"A Moral Dilemma"

Societies are constructed via a set of moral values or expectations that is largely accepted among the majority. However, this construction is strained when those moral values weaken as the majority and the social construct begins to change. This can happen when the moral grounding or source for moral values begin to change. For instance, if a previous set of moral values was originally grounded in a religious context, but the society moves from that religious context to a more secular, the moral construct will feel the strain. The two sources produce different moral values. Some old values will begin to be challenged by new concepts of thought which in turn affects the mind's perception of reality and moral obligations.  The old values begin to erode and become misunderstood or skewed. As these systems merge, some values will overlap, but it is certain others will be challenged. In this post I will attempt to address a couple of issues posed to me by a friend. One is a term called "spiritual bypassing" and seems to be something that is acurring in Christian conversations today.

Examples would be something as subtle as one's well-being. Someone might state, "My body is tired, I need to take a day off to decompress." A Christian today might answer, "If you leaned on God more, you wouldn't get so tired." This I understand is spiritual bypassing. It ignores the problems by offering a spiritual solution. However, spiritualizing is not actually a correct Christian response. Though it is good to lean on God more in difficult times, is not to suggest not doing so is the cause of the difficulty. Mark 6:30, And the apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, and whatsoever they had taught. 
    31, And he saith unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. 
    32, And they went away in the boat to a desert place apart. Jesus did not spiritual bypass the difficulty, but acknowledged the concern recognizing the need for rest. 

Another example could be someone who feels sad being told, "You don't need to be sad, God has given you so much." It is true God has given us so much, but that is not to say we should not feel sad. In John 11:33, When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping who came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, 
    34, and said, Where have ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. 
    35, Jesus wept. A crucial part of our human experience is our ability to feel sadness and express it openly. These instructions from the Christian perspective have become skewed and are being challenged by other moral constructs that appear more reasonable. These examples along with many others have become a part of Christian thinking, I think in large part to as a result of what is now Christian Television. Historical Christian thinking which was once governed by Biblical literacy is now replaced with the emotional spiritualization that domonates Christian Television. We hear it so much and so often it has replaced much of our traditional Christian thinking without our even realizing it. Now to the larger question. 

Moral perceptions differ between religious and secular world views. Sometimes, the God of the Bible is seen as a monster instead of a gracious kind redeemer. The two views basically come from different starting points for their moral compass. One troubling scripture we find in the Bible is;

1st Samuel 15:2, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 
    3, Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.   

   
When reading such scripture it has been asked, "How does someone not see God as a monster?" First it must be understood that the human mind does not approach such a question with a clean slate. It views all moral issues through a foundational lens. I have been accused of seeing everything through God goggles. That accusation was not meant to be a positive thing, but it was an accurate assessment. I do see the world around me through the redemptive lens of the New Testament. Without that lens I would see the world very differently. 

How does someone not see the God of the Bible as a monster when examing such scriptures? The problem of course comes with the command to kill everyone and everything. The men might all be guilty, but the women? The child and the suckling? The Ox and sheep, camel and ass certainly didn't have any guilt. Everyone should recognize the moral depravity of killing the innocent. So how does God become exempt from this moral dilemma? To many he doesn't, therefore, they view him as the monster anyone would be. However, if you look through a different lens you see things differently. 

For instance, organized crime groups like the Mafia and similar syndicates have long maintained internal codes of conduct, often framed in terms of honor, loyalty, respect, and silence. Members view these as a distinct moral framework guiding "the life" or "our thing," even while engaging in serious crimes. This isn't just pragmatic; it's cultural and ideological. It draws from Southern Italian traditions of manliness, autonomy from the state, and family-like solidarity. Members see themselves as "men of honor" who live by a stricter (in their eyes) set of rules than mainstream society, which they often view as corrupt or weak. They do this because of the lens they view their morality through. It causes them to see the framework of outside morality as corrupt. This is because it's an internal code. The broader framwork of society is outside this code and carries a completely different view or morality. I say this to illustrate the human race has an interal code of conduct based upon how it perceives right and wrong, justice and judgment. There is a much larger framework of morality that exist outside this human experience if you believe in God.

