Can a Book be as Trustworthy as Faith?
The existence of supernatural beings can be considered a self-evident fact, since encountering the supernatural is a ubiquitous human experience even though with varied levels of clarity per individual and though not always first-hand--the experience is also throughout history, and continues in the modern day despite rhetoric of modern academia that assumes that science is the only way to be sure of facts (humans who believe their only worth is in their assumption they are the highest form of life scoff at all else). Due to the power of spiritual forces, it is of utmost importance to determine whether a given faith or book is from a trustworthy higher being or a made-up. A source of a faith or book can be a higher being's mind or a human being's mind. On this basis, it is then logical to create a criteria for whether a source is supernatural and whether it is accurate. One way to determine whether a book is from a higher being is if it has multiple fulfilled prophecies, which are clear and not as garbled as Nostradamus, and can be proved to be written before the events. For years many non-Christian historians tried to disprove that Daniel was written before Jesus birth, since it contains prophecies of major historical events which would be impossible to stage and were fulfilled by people who did not follow Yahweh. But alas these historians failed, the final proof of it's predating many fulfilled events being the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Having evidence that a particular book or faith is from a supernatural source is fairly easy, as long as it really is. The harder part is determining whether it is trustworthy. As long as precautions are used though, one can be sure--the Gnostic Christian assertion that the current Bible is inaccurate, and that therefore what would be superior to trust is individual faith in God without reliance on a book, makes many assumptions.
Of primary importance is determining which books should be in the Bible, if we are to determine what the spirit named Yahweh intended to communicate. Compared to the canon, the term I will use to refer to the Tanakh and the common New Testament, we have very few copies and evidence for accuracy of apocryphal literature. Also, the existing canon was chosen because it agrees with itself, quotes itself, is connected with the twelve apostles directly, and not known to contain historical errors. This summarizes the criteria used to determine this canon--the criteria is trustworthy and was used successfully.
If you were to value Jesus and value trustworthiness of a source of information about him, one must not only question books, but also question whether the supernatural source of your faith is a trustworthy human being, higher being, or force. There are ways to be sure though, if one is aware of one's own bias and gathers different points of view and thinks through the issue logically. Logic is our friend, in that it is the arch-enemy of humans seeking control, as it is the one thing that humans seeking control can never silence (the possibility that those in power may attempt to dumb down the populace can be solved through becoming self-taught).
Along with logical thinking, another suggestion is to use:
Looking up the wording in the original language and then using the dictionary for that language clears up anachronisms (modern equivalents of ancient practices, objects, holidays, and terms) in my experience, and of course researching multiple points of view (especially not just one) on any purported anachronisms that may seem to remain.
As for changes in the original texts, they can be overcome by using a hard copy NKJV translation, which has footnotes where certain texts differ. I am sure that we have 101% (maybe even 100.1%) of the Bible not 95%, nor some other figure below 100%. In original texts, I have not seen any differences significant (any changes that are more than clarification of things implied by parallelism, which is often in Greek due to the absence of pronoun-antecedent structures found in other languages such as English) to warrant distrust except in the Latin Vulgate, which is of course a translation created by Constantine's politicized version of Christianity not an original text. For those that would call me anti-Catholic for saying that, I respond by saying that I am not anti-Catholic (assuming Catholic denotes a person who is Catholic as opposed to certain dogmas with which I disagree to be Biblical, found in the Council of Trent, Vatican Council II, and New Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, which are anti-Protestant and hence anti-skeptical), I am anti-egoism (egoism in this context could be acted out by one drawing a crowd for the purpose of proclaiming opinions as absolutes). If we all call ourselves Christians, we should trust each others' modern scholarship if our goal is truly to come toward following Messiah more closely--I will see joining me in this mutual trust, granted with the skepticism due toward each other's conclusions which we also owe those in the past, as evidence that we both work toward knowing Yeshua (Jesus Christ).
As for anachronisms in the Old Testament regarding Egypt, there is scholarship that demonstrates that overlapping the Northern and Southern dynasties instead of placing them consecutively makes Egypt's history rather shorter than expected--this historical theory also clears up anachronisms in Egyptian history, not just the Bible's (I'll cite sources here when I find them again--feel free to contact me if you have sources for or against).
