it would be better for him to be free than in slavery. They call the local authorities, who quickly respond, but not how my neighbors expected. They explain that slavery is common, and many people choose to enslave their children in this area. They continue to explain that the local government passed a majority vote that led to legalized immediate family slavery. (I am assuming the population in this fictitious world had come to a consensus on some basic laws. The majority of individuals that share common ideas of “right” and “wrong” become the ultimate authority.) The local government came to the conclusion that the benefits of slavery to the owner outweigh the social aspects. The authorities leave without doing anything. My neighbors are even more outraged. They decided to take matters in their own hands to remedy the situation. They decide, out of the idea that they are doing something “right,” that they must set my son free from bondage. So they kidnap my son and plan to set him free. To their dismay, when they kidnap him, and take him away, they discover that he wants to go back home! My son is so used to being my slave, that he is ok with it. He thinks it is the “right” way. It is the only way he knows. He knows that he has to be patient and wait until I die, and then he will take my place as the free master. My neighbors begin to realize that this is an impossible situation, and when my son has kids, they will probably behave the same way. To take this fictitious scenario one step further, for the sake of discussion, let’s say that I physically beat my son when he doesn’t do things the way I want them done. My neighbors are even more horrified when they realize this. I surely don’t think there is a problem with it. I was beaten when I was a slave. In my mind it makes you a better master if you endure hardship as a slave. I think it is “right.”  I have seen my cousins and their unruly slave children. They didn’t beat their kids properly, and that is probably why they are always trying to run away. If only my cousins tied their children up. I find that it works best when my children are tied up. I think this produces sound bravery and courage in them. They will grow up strong, and will be able to overcome any hardship that may fall on them in life. In this way, I am showing them my way of “right”, because I am training them the way I think is best for them. If they are not strong, they may not have the quality of life that I think they deserve. My neighbors don’t even have children. What do they know? I guess they moved from another culture where women walk around uncovered. No wonder they are so far off the deep end. Well, I want to be a good example to them so I am going to bring them a gift, and show them I love them in spite of our differences.  

In this scenario, all things are logical under the premises that I began with. But before we go back and analyze what just went on, I want to add one generally understood belief. I want to discuss, how love can play a part in all of this. I think that it should be understood, that in order to have true love, it must come from someone who has knowledge of true “right.” If that person or being didn’t have knowledge of true “right,” how could he know if the love he gave was truly the “right” kind of love? That is, love that is of pure or “right” motives. True “right” and true love are synonymous with each other, and dependant on one another.  Love is a more personal act that stems from “true” right. It is an expression born out of true “right.” The act of love with pure motives is not possible if it is born out of a “right” that is tainted, or not truly “right.” Perfect love, is not possible unless it is from a source that is perfect love. 

So, with that in mind, you could say that a form of love was shown from different people. (They were expressing their version of “right” love.) From my current perspective (not in the make-believe world) each was a form of selfish love. While each actor may have thought that their love was sincere, each person was showing love in a way that satisfied their own belief system. In this make-believe scenario, the person representing me thought that he was truly showing his children love. One could argue that he was exploiting them for his own benefit, and therefore showing a self centered or sociopathic type of love. One might argue that the “neighbors” were showing real love by trying to free the son, even though the son didn’t want to leave. They were banking on the fact that the son would (eventually in time) thank the neighbors for his new found freedom. Maybe they were showing true love. Maybe the father of the children was showing true love. Who are the neighbors to say that slavery in this case was bad? According to one person, it could be characterized as “right,” according to another - “wrong.” On the outset, we have learned that everyone will have a way that seems right in his own eyes, but is it true “right?” Can we even know?

I think we have already read too much into this. This whole situation is more like a “red herring.” If we didn’t have an outside force, or origination of a moral right, we couldn’t draw conclusions about anything regarding another person and his or her actions / choices. The neighbors couldn’t be upset at the situation because they have no basis or benchmark from which to weigh a better situation against.  We have no source to glean any sense of moral responsibility from. We did not learn it from the “evolution” of plants and animals. If you think we did, please make a case for it. Many have tried, but their cases always lack evidence, plausibility and explanatory power. (We could now enter into a discussion about the credibility of evolution as an explanation of human origins, but even if you could argue it to be true, it would still not adequately support the idea that we have a moral compass by learning it from less evolved creatures.) If the “neighbors” in our make-believe scenario are basing their knowledge of slavery from examples of slavery in other families they have witnessed in the past, (and can therefore make a judgment call based on outcomes of those past experiences), they are still placing their interpretation of those experiences in a position of authority above the other person’s - Therefore claiming that their “right” is the “right” the other party should adhere to. This contradicts our original premises for this scenario. 

Ok, Let us go one step further and introduce a supernatural force, or “god” into the scenario we just discussed. Let’s keep the emphasis on the “self/individual” for interpreting “right” and “wrong,” and discredit all worldviews and religions who claim to possess the only keys to the true definition of “right.” The individual can somehow contact a “force/god” but does not use any religion or worldviews as a singular bias in his interpretation of “right” and “wrong” Let us redefine our premises and begin to explore further.

“Right” and “wrong” exists in the individual. “Right” and “Wrong” also exists in a god/force/supernatural being. The individual will discern what is right and wrong. The standard is your/his/her life. Everyone decides where their choices or acts fall on the right and wrong continuum. Each person’s idea of right and wrong may be influenced by a god/force/supernatural being. No religion contains the true “right,” so the discernment of “right” and “wrong” in the individual must not come from a singular religious document or structured fundamental religious belief system.  

So, what happens now to our make-believe scenario if we apply these premises? The actors will still hold firm that what they believe is “right” is truly “right.”  Only in this case, the conviction is greater in each individual, because they are claiming a supernatural source as an influence or basis of “right.” The “right” in each individual still may not be any closer to true “right” than it was in the last scenario. Each actor/player may have explanations for his convictions that include detailed accounts of supernatural encounters where they received knowledge of true “right.” Of course, what the supernatural force told them was true will probably be different in each player (Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Satanism, etc.) Which one has the true knowledge of “right” and “wrong”? Neither actor is using a singular structured belief system from which to convince the other party that he is in authority. Also, neither party has tangible evidence that they have the supreme truth. They are both skeptical of the one another’s beliefs. All they can do is have faith that what their neighbor says is ultimately the truth, really is. This is improbable because both neighbors are from different cultures and have different ways of expressing love, and both actors have different ideas of what “good” or “right” fruit is. If each person has a different idea of what true “right” is, then they certainly will not agree on what “right” or “good” fruit is. (Fruit would be classified as acts/characteristics/attributes born out of true “right”) So here the actors sit, no more convinced of one another’s beliefs. Each person is doing what is “right” based on what he/she thinks is right.

Because it seems relevant at this time, I want to include the definition of a sociopath: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

A sociopath is someone who manipulates others around him for his own benefit. To give the sociopath credit, can we really blame him for serving only himself under this type of belief system? After all, if he believes he is “right” should others doubt him? If everyone is receiving their definition of what is “right” individually, why should they hold any one person’s interpretation of “right” in authority? The Sociopath doesn’t have any reason to put others needs first unless it somehow benefited him/her. Additionally, he has no way to convince others that what he believes is “right.” People will never share one another’s consciousness or inner motivations. We can’t know if what our neighbor really has pure motives without being inside his mind and spirit. Since we cannot do this, we have to take his word for it, or examine how he lives his life. (Even intense examination and scrutiny can’t undoubtedly tell us his motivation) Furthermore, the “neighbor” can’t know what is truly right unless he is 100% positive that his supernatural encounters were from a benevolent, loving, peaceable, 100% right, supernatural force.  I am going to play the devil’s advocate again, and suggest that maybe some people’s influence of “right” and “wrong” is from a force that doesn’t love, and who isn’t peaceable, and 100% “right.” Or “good” Maybe the supernatural influence they are getting is from a perversion of the real true “right”. Even still, the neighbors would have to be able convince others of their absolute certainty on the matter. Now, increasing the angle of this slippery slope… unless you had proof (that you could show others) from a force/god, that “benevolence,” “love,” and “peace,” were attributes that you should strive to attain, you wouldn’t know if what you were told when you had an “encounter” had any positive moral value to begin with! In this case, the cart is being placed before the horse. The effect is before the cause. You can’t know if what you received during an encounter is what you ought to strive for if you didn’t have a basis from which to classify what things “ought to be” first. Under the premises that we applied to this scenario, an individual shouldn’t have to talk to his neighbor about what the neighbor believes to be true, because “right” and “wrong” is determined in the individual (however the individual got it), not collectively, or collaboratively among people. The neighbors influence should not interfere with the individual’s true “right,” and logically should not be included. If it was included, then it shouldn’t have any bearing on the individual’s definition of “right” and “wrong.” We could change our premises to say, “Right” and “wrong” are determined by the collective interests of a people group, but I think this would make matters even stickier than they are.

