The Bible and its Credentials

 Many new Christians, if they have not had the benefit of formal instruction through the catechism, creeds and the Bible are probably at a loss as to how to both read and explain the Bible; they would be flummoxed by any question that either challenged or simply inquired as to their attitude to the Bible.

There are two limbs to this issue:

1. Is the Bible reasonable?
2. What is the Bible all about?

There is also a third issue, not quite about the Bible, but about the reason for one's commitment to its message and response in faith to Christ

Voddie Baucham has recently released a couple of videos that help here: about the Bible and belief.

I'll summarize them in case the videos disappear.

The Bible

Briefly, Voddie says:

I choose to believe the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies, and claim that their writings are divine, rather than human, in origin.

Voddie then goes into detail about the history of the text.

Reliable collection of historical documents; written in plain narrative with minimal elaboration. 'Flat prose' I call it.

Luke's opening is the benchmark for the NT texts: it is about seeking objective events and their consequences. 

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

The books, apart from perhaps Revelation, are written within the reasonable span of life of likely eye-witnesses and others with contemporaneous contact with the events.

The earliest extant manuscripts we have are very close to the times of their subject, much closer and in greater number than any other ancient document of historical significance.

Was the text of the Bible, particularly the NT, corrupted?

Unlikely. The corrupters would have had to have corrupted over 6,000 separate manuscripts across Asia Minor, the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean region. They would have to have coordinated this across space and time, left no trace on the parchments and other forms of record, and made no ripple in the church and its documents. All so improbable as to allow us to safely dismiss the notion out of hand.

Belief

Is our faith in the text's message (as well as the text itself) reasonable?

Yes, for a few reasons.

As Greg Koukl puts it; it is the story of reality; the best explanation for who we are, our dilemma and our relation to the world around us. It's the story of reality!

The expansion of each of these themes is essential, of course Here's a start.

The requirements made of us for faith are alarmingly generous and require nothing of us but 'yes' to Christ's offer signified in repentance. The natural response to this is, of course to seek the company and society of other believers, to seek to introduce others to Christ and to give reasons for the faith that we have: rational reasons, reasons that work objectively in the world.

And, "science"? Does it disprove the Bible? Well, no. Science depends on events that are observable, measurable, repeatable. It doesn't apply to history. What applies here is reasonable evidence, the witness of 'eye-witnesses', external corroboration of events, reliability of the text, as per above, the pattern of foretold prophesies, and its information that defines the human condition, shows our connection to our creator, and all without imposing impossible demands; but faith in Christ.

Most people who regard 'science' mean, of course, evolution 'disproving' the Genesian account of creation. But this 'science' is the back projection of a materialist/naturalist conception of reality. Nothing to do with science; everything to do with the preconceptions and assertions of naturalism.