Even though we have far fewer copies of Shakespeare's writings than of the New Testament, and even though people changed or added to his scripts at various different times, we are sure of what Shakespeare wrote--using Textual Criticism, which can also work for the Bible if applied honestly, and with neither anti-supernatural bias nor sectarian bias, and recognizing and accounting for any remaining innocent forms of bias, such as our cultural backgrounds. (Evidence That Demands a Verdict) The degree to which we know our own bias is the degree to which we as individuals can be certain of our research of the accuracy of a book or a faith that we claim or that itself claims to be from a supernatural source, and the trustworthiness of that higher being, or human being.
Now if knowing that we have the text of a given book is possible, then we also have to consider the barrier of interpretation. Once we have determined what words are right and which words are part of the book using the methods above, that we simply have to take each statement which seems to be unclear in context of the rest of the book. There are only two reasons the Bible easier to take out of context than other books: it is long, and Christians broke long Greek sentences up onto verses and formatted the text that way instead of just adding superscripts like modern translations do. Since a "verse", which is sometimes only part of a sentence, out of context can be easily remedied by looking at the context, why is the Bible taken out of context so often? Many people trust it (it is the best-selling book of all time) and therefore people who want power would want to cite it as their source. But at the same time, if you actually care about the context there is all the more text (due to the Bible's length) to help you get all the more of an accurate interpretation.
Our emotions and beliefs do come into play as well, but problems arising from that can be solved by making sure that the being of your faith is the same being as the one who wrote the text. By comparing parts of the text that are clear to your beliefs and feelings stemming from that relationship with the being that is the object of your faith, you can determine whether you have gathered the meaning of the text and determine whether the being of your faith is the same being who provided the original meaning of the text. If not, you can be certain that you are actually involved with a different spirit or have a relationship with a fully imaginary and inaccurate image of the being named in the text (either of which would be a lack of a relationship with the being in the text). Identifying the being that inspired the text is the only way to know if you have encountered the same being in your faith--for example, the Bible is the only way to know whether you follow Jesus, who claims to be Yahweh. (John 8:58) Of course, you could even compare his Character to Yahweh if you are a non-messianic Jew and want to decide whether Jesus is Messiah. Both of these ventures require the Bible and show its importance.
History and the Bible can show that Yahweh is the creator spirit. But what about other scriptures? Many beings claim to be a creator, and many scriptures claim to be inspired by a creator being. As you compare the being of your faith to the being of a book, you could also studiously compare the spirit of the Bible to the Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, or the sayings attributed to Jah Rastafari, or other words attributed to supernatural sources, and discover that they have a different spirit than the Bible. But lets suppose that many books are from real spirits. Then you would have to decide whether the being is trustworthy, for example, whether the being is a trustworthy eyewitness of the creation of the universe. You first have to value the importance of the creator spirit to care about determining which spirit of which scripture he is. There are many reasons for valuing the creator spirit, not the least of which being that he could be the only one who could fix the world or fix your own human nature.
Some would argue that the spirit of the Bible is not trustworthy in a relationship sense because he wipes out whole nations. First of all, the order was never followed, and if he is omniscient then he would have known that when he gave the order. Besides, theocracy was a political system, and does not apply to this day and age now that Messiah has come and since his kingdom is spiritual. (John 18:36) Also, people die every day for various reasons, and we work toward accepting that, so why does it suddenly become unfair if the one who created life in the first place uses war to take people? I am of course not saying that war is always just. As for suffering, I am one who has suffered and can honestly say that the inner spiritual life and even interpretation of the meaning of the suffering can determine how suffering affects a person negatively or positively. One reason a reader may distrust the Bible at first glance is that the reader is assuming that Yahweh did not indeed command war, and assuming that people used the idea of Yahweh to bring their followers to war. These are bad assumptions, since the Bible is consistently far too honest about the shortcomings of leaders for it to be a manmade political tool to promote patriarchy.
