5/29/17

"THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS" Not Ashamed Of The Gospel (1:14-17) by Mark Copeland

                      "THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS"

                  Not Ashamed Of The Gospel (1:14-17)

INTRODUCTION

1. As Paul began his grand epistle to the Romans, he wrote of his desire to see them...
   a. His diligent prayers toward that end - Ro 1:9-10
   b. His desire to encourage them through mutual edification - Ro 1:11-12
   c. His plans to come, that he might have some fruit among them - Ro 1:13

2. His desire to see them was related to the gospel...
   a. Which he served as an apostle of Christ - Ro 1:1
   b. The good news concerning Jesus - Ro 1:3
   c. Of which he was not ashamed - Ro 1:16

3. Are we ever ashamed of the gospel of Christ...?
   a. Embarrassed to tell others about Jesus?
   b. Could this be a reason why many are not active in personal evangelism?

[Perhaps by examining how and why Paul was not ashamed of the gospel, we
might be more diligent in our efforts to share the good news of Jesus Christ...]

I. PAUL WAS NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL

   A. HOW HE WAS NOT ASHAMED...
      1. He felt obligated to preach the gospel to everyone
         a. To Greeks and barbarians (non-Greeks), to wise and unwise - Ro 1:14
         b. His obligation due partly to favor God had shown him 
              - 1Co 15:9-10; 1Ti 1:12-14
      2. He was ready to preach the gospel in Rome
         a. Whatever opportunity was given him, he would take it! - Ro1:15
         b. Even though his preference was to preach where Jesus had not
            been proclaimed before - Ro 15:20
      -- Paul showed that he was not ashamed by his willingness and
         preparedness to preach the gospel anytime and anywhere!

   B. WHY HE WAS NOT ASHAMED...
      1. It is the power of God to salvation
         a. For everyone who believes, both Jew and Greek (Gentiles)- Ro 1:16
         b. For it tells of Christ, the power of God and wisdom of God- 1Co 1:23-24
      2. It reveals the righteousness of God in salvation
         a. How the just shall live by faith - Ro 1:17
         b. How God is both just and the justifier of those who believe
            in Jesus - Ro 3:21-26
      -- Because of its power and message, Paul was not ashamed to
         preach the gospel to anyone willing to listen!

[From Paul, then, we should note several reasons why...]

II. WE SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL

   A. THE GOSPEL REMAINS THE SAME...
      1. It is still God's power to save
         a. The power to produce faith in the hearts of those who hear
            it - Ro 10:17
         b. The power to produce fruit in those who hear and know the
            truth - Col 1:5-6
      2. It still reveals God's righteousness in salvation
         a. How Jesus died for our sins - 1Co 15:1-4
         b. How we can receive remission of our sins in Jesus through
            faith, repentance, and baptism - Ac 2:36-38; 22:16
      -- The passing of time has not weakened the power and message of
         the gospel of Christ!

   B. THE NEED REMAINS THE SAME...
      1. Souls are in need of salvation
         a. All have sinned - Ro 3:23
         b. The wages of sin is death - Ro 6:23
      2. Both wise and foolish, both near and afar
         a. Jesus is still the only way to the Father - Jn 14:6
         b. His gospel still needs to be preached to every creature - Mk 16:15-16
      -- The passing of time has not lessened the need and scope of the
         gospel of Christ!

[From the example of Paul, we can know the proper attitude and conduct of..]

III. THOSE NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL

   A. WILL FEEL A SENSE OF OBLIGATION...
      1. To God who saved them
         a. Are we not thankful for what God has done for us?
         b. Will this not affect how we live our lives? - cf. Ga 2:20
      2. To those who are lost
         a. Are we not concerned about their eternal destiny should they
            die in their sins?
         b. Will this not move us to do something? - cf. 2Co 5:11
      -- Those not ashamed of the gospel will feel an obligation similar
         to Paul's - Ro 1:14

   B. WILL MAKE THEMSELVES READY...
      1. To share the gospel as they have opportunity
         a. If uncertain what to say, they will learn it (even relearn
            it) - cf. 1Pe 3:15; He 5:12
         b. They will not rest until they have found some method, aids,
            or tools, whereby they can communicate the gospel to others
         c. Then they will be looking for "open doors" to teach others- cf. 1Co 3:5
      2. To spread the gospel as they have opportunity
         a. They may not be in a position to go, but they can still send
            - cf. Ro 10:14-15; 3Jn 5-8
         b. They may not be in a position to teach, but they can still
            invite - e.g., Ac 10:24,33
         c. Then they will be looking for "open doors" to send - e.g., Php 4:15-16
      -- Those not ashamed of the gospel will make themselves ready like
         Paul - Ro 1:15

CONCLUSION

1. Are you ashamed of the gospel of Christ?  You may be, if you are not...
   a. Doing anything to share the gospel yourself
   b. Involved in helping others to spread the gospel

2. You have no reason to be ashamed, it is still the same gospel!
   a. With power to save the souls of men
   b. Revealing the wonderful righteousness of God to save men

May we never be ashamed of the gospel, or of Jesus Himself...

   "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and
   sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when
   He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." (Mk 8:38)

   "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but
   let him glorify God in this matter." (1Pe 4:16)
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Believing What Jesus Believed by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1223

Believing What Jesus Believed

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

It has become increasingly popular to accept certain parts of the Bible and to reject other parts. Such amazing events as the miracle of Creation, Jonah’s being swallowed by a sea creature, and the Flood of Noah often are brushed aside as mere myth, while more “credible” things such as the teachings of Jesus are accepted as fact. Although this line of reasoning might have some initial appeal to our “enlightened” society that rejects biblical miracles off hand, it contains a major flaw. When the teachings of Jesus are analyzed, it can be shown that Jesus Himself believed and taught the Old Testament stories that some label as myth.
For instance, the story of Jonah has come under attack due to its extraordinary details. According to the Old Testament Scriptures, God’s prophet Jonah disobeyed the Lord and was swallowed by a great sea creature. For three days, he dwelt as a damp denizen of that creature’s belly, until finally he was vomited onto the land and given another chance to obey God. To certain scholars, the story of Jonah finds a place in the Scriptures, not as a factual narrative of a specific historical account, but as a myth or allegory. What did Jesus believe about the story of Jonah? His sentiments in this regard were emphatically stated.
Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here (Matthew 12:38-41).
Quite clearly, Jesus accepted the story of Jonah as an accurate description of a real, historical event. He included not only the fact that Jonah spent three days in the belly of the fish, but also affirmed that the city of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. If the story of Jonah were simply an allegory or myth, Jesus’ entire point about being in the belly of the Earth for as long as Jonah was in the belly of the fish would be weakened to the point of ridiculousness. For, if Jonah wasn’t ever really in the belly of the fish, then what would that say about the Son of Man actually being in the belly of the Earth?
Another story endorsed by Christ is the formation of man and woman at the beginning of Creation. Some scholars, in an attempt to find a compromise between the Bible and organic evolution, have postulated that the Creation account of Genesis need not be taken literally, and that room can be found in Genesis to accommodate the idea that humans evolved gradually in Earth’s recent past. What did Jesus say about this idea?
During His earthly sojourn, Christ spoke explicitly regarding Creation. In Mark 10:6, for example, He declared: “But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them.” Note these three paramount truths: (1) The first couple was “made”; they were not biological accidents. Interestingly, the verb “made” in the Greek is in the aorist tense, implying point action, rather than progressive development (which would be characteristic of evolutionary activity). W.E. Vine made this very observation with reference to the composition of the human body in his comments on 1 Corinthians 12:18 (1951, p. 173). (2) The original pair was fashioned “male and female”; they were not initially an asexual “blob” that eventually experienced sexual diversion. (3) Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning of the creation.” The Greek word for “beginning” is arché, and is used of “absolute, denoting the beginning of the world and of its history, the beginning of creation.” The Greek word for “creation” is ktiseos, and denotes the “sum-total of what God has created” (Cremer, 1962, pp. 113,114,381, emp. in orig.). Christ certainly did not subscribe to the notion that the Earth is millions or billions of years older than humanity.
Accepting the testimony of Jesus Christ further demands that the global Flood of Noah be taken as a literal, historic event. The Lord Himself addressed the topic of the great Flood in Luke 17:26-30 (cf. Matthew 24:39) when He drew the following parallel:
And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed (emp. added).
The Lord depicted an impending doom that was to befall the Jews of His day who would not heed the Word of God. For the purpose of this article, however, note the context in which Jesus discussed the Flood destruction of Genesis 6-8. He placed the Flood alongside the destruction of Sodom, and He also placed it alongside the destruction of the ungodly at His Second Coming. John Whitcomb correctly noted that the word “all” must refer to the totality of people on the entire Earth in Noah’s day, and in Sodom during Lot’s time. Jesus’ argument would be weakened considerably if some of the people on the Earth, besides Noah’s family, escaped the Flood, or if certain Sodomites survived the fiery destruction sent from Heaven (1973, pp. 21-22). It is evident from the text that Jesus affirmed that the same number of ungodly sinners who escaped the Flood will be the same number of disobedient people who escape destruction at His Second Coming—none. From His remarks, one can clearly see that Jesus accepted the Genesis account of a global flood as a historical fact.
The sayings of Jesus contain numerous references to some of the Old Testament’s most extraordinary events. A person cannot consistently maintain a belief in Jesus and His teachings, while denying the details of the accounts that He endorsed as factual. The testimony of Jesus and the factual accuracy of the stories He commended stand together.