The Christian reasons outside these two verses and takes the larger view of Biblical revelation into consideration. He understands from the Biblical perspective we are all condemned already. What happens to the women and children in the event described in these two verses is a result of the overall judgment upon this world. Yes, in this verse women and children were to die, but it is judgment not deferred. Because of judgment upon this world they are all going to die, it's just a matter of when, where, and how. If they did not die in this event, and many didn't because the command was not followed faithfully, they would die from some other cause because the human race is under judgment. Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. The Christian has this as the foundation for his moral compass, therefore, is able to see God as gracious for offering the Gospel to free us from this condemnation.

These people were descendants of Esau (related to Israel but hostile). They launched an unprovoked attack on the vulnerable Israelites right after the Exodus targeting the weak, sick, and stragglers (Exodus 17; Deuteronomy 25:17-19). This wasn't a one-off; they repeatedly opposed Israel and God's purposes through them. The command is framed as divine judgment for longstanding, severe wickedness, not casual conquest or ethnic hatred. Similar commands appear in the conquest of Canaan, tied to the extreme depravity of those nations (idolatry, child sacrifice, etc., as described in Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy).

Scripture repeatedly teaches no one is "innocent" by God's perfect standard: Romans 3:9-12, 23: "None is righteous, no, not one... all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 5:12: "Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." Ephesians 2:1-3: All are "by nature children of wrath," dead in trespasses. This isn't just about personal acts of wrongdoing; it's a condition of the human race after the Fall. From this perspective, every person, infant included, stands under just condemnation apart from God's mercy. The key phase there being "apart from Gods mercy." Physical death is the universal sentence (Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23), delayed only by common grace and, for some, special mercy leading to salvation. We must also keep the context of the passage in mind, God had shown patience for centuries since the Exodus incident. This wasn't impulsive; it was timed judgment after forbearance. Mercy is always undeserved grace, not an obligation. As Romans 9:14-15 puts it: "Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy...'"

Without this lens, this scripture is seen from a human perspective. A human judge could never condemn an innocent child to death and call it justice. And he would certainly be correct in that assessment. But that comes from a naturalistic world view only, which would exclude any divine judgment, it's simply not on their slate. 

Perception changes with the lens, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that killed man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass, were framed as necessary actions to end World War II swiftly. Proponents argued that the bombings prevented a planned invasion of Japan, which was expected to result in massive casualties on both sides. Estimates suggested that an invasion could lead to hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese deaths. The bombings were seen as a way to avoid this prolonged conflict. The U.S. government, including President Harry Truman, justified the decision (saw it a morally acceptable) by stating that it was aimed at saving both American and Japanese lives. There are some similarites that can be drawn from this reasoning and the verses in question.

Despite the justifications, many critics argue that the bombings were fundamentally immoral. They contend that targeting civilian populations constitutes a war crime and that the bombings were unnecessary for achieving Japan's surrender. This viewpoint highlights the ethical dilemmas faced when considering the use of nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, the event happened, how you view it morally depends on which lens you are looking through. Now lets look at the verses again and examine the lens the Christian looks through. Were any of those women and children truly innocent? Not from the divine perspective, they were all already condemned. John 3:17, For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. 
    18, He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God. 

God is not executing judgment because he takes pleasure in it. Through the Christian lens, all Gods' judgment are executed through divine righteousness and judgment. This righteousness and justice abides in perfection. 

God’s holiness in relation to man means that God is morally pure and set apart without sin and humans are not naturally fit to stand in His presence. 

 He is uniquely righteous, sometimes referred to as his “otherness” and cannot approve of evil. 

Humans fall short of God’s standards, so approach to God must deal with sin. People can’t come on their own merit; they need God to make them acceptable (e.g., through repentance and, in the Christian view, Christ’s atoning work). 

 Not a single person has ever merited acceptance nor could they. Take the most morally righteous group of people on earth today, put them on a planet all by themselves and have them produce a society. That society would be plagued with the same moral failures we have always been plagued with. This is not compatible with God's holiness, therefore his judgment in the verses in question cannot bring a moral judgment upon him. 

The naturalist looks at this verse from a natural understanding of goodness, therefore will never understand or accept this concept. He sees man's morality as evolutionary and developing or changing as man evolves in his understanding. What is moral today may not be moral tomorrow, it changes with man because he is the source of his on morality. 

It has been asked, "How someone in a Third World country can find a graceful God?" I assume that is asked because of the suffering that is seen in those countries. They can't without the Gospel. They may have a conception of some type of god they believe exist and worship it. They will try to please it by whatever means they may devise in their mind that might appease it. They may perceive all their suffering is a result of some displeasure they have accrued or sin they have committed. This god is to be feared because he is powerful and angry. But he not a God of grace. They can know nothing of a God of grace outside the Gospel. The Gospel simply means "good news". 