A higher being with enough intelligence, especially one who created the universe (or even just the Complex Specified Information) could beyond the shadow of a doubt use human beings, especially a diverse group with the multiple perspectives of differing societies and social statuses such as those who catalogued their experiences in the Bible, to communicate exactly what he intended regardless of the audience. Even a master artist can use a brush to make a painting that communicates exactly what he intended, though the brush is imperfect. You may respond that paintings are often interpreted in various ways, but on the contrary, words are harder to misinterpret--as long as, at minimum, the precautions here are followed.
Of primary importance is determining which books should be in the Bible, if we are to determine what the spirit named Yahweh intended to communicate. Compared to the canon, the term I will use to refer to the Tanakh and the common New Testament, we have very few copies and evidence for accuracy of apocryphal literature. Also, the existing canon was chosen because it agrees with itself, quotes itself, is connected with the twelve apostles directly, and not known to contain historical errors. This summarizes the criteria used to determine this canon--the criteria is trustworthy and was used successfully.
If you were to value Jesus and value trustworthiness of a source of information about him, one must not only question books, but also question whether the supernatural source of your faith is a trustworthy human being, higher being, or force. There are ways to be sure though, if one is aware of one's own bias and gathers different points of view and thinks through the issue logically. Logic is our friend, in that it is the arch-enemy of humans seeking control, as it is the one thing that humans seeking control can never silence (the possibility that those in power may attempt to dumb down the populace can be solved through becoming self-taught).
Along with logical thinking, another suggestion is to use:
- Interlinear Bible with Masoretic Text (Tanakh) and Textus Receptus (New Testament) and lookup the result in:
- Strong's Dictionary (Hebrew and Greek)
- KJV with Strong's Numbers (in Biblical Texts, English--widen Window and look for this title in Description column)
- Strong's Hebrew Dictionary (in Dictionaries, English)
- Strong's Greek Dictionary (in Dictionaries, English)
Looking up the wording in the original language and then using the dictionary for that language clears up anachronisms (modern equivalents of ancient practices, objects, holidays, and terms) in my experience, and of course researching multiple points of view (especially not just one) on any purported anachronisms that may seem to remain.
As for changes in the original texts, they can be overcome by using a hard copy NKJV translation, which has footnotes where certain texts differ. I am sure that we have 101% (maybe even 100.1%) of the Bible not 95%, nor some other figure below 100%. In original texts, I have not seen any differences significant (any changes that are more than clarification of things implied by parallelism, which is often in Greek due to the absence of pronoun-antecedent structures found in other languages such as English) to warrant distrust except in the Latin Vulgate, which is of course a translation created by Constantine's politicized version of Christianity not an original text. For those that would call me anti-Catholic for saying that, I respond by saying that I am not anti-Catholic (assuming Catholic denotes a person who is Catholic as opposed to certain dogmas with which I disagree to be Biblical, found in the Council of Trent, Vatican Council II, and New Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, which are anti-Protestant and hence anti-skeptical), I am anti-egoism (egoism in this context could be acted out by one drawing a crowd for the purpose of proclaiming opinions as absolutes). If we all call ourselves Christians, we should trust each others' modern scholarship if our goal is truly to come toward following Messiah more closely--I will see joining me in this mutual trust, granted with the skepticism due toward each other's conclusions which we also owe those in the past, as evidence that we both work toward knowing Yeshua (Jesus Christ).
As for anachronisms in the Old Testament regarding Egypt, there is scholarship that demonstrates that overlapping the Northern and Southern dynasties instead of placing them consecutively makes Egypt's history rather shorter than expected--this historical theory also clears up anachronisms in Egyptian history, not just the Bible's (I'll cite sources here when I find them again--feel free to contact me if you have sources for or against).
Even though we have far fewer copies of Shakespeare's writings than of the New Testament, and even though people changed or added to his scripts at various different times, we are sure of what Shakespeare wrote--using Textual Criticism, which can also work for the Bible if applied honestly, and with neither anti-supernatural bias nor sectarian bias, and recognizing and accounting for any remaining innocent forms of bias, such as our cultural backgrounds. (Evidence That Demands a Verdict) The degree to which we know our own bias is the degree to which we as individuals can be certain of our research of the accuracy of a book or a faith that we claim or that itself claims to be from a supernatural source, and the trustworthiness of that higher being, or human being.