REFERENCES

Cremer, H. (1962), Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (London: T & T Clark).
Vine, W.E. (1951), First Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The World That Perished (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Why is Good Good? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3601

Why is Good Good?

by  Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

In the Nuremburg Trials, the U.S. Chief Prosecutor of Nazi war criminals appealed to a law higher than “the provincial and transient” to ground his prosecution (The Trial of..., 1946, 19:383, July 26). Those of us at Apologetics Press have cited this case as an example of the need for human acknowledgment of universal morality in order to make objective judgments (e.g., Miller, 2008). And, if we appeal to a universal moral law, then this law must have as its source the universal Law Giver, the Creator (see Jackson, 1995). This is a brief way of stating the moral argument for the existence of God.
One objection to this moral argument has been summarized and adapted from a 2,400-year-old debate concerning the following question: “Why is good good?” In questioning the foolish young man Euthyphro, Plato’s Socrates tries to determine the definition of “pious” or “impious” (Plato, 1997, p. 4). Socrates offers two possibilities, but rejects them both: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (p. 9). The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro is extensive, but the general results are these: (1) Euthyphro cannot define “pious” as “that which is loved by the Greek gods,” for the gods are said to disagree with one another on occasion—a thing cannot be both pious and impious (see p. 4). And, (2) after numerous attempts, Euthyphro cannot say what quality the pious things have, if “pious” means something other than “loved by the gods” (pp. 11ff.).
The Euthyphro dialogue has been adapted by later philosophers in the debate concerning the very existence of God, and this adaptation has been codified in philosophical literature as the “Euthyphro Dilemma” (e.g., Benn, 1998, pp. 47ff.). For example:
There is the further question, which has often been debated, but was raised originally by Plato, in his dialogue, Euthyphro. Should we follow God’s laws just because they are His or rather, because His laws are good? If the latter, then we have to decide what is good in order to know that God is good. If the former, then one has to decide whether or not to believe in God precisely on the basis of whether we can accept those laws. Either way, we have to decide for ourselves what laws of morality we are willing to accept (Solomon, 2008, p. 460).
Perhaps a clearer way of phrasing the dilemma is this: Is good good because it is good, or because God says it is good? If good is good independent of God (and He merely identifies it), then God does not hold the high position which theists have ascribed to Him. On the other hand, if good is good because God says it is, then there is the possibility that God has commanded something that is actually wrong (we are being deceived) and He is merely arbitrary in His ethical requirements: He could just as easily say that lying is good as He could say it is bad. The dilemma is meant to show that objective morality does not exist, because morality is actually grounded exclusively in each moral agent’s subjectivity (and in whatever consensus develops between agents). Any explanation of morality that involves a divine standard is either contradictory or explains itself in terms of itself (i.e., it is circular). This position corresponds with an atheistic position, as it does away with the need for a divine Law Giver.
What response to the Euthyphro dilemma is available for the Christian apologist to use? Consider the following three principles:
1. There Is A Universal Moral Law. In his book, Mere Christianity (2001, pp. 1-8), C.S. Lewis argues for the existence of a universal moral law (and a corresponding Law Giver) in the following way (summarized by Geisler, 1999):
1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., “The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do. 2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it: (a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are). 3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good. 4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver (p. 500, parenthetical items in orig.).
The conclusion that a universal moral system exists causes us to cast suspicion upon any dilemma that purports to disprove the very possibility of such a system. The Euthyphro dilemma falls into this category. Furthermore, the Euthyphro dilemma proves inapplicable when applied to the God of the Bible.
2. The Euthyphro dilemma is a false one. For the purposes of answering current critics of Christianity, the Christian apologist need not evaluate the dilemma in terms of the Greek gods, but in terms of the one, true God (i.e., the God of the Bible). The Bible teaches that God certainly is good (e.g., Genesis 1:13; 59:20; Deuteronomy 6:24; Psalm 89:14; etc.). God’s essence is to exist as He is (Exodus 3:14). God cannot exist apart from all of His attributes, including goodness. If He existed and lacked any of His attributes, then He would not be the God to Whom we refer when we speak of the biblical God. Therefore, God is good, but not in virtue of a standard of goodness that exists separate from Him. As further evidence for this, consider that there are possible acts which God refuses to do because such acts do not accord with His moral nature. For example, God cannot lie (see Miller, 2009; Colley, 2004).
Because God is infinite, goodness is measured in relation to Him. Jesus illustrated this in His parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15). In the story, only the landowner (representing God) was in a position to determine what was “good” (20:15). Humans, as created beings, are not in a position to argue with God concerning His rightness or wrongness (see Job 29-31; 38-40). The Euthyphro dilemma presumes that we do exactly that, despite the fact that we are incapable of it (Jeremiah 10:23).
Therefore, there is no dilemma as alleged by some who appeal to Plato’s Euthyphro (see Warren and Flew, 1977, pp. 26-28,32). Yet, some maintain that God’s moral principles are unreasonable or that He is contradictory (see Butt, 2009b), and we must therefore reject the biblical God in favor of atheism or another notion of divinity. We now turn to this allegation.
3. While God’s moral principles do not owe their existence to human rationality, they nonetheless appeal to human rationality. Indeed, if it could be shown that God’s rules run counter to human rationality, then it would appear that His principles are deficient to ground human morality, and that we were not made in His image. However, there is not a single biblical principle of morality that can be, when interpreted properly, shown to be in conflict with the best interests of humanity.
The creationist model would anticipate such a perfect correlation between human needs and the provisions of biblical morality, inasmuch as God was motivated by His own character to create the human race in a way that is “very good” (Genesis 1:31), and placed requirements upon humanity that are suitable for the fulfillment of human needs. To demonstrate the truthfulness of this statement would require further studies (e.g. Butt, 2009a; Colley, 2010a; Colley, 2010b). Consider the words of the psalmist:
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea than much fine gold; sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward (19:7-11; cf. 1 Timothy 1:8).
The suitability of God’s laws to man’s needs diffuses the motivation for the Euthyprho dilemma, as the facts about God diffuse the logic of the dilemma.
Therefore, our answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is as follows: Good is defined by God’s goodness, which is inseparable from His nature. His standard of goodness applies to all mankind by virtue of creation.

REFERENCES

Benn, Piers (1998), Ethics (Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s Press).
Butt, Kyle (2009a), “Biblical Ideas Concerning Killing and Murder are Not Contradictory,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240253.
Butt, Kyle (2009b), “Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240272.
Colley, Caleb (2004), “God Cannot Lie,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2561.
Colley, Caleb (2010a), “In Defense of the Golden Rule,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240331.
Colley, Caleb (2010b), “Defending the Biblical Position Against Lying,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240320.
Geisler, Norman L. (1999), Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Jackson, Wayne (1995), “The Case for the Existence of God [Part III],” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=362.
Lewis, C. S. (2001), Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins), revised edition.
Miller, Dave (2008), “A Higher Law,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240092.
Miller, Dave (2009), “Things God Cannot Do,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2292.
Plato (1997), Euthyphro, trans. G.M.A. Grube, in Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).
Solomon, Robert C. (2008), Introducing Philosophy (New York: Oxford University), ninth edition.
The Trial of German Major War Criminals (1946), 187th Day: Friday, 26th July, 1946, (Vol. 19, Part 1 of 12), (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office), [On-line], URL: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-187-01.shtml.
Warren, Thomas B. and Antony G.N. Flew (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate On the Existence of God (Moore, OK: National Christian Press).