What is that good news? You can stop trying to please an angry God. What ever moral dilemma you may find yourself in, 1 Cor. 15:1, Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, 2, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. 3, For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4, and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; 

If you believe that, it is called faith, through which you are saved by grace. You can put on your God goggles and rest in your hope in Christ. You can know you are no longer under judgment and rest in your hope of salvation. It does not change the fact you still live in a cursed world under judgment, but your hope is no longer in this world, but the world to come. 

You can also put on the naturalist goggles and believe only what you can see in this natural world, because that's all that exist. This sees the concept of God as a myth, the need for any kind of redemption as a myth, the concept of sin and its consequences a myth. It sees the human conscience a product of moral evolution developing in man, the ideal he is accountable to anything higher than this evolutionary morality is a myth. He in essence is the master of his own morality, anything higher is a myth. It is amazing, but which goggles you are looking through really does make that much difference. Either way, if you are reading this, you must put on one or the other. The question is which one do you want to look through? 

David

"The Roman Record, or lack thereof"

I have recently been confronted with the statement, “There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus and his miracles, his trial, or his execution by historians or other people. Romans are known for keeping immaculate records for even minor events and relatively insignificant people. The overwhelming lack of evidence of those things give significant support that those things never happened.”

We will examine my friends' suggestion by breaking it down into the three major statements he has put forward. We will do so first by addressing what he said against the actual facts available to us. 

1st statement: “There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus and his Miracles, his trail, or his execution by historians or other people.” 

Facts:  This is factually correct. We don't have any surviving Roman, Jewish, or other non-Christian documents from that exact time mentioning him. (written during Jesus' lifetime, ~30–33 AD) However, this would not be something unusual for the following reasons.

a. Jesus was a lower-class itinerant preacher in a remote Roman province (Judea). From the Roman viewpoint, he was insignificant, not an emperor, general, or major political threat. The Romans crucified many people in Judea; it was routine crowd control. Minor executions rarely generated surviving central records. 

b. Record-keeping was not “immaculate” in the way modern people imagine. Provincial documents were often on perishable materials, and much was lost due to wars (especially the Jewish-Roman War of 66–73 AD), fires, decay, and time.

c. Even Pontius Pilate (the governor) has almost no surviving contemporary records, only one inscription. If the governor himself is barely documented, a single executed preacher wouldn't be either.

d. Most people who lived in the ancient world left zero contemporary written records. Literacy was limited, and writing was expensive and not used for everyday local events.

The absence of contemporary Roman paperwork is exactly what we'd expect. It doesn't prove the events didn't happen; it reflects the limits of ancient evidence. Had these records actually existed, there's no reason to expect they would have survived.

 2nd statement: “Romans are known for keeping immaculate records for even minor events and relatively insignificant people.” 

Facts: This is a common myth, Romans were bureaucratic and kept records (taxes, military, legal), but not “immaculate” detailed archives of every local trial or execution.

a. Crucifixions were routine in provinces like Judea. They didn't generate permanent central archives for minor cases.

b. Pontius Pilate (the governor who ordered the execution) ruled Judea for 10 years. We have almost zero contemporary Roman records about him, just one damaged stone inscription (the Pilate Stone, discovered 1961) confirming his title and existence. No trial logs, no execution lists, nothing about his daily activities.

c. Wars (especially the Jewish-Roman War 66–73 AD) and time destroyed most provincial documents. We lack extensive Roman administrative papyri from Judea.

If we applied the statements standard consistently, we'd have to doubt the existence of many 1st-century figures. Historians don't do that.

3rd Statement:  “The overwhelming lack of evidence of those things give significant support that those things never happened.”

Facts: Historians use the available evidence, not the absence of evidence to explore historical events. There is strong consensus among historians (including atheists and agnostics like Bart Ehrman) that:

a.  Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

b.  He was baptized by John the Baptist.

c.  He was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30–33 AD.

This is all based upon multiple independent early sources (Christian and non-Christian). The fact of “criterion of embarrassment” early Christians wouldn't invent a crucified Messiah (crucifixion was shameful), and rapid spread of the movement despite persecution.

Non-Christian corroboration (written within decades, not centuries) are Tacitus (~115 AD, Roman historian): Christus executed under Pilate during Tiberius, and Josephus (~93 AD, Jewish historian): Two references (one partially authentic, one widely accepted as referring to Jesus' brother James). Notes execution under Pilate. There are a number of others listed in previous post. 

