The question of the Bible and its reliability is a loaded question.\u00a0 Is the Bible reliable?\u00a0 The short answer is yes.\u00a0 The long answer is nuanced and revolves around many satellite issues of what the term reliable<\/em> means.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For example, is the Bible reliable because the Bible we have today may differ from that of fifteen hundred years ago?\u00a0 Fortunately, we can easily answer that question.\u00a0 Enough archaeological remains of Biblical texts exist that seem to point to singular source texts (or autographs).<\/p>\n Much of the autographs can be restored from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, and the thousands of New Testament manuscripts and fragments.\u00a0 And even with unresolved variants, what variants do exist do little to change the meaning of the text.\u00a0 Many of the variants are attributable to spelling mistakes, transposition errors, or accidental deletions caused by, for example, same endings (homoioteleuton).<\/p>\n Although we can point to a Biblical autographic text, the question of reliability is far from answered.\u00a0 If by reliable we mean that the Bible accurately reflects our understanding of what it means, the answer is a qualified<\/em> not necessarily.\u00a0 A lot of traditions and beliefs have been superimposed over the Bible.\u00a0 These traditions may not necessarily reflect the way the original authors would have read the text.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Biblical authors used many literary devices that might be unfamiliar to the modern reader: retrojection, cyclic parallelism, and gematria.\u00a0 Such devices were obvious to ancient readers but to us are a missing piece of the context.<\/p>\n For example, many people assume that Moses was a prince (“son of the king”) because his adoptive mother was the daughter of the king (Exod 2:5).\u00a0 From the archaeological evidence, no reason exists to believe that Moses ever held that title or lived in a palace.\u00a0 In all likelihood, the title was given to Moses’ adoptive mother retrojectively after<\/em> her father assumed the throne and probably long after Moses had fled Egypt.\u00a0 But if we read meanings into the text that are not actually there (eisegesis), can we make the claim that the Bible is unreliable when those meanings don’t pan out?\u00a0 Unfortunately, this happens far too often.<\/p>\n Now, what if by reliable we mean that miracles happened and God appeared at certain times and places?\u00a0 Possibly, but this is generally impossible to prove on way or the other.\u00a0 Miracles and divine manifestations might leave physical after effects.\u00a0 But how can one distinguish such effects from other physical phenomena?\u00a0 One could suggest that the improbability of Israelite survival infers divine intervention, and it may.\u00a0\u00a0 However, this would only show that events like those described may have occurred, and therefore does not address reliability one way or the other.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n What if we mean that the Bible is reliable for ethical and moral teaching?\u00a0 Quite likely, since much of the functioning ethical systems of the world do reflect a Biblical origin.\u00a0 Do not steal and do not murder remain universally good ideas.\u00a0 Loving your neighbor is also an ethical good.\u00a0 Some areas are gray; however, it seems some of the grayness often arises out of reading a passage out of context; for example, reading ritual laws as ethical imperatives.<\/p>\n What if we mean that the Bible is reliable scientifically?\u00a0 Yes and no.\u00a0 Again, context matters.\u00a0 Some passages are not meant to be read as factual accounts or use definitions that have changed over time.\u00a0 Applying a strict scientific idealism to an ancient text is anachronistic.\u00a0 For example, sometimes a “year” was not exactly 365.25 days, and thus does not reflect an exact solar revolution around the sun.<\/p>\n Even the lower standard of does the Bible line up with “facts” can present a problem.\u00a0 This is because what constitutes a fact can often be in the eye of the beholder.\u00a0\u00a0 For example, how years were counted in the books of Kings changed to reflect the shifting hegemony of Egyptian and Assyrian suzerains.\u00a0 The Bible might reflect a political reality where a Western reader may expect a scientific reality; this is not a problem with the text as much as the reader’s expectations.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So can we say that the Bible reliable?\u00a0 I think that this depends largely upon our approach to ancient texts.\u00a0 We could read the Bible in its context.\u00a0 We could present the Bible as it represents itself.\u00a0 And we could treat the text without special prejudice just like we would any other ancient Near Eastern text.\u00a0 If we approach the Bible in that manner, we can definitely glean historical information from it.\u00a0 And that historical information has been confirmed by a large amount of secondary sources, e.g. the Sennacherib Historical Prisms (see featured image above) confirming the siege of Jerusalem.\u00a0 Insofar as taking the Bible from a historical point of view, I have no doubt that the Bible is reliable.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The question of the Bible and its reliability is a loaded question.\u00a0 Is the Bible reliable?\u00a0 The short answer is yes.\u00a0 The long answer is nuanced and revolves around many satellite issues of what the term reliable means. Reliability and the Autographs For example, is the Bible reliable because the Bible we have today…<\/p>\nReliability and the Autographs<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Reliability and Literary Style<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Morality, Science, and History<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Is the Bible Reliable?<\/strong><\/h4>\n