Questioning Quotation Marks by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2550

Questioning Quotation Marks

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Quotation marks in written texts are often very beneficial to the reader. They help the reader know exactly when a person is speaking. They also help the reader understand exactly what the person has said. Did the husband merely say that he appreciated his wife, or did he tell his wife: “I love you more than life itself”? Did Patrick Henry merely ask for freedom, or did he cry, “Give me liberty or give me death”? Did Abraham Lincoln state, “About 90 years ago, our pappies started a country,” or did he actually say, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation”? Quotation marks help the reader to know the difference between an actual quote and a paraphrase of what was said.
Whereas writers in modern times are accustomed to using quotation marks for direct quotes, students of the Bible must remember, “ancient writers did not use the same literary devices employed today. Quotation marks, colons, ellipsis marks, brackets, etc., were unknown to them” (Jackson, 1988, emp. added). It is very important for Bible students to keep in mind that the inspired writers of Scripture and the amanuenses who copied their works, did not use quotation marks to identify what various individuals said. As with all writers of antiquity, quotation marks were foreign to the Bible writers. The thousands of quotation marks in many modern translations were added by translators in hopes of helping the Bible student have an easier time understanding the text. Unfortunately, quotation marks can be a hindrance if the Bible student does not first understand that the inspired writers often did not intend for their statements to be precise quotations, but rather summaries of inspired truths.
Sometimes it is quite obvious that quotation marks are out of place. For example, the inspired writer of 1 Kings 14 recorded how God informed the prophet Ahijah that King Jeroboam’s wife was coming to pay him a visit. The penmen then wrote: “Thus and thus you shall say to her” (14:5). In several versions that utilize quotation marks (e.g., NKJV, NASB, RSV, etc.) you may be left with the impression that what God told Ahijah was literally, “thus and thus….” In actuality, “thus and thus” was merely the inspired writer’s way of saying that God spoke some things to Ahijah—the things that Ahijah then specifically relayed to Jeroboam’s wife in verses 6-16. God did not literally reveal “thus and thus” to Ahijah. He revealed to him some very specific words that the phrase “thus and thus” summarizes.
The same terminology was used in 2 Kings when, after an Israelite servant informed Naaman’s wife that Elisha could heal Naaman of his leprosy, Naaman told the King of Syria, “Thus and thus said the girl who is from the land of Israel” (2 Kings 5:4, emp. added). Naaman obviously did not approach the King of Syria and literally say, “thus and thus.” Rather than repeat what the girl said to Naaman’s wife, the inspired penman of 2 Kings summarized Naaman’s statement to the king with the words “thus and thus.” Yet, because these words appear within quotations marks in certain modern translations, some might misinterpret the encounter. These two examples from 1 and 2 Kings are elementary, but they clearly demonstrate how Bible students in the 21st century must be careful when interpreting “quotations” from 1,900+ years ago.

QUOTATIONS OF JESUS

Numerous times in the gospel accounts, the Bible writers recorded statements made by Jesus while He was on Earth. Although Bible writers frequently recorded the same statements, they are not exactly (word-for-word) alike. For example, whereas Matthew recorded that Jesus told Satan, “It is written again (palin gegrapti), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:7), Luke wrote: “It has been said (eiratai), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:12). Although this difference is considered minor, and is referring to the same thing (the Old Testament), Matthew and Luke still recorded Jesus’ statement using different words. Why? Why did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not always record the words of Jesus exactly alike?
First, it is possible that some differences throughout the gospel accounts are due to Jesus having made both statements. It is unwise to think that every similar statement recorded by the gospel writers must refer to the exact same moment. In the example of Jesus responding to Satan’s temptation, it may be that Jesus repeated the same thought on the same occasion using different words. After telling Satan, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God,” Jesus could have re-emphasized the point (especially if Satan repeated the temptation) by saying, “It is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” Thus, Jesus could have made both statements.
A second reason why differences exist among the gospel writers’ quotations of Jesus is because the writers’ purpose was to record precisely what the Holy Spirit deemed necessary (cf. John 16:13), but not necessarily exactly what Jesus said. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), one writer may paraphrase a person’s (e.g., Jesus’) words, while another writer may quote the exact words. Similar to how two different but honest, intelligent newspaper reporters can give accurate accounts of the same event, all the while using different terminology, styles, etc., God’s inspired penmen could give accurate accounts of what Jesus communicated to mankind, especially considering “they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, emp. added).

CONCLUSION

Throughout the Bible, one can find accurate statements that Jesus and others made, but not necessarily the exact quotations (despite the fact that modern translators and publishers often offset the sayings of Jesus and others with quotation marks). Keep in mind, however, that inspired summaries of what someone said do not take away from the accuracy of the God-given Scriptures, nor a person’s ability to apply those Scriptures to one’s life.

REFERENCE

Jackson, Wayne (1988), “Principles of Bible Prophecy,” Reason & Revelation, 8[7]:27-30, July.

Was Jesus Married?—Again by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=5070

Was Jesus Married?—Again

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

I teach senior Bible at a Christian high school in northwest Alabama. Recently while teaching, I looked down and saw that one of the students was wearing a pair of Chuck Taylor Allstar shoes made by Converse. I found this interesting, because when I was 12, those same shoes were all the rage. It just so happens, as I understand it, styles often have about a 20-year cycle, so that what was in style 20 years ago is back in. Turns out, false theories about Jesus and other Bible characters seem to have a similar cycle. Let me explain.
On November 12, 2014 the Associated Press published an article titled “Married Jesus? New Book Adds Fuel to Conspiracies” (2014). This article discussed a new book written by Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson titled The Lost Gospel. Supposedly, they have “unearthed” new evidence that would show Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and possibly had children. The problem with this bold “new” claim is two-fold. First, it is historically wrong. Second, it is not in any way “new.”
The documents of the New Testament are the most historically accurate, most widely attested books from the first century. They give no hint that Jesus was married. In fact, even the document that was written much later than the New Testament books that Jacobovici is using to build his case, according to him, has to be “decoded” in order for a person to find the “secret” message that Jesus was married. But the text, according to Bible professor Greg Carey, contains a story that “was already well known to Bible scholars and ‘doesn’t require any decoding’” (“Married Jesus?...,” 2014). It is interesting that Dan Brown floated this “married Jesus” idea in his book The Da Vinci Code back in 2003, which contained similar fallacious allegations (Lyons, 2007).
Turns out, Jacobovici is rather well-known for his outlandish claims about Jesus. The Associated Press author noted that he has “a record of headline-grabbing but contested claims” (“Married Jesus?....,” 2014). The phrase “contested claims” is a rather subtle way of saying that his wild claims cannot stand up to any type of critical, historical analysis. One of these claims was Jacobovici’s declaration that he had found the family tomb of Jesus. Needless to say, neither the evidence, nor biblical, historical scholarship backed up this claim. [For a thorough refutation of the alleged tomb of Jesus, see Bryant, 2007.]
Two years ago, Apologetics Press’ Executive Director wrote an article answering the idea of Jesus being married (Miller, 2012). Seven years ago, Eric Lyons dealt with Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene. Now, in 2014, we have seen the “cycle” of rumor come back around to surface the idea of Jesus being married. How many times must a false idea be proven to be false before it finally dies out? Who knows, but as long as it keeps popping up, like one of those crazy-eyed, plastic moles in the game of Whack-a-Mole, the mallet of truth will just have to keep beating it back down.

References

Bryant, Dewayne, (2007), “Discovering the Truth about ‘The Lost Tomb of Jesus,’” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=2130.
Lyons, Eric (2007), “The Real Mary Magdalene,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=1803.
“Married Jesus? New Book Adds Fuel to Conspiracies” (2014), Associated Press, http://www.newspressnow.com/news/science/article_2f2b3bec-3ab5-5e80-b5cc-866d5a5c11c4.html.
Miller, Dave (2012), “Was Jesus Married?”, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4519&topic=71.

More Conflicting Evidence from Evolutionary Dating Techniques by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4136