What can we derive from all of this thus far? Let’s make a list of things we now know to be true, based on what we have read. Some of these things are inferred, and based on deductive reasoning: We know that a person’s expression of love may not be interpreted as love with pure motives, regardless of whether or not it truly is. We know that a person can’t really know if another person is expressing true selfless love born of pure motives. The real “goodness” or “badness” of a person’s actions cannot be understood by another person.  “Right” and “wrong” are not definable without a preset moral foundation. The true definition of “Right” can only come from a force that is truly 100% “right.” “Right” and “wrong” are not definable by averaging or finding commonalities between worldviews or religions. Without moral guidelines that originate from outside our known human existence, “right” and “wrong” do not exist. Animals do not know morality, and cannot articulate a moral “right” from “wrong.” Apart from those who agree they can’t act in a way that is truly “right” without divine intervention, people generally believe that their way is true “right.” Society will never have peace and order using only moral guidelines that were established by the individual, unless there is no social interaction. (If a person was alone on a desert island, there would be no social interaction. It would only be important if his behaviors were not self destructive. In this case, right and wrong are more associated with survival, and not collective needs.) Society will never have peace and order using only moral guidelines that are based on the consensus of individual needs. Moral order or justice must be upheld in a society, or humans’ destructive tendencies will tear the society apart.

On many different levels, all of the premises that I have attempted to explain using a fictitious environment, do not work for a peaceable and loving society on earth. So, how can we construct premises that do work? Let’s examine first what we know about mortal humans: We know that people engage in self destructive behavior. People have varying views on “right” and “wrong.” People somehow have a sense that certain behaviors are not good, and certain behaviors are good.  They do not know where this sense comes from, but most people agree we have it. (Not a perfect sense, but a general sense) Different cultures have different ideas of “right” and “wrong.” Among cultures, fundamental differences in right and wrong lead to wars, fighting, death, and destruction. Humans’ varying opinions regarding “right” and “wrong” do not lead to a more orderly society. Humans’ differences in art and culture often enhance society, but when fundamental differences in “right” and “wrong” clash, it is extremely harmful to societies. A mortal human cannot have perfect morality in his life, and therefore cannot be the sole discerner of what is “right” or “wrong.” People desperately crave equal justice for wrongdoings and inequalities.

So, with all of this in mind, let us try to re-establish our premises one last time, and revisit our scenario: Only this time, I would like to establish the premises of “right” and “wrong” based on pre set guidelines.

True “right” exists only in the God of the Bible. The individual alone cannot know or achieve perfect morality or true “right”.  The true guidelines for perfect morality or “right” are God and were spoken by Him and written by Him (through men by His Spirit), and have always been in existence. God is accessible to all through His Word and prayer, and His Word discerns our thoughts and intentions. All individuals have fallen short of true “right.”

Using this system, let us look again at our scenario. What changes? Firstly, the father would realize that what he thought was right, may not actually be the true right. If he knew about these premises before he had children, he would choose in advance to raise them according to the methods that God’s Word specifies. If he didn’t know about these premises, then his “neighbors” who did know, would point him to God’s guidelines in His Word. They would do this out of love for him, demonstrated to them in God’s Word. The father would never trust his own judgment, but rest in the fact that God and His Word will do the judging and the discerning of all things. He would be diligent to learn what God’s Word tells him, realizing his humble position under God’s authority. He would not have the true “right” answers without God, and his perception of “right” and “wrong” on his own would probably be flawed and fallen short of true “right.” He would bow before the One who is in true authority.

If God is not being glorified in all of our ways, we are choosing to put our discernment of “right” above His perfect will for us. If we put God’s Word in our hearts, and use it as an instruction manual for life, we will be able to withstand the snares of evil and keep ourselves from sin, (doing “wrongs”) against God.

Here are some perfect guidelines for people from God’s perfect Word:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.  2 Timothy 3:16  

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

For the Word of the LORD is right, And all His work is done in truth. He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. Psalm 33:4-5

All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the spirits. Proverbs 16:2

Honest weights and scales are the LORD's; All the weights in the bag are His work. Proverbs 16:11

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts.  Proverbs 21:2

Rom 3:19-31 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.  Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,  even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all [fn] who believe. For there is no difference;  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,  whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,  to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.  Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.  Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 

Psalm 119:10-12  With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.   Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.  Blessed [art] thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. 

1John 4:15-21 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.  And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.  Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.  There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.  We love Him [fn] because He first loved us. If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can [fn] he love God whom he has not seen?  And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also. 

A Critique of the book, "Jesus Interrupted." By Bart D. Ehrman

This critique is written by: Tom Chrestman

PREFACE / INTRODUCTION

In this critique of the book, “Jesus Interrupted,” I am going to address some of the problems with the logic and reasoning that Bart Ehrman uses to attempt a dismantling of the New Testament, and ultimately, the entire Bible. I will probably go further into other points that seem to stray from the critique of the book. I feel that discussing these other points are necessary to objectively respond to his claims. I will use Bart’s various claims to springboard into areas that are of monumental importance, and that must be explored to assess the credibility of his writings. Some of the things that I will discuss will bring into question not only Mr. Ehrman’s motivation behind his book, but his moral character. I will begin examination of a few of the book’s claims, and they will be done in no particular order.

Some of Mr. Ehrman’s questions are quite legitimate and pose valid concerns. I would not say however that these concerns warrant discrediting the inerrancy of the Bible. I would also say with absolute certainty, that his problems are not problems with the Bible and its inerrancy, but rather his problems with interpretation, context, linguistics, and other facets of understanding the Bible. If everyone that didn’t fully understand the Word of God wrote a book on what they didn’t understand, we would have miles of books like his lining our libraries. Man will always have trouble understanding the Bible – of this we can be certain.  

I want to add that, in order for anything you read here to be of any value, you must be in agreement that logic and reason can be used for governing human thought. Many eastern mystical religions, including Zen Buddhism are founded on a system that does not use logic and reason. They believe that reality ultimately is illogical, and that the real God transcends human thought.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines mysticism: “In general terms, [mysticism] represents the belief that direct knowledge of God, of spiritual truth or ultimate reality, is attainable ‘through immediate intuition or insight and in a way different from ordinary sense perception or the use of logical reasoning.’”

 If you do not use logic or reason in your search for God, or ultimate truth, then this critique of Bart Ehrman’s book will be of no value to you. Although it is fact that human must use logic and reason to perform even the simplest tasks day to day, it is a mystery to me how a person can objectively search for truth without using either of them. If you remove logic and reason from human consciousness, you have stripped away all that allows you to function as a human in society.

There are some that believe you can rationally use logic and at the same time search for God on an illogical level, as if you can include both constructs inclusive of one another. To explain why this is not possible, consider this:

I have heard it explained by Buddhists that instead of using the either/or, (Western way of viewing reality) your thinking should be both/and (Eastern way of viewing reality). The either/or way of viewing reality can be characterized by including right and wrong, and true and false. The both/and way of viewing reality can be characterized by accepting all things as potential, or probable good.  If you ponder these viewpoints long enough, you will eventually come to the same conclusion as I have. You simply cannot use both/and as a way of viewing reality. If I were to pose the question this way to a Buddhist: “Are you telling me that I can only look at reality using either the ‘both/and’ system or ‘nothing else’? Using this simple question, which could be stated in a myriad of ways, it is obvious that either/or will emerge whether you want it to or not. Your mind cannot come to a singular conclusion without first weighing others against it. Illogical thought cannot solely or simultaneously guide the mind of a Mystic, even if he wants it to. One cannot escape logical thought. The usual tendency of a mystic is to avoid the use of knowledge or evidence in his search for God, because you must use logic and reason to sift the information. I quite simply think this is a way for the mystic to avoid real truth, because his ignorance is more desirable or intriguing to him. But, again if you throw out logic and reason, nothing in life will make sense. And with out them, it doesn’t need to. If things in life do make sense, you are using logic and reason to come to that conclusion. To restate this another way - If someone highly submersed in eastern mysticism says to you, “I simply will not use logic and reason to find God, because He and his realm is outside of the constructs of human intellect, and cannot be therefore actually known or understood by those means. I say in response, “How did you reach this conclusion.” If the mystic eliminated logic and reason because he thought that they were not usable in the search for God, he has in fact used them to come to that end. He is using a comparative analysis, with logic and reason on one side, and intuition on the other, and subsequently eliminating one of the views by way of ordered thought.  

It is not possible to objectively examine a thing without using the intellectual constructs of logic and reason - these are inescapable. - Even something as elusive as a passing emotion, must be interpreted and analyzed by the human mind, consciously, or subconsciously. 