The statement we are examining applies an unrealistic standard. We don't have detailed Roman records for thousands of other 1st-century figures either, yet we accept their existence based on the available evidence. The case for the historical Jesus (existence, crucifixion) is actually quite strong by ancient historical standards, stronger than for many other figures from that era. The resurrection remains a central Christian belief supported by the rapid rise of the early church, the willingness of the apostles to die for their testimony, and Christians for New Testament documents. But the “no Roman file = didn't happen" argument doesn't hold up.

How would one approach the question reasonably? Jesus was an itinerant Jewish preacher who operated for probably 1–3 years in rural Galilee and then Jerusalem. From the Roman perspective, he was one of dozens (maybe hundreds) of local religious agitators in a chronically troublesome province. Judea was small, volatile, and not strategically central.

 The Romans crucified thousands of people in the region. It was a standard punishment for rebels, bandits, or anyone seen as disturbing the peace. Pilate alone almost certainly signed off on many such executions. A single Jewish troublemaker who gathered a following for a short time and was executed before Passover would not stand out in Roman eyes as something that required special documentation sent back to Rome.

“Contemporary” in the strictest sense (written the exact year it happened, 30–33 AD) is an extremely high bar for almost anyone in the ancient world who wasn't an emperor, general, or major senator. Most people from that era, even local kings, philosophers, or governors, have zero contemporary written mentions that survived. 

Expecting detailed Roman bureaucratic records for a minor provincial execution is applying modern standards to an ancient society with fragile record-keeping, lots of wars, and perishable materials. Most ancient history doesn't work that way. We routinely accept the existence and basic activities of people with far less evidence than we have for Jesus.

Scholars across the spectrum, Christian and non-Christian, overwhelmingly agree that the historical Jesus (a real person who was crucified under Pilate) is well-established. The debate is mostly about the details and the theological claims built around him. The lack of contemporary Roman paperwork isn't suspicious, it's exactly what we'd expect for someone in his position. If every minor crucifixion in Judea had generated surviving contemporary records, we'd be drowning in them. 

As a comparison, the earliest surviving manuscript witness that mentions Pontius Pilate is from Josephus. The oldest substantial surviving Greek manuscripts of these works date to the 10th–11th centuries AD. Think about that, this is a copy of a manuscript that was copied a thousand years after the fact. That's the earliest we have. There are about 120 extant Greek manuscripts of his works.

Philo of Alexandria also discusses Pilate, but this manuscript was also dated to have been copied around a thousand years after the fact. For Philo, we have a few dozen extant copies.

Tacitus also mentions Pilate in Annals 15.44, but that copy is also dated to have been written around a thousand years after the fact. Of Tacitus, we have only one manuscript.

But what about New Testament manuscripts? We have over 10,000 manuscripts counting the Greek and Latin alone. Here is just a sample of what is available to us today. 

The oldest extant New Testament manuscript fragment is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to the early second century, around 100-150 CE. It contains parts of the Gospel of John and is housed at the John Rylands University Library in Manchester, UK. 

This little piece of papyrus is near 2,000 years old, it is a piece of a copy made around 100 years after the fact, not a 1,000 years after the fact as the Roman manuscripts. The Greek reading on the Papyrus is, “John 18:31 Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore, the Jews said to him, “It is illegal for us to put anyone to death,” 32 that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what kind of death he should die. 33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Pretorium, called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”
 

37 Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I[1] have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him.” 

When attempting to extrapolate 2,000-year-old history, defining the events with absolute accuracy is impossible. The best we can do it put together as best we can from what little has survived. When it comes to New Testament manuscripts however, we have an overwhelming collection of written evidences. But the atheist and agnostic disregard it all because it is religious in nature. But, religious or secular, it is all written evidence from a particular time in history. Regardless of how you look at it, the available evidence we have from both spectrums and in comparison to other historical characters demonstrate the unreasonableness of the statement in question. 

David   

A.I. Atheist Illusion (Chapter 6) The Power of God

"Intrepretation" Who's right with the Biblical Text? (Part 2)

I was listening to a Q&A session once when Dr. R. C. Sproul was asked, “If the Bible is clear, why are there so many Christian denominations” He replied, “Because we are sinners”. His answer was simple, yet at the time unsatisfying. However, as I pondered his answer I came to understand he was simply striking at the root of the issue, not the tree. The fault does not lie in the Biblical text, but in the weakness of our human nature.