More Conflicting Evidence from Evolutionary Dating Techniques

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The discovery of carbonaceous materials in extremely old rocks (as dated by evolutionary methods) has been used as evidence that Earth’s “early” atmosphere contained organic materials (i.e., microbes) billions of years ago. However, recent research using cutting edge technology casts significant doubt on that interpretation and adds further weight to the danger inherent in the assumptions that characterize evolutionary dating techniques.
Rocks from the Nuvvuagittuq Supracrustal Belt in Quebec, Canada are considered among the Earth’s oldest (Gronstal, 2011), and yet they contain carbon-based materials which are a result of the decay of living organisms. Recently, researchers from Carnegie Institution of Washington, Boston College, and the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. discovered that the carbon-based materials in those rocks are actually younger than the rocks in which they reside, according to evolutionary dating techniques (Papineau, et al., 2011). The researchers concluded that carbon must have seeped into the rocks later in history, instead of already being in the rocks when they first formed.
This research has significant implications. First, while the creation model predicts the rapid formation of many rocks through cataclysmic events (e.g., Creation and the Flood), some of which will, and some of which will not, have carboniferous materials present at their formation, the evolutionary model predicts long periods of time with slow, gradual change leading to the formation of rocks. Thus, if there ever were a period of millions or billions of years with only microbial life in the atmosphere, there should be an immense amount of such evidence in the fossil record. Evolutionists believed they had found such evidence with these rocks in Canada. However, this latest research nullifies that theory, and adds further weight to the fact that Earth’s atmospheric conditions have never been conducive to the spontaneous formation of life or its evolution.
Second, macroevolution is false, and the Earth is relatively young. However, evolutionists believe that long ages of time would allow for the gradual evolution of simple organisms into complex organisms, and evolutionary theory is based on that assertion. This research indicates, based on the evolutionists’ own model and erroneous dating techniques, that there is much less time available for the evolution of life from single-celled entities into complex life as we know it today; since life allegedly was not already in existence at the time of the formation of these rocks.
Finally, this research indicates that once again, uniformitarianism, a central tenet of evolutionary dating techniques, is unreliable and even unscientific—it simply does not follow from the empirical evidence. One of the foundational assumptions of uniformitarian geology and dating rocks is that the parent and daughter isotopes in a rock have not been altered by anything except radioactive decay. The fluidic transport of daughter elements into an existing rock would violate that assumption and cause significant error in the dating of that rock. The potential of daughter elements being carried into rocks by fluid transport over time is high, and that potential gets higher the older a rock is. If such fluidic transport happens regularly in the geologic column—and we have every reason to believe it does—evolutionary dating techniques will regularly yield ages of rocks that are inaccurate by millions and billions of years.
Of course, another interpretation of the evidence—one which evolutionary scientists would summarily dismiss without investigation—is that evolutionary dating techniques are inaccurate and regularly contradict one another. It is possible that the formation of the rocks and the carbon materials within them happened at the same time in a cataclysmic event that caused accelerated decay rates and the rapid formation of those rocks and their subsequent appearance of age. Evolutionary dating techniques simply cannot account for such a scenario because of the unobservable assumptions inherent in those techniques. Regardless, once again, it is the Creation model that is in keeping with the scientific evidence and needs no adjustment to be in line with empirical science. The evolutionary model simply does not pass the test. [NOTE: For an in depth study of evolutionary dating techniques and their erroneous assumptions, see DeYoung, 2005.]

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Gronstal, Aaron (2011), “New Evidence Challenges Oldest Signs of Life,” NASA: Astrobiology, May 25, http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/new-evidence-challenges-oldest-signs-of-life/.
Papineau, D., et al. (2011), “Young Poorly Crystalline Graphite in the > 3.8-Gyr-Old Nuvvuagittuq Banded Iron Formation,” Nature Geoscience, 4:376-379.

What Does the Bible Say about Having a Sex Change? by Melvin Otey, J.D., M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5351

What Does the Bible Say about Having a Sex Change?

by  Melvin Otey, J.D., M.Div.

FRAMING THE ISSUE

A Brief Introduction to Transgenderism

In April 2015, Bruce Jenner, the gold medal men’s decathlon winner at the 1976 Montreal Olympic games, participated in a nationally televised interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer in which he explained that he had struggled with his gender identity since childhood. In his words, “My brain is much more female than it is male. It’s hard for people to understand that, but that’s what my soul is.... That female side is part of me. That’s who I am.”1 A few months later, in July 2015, Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine dressed as a woman and announcing that he had changed his name to Caitlyn.2 In the same month, he received ESPN’s prestigious Arthur Ashe Award for Courage, largely because of his very public “transition” from Bruce to Caitlyn.3 In December 2015, he was featured once again, this time in an extensive article in TIME Magazine.4
People like Jenner suffer from “gender identity disorder,” or “gender dysphoria,” and are referred to as “transgender.” Transgender people are biologically members of one gender but identify in their minds with the other. While Jenner is probably the most famous transgender person in the world, he certainly is not alone. For instance, Chastity Bono,the only child of Cher and Sonny Bono, explained in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that she felt that her body was betraying her and discussed her transition from female to male in the 2011 film, Becoming Chaz.5 According to a June 2016 report from the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law dedicated to research on sexual orientation law and public policy, approximately 0.6% of adults in the United States, or 1.4 million individuals, identify as transgender.6

A Brief Introduction to Sex Change Operations

A percentage of transgender individuals, including some youths, undergo sex change operations, or “gender reassignment surgeries,” each year.7 Generally, before undergoing surgery to alter the genitalia and other body parts, people must be diagnosed with gender identity disorder, procure a letter of recommendation from a therapist, begin hormone therapy, and live publicly as a member of the opposite sex for up to one year.8 Women desiring to live as men often have mastectomies and hysterectomies. Men transitioning to live as women can have procedures to alter the appearance of their eyes, noses, chins, and Adam’s apples, and to remove their male sexual parts. The full panoply of surgical procedures can cost well over $100,000.9
Efforts to provide legal and social support to transgender individuals have been underway for quite some time, but those efforts have recently erupted into the public consciousness in sometimes shocking fashion.10 For instance, the phenomenon of people claiming that their true gender is inconsistent with their physical anatomy has progressed so that there has been much public and political debate about which public bathrooms males and females should be able to use.11 In April 2016, Target Corporation, the retail giant, issued a statement welcoming “transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”12 In May 2016, the federal government threatened to withhold federal funding from public schools declining to allow transgender students to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity rather than the gender listed on their birth certificates.13 These issues have been matriculating through the courts of law for several years now, and many have been alarmed and saddened by the aggressive advances of those presently seeking to legitimize transgenderism.14

CONSIDERING THE SCRIPTURES

While the Bible has much to say about human sexuality, it comes as no surprise that it does not specifically address the idea of having a sex change operation or gender reassignment surgery. The technology obviously did not exist in Bible times, and there is no reason to suspect that Bible writers would ever have contemplated a “sex change.” However, the Bible’s provision of “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3, ESV) includes principles that bear directly on matters relating to transgenderism.

What the Scriptures Teach about Determining Gender

As an initial matter, “[t]he hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”15 However, in light of recent efforts to define gender as a psychological construct, that is, the consequence of what one thinks or feels, one must consider the way gender is depicted in Scripture; it is consistently presented as a consequence of nature. God created Adam as a male, and He created Eve as a female (Genesis 5:1-2; Matthew 19:4). They were physically complementary beings capable of producing offspring together (Genesis 1:28), and their offspring were distinctly male or female as they were (Genesis 5:3-4). On the one hand, males had an anatomical design that included the ability to produce “seed” while  impregnating females (Genesis 38:9). On the other, females had an anatomical design consistent with bearing and nursing children (see, for example, Genesis 4:1-2,17,25; 3:16, 20; 21:7; 1 Samuel 1:23). So, then, since the beginning, each human being has been “fearfully and wonderfully made” in the image of God as either a male or a female (Psalm 139:14-16; Genesis 1:26-27; Isaiah 44:2,24).16
Notice that the determination of one’s gender did not depend on his or her individual thoughts or preferences. The classification was readily made at birth based on physical anatomy.  A Hebrew “man child” was to be circumcised on the eighth day following his birth (Genesis 17:12-14; Leviticus 12:3). Moreover, under the Law of Moses, a woman who birthed a male child was ceremonially unclean for seven days (Leviticus 12:1-2), but a woman who birthed a female child was ceremonially unclean for two weeks (Leviticus 12:5). The Bible clearly depicts ancient people, at God’s direction, making determinations regarding gender at the time children were born based on their anatomy, and proper classification depended exclusively on one’s physical characteristics at birth. The appropriate social roles and psychological constructs, then, flowed from a person’s anatomical design.

What the Scriptures Teach about Transvestism

Following diagnosis that a person has a gender identity disorder, i.e., that he or she identifies psychologically with the opposite gender, a transgender person desiring to undergo a sex change operation typically has to live publically as a member of the opposite sex. This would include efforts like cross-dressing or transvestism, i.e., dressing in a manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex. While public sentiment regarding such behavior has changed rapidly in recent years, the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II) classified transvestism as a “sexual deviation,”17 and it used to be commonly understood to be a psychological disorder that required intervention.18
The “sexual deviation” designation concurred with God’s Word. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:13-14 teaches that the natural differences in gender in a culture ought to be maintained. Also, in Deuteronomy 22:5, the Bible says: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” The Hebrew word translated “abomination” refers to something disgusting and repugnant, whether ritually or ethically.19 These verses clearly preclude a woman from changing her appearance to look like a man or a man from altering his appearance to present himself as a woman, and they describe Jehovah’s feelings about men and women wearing clothing properly associated with the opposite gender.