Disagreement of these basic premises will hinder the reader from harvesting usable information in the following writing.  A person cannot argue that they can know, or attain the knowledge of supreme truth on a level that does not include our human capacities. It would be of no value or use to discuss the matter, for it could not be discussed, learned or grasped. They cannot in fact argue for or against it because it is not knowable or attainable. As a human being, we use our mind, to communicate thoughts, by way of a medium (writing, speaking, sign language, etc.). We have no other alternatives. To say that we can know a particular thing using means which transcend our human faculties, is just plain nonsense.  I will now proceed with my written examination and critique of Mr. Ehrman’s book, using intellectual human capacities. If I could use telekinesis to communicate my thoughts, I would - it would save time.

MANUSCRIPT CREDIBILITY

In Bart’s chapter, “How we got our bible:” He claims that we have no original manuscripts of the books of the bible, and therefore there is incongruence between the pages of the Bible that we have now, and the original texts. While the first part of his claim may be true, that no original manuscripts have been found of what we now have in our Bible, this argument cannot be used as an argument for non-integrity of the manuscript copies. No original manuscripts exist for literature of antiquity. All we have in the way of historical document integrity is carried upon the backs of copies. There were no printing presses in the day of old. The only way to transfer information was to make a copy of it by hand. One way to prove the historical validity of a document is to cross examine them using additional manuscript copies for proof. Copies that may be found in different areas and at different times, from different copiers, - all of which are used to confirm and enhance the credibility, consistency, and validity of the original copy. To put Scripture into this light, we have discovered through the ages, 24000+ manuscript copies of the Bible. What other piece of literature can even remotely compare? The second prize winner for most copies of a literary work of antiquity… the “Iliad” by Homer with a staggering 643 copies. How then could we believe anything in our history books if we use Bart’s criteria for establishing credibility in documents of antiquity by validating it with an original copy?

He claims that the manuscript copies were made much later… some centuries later, adding to their non credibility. This also could be true. With a library of the Bible’s 24000+ manuscript copies … we can be sure that they were made at all sorts of different dates. But again in comparing other pieces of literature, the gap is narrowest between original penmanship of books in the Bible, and copy date for those books in the Bible. Especially the books that Bart uses for his critiques, namely: The gospels and others that are universally recognized to be written soon after the penning of the gospels. Other documents of antiquity do not even get close to this gap. For example: Homer’s Iliad has a 400 year gap from original penning to earliest manuscript copy; Herodutus’ History : a 1350 year gap; Plato: 1300 years; Ceasar: 1000 years; Tasitus’ Annals: 1000 years; Pliny Secundus’ Natural History:  750 years; The New Testament books:  50+ to 225 years.

There are manuscript copies of the Bible in many other languages.  I won’t expound on these, but just shed light that the Bible has manuscript copies in roughly 14 or so languages, copied on various mediums… papyri, lectionaries, minuscules, and uncials.

Using Bart’s criterion, the Gospels are actually more credible as a documents of antiquity if we are comparing them to other literary works, based purely on the time span between original penmanship and the first surfaced manuscript copy. When it is compared to other literary works, the Gospels actually have the most credibility of any other document in history.  

MANUSCRIPT ERRANCY

Bart says these manuscript copies have too many mistakes for what we have now to be an accurate representation of the original text. Let us examine this claim. The manuscript copies are hand written. With this in mind, using simple logic, if you think about the vast number of total copies in relation to copies with errors, there essentially could be mistakes in a sizable proportion of them, even a third, a half, or two thirds. But, unless these mistakes were made in the same place in the text, and were exactly the same in nature (highly improbable) you could not use this argument. These manuscripts were probably written by different scribes, who were writing from different times and places, and many of which didn’t know each other. Using logic, you could still retain the exactness of the message with errors in many manuscript copies. All you would need to do is compare all manuscripts with each other to find the congruence within them, establish where the errors were using deductive reasoning, and correct them in another copy, therefore preserve the accuracy of the original. To put this into an example: Let’s say 24000 copies were handwritten of this document that you are reading, (by 200 different people) and there were hundreds of mistakes that were made. Let’s say, to give Bart the benefit of the doubt, 23000 mistakes were made. (Almost 1 mistake per copy) As I am writing this, my document has almost 10,000 words. So, 1 out of 10,000 words could potentially be wrong. Let’s say that 100 of the mistakes were made in the same exact place, (extremely unlikely unless the same scribe made most all of the copies and repeated his error in the same spot). In this case, the errors will not be hard to correct, we still have 22,900 correct sentences to compare 100 incorrect sentences. Not to mention, we have 1000 mistake free copies to confirm the correctness.

In actuality there are probably few mistakes, and most of them according to Mr. Ehrman, were spelling related. These would be quite easy to correct without using different copies of the same document, but simply using basic grammar skills to determine the exactness of the original document.

I would also charge Mr. Ehrman to do a study into the life of a Scribe - a unique group of people whose sole purpose in life was to preserve the Holy text. What other historical document on antiquity has a people group born out of the need for preservation and accuracy of that document? My understanding of the Scribes is limited, and I have not included any information about this unique people group.  But, for the purpose of my argument, I will make reference to them, because they did exist, and can be praised in part for being used by God to deliver to us what we have now.

Why is it that the first thing skeptics want to attack is the accuracy of the Bible? Do their science and history books have a people group born of the need to preserve their accuracy?  Instead, we have the opposite. Today, anyone can copy, add, create, and revise, documents that are used to teach young minds in schools, particularly if you have certain letters after your name. The same is true for the credibility of the information that is vacuumed up by students over internet. Only in this case you don’t need letters after you name to publish your ideas online, and from here they can end up on the chalk board in science class with few doubts.  I am sure most credible institutions monitor their sources more closely, but I know from my own experience watching chalk boards, often sources are never checked. 

Bart also mentions inconsistencies within manuscripts without taking into consideration the different languages the manuscript copies were being translated into. Translating anything from Aramaic or Hebrew to another language is almost impossible, if not impossible to do exactly. The nature of the Hebrew language is vastly different from any other language that we have known. Hebrew and Aramaic have so many characteristics that are not attributable to other languages; characteristics that help them to describe a thought or thing which may be impossible to create a word for in another language. Call these variations mistakes or inconsistencies? -- I think not, I would more accurately describe them as differing interpretations, of an original language. This may be a reason why he focuses solely on the Greek New Testament, and doesn’t spend much time on the other two languages of written Scripture. The complexities of the Aramaic and Hebrew languages require one to do much additional homework, and investigation. To further emphasize my point that Bart does not care to dig deeper to find out why all his inconsistencies may have explanations, he is using NIV translation to cite all of his quotations. This has its obvious challenges; I am sure Mr. Ehrman is aware of these considering he has multiple institutional degrees. {Moody Institute of Theology… and a Liberal Arts degree from Wheaton} I would expect that these might help him to understand the linguistic challenges of the Bible.

In a chapter called, “Is Faith Possible?” Bart says something that helps to me to ultimately see his blindness to the truths in God’s Word. He says at the end of his book, (regarding why he went from an evangelical Christian to an agnostic)... “My inability to understand how a good and loving God could be in control of this world, given the miserable lives that most people – even believers – are forced to endure here.”  I wonder how much he has read the Bible given he doesn’t understand this. I will explain:

According to the Bible, the keys to our present world have been given to Satan and his entourage. “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” Eph: 2:2. The Bible says that the world in its present state is a result of mans free will and consequent choice to give into the temptation of the devil (and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) God created man out of love. Love demands a choice – and is willing to risk rejection, pain and evil. People are miserable because they have chosen it, practiced it, and compounded the ramifications of it since the Garden of Eden. It was at the first taste of the fruit that bad genetics were introduced, that death was introduced, that disease, famine, selfishness, pride etc. came to the knowledge of man.  We are told that Adam and Eve before their sin, lived in a world far better than what we know now, (possibly even living in more dimensions then we know and understand now. There are fascinating studies on this.) The world then was how God intended it to be. The world will be eventually remade into what God intended it to be when the end of things come to pass. The devil will be locked up for an eternity, and won’t be able to torment and have control over this troubled planet anymore. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”1Peter 5:8.  Believers are forced to endure this because of man’s original choice. And by man’s own effort, this world will only get worse. Thankfully when you become a believer, and move from being merely “begotten of God”, to a “Son of God” then you have been “…given the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory,” Eph 1:13-14.  We can rest assured that we can have victory over Satan. ”Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” 1John 4:4.

Bart’s repeated claims hinge on his supposed or declared inconsistencies in the Bible. One of them that struck my attention referred to Jesus. Bart claimed that “Jesus taught his followers to keep the law as God had commanded in order to enter the kingdom.” I do not know how Bart comes to this conclusion. Upon further investigation of the Scriptures, a person should begin to see something that is very clear: The role and purpose of Jesus in humanity.