First the Biblical text, scholars have a term called, the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture? The word perspicuity simply means “clarity.” The Westminster Confession of Faith explains what Christians believe about the clarity of Scripture: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (1.7). 

Simply stated, within the Biblical text, the necessary means of Salvation are so clearly stated, even the unlearned can sufficiently understand them. Even if unable to read, a simple hearing of the text is sufficient. On the other hand, other doctrines and discourses may not be so clear leading to various understandings and interpretations. 

However, various understandings can occur even in plain statements. It is common for the human mind to conceive various notions on any subject. Men can interpret a simple plain statement differently based on context or personal experience. For example, if someone says, “I need space,” one man might understand it as a request for alone time, while another might perceive it as a sign of relationship trouble. There's nothing wrong with the statement itself, the human mind is simply able to assign different meanings based upon current bias or previous experiences. These assigned meanings become rooted so deeply in our reasonings we don't let go of them easily, and therefore we divided ourselves over issues. Our divisions in Christian thought arise in much the same way. The problem is not in text, it may have a clear purposeful meaning, but our upstanding many times obscures that meaning.

One example is baptism, it is clearly a part of the Christian faith and clearly commanded in scripture. It falls within the perspicuity of Scripture, yet we find Christians highly divided over the issue.

 We have the command in Matthew 28:19-20
(19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.)

Then in Acts 10:48 we have the command (48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.) There is a clear command to baptize, but because of these and similar scriptures, divisions have arisen on just how to baptize. Some groups insist on baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. While others insist on baptizing in the name of Jesus only. 

One can easily see how the two views have arising, but how do we reconcile them? Because of how our minds form certain beliefs we usually can't. But is the text the problem? Let's examine what it says as well as what it does not say. It does not say it is giving us a verbal formula of what to say over a person being baptized. It is telling us the meaning and authority behind baptism. The Trinitarian wording of Matthew 28:19 seems to best capture the full biblical revelation of who God is as a triune God. 

The scriptures in Acts is not prescriptive command of what to say but a descriptive account of what was taking place and the authority behind it. In the verse previous to Matthew 28:19 Jesus said, (18, all authority is given to me), so naturally the descriptive verses we see in Acts concerning being baptized in the name of Jesus would agree with Matthew 28:18 & 19. 

We are arguing over what names to say over a person when being baptized. But the scripture is addressing the authority, not what name to be said or verbal phase to be sighted. When it is said, “stop in the name of the law” it is not talking about a specific officers name, but the authority behind that officer. The scriptures are telling us the meaning and authority behind baptism.  In Matthew 18:20, while discussing church discipline the scripture says, (For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the middle of them.) Obviously it's not instructing us to say the name of Jesus when we gather together to discuss church discipline, but the authority upon which we do so. 

In summary, Matthew 28:19 gives the full theological meaning of Christian baptism, it is into or unto the Triune God. The Acts passages are descriptive (telling us what happened) rather than prescriptive (giving the required words). They emphasize baptizing in the name/authority of Jesus because the early church was proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah. 

Because something is usually said when formality is administered, a formula is usually formed. Historically from the late 1st/early 2nd century onward, the church almost universally used the Trinitarian formula, for it most captures the essence of what is to be understood. (see the Didache ~AD 70–120). 

In our weak human nature, we have taken these formulas and turned them into beliefs that divide us, and we stubbornly hold to them with religious tenacity. Another problem occurs from this name distinction, using the “name of Jesus” formula lends itself to the misunderstanding of the triune nature of God. The result is an unorthodox view outside of Christianity called Modalism. The more precise formula using the trinitarian wording is to be preferred to avoid this error. 

Another divisive nature is sometimes we place more emphasis on a particular doctrine than someone else. We can look again at Baptism for an example. The Churches of Christ (part of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement) teach that water baptism is essential for salvation. For them, it is not merely symbolic or an optional “outward sign” of an already-completed salvation, but the moment when a believer receives forgiveness of sins and is added to the church. For them to die outside of Baptism is to die outside of Christ. They emphasize that baptism is not a “work” that earns salvation (salvation is still by grace through the blood of Christ, which would agree with the Baptist view), but it is God’s appointed means and act of faith/obedience through which He saves, (which would not fall inside the Baptist view.)