What the Scriptures Teach about Elective Mutilation

As noted above, “transitioning” sometimes involves drugs and/or operations to alter one’s physical appearance so that one looks more like a member of the opposite gender.  In the Old Testament, self-mutilation is associated with idol worship (1 Kings 18:24-29) and mourning among those who did not know Jehovah (Deuteronomy 14:1-2). The Lord specifically prohibited His people from engaging in such cuttings of the flesh (Leviticus 19:28). In the New Testament, a demon-possessed man engaged in self-mutilation before he was healed by Jesus (Mark 5:2-5). Clearly then, the Scriptures depict self-mutilation as an indicator of underlying spiritual and psychological disturbances, and certain studies seem to confirm this observation.20 For instance, a 2011 study of 324 Swedish transsexuals by the Karolinska Institute noted that “[p]ersons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”21
While amputations were sometimes prescribed as punishment (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) or inflicted during times of war in Bible times (Ezekiel 23:25), there are no instances of God approving elective amputations in Scripture. Moreover, the New Testament teaches that Christians’ bodies belong to God and must be used to glorify Him (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). There simply is no authority for elective mutilation without His direction or approval.

Concluding Observations

It is not surprising that the Bible does not speak specifically about having a sex change or gender reassignment surgery. Predictably, though, it does address each stage in the progression toward such procedures. First, according to the Scriptures, gender is determined by physiology rather than psychology. Second, attempts to present oneself as a member of the opposite gender are unnatural and condemnable. Third, elective mutilations of the body are indicative of an unhealthy mind that does not recognize and accept God’s ownership of the human body. In short, while the Bible never mentions the phrase “sex change operation,” it denounces every step along the way to such procedures, up to and including the procedures themselves.
A right-thinking person, one free from spiritual and psychological encumbrances, would nourish and cherish his or her body, rather than hate it enough to intentionally disfigure it (Ephesians 5:29). Hence, it is illogical and self-contradictory to recognize gender identity disorder as a mental disorder where the mind does not embrace the reality of one’s physical gender and then proceed to alter the healthy body to conform with the troubled mind.22 Those suffering from gender dysphoria need to change their minds rather than their bodies. Consequently, transsexuals, like everyone else, desperately need Jesus and the Gospel. There is forgiveness and healing in Christ, of course, but, like everyone else, they must submit to His lordship and repent if they want to be saved from the eternal consequences of their sins.

EndnotES

1 “Bruce Jenner: The Interview,” (2015), ABC News, April 24, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/fullpage/bruce-jenner-the-interview-30471558.
2 Buzz Bissinger (2015), “Caitlyn Jenner Talks About Her Mother’s Reaction and Transgender Fans,” Vanity Fair, June 2, http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-photos-interview-buzz-bissinger.
3 “Caitlyn Jenner to Receive Ashe Award” (2015), ESPN , June 2, http://www.espn.com/espys/2015/story/_/id/12992941/caitlyn-jenner-receive-arthur-ashe-courage-award.
4 Katy Steinmetz (2015), “Caitlyn Jenner,” TIME Magazine, 186[25/26]:144-150.
5 Sheila Marikar (2015), “Chaz Bono Talks ‘Becoming Chaz,’ Cher on ‘Oprah,’” ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/chaz-bono-tells-oprah-cher-chaz/story?id=1356 1517; Jeremy Kinser (2011), “Because Chaz Bono is a Fortunate Son,” Advocate, 1050:24-31.
6 Andrew R. Flores, Jody L. Herman, Gary J. Gates, and Taylor N. T. Brown (2016), “How Many Adults Identify as Transgender in the United-States,” The Williams Institute, p. 3, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/How-Many-Adults-Identify-as-Transgender-in-the-United-States.pdf.
7 Erika Napoletano (2016), “Young and Transgender: Supporting Youth to be Their True Selves,” Chicago Health, http://chicagohealthonline.com/young-and-transgender/; “Sex-Change Treatment for Kids on the Rise” (2012), CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-on-the-rise/.
8 Bethany Gibson and Anita J. Catlin (2010), “Care of the Child with the Desire to Change Gender—Part I,” Pediatric Nursing, 36[1]:53-59; Bethany Gibson (2010), “Care of the Child with the Desire to Change Gender—Part II: Female-to-Male Transition,” Pediatric Nursing, 36[2]:112-117; Bernd Meyenburg (1999), “Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescence: Outcomes of Psychotherapy,”Adolescence, 34[134]:305-313.
9 Mary Sobralske (2005), “Primary Care Needs of Patients Who Have Undergone Gender Reassignment,” Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 17[4]:133-138; Alyssa Jackson (2015), “The High Cost of Being Transgender,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2015/ 07/31/health/transgender-costs-irpt/.
10 Kevin D. Williamson (2016), “The Transgender Culture War,” National Review, 68[10]:30-32.
11 Michael Scherer, et al. (2016), “Battle of the Bathroom,” TIME Magazine, 187[20]:30-37.
12 “Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity” (2016), Target Corporation, https://corporate.target.com/article/2016/04/target-stands-inclusivity.
13 Evie Blad (2016), “Feds to Schools: Don’t Restrict Transgender Access,” Education Week, 35[31]:1-14.
14 Charlotte Alter (2016), “Hundreds of Thousands Boycott Target Over Trans-Inclusive Bathroom Policy,” TIME.com, p. 1; Eva Marie-Ayala (2016), “Transgender Policy Altered After Uproar in Fort Worth Schools,” The Dallas Morning News, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2016/07/20/transgender-policy-altered-uproar-fort-worth-schools; Karen Workman (2015), “Missouri Teenagers Protest a Transgender Student’s Use of the Girls’ Bathroom,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/teenagers-protest-a-transgender-students-use-of-the-girls-bathroom.html?_r=0.
15 Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh (2016), “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” The New Atlantis, 50:8, Fall, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016.
16 A discussion of hermaphroditism is beyond the purview of this article. Cf. Elizabeth Mitchell  (2009), “Feedback: Hermaphroditism,” Answers in Genesis, December 3, https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/feedback-
hermaphroditism/.
17 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-2 (1968) (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association).
18 Luk Gijs and Anne Brewaeys (2007), “Surgical Treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Adults and Adolescents: Recent Developments, Effectiveness, and Challenges,” Annual Review of Sex Research, 18[1]:182-183; Paul McHugh (2004), “Surgical Sex,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, 147:34-38; Stephen I. Abramowitz (1986), “Psychosocial Outcomes of Sex Reassignment Surgery,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54[2]:183; John E. Bates, et al. (1975), “Intervention With Families of Gender-Disturbed Boys,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45[1]:150-157.
19 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. (2008),  A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), pp. 1072-1073.
20 Mayer and McHugh, p. 9; Masahiko Hoshiai, et al. (2010), “Psychiatric Comorbidity Among Patients With Gender Identity Disorder,” Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 64[5]:514-519; Annelou L.C. de Vries, et al. (2010), “Autism Spectrum Disorders in Gender Dysphoric Children and Adolescents,” Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 40[8]:930-936; Azadeh Mazaheri Meybodi, Ahmad Hajebi, and Atefeh Ghanbari Jolfaei (2014), “The Frequency of Personality Disorders in Patients with Gender Identity Disorder,” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 28:1-6.
21 Cecilia Dhejne, Paul Lichtenstein, Marcus Boman, et al. (2011), “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden,” PLoS ONE, 6[2]:1-8.
22 Colin A. Ross (2009), “Ethics of Gender Identity Disorder,” Ethical Human Psychology & Psychiatry, 11[3]:166.

Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2093&b=2%20Samuel

Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

If you were to open your Bible and read Mark 14:16, you would learn that Jesus’ disciples went into Jerusalem to prepare the final Passover meal before His crucifixion. The wording of the verse is as follows: “So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover” (emp. added). The highlighted conjunction “and” (kai in Greek) is found in the Greek manuscripts of Mark. It also appears in most English translations of the Bible. However, in one particular copy of the Bible that I possess, the stem of the “d” in “and” is missing, causing the word to be misspelled: “So His disciples went out, ano came into the city...” (emp. added).
Most people who read Jesus’ parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14) learn of the king asking one particular attendee a very specific question: “Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?” (vs. 12, emp. added). A colleague of mine has a reliable translation of the Bible that words Jesus’ question as follows: “Friend, now did you come in here without a wedding garment?” Obviously, the “now” should be “how” (Greek pos). Similar to how the “d” in “and” was skewed so as to look more like an “o”, the “h” in “how” lost its stem, causing it to look more like an “n.” Question: Whose fault is it that “and” has been incorrectly printed as “ano,” and “how” has been copied errantly as “now”?
Surely no one would blame such errors in a modern English copy of the Bible on God or His inspired penmen (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Almost everyone recognizes that publishing companies are responsible for such minute mistakes. Although the accurate reproduction of books nearly has been perfected during the past few centuries (thanks in large part to the invention of the printing press), still, for various reasons, slight errors can creep onto the printed page. God did not intervene and miraculously keep the aforementioned errors from appearing in copies of His Word. Instead, He gave humankind the ability and resources to understand that such errors can be resolved rationally without assuming the inspired writers erred. We know that “ano” should be “and” in Mark 14:16 and “now” should be “how” in Matthew 22:12 partly because millions of other copies of the Bible (in both English and Greek) have the correct words “and” (kai) and “how” (pos), and also because we easily can see how a printing press might occasionally leave off the stems of certain letters.