Bart gives no hint to the fact that he might understand the concept of “the new covenant.” (a crucial point that separates the OT from the NT). There are pages in the Bible describing in great detail, the Jewish traditions; (focusing on how to handle the preparation of sacrifices, and what things are forbidden and things that aren’t). Passages that seem extreme in this nature may sound like they don’t fit with teachings the NT if you don’t understand key Biblical concepts. There was a unique paradigm shift that occurred when Jesus was nailed to the Cross.  Man was no longer bound by the seemingly extreme nature of the law, for Jesus fulfilled it upon his death. The law was not destroyed, but fulfilled.

To state this concept another way: In the OT, God taught the people about Himself through specific laws and commandments clearly detail in the Bible. All together, the laws were impossible for anyone to keep, so God instructed them to offer sacrifices to pay for their offenses to the law. God was preparing the people to understand when Jesus came – He was the final sacrifice for sins so no more sacrifices needed to be done by the people.  Jesus also explained that He fulfilled the law with His life, and brought a new covenant to His people. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Mat 5:17

In Bart’s chapter, “A Mass of Variant Views” he quotes the above Scripture. He mentions that Paul, and Matthew had differing views on this.  His lack of understanding regarding the differences between these passages isn’t a surprise. There are things that will never make sense to an unbeliever unless they are illuminated in the believer by the Holy Spirit. The Bible explicitly emphasizes the fact that issues like this will remain a mystery to the unbeliever.  

Bart has already demoted Jesus from his position as the Son of God, and demoted him from his ability to perform miracles, why would he even bother fussing over petty “inconsistencies” (if they really are) at this point.  According to Bart, Jesus was neither Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. Bart says that Jesus never really said He was God. These three classifications cannot be applied to him. He says that Jesus calling himself God was devised by the authors of the Bible and was actually not teachings of Jesus. This is probably one of the most absurd claims in the entire book.  If we revisit what we discussed earlier about the historical credibility of the Bible, and believe what Bart says (Jesus did not say he was God), we must (using the same scale Bart uses to discredit the Bible) discredit all we know about the history of the World.  - Because all other claims in history about people, hinge on far less evidence.

Bart also fails to recognize the specific writing styles of the Bible. He often confuses literal, metaphorical, and allegorical passages, calling them inconsistent. The fact is - the Bible was written in an amazingly wide array of literary styles including: Poetry, historical narrative, song, romance, didactic treatise, personal correspondence, memoirs, satire, biography, autobiography, law, prophecy, parable, and allegory. It is not possible to compare literal passages with, for example: an allegory or a parable.

Consider this

taken from “New Evidence for Faith” by Josh McDowell:

“the Old Testament: The Law provides the “foundation for Christ,” the historical books show “the  preparation” for Christ, the poetical works aspire to Christ, and the prophecies display an “expectation” of Christ. In the New Testament, the “Gospels… record the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagation of Christ, the Epistles give the interpretation of Him, and in Revelation is found the consummation of all things in Christ.””

Although the Bible has many writing styles, and many books making a larger book, it keeps the integrity of a book displaying a congruent thought, as one book. The Bible is a unique document in which the reader will ultimately discover, (upon further investigation) that each page ultimately points to Christ.  

I believe that, every claim against the inerrancy of the Bible in his book, “Jesus interrupted” can be logically refuted. Bart uses weak linguistic and interpretive claims to support his viewpoints. Most of his claims use the “Historical Critical Method” as a fulcrum point for his arguments. He doesn’t spend much time (if any) explaining this method, and how it is described. This method is speculative, interpretive, and theoretical. It is not an exact science, and should not be treated as one. In short, the historical method refers to how we view a particular thing that has occurred in the past, and whether that thing is viewed as trustworthy or not in describing what really happened. This is an interesting discipline that can’t really be viewed in the light of science. History cannot be repeated in a lab, nor can it be proven empirically that it took place. Therefore, when Bart refers to the “Historical Critical Method” as a scientific jurisdiction from which we can accurately weigh things that occurred in the past, he is assuming that everyone is in agreement upon this method. I would venture to say that you cannot get two similar answers from secular historians on how we describe this “method.” The “Historical Critical Method” in Bart’s book is no more than a theoretical “method” that Bart uses to handle the evidence in question.

Would Ehrman use the same scale to measure other literary works for accuracy as he uses for the Bible? If he did, everything that he knows about the history of our culture and human life on earth would be on the chopping block. On his own scale… if he was to compare the Bible to other literary works, he would realize that in comparison, it is more probable that Jesus was raised from the dead, based on historical data, then that the Roman Empire did indeed Fall.
 
An interesting idea that I would like to consider is how easy it would be for a person to write a book using the same tactics as “Jesus Interrupted.” I imagine there are stacks of similar books that all probably use similar lines of thought.  Think about it like this. If the Bible (based on precept upon precept, line upon line) were true, it would be much easier to write a book on why it weren’t true, then why it is true. Withholding that the Bible is true, it could potentially take you a million lifetimes to study and continue with confirmations supporting its trueness. Especially if it is viewed in the context of words coming from an infinitely wise God...You would constantly be finding more information in all areas of life that pointed to the complex nature of God, and you wouldn’t need just the historical critical method to confirm it. Conversely, if you wanted to try and prove the Word of God wrong, you could potentially pick one or two central points, and make a case for why those things were not true, and then subsequently, all other things in it which hinge on those premises that you dismantled, would be nullified. For instance, Bart has such an easy explanation for all the Bibles claimed prophecies. He already established that the authors and manuscript copies of the gospels have no credibility and that the ideas are based on oral traditions and pre conceived ideas. So, He continues to say that it is obvious that the writers are going to say Jesus rose again, because they have an old “prophecy” and an oral tradition that says he is going rise again. The New Testament story is then made up to fit their pre conceived ideas. The fulfillment of prophecy then happens as a farce, so it can match the prophecy. This whole concept works nicely for a seemingly well articulated book. When you are attacking something on a historical basis, there is no way to prove what happened. We can’t go back in time and see if he really did rise from the dead. If you take away the resurrection, and Jesus being God, you have destroyed the whole Bible. Nothing credible can be gained from it.

Theoretically, it would be easier to write a simple book on why he didn’t rise, and why he isn’t God. A person could attack a single premise and all subsequent precepts that hinged upon that premise would be nullified. Conversely, what wouldn’t be easy is proving that every letter and sentence that was in dispute, and was not in dispute, was in fact true, credible and inerrant. Instead of picking the few things that you don’t like, and explaining why they are so, you have to provide evidence for everything that you do find right.(which includes an infinitely bigger list). Take for instance an author like Josh McDowell. He published a book titled “New Evidence for Faith that demands a verdict.” In this book, he provides the reader with evidence to support virtually every sentence in the Bible. He does this from ALL DISCIPLINES of study, backing it with secular and non secular sources.  He doesn’t just take a few key points and make a case for them; he makes a case for the inerrancy, historical accuracy, validity, applicability, uniqueness, and sheer awesomeness displayed by the entire counsel of God. He also put decades more work into his book then Bart puts into “Jesus Interrupted.” McDowell has no chance, nor does it matter to him if he makes the New York Times best seller list. There will probably never be a book that supports the inerrancy of the Bible on a “best seller” list. The Bible addresses a person’s character, and reveals to the reader that he does not have the answers, but that, in fact, God does. It also shows a human what the right, and perfect way is – a life humbly committed to God. What is popular, are books that exalt or raise the position of man in the universe. Popular books tell you that you can do it on your own, and we as humans will get it right on our own eventually. They generally remove the need for Jesus as a Savior, and point to the “self.”

I expounded on this to stress a point. The Bible offers an explanation for everything that is within it; it interprets itself. In addition, the natural world and all of its disciplines of study will confirm the accuracy of the Bible. This is much more impressive to me, and offers infinitely larger and ever expanding fields of study. I am less than impressed with a small book that attacks few issues in the Bible and its attempt to exploit and popularize itself to an unstudied population.   

PROPAGATING A BELIEF SYSTEM

I believe that it is ultimately more beneficial to spend the time BUILDING upon what you believe by thoroughly examining evidence, and then deciding the verdict for yourself, rather than spending all of your time TEARING down something that troubles you. It is economically beneficial for the sake of time, to move forward in your search for truth, and to not waste time popularizing the fact that you believe this other thing is not true. I have noticed that for every one person that has an explanation for his theory about how Naturalism, Mormonism, Marxism, Humanism, Pantheism, etc, is the answer for everything, there are ten more that want to tell you why the Bible is a lie. If they truly believe their religion is true, why are they telling you? Do they want to protect you from something? Are they trying to purge the world of crazy narrow minded Christians? Are Christians a threat to them personally in some way? (I am not talking about fanatical Christians who have distorted the Bible, and turned it into something of a cult; I am talking about true followers of Christ who study their Bibles.) It would seem more likely that they would be more interested in getting the “real” truth of their own belief system confirmed so that others could enter into the knowledge of this new found truth. The tactic they do take doesn’t make sense to me. They hope others will find their view of truth if they first know that the Bible is a hoax and Jesus is a lie. Then ultimately their ideas (whatever they may be) will finally make itself manifest as truth in our thoughts.  I would have been more impressed reading a book from Mr. Ehrman that offered the things that he explained in “Jesus Interrupted,” and then subsequently gave staggering insights and confirmation into his explanation for life and the cosmos, and all other important questions that humans have. After all, the Bible addresses all of these issues with ease. You don’t have to be scholar to understand the Bibles answers to all of the hard questions in life. You just have to humble yourself and realize that you may not like what you read. Not that it won’t make sense, upon further investigation, but that it will first force you to accept a few things regarding you, that aren’t convenient.