Now if knowing that we have the text of a given book is possible, then we also have to consider the barrier of interpretation. Once we have determined what words are right and which words are part of the book using the methods above, that we simply have to take each statement which seems to be unclear in context of the rest of the book. There are only two reasons the Bible easier to take out of context than other books: it is long, and Christians broke long Greek sentences up onto verses and formatted the text that way instead of just adding superscripts like modern translations do. Since a "verse", which is sometimes only part of a sentence, out of context can be easily remedied by looking at the context, why is the Bible taken out of context so often? Many people trust it (it is the best-selling book of all time) and therefore people who want power would want to cite it as their source. But at the same time, if you actually care about the context there is all the more text (due to the Bible's length) to help you get all the more of an accurate interpretation.
Our emotions and beliefs do come into play as well, but problems arising from that can be solved by making sure that the being of your faith is the same being as the one who wrote the text. By comparing parts of the text that are clear to your beliefs and feelings stemming from that relationship with the being that is the object of your faith, you can determine whether you have gathered the meaning of the text and determine whether the being of your faith is the same being who provided the original meaning of the text. If not, you can be certain that you are actually involved with a different spirit or have a relationship with a fully imaginary and inaccurate image of the being named in the text (either of which would be a lack of a relationship with the being in the text). Identifying the being that inspired the text is the only way to know if you have encountered the same being in your faith--for example, the Bible is the only way to know whether you follow Jesus, who claims to be Yahweh. (John 8:58) Of course, you could even compare his Character to Yahweh if you are a non-messianic Jew and want to decide whether Jesus is Messiah. Both of these ventures require the Bible and show its importance.
History and the Bible can show that Yahweh is the creator spirit. But what about other scriptures? Many beings claim to be a creator, and many scriptures claim to be inspired by a creator being. As you compare the being of your faith to the being of a book, you could also studiously compare the spirit of the Bible to the Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, or the sayings attributed to Jah Rastafari, or other words attributed to supernatural sources, and discover that they have a different spirit than the Bible. But lets suppose that many books are from real spirits. Then you would have to decide whether the being is trustworthy, for example, whether the being is a trustworthy eyewitness of the creation of the universe. You first have to value the importance of the creator spirit to care about determining which spirit of which scripture he is. There are many reasons for valuing the creator spirit, not the least of which being that he could be the only one who could fix the world or fix your own human nature.
Some would argue that the spirit of the Bible is not trustworthy in a relationship sense because he wipes out whole nations. First of all, the order was never followed, and if he is omniscient then he would have known that when he gave the order. Besides, theocracy was a political system, and does not apply to this day and age now that Messiah has come and since his kingdom is spiritual. (John 18:36) Also, people die every day for various reasons, and we work toward accepting that, so why does it suddenly become unfair if the one who created life in the first place uses war to take people? I am of course not saying that war is always just. As for suffering, I am one who has suffered and can honestly say that the inner spiritual life and even interpretation of the meaning of the suffering can determine how suffering affects a person negatively or positively. One reason a reader may distrust the Bible at first glance is that the reader is assuming that Yahweh did not indeed command war, and assuming that people used the idea of Yahweh to bring their followers to war. These are bad assumptions, since the Bible is consistently far too honest about the shortcomings of leaders for it to be a manmade political tool to promote patriarchy.
A higher being with enough intelligence, especially one who created the universe (or even just the Complex Specified Information) could beyond the shadow of a doubt use human beings, especially a diverse group with the multiple perspectives of differing societies and social statuses such as those who catalogued their experiences in the Bible, to communicate exactly what he intended regardless of the audience. Even a master artist can use a brush to make a painting that communicates exactly what he intended, though the brush is imperfect. You may respond that paintings are often interpreted in various ways, but on the contrary, words are harder to misinterpret--as long as, at minimum, the precautions here are followed.
Contact
All rights reserved
Jake Gustafson 2010