COMMON SENSE AND COPYISTS’ ERRORS

One of the most popular books of the 21st century has been Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code. Since 2003, some 50 million copies of this book have been sold worldwide (“The Official...,” n.d.). Imagine for a moment the potential differences in the millions of copies of The Da Vinci Code if, instead of being printed on a press, they all were reproduced by hand. No doubt, many copyists’ errors would have been made. Occasionally, names would have been misspelled, numbers would have been inverted, and there would have been the occasional duplication or omission of words or entire lines. However, if several million copies of The Da Vinci Code were retrieved from all over the world, and then compared, contrasted, and critiqued by hundreds of scholars over several decades in an effort to recover the precise wording of Dan Brown’s original manuscript, the text, in effect, would be restored to its original condition. Most copyists’ errors would be weeded out. Through textual criticism, the text of The Da Vinci Code eventually would be restored.
Whether one is referring to secular works or the Bible, prior to the invention of the printing press, copies of books were made by hand, and thus were susceptible to errors. In the 19th century, respected Christian scholar J.W. McGarvey noted: “There is not a writing of antiquity which has come down to our age without many such changes” (1886, 1:7-8). In fact, “[a] large part of the labor of the editors of Greek and Latin classics consists in correcting as best they can the erroneous readings thus introduced into these works” (McGarvey, 1:8). Take, for instance, the comedies of Terence (c. 190-158 B.C.). Seventeenth-century English scholar Richard Bentley noted how Terence’s works were some of the better preserved classical texts, yet Bentley testified that he had witnessed “twenty thousand various lections [readings—EL] in that little author, not near so big as the whole New Testament” (as quoted in “The Text...,” 1822, 15(37):476; see also McGarvey, 1886, 1:8). Consider also the writings of Tacitus. They are known to contain at least one numerical error that Tacitean and classical scholars have acknowledged as a copyist’s mistake (Holding, 2001). Scholars recognize that, at some point in history, a copyist accidentally changed a number (from CXXV to XXV). Although such copyists’ errors are known to exist, historians around the world cite such ancient works as Herodotus, Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc., and consider them trustworthy, educational, and worthy of study.
If scholars defend the integrity of ancient authors partly by acknowledging that many of the mistakes contained within their writings are the result of copyists’ errors, it is only reasonable for these same scholars (whether atheists, agnostics, skeptics, or Christians) to recognize that alleged problems within the biblical text may be the result of scribal errors rather than mistakes on the part of one or more of the original Bible writers. Just as those who copied secular historical documents sometimes made mistakes (e.g., misspelling names, omitting words, etc.), scribes who copied the Bible from earlier texts also had the opportunity to err. As Gleason Archer observed: “Even the earliest and best manuscripts that we possess are not totally free of transmissional errors. Numbers are occasionally miscopied, the spelling of proper names is occasionally garbled, and there are examples of the same types of scribal error that appear in other ancient documents as well” (1982, p. 27).
Norman Geisler and William Nix have mentioned several ways that a scribe might accidentally change the biblical text, including: (1) omissions or repetitions of letters, words, or lines; (2) reversals (transpositions) of letters or words; (3) divisions of words in the wrong places (since words in the early manuscripts were not divided by spaces); (4) errors of hearing (such as when scribes copied the Scriptures by listening to someone read them); (5) trusting in memory instead of relying on exactly what the text says; (6) errors of judgment (possibly caused by insufficient lighting or poor eyesight); (7) poor penmanship; etc. (1986, pp. 469-475). Recently, I wrote a note asking an assistant to send a package to a Mrs. Ward. Unfortunately, the package got mislabeled “Mrs. Word,” either because my handwriting was too poor to distinguish adequately between an “a” and an “o,” or the assistant simply misread the name. This example shows how easily copyists’ mistakes can occur, even in modern times.
How many Bible students have memorized passages of Scripture and quoted them for months or even years without realizing that at some point in time they mistakenly changed, added, or omitted a word from the text. I once memorized 2 Peter 3:9 (“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness...,” emp. added), only to find, several years later, that at some point I had incorrectly made “promise” plural, and had quoted it that way for months. One of the occasional mistakes copyists made was to trust too much in their own memory. Instead of carefully noting every letter in every word on every line, some copyists might have memorized too much at a time without looking back at the text. Keep in mind that scribes did not have computer keys that made the same letters every time, or that allowed them to copy and paste a paragraph of text with the push of a few buttons. Copying the Bible in ancient times was a painstaking, tedious job that required constant attention and care even in the best of circumstances.

CAINAN, SON OF ARPHAXAD: A CASE STUDY IN COPYISTS’ ERRORS

Luke 3:36 is the only verse in the Bible where one can read of the patriarch Arphaxad having a son named Cainan. Although another Cainan (the son of Enosh) is mentioned seven times in Scripture (Genesis 5:9-10,12-14; 1 Chronicles 1:2; Luke 3:37), outside of Luke 3:36, Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, never is mentioned. He is omitted in the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11, as well as in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1:1-28. When the son of Arphaxad is listed in these genealogies, the name always given is Salah (or Shelah), not Cainan.
One important thing we learn from the various genealogies in Scripture is that sometimes they contain minor gaps—gaps that are both intentional and legitimate (see Matthew 1:1; see also Thompson, 1989, 9[5]:17-18). Thus, just because Luke 3 contains a name that is not recorded in Genesis 10 or 11, or in 1 Chronicles 1, does not have to mean that someone made a mistake. The fact is, terms such as “begot,” “the son of,” and “father”—often found in genealogies—occasionally have a much wider connotation in the Bible than might be implied when such words are used in modern-day English (cf. Genesis 32:9; John 8:39). Simply because one genealogy has more (or fewer) names than another genealogy, does not mean that the two genealogies are in disagreement.
Still, the insertion of the name Cainan in Luke 3:36 most likely has a far different explanation—one that may be more plausible, yet at the same time is more complicated to explain, and thus less popular. It is very likely that the “Cainan problem” is the result of a scribal error made when copying Luke’s gospel account.
Realizing that the New Testament originally was written in Greek without punctuation or spaces between words, the insertion of the name Cainan easily could have crept into Luke’s genealogy. Notice in the following chart, what the original text (in agreement with Genesis 10:24, 11:12, and 1 Chronicles 1:18,24) might have said:
touserouchtouragautoufalektouebertousala
toukainamtouarfaxadtouseemtounooetoulamech
toumathousalatouhenoochtouiarettoumaleleeeltoukainan
touenoostouseethtouadamtoutheou
If a scribe happened to glance at the end of the third line at toukainan, he easily could have written it on the first line as well as the third. Hence, instead of reading only one Cainan, what we read today is two Cainans:
touserouchtouragautoufalektouebertousalatoukainan
toukainamtouarfaxadtouseemtounooetoulamech
toumathousalatouhenoochtouiarettoumaleleeeltoukainan
touenoostouseethtouadamtoutheou
As you can see, it would be easy for a weary scribe to copy “Cainan” inadvertently from Luke 3:37 as he was copying 3:36 (see Sarfati, 1998, 12[1]:39-40; Morris, 1976, p. 282).
Although some apologists reject the idea that the insertion of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is a copyist’s error, the following facts seem to add much credence to this proposed explanation.
  • As stated earlier, this part of Luke’s genealogy also is recorded in Genesis 10:24, 11:12, and in 1 Chronicles 1:18,24. All of these Old Testament passages, however, omit the Cainan of Luke 3:36. In fact, Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, is not found in any Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament.
  • Cainan is omitted from all of the following ancient versions of the Old Testament: the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac, the Targum (Aramaic translations of the Old Testament), and the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible completed between A.D. 382 and 405) (see Hasel, 1980, 7(1):23-37).
  • Cainan’s name is absent from Flavius Josephus’ patriarchal listing in his historical work, Antiquities of the Jews (see 6:1:4-5).
  • The third-century Christian historian, Julius Africanus, also omitted Cainan’s name from his chronology of the patriarchs, and yet he had copies of the gospels of both Luke and Matthew (1971, 6:125-140).
  • The earliest known copy of Luke (a papyrus codex of the Bodmer Collection dated between A.D. 175 and 225) does not contain this Cainan (see Sarfati, n.d.).
This manuscript of a portion of Matthew dates to about A.D. 350.
Credit: The Schøyen Collection MS 2650
Some are quick to point out that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) mentions the name Cainan, and thus verifies that he was the son of Arphaxad, just as Luke 3:36 indicates. The problem with this line of defense is that the oldest Septuagint manuscripts do not include this reference to Cainan (Sarfati, 1998, 12[1]:40). Patrick Fairbairn indicated in his Bible encyclopedia that this Cainan does “not appear to have been in the copies of the Septuagint used by Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, by Africanus in the third, or by Eusebius in the fourth” (1957, 2:351). He further stated that this Cainan also was left out of the Vatican copy of the Septuagint (2:351). That “Cainan” was a later addition to the Septuagint (and not a part of it originally) also is evident from the fact that neither Josephus nor Africanus mentioned him, and yet all indications are that they both used the Septuagint in their writings. They repeat too many of the same numbers of the Septuagint not to have used it. Thus, Larry Pierce stated: “It appears that at the time of Josephus, the extra generation of Cainan was not in the LXX [Septuagint—EL] text or the document that Josephus used, otherwise Josephus would have included it!” (1999, 13[2]:76). As Henry Morris concluded in his commentary on Genesis: “[I]t is altogether possible that later copiers of the Septuagint (who were not as meticulous as those who copied the Hebrew text) inserted Cainan into their manuscripts on the basis of certain copies of Luke’s Gospel to which they then had access” (1976, p. 282, parenthetical comment in orig.). Although it is possible that “Cainan” in Luke 3:36 merely supplements the Old Testament genealogies, when all of the evidence is gathered, a better explanation is that the name Cainan in Luke 3:36 is the result of a copyist’s error.