I will charge that you can be intellectually stimulated, and satisfy your craving for complexity as a Christian. You can study infinitely GREAT depths on any topic that interests you, without coming to giant roadblocks. (Like the lack of transitional fossils when students study deeper into evolution, or fish fossils found on the tops of most major mountain ranges, or how to deal with what happened before the “big bang”).

The Bible is not just restricted to the Historical Critical Method, but inclusive of the disciplines of math, science, botany, biology, ethics, etc. I have always been open to giving books and evidence to people who are troubled about things in the Bible that are so easily supported. For example, topics like: did a global flood really occur? Could the animals really fit on the ark? Were there dinosaurs in the Bible? Could the earth be created in 6 days like the Bible says? …And other issues that have not only credible and ample scientific backing, but seem to FIT better with what we know about our planet, and the history of our planet. The answers to these questions will not fit into the evolutionary model, and according to an evolutionist, cannot be accepted. They will in no way, question their own model. Again, the cart is before the horse, and the conclusion has come before the evidence.

While many people will always say, “but science has come so far…” and we now have proof with radio isotope carbon dating, and laboratory tests that confirm we are “millions and billions of years old…” (Plus or minus a few billion) - Please bring conclusive data. But make sure you understand carbon dating, and its variances, and known issues. Also, know that there are God gifted scientists, who (if you believe in inspiration from God) have abilities that may be greater than a secular scientist, because after all, they are using their work and gifting to glorify the Creator of the creation they are studying. They produce compelling cases supporting Intelligent Design which cannot be ignored. If you do not believe me, take an open minded tour of Institute for Creation Research online, and make those assumptions for yourself.

I believe there are actually more compelling data and lab experiments that support an Intelligent Design than other theories of origins. After all, if for some bizarre reason, Intelligent Design were true, you would expect to be overwhelmed by evidence. The same would be true for Evolution. You would also expect that if one were true, and the other was not, that the one that was not true would have road blocks, out of place evidence, (referred to as OOPARTS in archeology), and missing links. The truth of Intelligent Design does not have these problems, but merely provides an excellent account of why these things FIT.  

I love to dig into specific topics that are of interest to people. What I do not like, is when someone drops 27 questions on my lap, and demands answers right then. In my life, I have not found a person who blasts 27 questions and problems with the Bible, who actually wants to study in depth, one topic. Even if the one topic gives answers for 10 of the questions, they will still hold firm to their non-belief and continue to poke at the Bible with a stick. After all, evidence isn’t what usually causes someone to become a Christian.

A MACHINE THAT WORKS

If a thing that you are studying were indeed true, then you would continue to find confirmations to why it is so, as you continued your journey sifting through information. In a way, I view it pictorially, like gears in a machine. If you have a set of gears attached to separate spindles, and they are set distances and diameters, and a few of the gears have teeth or cogs that are a set size, and already mesh and work congruently together, then you have only a few options for what could work with the additional gears. They have to mesh. It is a rule of mathematics. The problem with evolutionists’, who believe that their method and view of the world is accurate, is that they are trying to build a machine with gears that don’t mesh. They find gears of different sizes, and study them individually in great depth, while making assumptions and writing scientific journals about the details and history of the gears. What they never do, is assemble them into a working machine. They are not interested in completing the machine, so that all the spare parts that are lying on the ground have been used. They are sure that a few gears that they found don’t fit because they put the wrong gear on the wrong spindle. But it doesn’t matter because their objective isn’t about making a working machine; it is about publishing research on the parts that fit their pre-conceived idea of what the machine is supposed to look like in their mind. You must view the gears as pieces of scientific data, geological findings, dinosaurs, human nature, or any hard piece of fact that is provable and knowable, and spread them all out on the floor. Using God’s Word as your assembly manual, you will find that all of these pieces fit together, and the machine will not only work, but it will run perfectly. Not only that, but when you find more pieces, they will bolt on, plug in, support or enhance the machine that already works beautifully. Evolution, simply cannot offer this. It is riddled with pieces that do not fit, parts that don’t work together, and the assembly manual that comes with it describes something that cannot be completed, and if it could somehow be assembled to run, it would fall apart like a motor running without oil.

During my time finishing up my business and anthropology degrees, I always loved listening to my anthropology teachers and reading about secular views on origins of man, and archeological findings and interpretations of the findings. Some of my favorite readings were about various archeological discoveries that were made in the early 1900’s.  It would start like this… After a discovery… say of a single bone fragment... the size of stapler... Scientific journals would print loads of “science and historical method” based hypotheses, and subsequent theories about the origin, contextual environment, and maps of the complete skeletal make-up of the resulting ancient being thereof. (Neanderthal or Sehelanthropus Africansus... or whatever intelligent name they would give it based on where they wanted it to fit) They would then describe the fella down to its posture, bipedal characteristics, diet, habits, then, of course, attach a the date range of when it was animated.. (With an error margin of plus or minus half a million years or so, - to me as a logical thinker, these error margins have so many issues I won’t even begin to address them.) They would then explain why “Lucy” (yes they give them human names so they are more personally linked to us)... died because she was bitten by an animal with large incisors… denoting indentations in the bone fragment, and because they found an unknown mammal bone fragment 3 feet away in rock strata… so, they must infer that “Lucy” was killed by the fierce beast, and that her whole family must have lived with these dangerous carnivorous animals, and it that she was clearly mal nourished based on the lab tests on the bone fragment. Also, she had dark hair, and was 5ft 3 inches or so, and knew how to make a couple tools… And then…. After 25 years of publications and journals that were widely accepted and taught in institutions, and seminars, and so forth… Some terrible thing hits the fan. It wasn’t really what they thought it was. Of course when it hits... it never quite makes it to mainstream media, it is simply shuffled into a file cabinet, or blame is completely singled out on the person who perpetuated publishing the findings… They dim the lights on all of the research they did (they don’t completely get rid of the research), because the next discovery is in the lab already and someone made a healthy bid on mainstreaming the story.

.

This of course has happened dozens of times in recent anthropological history... check for yourself .What I always found fascinating was how amazingly believable the information they wrote about the bone fragment was. Even after they find out it’s a pig jawbone, or fragment from a homosapien from 1124 A.D. that had been sanded and distressed professionally… or pieces that weren’t part of the same body after all… whatever the case may be... it always had to do with the notoriety of the discoverer. He wanted to have the new information. He or She wanted to be unique and push the known dates for human ancestors back past 5mil... or 7mil... or even farther... They wanted this gear to fit into the machine they already started building. They obviously knew the public would bite into it. Why wouldn’t they? After all, it would be another nail in the coffin for Christianity, right? 

What is most troubling to me is not that some guy wanted to make a name for himself - (people are people and they will always do crazy things to be famous). What is troubling is the amazing complexity of the data interpretation and theories that were written about a Neanderthal bone that wasn’t a Neanderthal bone at all… but a modern day pig bone, or a dude from 1124 that died in battle. The sheer depth of information and lab tests, and journaling, and so forth is unfathomable to me. How could the whole scientific community publish such a farce? It goes to show when there is a thirst for something, it doesn’t need to be true to be believable. I think most people believe in something before they do their research, and when they do their research, because they already have the machine half built in their minds, they certainly wouldn’t entertain the possibility that the machine looks completely different then what they previously thought. It doesn’t usually matter what data tells anybody. People will interpret, manipulate, and discard information to make it fit their ideas. Even I do this unknowingly. Since I know this about myself, I must take it upon myself to zoom out and spread all the pieces on the floor. If the machine that is in my mind (that I refuse to let go of) isn’t the machine that these pieces will build BEST, then I have failed as a seeker of Truth. But, with regard to Biblical Christianity, I have not found pieces yet that don’t fit. The machine keeps running better and better.

