Reliability of the Bible

Historical Revelation and the Divine Inspiration of the Bible. IAB-04/10

Historical Revelation and the Divine Inspiration of the Bible. KP10-IAB-04/10

A. Biblical revelation is historical revelation. God established a covenant with Israel in the time of Moses, governed by a written document. This document which should be seen in the context of the suzerainty treaties of the ancient Near East…God’s relation to Israel is structured by a written text. The covenant words are a holy text from the God of the Covenant. Precedent for written prophecy. Prophets after the time of Moses and Joshua also produced written documents setting forth the words that God gave to them. It is evident that during the OT period itself, a body of writings developed that could be quoted as divinely authoritative.

B. The New Testament as God’s Written Words
There is no reason for thinking that the new covenant is any less verbal than was the old. Covenants by their very nature are verbal transactions… Jesus and the apostles revered the OT as God’s Word, as we have seen, and they also identified themselves as God’s prophets, bringing God’s words to the world…The words of Jesus and the apostles were also intended to be preserved for later generations…Only a written document can preserve these words as God’s personal words to us.

C. Biblical Definition of Inspiration
In revelation we have the vertical reception of God’s truth while in inspiration we have the horizontal communication of that revelation accurately to others. Continue reading “Historical Revelation and the Divine Inspiration of the Bible. IAB-04/10”

Christ’s Attestation of the Bible as the Word of God. IAB. Part 03/10

A. Christ’s attestation is the foundation of Christian belief in the Bible as God’s word. IAB. Part 03/10

B. Question: What did Jesus Christ say about the nature of the Bible as God’s Word being? Christ as the resurrected saviour spoke with infallible authority. He confirmed the divine authority of the Old Testament, that is, Scripture as God’s revealed Word is normative for moral conduct before God and is the final authority in settling theological disputes.

C. The New Testament claims to be on the level of authority of the O.T. (2Peter 3:16). Christ had promised the disciples of the Spirit to guide them into all the truth (John 16:12, 13; Matt. 10:20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12); and the commandments of the Lord did come through the apostles (2 Peter 3:2).

D. Conclusion: The bible as the basis of faith is thus well summed up in Eph. 2:20, “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.”

You can view the video at:
Christ’s attestation is the foundation of Christian belief in the Bible as God’s word. IAB. Part 03/10

Attestation of Bible as God’s Inspired Word Grounded Christ’s Infallible Authority. IAB Part 02/10

Attestation of Bible as God’s Inspired Word Grounded in Christ’s Infallible Authority. IAB Part 02/10

A. The Finality of the Bible
WCF 1.10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined…and in whose judgment we are to rest, can be nothing other than the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.
Only an infallible Bible is adequate to serve as the final authority in religious truth claims. In concrete terms, the Holy Spirit will bear witness about Jesus (John 15:26)

B. The self-attestation of the Bible is not an abstract assertion. It is grounded in the words of Jesus Christ.

C. The Classical Method in Proving the Bible as the Inspire Word of God
1. The Bible is basically a reliable and trustworthy document.
2. On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. Jesus as the Son of God is an infallible authority.
4. Jesus Christ teaches the Bible is more than generally trustworthy; it is the very Word of God.
5. That the Word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is utterly trustworthy.

Conclusion – on the basis of the infallible authority of Jesus Christ, the Church believes the Bible is utterly trustworthy, i.e. infallible.

You can view the video at
Attestation of Bible as God’s Inspired Word Grounded in Christ’s Infallible Authority. IAB Part 02/10

Series 3: The Prophecies of the Messiah and His Kingdom in the Book of Isaiah Part 6. Are the prophecies of Isaiah credible and trustworthy?

God in Isaiah: His Sovereignty and Glory (Isa. 40:5, 8; Isa. 55:10-12; Isa. 42:8-9; Isa. 43:10-12; Isa. 48:3-8; Luke 24:46-49).

Question: You have presented how Isaiah prophesies mind-boggling and outrageous truths: the human Messiah is God to be anointed by the Spirit; God is triune; God is born a human baby to die for human sins. As a prophet, does Isaiah provide his audience with credible evidence that what he prophesies is credible and trustworthy?

Discussants: Dr. Leong Tien Fock and Dr. Ng Kam Weng.

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
Part 6. Are the prophecies of Isaiah credible and trustworthy?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Part 2: Why the Canonical Gospels are more reliable than Gnostic Gospels.

Question: But critics like Elaine Pagels & Bart Ehrman argue that this traditional history of orthodoxy is skewed because it grants greater authority to the canonical gospels and ignores the other (gnostic ) gospels. Why do you think the canonical four gospels provide more accurate historical information about Jesus than the gnostic gospels?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal Lim

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
Why the Canonical Gospels are more reliable than Gnostic Gospels.