MORE EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE COPYISTS’ ERRORS

Jehoiachin’s Age When He Began to Reign

In 2 Kings 24:8, we read that Jehoiachin succeeded his father as the 19th king of Judah at the age of eighteen. However, 2 Chronicles 36:9 informs us that he was “eight years old when he became king.” Fortunately, there is enough additional information in the biblical text to prove the correct age of Jehoiachin when he began his reign over Judah.
There is little doubt that Jehoiachin began his reign at eighteen, not eight years of age. This conclusion is established by Ezekiel 19:5-9, where Jehoiachin is described as going up and down among the lions, catching the prey, devouring men, and knowing the widows of the men he devoured and the cities he wasted. As Keil and Delitzsch observed when commenting on this passage: “The knowing of widows cannot apply to a boy of eight, but might well be said of a young man of eighteen” (1996). Furthermore, it is doubtful that an eight-year-old child would be described as one having done “evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings 24:9).
The simple answer to this “problem” is that a copyist, not an inspired writer, made a mistake. A scribe simply omitted a ten (the Hebrew numeral letter ×— [yod], which made Jehoiachin eight (Hebrew ×™) [heth]) instead of eighteen (Hebrew ×™×—). This does not mean the inspired penmen erred. Rather, it indicates that minor scribal errors have slipped into some copies of the Bible. Indeed, if you ever have seen the Hebrew alphabet, you doubtless recognize that the Hebrew letters (which also were used for numbers) could be confused quite easily.

The Spelling of Hadadezer

Should the king’s name be spelled with a “d” (2 Samuel 8:3; 1 Kings 11:23) or an “r” (2 Samuel 10:16; 1 Chronicles 18:3; KJV and ASV)? It would appear that the difference in spelling came about through the mistake of a scribe. Most likely Hadadezer (with a “d”) is the true form since, “Hadad was the chief idol, or sun-god, of the Syrians” (Barnes, 1997; cf. Benhadad and Hadad of 1 Kings 15:18; 11:14; etc.). As William Arndt stated, “D and R may be distinct enough in appearance in English, but in Hebrew they are vexingly similar to each other” (1955, p. xv). The Hebrew daleth = ד, while resh = ר. There should be little doubt in our minds that Hadarezer simply is a corrupted form of Hadadezer. One can see how easily a copyist could have made this mistake.

When Did Absalom Commit Treason?

When David’s son Absalom finally returned after killing his half-brother Amnon, 2 Samuel 15:7 indicates that “after forty years” passed, Absalom left home again and committed treason. Anyone who knows much Israelite history quickly realizes that Absalom most certainly did not spend 40 years at home during this time, for David’s entire reign was only 40 years (2 Samuel 5:4). The number given in 2 Samuel 15:7 likely should be four years, which is more in keeping with the lifetime of Absalom, who was born in Hebron after David’s reign as king began (2 Samuel 3:3). The number “four” also agrees with such ancient versions as the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Vulgate. There is little question that the number “forty” represents a copyist error.

CONSCIENTIOUS COPYISTS

Although scribes are mentioned in the Bible as far back as 1000 B.C. (e.g., Samuel 8:17), history records three general periods of Jewish scribal tradition: (1) the period of Sopherim (from Ezra until c. A.D. 200); (2) the Talmudic period (A.D. 100–c. 500); and (3) the period of the Massoretes (c. 500–c. 950) (Geisler and Nix, 1986, p. 502). Jewish copyists were aware of the importance of their work and took it very seriously. They were not flawless in their transcription work (as noted above), but the evidence shows that they were very conscientious. Infinitely more important than students copying spelling words, cooks copying recipes, or secretaries copying a boss’s memo, scribes understood that they were copying the Word of God. Even the important work of medical transcriptionists cannot compare with the copyists of old. McGarvey noted how copyists in the Talmudic period “adopted for themselves very minute regulations to preserve the purity of the sacred text” (1886, 1:9). Later, the Massoretes took even more stringent steps to insure top-quality manuscripts. With a deep reverence for the Scriptures, they went above and beyond the “call of duty,” laboring under ultra-strict rules in order to make the most accurate copies possible. In his Introduction to the Old Testament, Professor R.K. Harrison addressed the approach of the Massoretes to the Scriptures and their professionalism, saying:
They concerned themselves with the transmission of the consonantal text as they had received it [Hebrew has no vowels—EL], as well as with its pronunciation, on the basis that the text itself was inviolable and every consonant sacred.
The detailed statistical work that the Massoretes undertook on each book included the counting of verses, words, and letters, establishing the middle of the book (a procedure which was useful in the case of bifid, or two-part, compositions) noting peculiarities of style, and other similar matters (1969, pp. 212-213, parenthetical item in orig.).
By taking such precautions in the copying of letters, words, and verses (by sections and books), it could be known if a word or letter had been omitted or added. Indeed, as Eddie Hendrix affirmed: “Such minute checks contributed to a high degree of copying accuracy” (1976, 93[14]:5). No other group of ancient copyists is more renowned than those of the Old Testament.
Although much less is known about New Testament copyists, according to Philip Comfort, who wrote The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament, paleographic evidence has revealed that “several of the early manuscripts were copied carefully with precision and acumen...,” no doubt “by educated and professional scribes” (1992, p. 51,50). New Testament copyists also had grave motivation to copy the Scriptures with care. Although not typically quoted with copyists in mind, consider the words of Revelation 22:18-19:
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
In the second century A.D., Irenaeus applied this condemnation to copyists who knowingly contribute to the initiation and perpetuation of textual errors (5:30:1). Undoubtedly, due to the grace of God and the conscientiousness of copyists, “[t]he New Testament...has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in purer form than any other great book” (Geisler and Nix, p. 475).

NO AUTOGRAPHS? NO PROBLEM.

Some may wonder how Christians can be confident that we have God’s Word today, when the original manuscripts (called autographs) are no longer available for our viewing. How can one know the Truth, if the Truth comes from copies of copies of copies...of the autographs, many of which contain various minute transcriptional errors? Should we simply give up and declare that attempts at finding the Truth are futile?
It is highly unreasonable to think that truths can be learned only from autographs. Learning and forming beliefs based on reliable copies of various written documents, objects, etc. is a way of life. To conclude that a driver in a particular state could not learn to drive adequately without having in hand the original driving manual produced by the state years earlier is absurd. To assert that no one could measure the length of one yard without having the standard yard in hand from the National Institute of Standards and Technology is ridiculous. Even if the standard yard was lost, the millions of copies of the yard in existence today would be sufficient in finding (or measuring) exactly what a yard is. Consider also McGarvey’s example of an autograph, which eventually was destroyed.
A gentleman left a large estate entailed to his descendants of the third generation, and it was not to be divided until a majority of them should be of age. During the interval many copies of the will were circulated among parties interested, many of these being copies of copies. In the meantime the office of record in which the original was filed was burned with all its contents. When the time for division drew near, a prying attorney gave out among the heirs the report that no two existing copies were alike. This alarmed them all and set them busily at work to ascertain the truth of the report. On comparing copy with copy they found the report true, but on close inspection it was discovered that the differences consisted in errors in spelling or grammatical construction; some mistakes in figures corrected by the written numbers; and some other differences not easily accounted for; but that in none of the copies did these mistakes affect the rights of the heirs. In the essential matters for which the will was written the representations of all the copies were precisely the same. The result was that they divided the estate with perfect satisfaction to all, and they were more certain that they had executed the will of their grandfather than if the original copy had been alone preserved; for it might have been tampered with in the interest of a single heir; but the copies, defective though they were, could not have been (1:17).
Everyday, all around the world, individuals, groups, businesses, schools, etc. operate with the conviction that autographs are unnecessary to learn the truths within them. Copies of wills, articles, books, etc., can be gathered, inspected, and scrutinized until new copies are published that virtually are identical to the original. “[A]ccurate communication is possible despite technical mistakes in copying” (Archer, 1982, p. 29). So it is with the Bible. Even though copyists were imperfect in their transcription work, more than enough copies of the Scriptures have survived so that, as Sir Fredric Kenyon remarked, “it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world!” (as quoted in Lightfoot, 2003, p. 204).

EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE BIBLE TRANSMISSION

The Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls make up one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all times. In 1947, a number of ancient documents were found by accident in a cave on the northwest side of the Dead Sea. This collection of documents, which has become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, was comprised of old leather and papyrus scrolls and fragments that had been rolled up in earthen jars for centuries. From 1949 to 1956, hundreds of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and a few Greek fragments were found in surrounding caves, and are believed by scholars to have been written between 200 B.C. and the first half of the first century A.D. Some of the manuscripts were of Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings (e.g., 1 Enoch, Tobit, and Jubilees); others often are grouped together as “ascetic” writings (miscellaneous books of rules, poetry, commentary, etc.). The most notable and pertinent group of documents found in the caves of Qumran near the Dead Sea is the collection of Old Testament books. Every book from the Hebrew Bible was accounted for among the scrolls except the book of Esther.
One of the caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered
The Dead Sea Scrolls serve as strong evidence for the integrity of the Old Testament text. Prior to 1947, the earliest known Old Testament manuscripts went back only to about A.D. 1000. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Bible scholars have been able to compare the present day text with the text from more than 2,000 years ago. Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Massoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191). What’s more, if copies of the Old Testament in the first century were sufficiently accurate for Jesus and the apostles to quote them and teach from them, and we possess Old Testament manuscripts that date back to (or before) the time of Christ, then Christians should feel extremely confident about the condition of the Old Testament in the 21st century—at least as confident as was Jesus (cf. Matthew 22:31).

The New Testament

How confident can Christians be that the text of the New Testament is essentially the same today as it was in the first century? Could it be that one of the central tenets of Christianity (e.g., Jesus’ deity) is the result of a person’s manipulation of the New Testament text centuries ago, as is alleged in Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code (2003, pp. 233-234)? Did someone come along in the Middle Ages and drastically change the text of the New Testament? Just what evidence do we have for the reliability of the New Testament?
Twenty-first-century Christians can be confident that the New Testament has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries in large part because of the vast amount of manuscript evidence in existence today, some of which goes back to the early second century A.D. When F.F. Bruce published the sixth edition of his classic book The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? in 1981, he noted that “there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part” (p. 10). Nearly 25 years later, Michael Welte of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Munster, Germany, indicated that the number of Greek manuscripts stood at 5,748 (2005). This number represents a far greater body of manuscripts than is known to exist for any other ancient volume (cf. Westcott and Hort, 1964, p. 565; Ewert, 1983, p. 139; Kenyon, 1951, p. 5). For example, The Histories of Herodotus, Caesar’s Gallic Wars, and the Annals of Tacitus, three well-known and oft’-quoted ancient historical works, are backed by a combined total of 38 manuscripts (Geisler and Nix, p. 408). The most documented book of antiquity next to the New Testament is Homer’s Iliad. Some 643 manuscripts of the Iliad are in existence today (p. 475), which is still 5,000 less than the number of extant copies of the New Testament.
Old, worn page of a papyrus document
Equally impressive as the number of manuscripts of the New Testament in existence is the age of the manuscripts. Whereas the extant copies of Plato, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, and many others are separated from the time these men wrote by 1,000 years, manuscript evidence for the New Testament reaches as far back as the early second century, and possibly earlier. In The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, a 700-page volume edited by Philip Comfort and David Barrett, more than 60 of the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts are transcribed (2001). Many photographs of these early manuscripts (the originals of which are housed in museums throughout the world) also are contained in the book. In the introduction, Comfort and Barrett state: “All of the manuscripts [contained in the book—EL] are dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)” (p. 17). In fact, “[s]everal of the most significant papyri date from the middle of the second century” and thus “provide the earliest direct witness to the New Testament autographs” (p. 18). They even suggest that “it is possible that some of the manuscripts thought to be of the early second century are actually manuscripts of the late first” (p. 23). Thus, we can have great confidence in the transmission of the New Testament, not only because of the great number of extant copies, but because of how closely these manuscripts date to the time when the autographs were written.
But, that’s not all. To the manuscript evidence, one also can add the ancient versions of the New Testament (e.g., Old Syriac, Old Latin, Coptic, etc.), as well as the “more than 36,000 patristic citations containing almost every verse of the New Testament” (Geisler and Nix, p. 467). Non-inspired Christian writings from the first few centuries (by men such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and many others) are saturated with quotations from the New Testament apostles and prophets. “Indeed, so extensive are these citations,” wrote the eminent New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger, “that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone in reconstructing practically the entire New Testament” (1968, p. 86). These witnesses, along with the ancient versions, speak voluminously on behalf of the integrity of the Bible’s transmission.
Is there ample evidence from surviving manuscripts, versions, and early quotations of the New Testament documents that indicates the New Testament is essentially the same today as it was in the first century? Most certainly. The former director of the British Museum, Sir Frederic Kenyon, summed up the matter: “The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries” (as quoted in Lightfoot, 2003, p. 126).

CONCLUSION

Considering the potential over the past 1,900 years for the text of the Bible to be grossly corrupted, and the fact that such did not occur, Christians can be confident that God, though not inspiring the copyists in their transmission of His Word, used them in His providential preservation of it. Isaiah assured his listeners 2,700 years ago of the permanence of God’s Word, saying, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:6). Then, after more than seven centuries of transmission, the apostle Peter echoed Isaiah’s sentiments, describing the Word of God as “incorruptible,” and that which “lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23-25).

REFERENCES

Africanus, Julius (1971 reprint), “The Extant Writings of Julius Africanus,” Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Arndt, William (1955), Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Brown, Dan (2003), The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday).
Bruce, F.F. (1981), The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), sixth edition.
Comfort, Philip (1992), The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Comfort, Philip W. and David P. Barrett (2001), The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House).
Ewert, David (1983), From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder­van).
Fairbairn, Patrick (1957 reprint), “Genealogies,” Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix (1986), A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.
Hasel, Gerhard F. (1980), “Genesis 5 and 11: Chronologies in the Biblical History of Beginnings,” Origins, 7[1]:23-37, [On-line], URL: http://www.ldolphin.org/haselgeneal.html.
Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hendrix, Eddie (1976), “What About Those Copyist Errors?” Firm Foundation, 93[14]:5, April 6.
Holding, James Patrick (2001), “Copyist Errors,” [On-line], URL: http://www.tektonics.org/copyisterrors.html.
Irenaeus (1973 reprint), “Irenaeus Against Heresies,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1951 reprint), Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), second edition.
Lightfoot, Neil (2003), How We Got the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), third edition.
McGarvey, J.W. (1886), Evidences of Christianity (Cincinnati, OH: Guide Printing).
Metzger, Bruce (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
Morris, Henry M. (1976), The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
“The Official Website of #1 National Bestselling Author Dan Brown” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.danbrown.com/meet_dan/index.html.
Paché, Rene (1971), The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Pierce, Larry (1999), “Cainan in Luke 3:36: Insight from Josephus,” CEN Technical Journal, 13[2]:75-76.
Sarfati, Jonathan D. (1998), “Cainan of Luke 3:36,” CEN Technical Journal, 12[1]:39-40.
Sarfati, Jonathan D. (no date), “How do You Explain the Difference between Luke 3:36 and Genesis 11:12?” [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3748.asp.
“The Text of the New Testament” (1822), The North American Review, 15(37):460-487, October, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/ncps:@field(DOCID+@lit (ABQ7578-0015-27)).
Thompson, Bert (1989), “Are the Genealogies of the Bible Useful Chronologies?” Reason and Revelation, 9[5]:17-18, May.
Welte, Michael (2005), personal e-mail to Dave Miller, Institute for New Testament Textual Research (Munster, Germany), [On-line], URL: http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/.
Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: MacMillan).