If someone believes that the pig bone was still actually part of the Neanderthal, after they found out it’s a pig bone, I am sure a book could be written with nice quotations, in APA format, with a structured bibliography, and shiny cover to boot. They could maintain that the molecules underwent mutation as a result of compression and meteorite activity, and that studies have been done on modern day pigs and how there bone marrow shares 98% of its properties with monkeys, and that how the rock strata in this area had electromagnetic forces back then that shot energy beams into a nearby pond that calcified the bone quicker, which in turn created a time warp… ok this is getting bad…but you see where this goes? It gets more complicated and more complicated until it is so confusing that even the evolutionist studying his own machine is perplexed.  

THE THOUGHTFUL EVOLUTIONIST

Back to Bart, and his book. So, his notion that these things that Christians hold dear are false is not only popular, but it is easy and convenient to believe. If it is true, (that everything that defines being a Christian is not true,) then as a human, many things are easier to deal with in life. There is no longer any accountability for one’s actions, except for some bizarre overarching essence derived from the culmination of moral evolution, based on what we have learned over a million billion eons of time, mutating and evolving from less complex creatures. This now brings morality into play, and where we get this concept. In congruence with evolutionary thought, I will demonstrate why we cannot include the idea of “right” and “wrong,” within the constructs of an evolutionary belief system.

To illustrate this, I will try to think like an evolutionist, based on my understanding of it, and the generally accepted concepts of evolution. (Ideas may vary slightly between people) So, according to the popular Darwinian theories, why is killing another person wrong?  If the stronger person with better genetics is better fit to think, better fit to bear young, better fit to adapt to the earth’s changing environments then the weak person he is murdering, why is this not ok? After all, this fits within the constructs of natural selection. The weak that are less fit and have not mutated into something useful and adaptable to their surroundings are eventually sifted out. Whether they are sifted out by a tree crushing them, an animal eating them, bad genetics, or being murdered by the one that is better fit, it makes no difference. After all, this is natural right? The better fit person was created with an intellect that gives him a lethal advantage over the lesser. This belief that you can kill someone because you are aiding in the process of natural selection is not popular today. Although it is consistent with the evolutionary system, it is a gear in the machine that doesn’t fit.  There are some people in history that forced a gear that didn’t fit into their machine. Can we not forget the holocaust?  This thought process is one of the basic premises that powered Adolf Hitler’s actions. Hitler was well studied on Darwin’s “Natural Selection.”  He was just the only one to live what he believed. Think for a second about what it truly means to believe we are involved in this process of “Natural Selection.” Does the process of evolution need to stop at the human level? Or does evolving now mean something slightly different then what it meant for a billion years.  Or does the whole model need to be altered?

So, in congruence with evolutionary thought, we must come to the conclusion that each person must choose for himself what is right and what is wrong, as he sees fit. (If there is such a thing as right and wrong after all.) According to evolution, you have now placed yourself into the most evolved position on the planet, along with all nature, living and nonliving. -- which is in its most evolved state as you read this.

Let’s dig deeper. With your amazingly evolved state, please tell me whether or not I can marry my dog and take it to a fancy dinner with me in a posh New York Café? Tell me; if one person decides to have three girlfriends at the same time, as well as an orangutan for sexual pleasure, that is an okay thing? Is it right if he thinks it is right? If he wants to love those things in that way, then why can he not if it is in line with human evolution? 
I have a hard time believing that he would know what love is through pure evolution. I have trouble seeing this complex notion of love in areas outside of the human to human, human to God, and God to Son, interaction. If Jesus wasn’t the Son of God after all - If God existed before everything, but Jesus didn’t, and God was alone, then he would not be able to convey the act of love, for love is an act between a being, and another being.

To restate my thoughts about right and wrong: we have no moral compass if we do not have a true North.  All we have is, to each his own, for no-one is greater than any one thing, for we are all the in the most evolved state of our being. This is where some people like to add God to this idea of evolution to create a true North. This is confusing to think about: There is a God, and humans evolved from plankton. This is where secular science books do not venture because they do not know what to do. They will only focus on the gears, and not a working machine.

So, let’s try to introduce God into all of this.

If there is a God - (evolutionists believe that maybe before the “spontaneous combustion out of nothing” he existed) - then how can we know how he wants us to act without him telling us, or showing us?

Unless, you think we are all gods, then we should all expect to behave the same. If we weren’t the same, then one would have less or more knowledge then the other, (one would be higher or have more authority than the other) then the higher one would be the true God.  (When I say higher I mean, more knowledge, power, abilities, etc). – In which case, he could use those things to his advantage, exploiting the lower gods for his benefit. - Unless this God wasn’t the exploiting type, and he instead let them in on all his knowledge. This is hard for me to fathom, because if people were all equal gods, then they must have all together been in existence infinitely before and after all we know, having all the same awareness, which would make them “one” in a sense. So, how could they know love, if they were all on equality, or oneness? They wouldn’t need to because they were in fact all there is, and there would be no need for it. They would contain everything that was needed, and would have reason to convey anything more. Unless because of no apparent reason, they created us into being, then we are just a funny play that they are watching, and manipulating to suit their own distorted pleasure. But that would indicate that “they” or “it” or “him/her” didn’t care, or “love” about us, because of all the suffering in the world presently.

I should add that there are some people who believe that we were created by something, but that this something only facilitated the “Big Bang” and henceforth, we evolved through the standard evolutionary model, and we are now where we are. In my opinion, this takes much more faith than to believe we were created as humans from the start. These people cannot, and will not try to explain attribute of this “thing” that created us. They will only say, “…we can’t know.” This is a cop out, and follows the reasoning of the mystic. If all that is was a result from the workings of a “Force,” “god” or “thing,” even if they only somehow perpetuated the start of evolution (this is absurd, and has too many problems in logic), wouldn’t we know some attributes of this “Force” by studying what came of it?

In reference to all the suffering in the world, some would blame God. Why would any god want to exploit us? --For His/Their own betterment? This would mean that this/these gods would have to know what “worsement” means, if he was exploiting us for “betterment”; which would indicate again, a force of good, and a force of evil. Good being better, or above evil; evil being a perversion or lesser good of the real good.  In which case, “He”, or “It” or “They” should always be moving towards “betterment,” and moving us towards betterment. Unless of course you believe in a God that loves to destroy, rob, and see all things to an inevitable death. This would be counterintuitive, because to know what destruction, robbery and death is, you must know what order, selfless giving, and life is. If a God was infinitely righteous, good, and perfect, he cannot be congruent with death. It would only be a perversion, or lesser quality of life. There simply could not be a God that was into robbing, and destroying, because those attributes (robbing and destroying) are not available unless they have first come from the opposing attributes. You cannot put the cart before the horse. You cannot reverse the law of cause and effect.

How also can a god display that “betterment” is what he/or she or it ultimately wants for us (being less then they) without some kind of display or message that we are meant to have it? Are we to find “betterment” on our own? Are we supposed to just figure it out? I think even an expert historian will attest to the fact that we as humans get it wrong, over and over and over again. We can’t all seem to agree on what true north is, on the moral compass. In light of what is going on in the world now… if we don’t find “betterment” quickly, we will all be in quite dire circumstances.

There are some that believe that we will get it right sooner or later. That we will eventually reach perfection, or bliss, or nirvana, or something… that the human race will prevail, and unity and peace will eventually rule out hate and destruction. I don’t see this happening without divine intervention, and if we learn from history, we will really see that we will never reach perfection or peace by ourselves.  

I give people that hold this “New Age” belief system, (that we will eventually reach a place where peace and harmony prevail in the world) great praise for having incredible optimism, but I am bewildered at their dismissal of history. I prefer using history as a teacher, rather than viewing it as some kind of evolutionary process of which there is no up, down, better, or worse -- or that we are where we are, and we will go where we go. By this logic, you cannot even view evolution as a qualitative process, because that would imply a “climbing towards something,” or a “trying to improve something,” or that there is a “fit” that is better suited and adaptable to its surroundings. 

The irony is that non-Christians and evolutionists alike don’t know what right is; and specifically evolutionists, by their limited thought process cannot include right and wrong, or better or worse within the constructs of evolutionary thought. So they say, “All things are the most evolved form of what they are right now…look at how amazing the human body is, what a testament to mother nature and the power of evolution..” I say… ok, interesting thought. But, how do you know that our position in this universe as an evolved human is better? What are you comparing it to? How do you know that being less evolved, like a plankton, or simple amino acid is not more amazing, or progressive? Where do you get this idea that where we are at is a culmination or progression from something worse or less evolved? Maybe the plankton is truly more evolved because he cannot murder his brother plankton… (his little plankton hands couldn’t fit around a glock 45 anyways…) Maybe the plankton is better off than we are according to evolution, because he doesn’t have the capacity to do harm yet. See, this thought that we are moving forward, comes from somewhere else. It comes from something that is planted in us that no one will admit. That we already have an idea of what good, and better, and right is. It has been within us since birth. Some innate sense inside of us already knows these things. It is that sense that separates us from the animals. It is also that sense that Christians understand better than non-Christians.