Baptist view that Salvation is received upon the expression of faith in the work of Christ alone, and baptism follows as a result and is a public testimony of that act of faith. Here both groups believe in the same formula of baptism, but one places more emphasis on the act than the other. Both form their beliefs from the text of scripture and are sincerely desiring to worship most correctly. 

Mark 16:16, would be a supporting text for the Church of Christ (He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.) Also, you have 1st Peter 3: 21, (And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ), These does appear to connect baptism to Salvation. So one can appreciate their view and desire to follow the scriptures.  

On the Baptist view you have Eph 2:8, (For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9, it is not from works, so that no one can boast.) Also, John 5:24, (I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.) These give assurance of salvation without any mention of the necessity of Baptism. 

These different views of scripture do not arise from a faulty text, it is simply a human problem that is wedged in our nature. Different interpretations of text is not limited to scripture. Different views of the United States Constitution include originalism, which interprets the Constitution based on the original understanding at the time it was written, and living constitutionalism. This view sees the Constitution as a dynamic document that should adapt to contemporary societal changes. Additionally, some justices may adopt a textualist approach, focusing strictly on the text's wording, while others might use a purposivist approach, considering the broader purpose and intent behind the Constitution's provisions. It's not that the Constitution is faulty in its purpose, the fault lies in what we want it to say and how we approach the text. These differing views reflect the ongoing debate about how best to interpret and apply the Constitution in contemporary legal contexts. The same can be said of Scripture and the denominational divisions of how to interpret it. 

In review, the perspicuity of Scripture demonstrates the clarity in which the Bible speaks concerning the necessity of Salvation. The denominational divisions demonstrate the lack of human patients when discerning the nuances of the faith that are not specifically stated with great clarity. These are only a few examples, of which thousands could be given, mostly all being influenced by some experience or bias within the human mind. The existing divisions and various interpretations of the Christian scriptures do not reflect fault with the text, but the nature of the human condition.

I hope this was helpful,

David  

"Interpretation" Who's right with the biblical text?

When it comes to the Biblical text and understanding what it says, can we know for sure? The question has been posed like this: 

1. The Bible: how do we know the interpretation of scripture is correct when you have different denominations/cultures/history, all interpreting differently. Who is to say who is “right”?

For example: Growing up in a Pentecostal church (Church of God, Assembly of God, 1st Baptist and some non-denominational) most had different interpretations of scripture. 

From Hebrew to English/languages then century to century and culture/cultures, how do we know who is right?

It is true most of us just follow where we are and avoid the question. Others simply think it doesn't matter, others believe they are right, and it's their calling in life is to convince you of your ignorance. But is that the best we can do? I truly believe there is a satisfactory answer and in this post I will attempt to examine this issue in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. 

The Bible is a collection of ancient text, thousands of years old of which we do not have any original extant documents. To address this subject we must first start with what we have, which is copies. Within these copies are hundreds of thousands of variant readings. So arriving at a correct interpretation of the text is no simple task. I don't mean to discourage you, but simple make you aware of the task set before us. 

Now is a good time to address inerrancy. Scripture inerrancy from a Reformed perspective is the belief that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is complete and without error in everything it affirms, whether doctrine, history, science, or ethics, because it is the very Word of God. In clarification, certain distinctions are made. Not Dictation: God did not dictate mechanically; human authors were active. Not Modern Precisionism: Ancient standards of accuracy (e.g., rounded numbers, phenomenological language like “the sun rises”) are not “errors.” Phenomena of Scripture: Apparent difficulties (harmonization challenges, scientific descriptions) are resolved through careful study, not by limiting inerrancy to spiritual matters. 

However, this inerrancy is restricted to the original manuscripts, of which we no longer have, so where does that leave us? Some groups will claim that certain translations are inerrant, being inspired by the Holy Spirit. But all they can do is claim, there is no evidence for claiming such inspiration would occur. Of necessity, this inspiration would have had to occur in modern history, for it is certain that our ancient manuscripts are full of variant readings. If you apply logical and reasonable thinking to the assertion that the originals were inerrant, and for decades those documents were copied by hand, sometimes by unskilled scribes in not so favorable conditions. Those copies were copied and recopied, one would expect to have exactly what we have now, thousands upon thousands of ancient text with various readings, spelling mistakes and all kind of grammatical errors. 