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 1/3. Misquoting Scripture

Bart Ehrman’s primary mission in life is undeniable. It is to discredit Christianity and to deconvert Christians from their faith. Ehrman’s attack on Christianity has been effective because he claims to be speaking as an objective historian (which is debatable), in contrast to apologists and theologians defending their faith and because he is speaking as a lapse fundamentalist with insider-knowledge. Ehrman’s attack on Christianity is comprehensive, but I shall only highlight three of his favorite lines of attack on Christianity. Continue reading “Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 1/3. Misquoting Scripture”

Finding nuance in the inerrancy debate. A Response to Michael Bird

Michael Bird mounts a critique of classical evangelicals who defend inerrancy of Scripture in his recent article, “Finding nuance in the inerrancy debate.”

I am a classical evangelical, that is, an evangelical who affirms inerrancy of Scripture. I confess being guilty of making a big issue of inerrancy of Scriptures, but I remain recalcitrant and unrepentant despite the sharp criticism levelled by such an enlightened mind like Michael Bird.

I disagree with Bird that a precise definition of inerrancy is a luxury for the global evangelical churches which are facing pressures from hostile authorities. To be sure, inerrancy needs not be the “number one issue that separates the good guys from the bad guys,” but based on my experience as a theologian living in the majority world, and as one who is committed to the Great Commission, I am concerned that a fuzzy commitment to the reliability and final authority of inerrant Scripture will undermine confidence and zeal for Christian witness in places where other world religions are predominant. For example, Christian witness to Muslims is likely to be abortive if Christians fail to defend the inerrancy of the Bible when Muslim polemists contend that the Bible is unreliable and contains errors. Continue reading “Finding nuance in the inerrancy debate. A Response to Michael Bird”

Bart Ehrman Answered by Scholars

Dr. Bart Ehrman is raising significant questions about the reliability of the Bible. In an engaging way, he is questioning the credibility of Christianity. His arguments are not new, which he readily admits. Numerous Biblical scholars profoundly disagree with his findings. This site provides responses to Dr. Ehrman’s provocative conclusions.

Ehrman Project: Question. Engage. Respond

Comments on Peter Williams vs Bart Ehrman Debate on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

Two comments from readers:
1) I watched the debate between Peter Williams and Bart Erhman as well as Erhman’s other presentations over Youtube. Williams arguments are persuasive but he was uncomfortably defensive in contending with a combative and skilled debater like Erhman. Erhman position is that one can accept the gospels and the New Testament writings from the theological point of view and I suppose he meant by faith but not from the rigorous analysis of historians. Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

My Response:
Bart Ehrman attributes his loss of faith to his study of early manuscripts of the gospels. He shared that he grew up as a fundamentalist (note his journey from Moody Bible Institute to Wheaton College and then to Princeton seminary) who upheld a rigid understand of inerrancy. Following his rigid understanding of inerrancy, Ehrman insists that if God inspired the writers he wouldn’t have allowed scribal errors or textual variants. As such, Ehrman abandoned his faith when he was exposed to manuscript variants during his seminary studies. The basis of Ehrman’s faith couldn’t have been more flimsy or misplaced. It is certainly indefensible. Ehrman’s view of inerrancy is uncommon as it would be hard to find a conservative scholar working with biblical manuscripts and Christian origins who actually who shares Ehrman’s rigid view of inerrancy. However, unlike Ehrman, conservative scholars do not seem to be troubled by the existence of manuscript variants. Perhaps, Ehrman has other hidden reasons that led him to abandon his faith. Indeed, Ehrman continues to rely on his distorted view of inerrancy as a fig leaf to camouflage the real reason for his loss of faith which is probably a deeper problem of the heart. That he continues to stigmatize conservatives with his earlier distorted view of inerrancy suggests that it serves as a convenient strawman for him in his writings. Continue reading “Comments on Peter Williams vs Bart Ehrman Debate on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels”

Peter Williams Shows the Right Way to Debate Bart Ehrman

Lydia McGrew reviews a recent debate with Bart Ehrman, and argues that Bible scholar Peter J Williams offers a model for dispensing common sense – The Right Way to Debate Bart Ehrman

The hallmark of Williams’ responses to Ehrman was his use of common sense, both in presenting his own case and in responding to Ehrman’s objections. Williams’ case for the reliability of the Gospels in this debate is based in part upon a compendium of fascinating external confirmations, such as name statistics, measurements, and topography. Pace Ehrman, these small details do constitute evidence that, as Williams says in his book Can We Trust the Gospels?, the authors knew their stuff. The small, difficult things that the evangelists get right are all the more impressive given the major upheavals in social customs and culture in Palestine, and the dispersal of the inhabitants, after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70…

This emphasis on details is highly relevant to Ehrman’s attempts to characterize the Gospels as unreliable because they were, he says, written at multiple removes from the events they describe and hence corrupted over time by a “telephone game” process of transmission. In making this argument Ehrman repeatedly tries to emphasize the fact that the Gospels were written down several decades after their events. Williams rightly counters by pointing out that the Gospels do not have specific dates on them and that we should look at the evidences within them of their coming from those close to the events. Even though Luke, for example, was not an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, it does not follow that Luke recorded stories that had been repeated many times as in the telephone game–a point Ehrman repeatedly ignores. Continue reading “Peter Williams Shows the Right Way to Debate Bart Ehrman”