To restate all this again in a slightly different way, (but possibly just saying it again)

why does it matter if the more “fit” species gets fitter? Who is to say this is better? The word “Fit” used in Darwinian Theory doesn’t belong along with all other qualitative words. It implies we are moving in a direction. To have a fit, you must also have a less fit. This is qualitative. It implies that something is better than the other. Why is it better if it has no purpose for being better? If the survival of the fit is true, then we have “progressed” or “evolved” to the state that we are in, and that we are to keep moving forward. Even the concept of moving forward or progress implies a few things. It implies that you are changing location. It implies that forward is “better” then “backwards” It implies that you are no longer where you were, you have moved from the lesser state to a better or “more” state.  How do we really know that we are not moving backwards? Is there a cosmic ruler that tells us we are moving in the right direction? When you look around you, do you see that the earth is getting better, or moving forward? Do meteors smash into each other and assemble into better planets? Do the laws of thermodynamics tell us that we are gaining energy in the universe? When you move through time, does your body get stronger? Do we have bacteria that destroy less in the world? Do men when left alone drift into harmony? Do plants grow and grow into infinity? Does anything?  What do we have as an indicator that we are moving forward? Is it because we have computers, and therefore our minds are much smarter and better than they were?

If only it were true that computers were moving us forward. Sometimes I wonder if the quality of my life would improve if I did what some of my friends have done, and undergo a “digital death,” where you shut off you cell phone, TV, internet, and computer. I suppose if you were hardcore, even your car has a computer to shut off, and if you have the money some refrigerators now days can communicate by themselves online and order food when you run out…that way you can eat hot pockets until you die from them. (Nice). But honestly, these things can overwhelm you, and really must be analyzed whether they increase the quality of a human’s life. I am not saying get rid of technology; but technology is only good if it is used for true goodness.

Again, everyone has their own idea of what this true good is. Christians believe that the Bible was given to us as a guide so we can know the true good - or true North for our moral compass. In the Bible, the 10 commandments were given as our true North, or moral compass. These commandments cannot be kept my any human. They consequently meant to drive us to needing a Savior. Our inadequacies, as humans striving to uphold these absolute directions, are meant to drop to us to our knees, in complete frustration, and pray for divine intervention. We need a Savior more now than we ever have. As Humans we are not and cannot be God, or we would have fixed the problems in the world.

LOVE, MORALITY, AND SUFFERING

To further articulate why Bart does not understand a loving God, why there is so much suffering in the world, and why God allows it. Let us explore further.

I like how the Bible says that once you become a Christian, you become a “Son of God.” You are not God, but you are now part of Him, and you get to enjoy eternity learning about Him, and His creation. This makes sense. We are not God, we were created by Him. Out of His relationship with His Son exists the Spirit (the essence of the relationship between the Father and the Son). Because of this relationship, we can know what Love is. Before time existed, this Love essence existed, and we were created to be partakers of this essence. We had to have free will, or else we would not appreciate the essence, and it would be therefore wasted if we were merely “love receptacle autobots,” and we didn’t really know what it meant to love, because we had to receive it, and there was no choice in the matter.

The whole concept of Love, and the ability to have moral compass, would make absolutely no sense to me, unless it was once demonstrated to us, and we had the capacity to understand it. Which, in my humble opinion, cannot happen without -- A: God; B: God begetting a Son; and C: the Holy Spirit displaying the essence of the relationship between God, and his Son.  Again, this is an extremely brief overview of why Love, and having a moral compass cannot be understood using a “There is no God” system of thinking, or a “We are all God, and everything that exists is God, and therefore we are all the same,” system of thinking.  I can give some very insightful studies on the idea of the “Trinity,” (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) for those who are interested to learn more.

We as humans with free will decided we wanted to try things OUR way, and therefore as a result, we have a fallen world. Then, The true and only God, out of Love for us, because we were created by Him, wanted to demonstrate that we can have the perfect relationship with Him once again, by sending His Son humbly as part of God in Human flesh, to pay for our mistakes, in the ultimate demonstration of a perfect loving God/man (Jesus) but was rejected and killed by imperfect men. You would think it would be the other way around, that a perfect God/man would kill imperfect man to set things straight.

If I was God.. hmm… this is fun.. If I was God.. and I created or built something that went terribly wrong, instead of reducing myself to the limited size and nature of my creation, in an effort to show it the error of its ways, by offering true sacrifice for my creation, I would instead get out a bat, and smash it to bits and start over. It is much easier, and you have a clean slate to try it again.

But… maybe we have missed it. Maybe we are more important that we even know. Maybe we are too important to lose.

For humans to ultimately enjoy the perfectness of what we were originally created for, we must accept God’s payment for our poor choices, and rebellion against his perfectness, so that we can finally live within the perfect plan for beings created by a perfect God.  Or else we can do it our way, on our own, in complete rejection of the one authority who has the sole jurisdiction to make our way right.

This is why the devil exists. He wanted to be like God, and being an extraordinary creation by God, he started to think that his way was ultimately better. And with his free will, he took his own path, apart from God. It is the same concept as what man did and has done since the fall in Genesis. And if they continue in this manner, if left alone, it will lead to eternal separation from God in the form of hell. But let us be clear: God did not intend hell to be for humans. It was for Satan and his entourage. And let me also clarify a popular misconception. It isn’t because you do a particular horrific act like killing someone, or stealing from your parents that you go to hell for eternity. It is when you, who cannot ever be perfect, refuse to realize that those acts are indeed bad, and/or will not accept a perfect God’s payment or covering for them. You aren’t in a sense being damned to hell because you did those things. (All men sin, and all sin is equally sin to God) You are choosing hell for yourself. It isn’t the acts themselves that damn you to hell. It is your rejection of God’s payment (Jesus) for those acts. You ultimately choose to go your way, apart from God, eternally if you do not choose to accept this His covering of your debt before you die.

NEW AGE IDEALS

I have heard other ideas about God…Someone I heard say, in a pantheistic view - we are all moving closer to being aware that we are God…because the universe is God, and we are all in the universe, therefore, we have not evolved yet to the point where we reach a higher awareness of our god position. The explanation of pantheism, and panentheism make absolutely no sense to me, and fall into a sort of reductive antipode to logic and reason. 

To fully grasp these views of reality (pantheism and panentheism) I feel as though I have to disconnect logic, reason, and intellect, and grab a hold of these crazy ideas like I used to do when I would jump my motorcycle over 70 ft gaps. My logical, reasoning, intellectual side said… “you could hurt yourself badly, and you will never be as good as some of those other nut jobs who jump buildings, and by the way, you couldn’t afford the bills if you did get hurt.” But some other side that I had said, “the adrenaline is worth the risk.” So I did it repeatedly, until one day.. I smashed myself up, broke some bones, and learned to lean more on those parts of myself that made sense. And in this process, I still never actually removed logic and reason. I just came to the conclusion that adrenaline trumped risk. It was purely a simple analysis.  

I don’t want to put my understanding of the idea of “Pantheism” above those who have studied pantheism in great depth and believe that it is all that is. I just don’t understand it, and it has never been explained to me in a way that I can wrap my finite mind around it. And I haven’t heard an explanation of it that will hold a candle to God’s Word, and His explanation of our known reality.

A “BIASED” POINT OF VIEW

Am I being biased, and have been so brainwashed by my study of the Bible, that I don’t even know how to think anymore outside of what I already know? I will leave that decision up to whoever is reading this. I can only try to fairly weigh in the balances what I find, and hold it up against what I already know. Others can only do the same. Unless you have one of those memory sticks from “Men in Black,” where you can zap the memory, and always see things with some kind of fresh slate apart from your experiences. Although it would be impossible to continue unbiased because every time you began to dig into a secondary thought system, you would have to erase that last thought system. Bias will always be an issue. At some point you have to hold up everything you have learned, all your experiences in life, use what faculties you have in your brain, and decide which System fits together the best.

The idea of Bias, to me, cannot get in the way of a productive discussion about religion. Everyone will have a bias; therefore all people are equally biased in their own mind.  You cannot view something while disregarding everything that has shaped you into who you are. If I could, I would get rid of some of the dumb things I did in college. With this in mind, everyone has a way, or set of experiences that has shaped his way that He thinks is right. Because his way is something he cannot get away from, it would make sense that we need external input or else we will always think our way is the way. We need something that will help us to sift through our own biases and guide us into greater knowledge and truth. If we do not receive external input to reconstruct our bias, we will never embrace new systems of thought.  Then all we have is another human bias that is equally tainted with imperfect human experiences. It must be external input from “the” source of truth, and not “sources” or ideas that men have written of their interpretation of truth.