What do we conclude from these facts? It depends on what you are trying to prove. If you are Bart Ehrman, who is an excellent scholar and biblical critic, this is enough to convince you that God does not exist.  He argues that if God wanted to give us his exact words, he would have miraculously preserved them, but the textual variations in the New Testament suggest this didn't happen. (Bart Ehrman) 

However, Mr. Ehrman is assuming for his part what God would do. I'm not sure Mr. Ehrman would know what God would do in bringing revelation into world. We notice almost every book of the New Testament warns about false teachers and deception. Yet we read not a word concerning how God was going to preserve His word in perfection throughout all history. To do so God would have to supernaturally work a miracle every time an individual picked up a pin to copy a scriptural text. He would also have to work a miracle to keep false teachers from purposely corrupting the text as the centuries passed. To demand this kind of miraculous preservation as proof for scriptural integrity exceeds reasonable expectations. 

The fact is, everything that enters into this world becomes subject to decay. Entropy (decay) is not just an abstract principle tucked away in physics textbooks. It is a concept that permeates every facet of reality, shaping the flow of time, the behavior of systems, and even the structure of information and life itself. To understand entropy is to glimpse the arrow of time, to perceive why decay is more likely than perfection, and to come to terms with the inexorable tendency of the universe to fall apart.

This concept reveals an intimate connection between entropy and information. To store or transmit information, we must reduce uncertainty, decrease entropy, in our signals. But doing so often requires energy, which in turn increases entropy somewhere else. Even the act of erasing a bit from memory, clearing a 1 or a 0, has an entropic cost, as shown by Rolf Landauer in the 1960s.

Thus, in our digital age, entropy is everywhere, in our computers, our smartphones, our data networks. Every click, every upload, every calculation dances to the tune of thermodynamic constraints. Information is not abstract. It is physical. And it is costly.(ScienceNewsToday) This decay was also in the pins of the scribes, thus reality would have errors induced into the sacred text. If indeed the text was perfect when it arrived, the moment it entered the time domain, it would began to decay. The paper it was written on would begin to rot, the scribes who copied would naturally err. As time passed the errors would increase. Time, it said, flows in only one direction: from order to disorder, from usable energy to waste, from structure to chaos.

So that explains why we have what we have in our ancient manuscripts. This brings us back to the question of can we know what the Bible says? Can we know if it has been faithfully transmitted? Dr. Dan Wallace says yes, and he does so quite compellingly. Because providence has delivered to us over 5 thousand manuscripts in the original languages, we have an enormous amount of data. Along with multiple thousands of Latin manuscripts and other ancient languages, it is possible through scientific processes to determine the most likely reading of any particular text. Through todays technologies and error correcting methods, we are getting closer to the original reading rather than further from it. 

Of all the errors induced into the text over the past two thousand years, less that 1% affect the reading adversely. There are no errors that affect or change any major Christian doctrine. In one sense Dr. Ehrman is correct, there are errors in the text, on the other hand, Dr. Wallace is correct, the Christian faith has faithfully been transmitted to us accurately. 

Here is one example: Papyrus 52, Date: 100-125 A.D. is a fragment old enough to be a copy of an orginal, or perhaps a second generation copy.

Discovered: Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Egypt Location: Manchester England; John Rylands University Library

Contents: John 18:31-38 Notes: This papyrus is usually considered to be the earliest New Testament manuscript still in existence. 

It is in the orginal language, it was written around 60 years after the orginal documents pinned. This is the english reading of the text on the parchment. 

Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is illegal for us to put anyone to death,” that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what kind of death he should die. Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”
Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”                                                                                              When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

Here is the reading of this text in our modern ESV translation.

[Jhn 18:31-33 ESV] 31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” 32 This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die. 33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”  [Jhn 18:37-38 ESV] 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.”

As you can see, the 1,900-year-old fragment reads the same as our modern translation. It is true there are grammatical errors in the fragment, but the content has been faithfully transmitted. There are no secrets or hidden conspiracies in the history of the Biblical text. Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Sinaiticus has its own website and is available for anyone to access online and read in the original language. 

The resources we have containing the Biblical text is enormous. We know what the variant reading are and approximately when they were introduced. There is no doubt what we are reading now is what Christians were reading in the second century. Dr. Ehrman would accuratly argue perhaps that there is no evidence the second century manuscripts were copied accuratly from the 1st century original autographs. That would be true since we no longer have them. However, it seems that would be a weak argument to make since we do have evidence it has been transmitted faithfully for the past 1,600 years in its complete form and 1,900 years in its fragmented form.  

In our next post we will look into the method of intreptation.

David