It would be fitting to dive into what the secularist is probably thinking right now:

The Bible has many translations. KJV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, RVR, NASB, RSV, ASV, YNG, DBY, WEB, HNV, VUL, WLC, LXX, mGNT, TR, etc. Some are far from the manuscripts that we have in their translation, and some are as close as you can accurately and safely translate word for word from one language to another. It is important to know these things and the differences of translation out there if you are going to read the Bible. It is important to have study tools that help you sift through the weird stuff that man has done to the Word of God. And when it comes down to it, (though the evidence is overwhelming) don’t you think if God is really God, that he could protect his Holy Word from hostile jamming or being mistranslated to the point where the message isn’t conveyed? I have listened personally to the most compelling studies on the architecture of the Bible, and how it is the only book in the world that is designed, where its principles and premises are conveyed in a way that cannot be destroyed by even by tearing pages out and throwing them away. You cannot find a chapter in the Bible that addresses a singular issue. You will not find the chapter in the Bible on baptism, or the chapter on love, or resurrection. They are spread out over the complete bandwidth of the medium. It is a book that quite simply put, cannot be designed by the human mind. It is too complex. The same way you can look up into the sky, and know that the planets you are looking at were not designed by a human. There are too many things that are beyond human capacity in the design of the Bible that cannot be overlooked. I have only mentioned one of them. Again, I am always open to share these study tools and resources with anyone who asks. I am not here to blow people away with evidence for the Supernatural design behind the Bible. There are many people who have spent their entire lives writing books on the supernatural uniqueness of the Bible. What I would try to add right now would probably just be a knock-off of a commentary that exists already. Apart from things that others have discovered, The Bible promises even more amazing discoveries that the Holy Spirit will reveal personally to those who seek them out like hidden treasure.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I do not wish to say that Bart doesn’t raise some good healthy concerns about the Bible and its difficulties. The Bible is a difficult book to understand. It is supernaturally inspired words from an infinitely wise God. However, it is easy and convenient for those who share Bart’s position to believe as he does. For if these things are really not true - (Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, and he isn’t God, prophecies weren’t really prophecies but people writing something that didn’t happen to look as if it did) then, you could certainly make a case for many other convenient things: There is no hell, There is no heaven, or there is a heaven, but we get there by some other system that we will devise to fit our needs. (Mormons have a unique system that they have devised regarding heaven and how to get there.) So, according to Bart, nothing you do will stop you from “getting there” (for lack of better terminology for a non-heaven eternity)… you cannot be wrong in what you do, and if you are, there is a reason for it. And if there is a reason for being wrong in something you do, then you should be able to explain what the right way is. I hope Bart has another book explaining the foundations of his belief system. I would be willing to say that he is content prodding at the Bible for now, and not finishing his claims with further explanations of his ideas on how to deal with life and its important questions. If indeed the Bible is myths and “legends”… He must have answers to illustrate why his way is better.  No logical minded person will accept a complete replacement of what he originally thought was sound doctrine without an alternatively better doctrine. Or in this case… no doctrine at all! 

To give an analogy, (probably a silly one but nevertheless to help with my thoughts in the matter)… Let’s say, I decided to tell the world that light wasn’t coming from the Sun.  And I wrote ten books on it. Why the sun isn’t really giving us our light, and why it isn’t hot, and it wasn’t round, or burning. And everything that we know about it is conjecture and metaphors. And I didn’t reveal all of this new information to everyone so they would stop believing that the sun is shining on them – (because according to Bart, faith is good to have); but that they should know the truth of the matter. A little blind faith is a good principle, but also you must know the real truth. (I’m mixing in some of his weird logic that he uses at the end of his book) So to say all that - my point is this – The sun isn’t really giving us our light. Ok… interesting theory, (fun to believe for someone in the dark, but unbelievable to someone in light.) but what is giving us our light then? … … … Bart will not discuss this - he will only discuss why the sun isn’t really giving us light. Just so you have the information… I say, hmm... thanks Bart for the information.  I am not convinced, without a completion of your system of thought, - that gives much, much, more.

As a human in this crazy world, I am no longer searching… but, when I was searching for what truth is, and what to believe, I was looking for the BEST FIT for all of life’s questions. I checked into countless other belief systems; none of them offered a better fit then what the Bible explained to me. While I had doubts, and listened to skeptics poke holes and tear corners off pages of Scripture, I have never heard an alternatively compelling case which provided answers to questions that are important now. Furthermore, I am not a Christian now because it is better than the alternative choices, but still has many issues. On the contrary, I believe now not because it is the best fit, I believe it is the only fit. And by His Spirit through study of the Word, he has led me into a deeper understanding of Him that included Science, History, Mathematics, and all other disciplines of study as confirmation to what the Bible already has given me.

So, I ask Bart, (for the sake of those who are, searching for answers, and truth.) you say that the Bible has too many problems to be of any use to us as a document of truth. Ok, (even though I cannot see how you can overlook so much evidence,) but I still have questions. Because you are smart, and you know that the Bible is not true, you must know much more than can be known by reading the Bible. So in your opinion, Bart, how do we deal with criminals in society? Who do we put in control of the country? Which language should we speak? Should we abort the unborn? Can we have sex with animals? Who gets the expensive vaccination for the lethal disease that is now going around because people were having sex with animals? Who gets priority for the vaccine if there isn’t enough for everyone? Where did we come from? Where did the dirt come from? Where did the cosmic egg come from? Does the cosmic egg exist? Where did the bang come from? How do we interpret quantized red shift starlight? Who is God? Why is everyone fighting over Jerusalem? Why does everyone hate the Jews? Why do we care if they have Israel… it’s a small piece of earth right?  How come they are the only nation to have survived 2000 years of exile… genocides... and atrocities… yet they retain their culture and heritage and reassemble as a nation?  Why do we have so many languages? How was the Grand Canyon formed? Why are their fish fossils on top of high mountains?

A person cannot simply remove the most substantiated and important parts of a system that offers logical and articulate answers to all of life’s problems, without offering an alternative collection of credible answers. A person especially cannot remove the essential elements of a system that can be competently supported by all known jurisdictions and disciplines of our known reality, and not provide a equally competent or better explanations thereof.

So I charge Bart… what then? If what you say is true, please elaborate on the implications and details of your system.  Please Bart, articulate it well, your opponent, Jesus, has already done this. He elaborated to the point of acting out His system. By showing you that the error of a fallible man will eventually result in eternal death, He showed ultimate love and defeated death by paying the price for man’s error, so that you can be a partaker of the inheritance of God… So you don’t have to create your own fallible system, you can trust in His.  

While Bart may have been a Christian, I do not believe that he ever had a grasp on the Word of God, and his study of it is very weak, giving him probably more credit then he should have. Especially for the fact that he goes on and on about original manuscripts and how they are in error, and then he matches that by using a thought for thought translation of the Bible to site “contradictory scriptures” All I can figure is he is either ignorant, or he was choosing a translation that is far from our real manuscripts to make them look more contradictory, confusing and frustrating to the reader… in an effort to prove his weakly substantiated points.  I will give him this. That he is using mechanisms to prove his points, albeit a bit deceitful in my opinion.

It seems that Bart Ehrman has been so immersed in Catholic theology, teachings of traditions, and non biblical concepts of the Bible, that he has missed it. You do not have to ignore things in the Bible that seem contradictory at first, to be able to be a Christian. You have to first believe, and the Holy Spirit will help you and guide you into figuring out why those things are the way they are. Then you can press on and study why those things are true. Did you think that you would be able to understand and infinitely wise God’s words without His Spirit? Do you think that even the smartest Christian scholar doesn’t have trouble with Gods Word in places? I am sure he does. But I am also sure that he doesn’t doubt the inerrancy of it, but rather humbly accepts that he is not God, and asks for help by His Spirit to try and figure it out. Simply put, there is no book on the planet that is even remotely close to the uniqueness of the Bible. It is a tragedy for someone to dismiss the claims of the Bible without checking for himself if they could be true or not. They are potentially missing out on what could be the greatest discovery of their existence. What makes it hard for most secularists to dig into the Word of God is that you must first be in agreement with what it says regarding the human condition. (We are a fallen human race, in desperate need of a Savior) If you cannot agree on this premise, it will be difficult for you to dig into anything.   

Once you start this process of looking deeper in the Scripture, you will find ample information of why a singular issue is not a contradiction, but a testament to an intelligent architect. You will find more hard facts confirming evidence on one topic than Bart finds in his entire library declaring why the Bible is full of problems. Once you fully accept Christ’s sacrifice, His Spirit will indwell in your life, and you will find confirmations in his creation, confirmations intellectually, confirmations scientifically and spiritually.

I like the picture that is painted when you open the first page of Scripture.

Genesis 1:1-3

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 

The Spirit of God hovered over the water [“water” always speaks of the “Word” in Scripture: (a type or representation of it)]… then, there was illumination.

You must have Christ in you for the Spirit of God to illuminate the word in you. Otherwise, it will remain a mystery.