Is the Bible true? FAQ

Our culture is biased toward materialism, which is the belief that there is no such thing as the supernatural, or spiritual realm. Materialists often have sort of a strange assumption that science “disproves” or rules out the supernatural, or that a belief in anything beyond the physical realm is illogical. Unfortunately (for materialists) science appears to actually “rule in” the supernatural. Scientists, like astronomer Robert Jastrow, who are willing to be very honest about what science does and does not know, admit that science doesn’t know where the matter in the universe originally came from. If we follow the chain of scientific cause and effect all the way back to the moment right before the Big Bang, we are forced to ask- where did this incredibly dense piece of matter come from? Scientists really don’t know.

As C.S. Lewis so simply stated: “Science, when it becomes perfect, will have explained the connection between each link in the chain and the link before it. But the actual existence of the chain will remain wholly unaccountable.” (Lewis, C.S., The Grand Miracle, p. 53).

Materialism cannot tell us how the universe came to exist in the first place. It cannot tell us how something came from nothing.

There are so many different religions, how can one of them be more right than the rest of them?

Another popular belief is that there is no spiritual or moral truth. This belief goes by a number of names, including “relativism”, “postmodernism”, and “the New Tolerance”. It results in our culture putting increasing pressure on people to accept conflicting religious beliefs as being equally true. Many are being indoctrinated into relativism through “multicultural training”, “cultural proficiency training” and the media. Logical decision-making in the area of religious belief and public discussion in this area is increasingly frowned upon.

Logically speaking, it is possible for one religion to be true, just like there can be one right answer to a math problem. The real question is- what evidence do you have that your religion/philosophy/belief system is true?

Our culture pressures us to accept that religion is man-made, a “cultural myth” or “preference”. We have became so deeply ingrained, so brainwashed into this type of thinking that any attempt to debate religious facts or evidence is looked at as insanely egotistical----like trying to force someone else to say their favorite color is blue because it happens to be your own favorite color.

But, what if there is such a thing as real religious truth? Wouldn’t it be important to know? It’s the sort of information that might be useful to have when considering central questions like: why do I exist, why does the universe exist? What is the meaning of life?

The funny thing is- we would NEVER be as gullible in everyday life (buying a car, balancing our checkbook) as we are when it comes to spiritual ideas. Many of the same people who so easily succumb to the “hard sell” of religious political correctness, are quite savvy when it comes to shopping for physical merchandise.

Does relativism (the idea that there is no truth) apply to the real world? Try going to your bank and tell them that in your version of reality, ten dollars really equals a thousand dollars. Fill out a withdrawal slip, add two zeros to the amount that is in your account, and demand that they pay you immediately. When they refuse (an unfortunate likelihood) tell them they are a bunch of intolerant bigots, trying to force their own version of reality on you. Will you impress the bank employees as highly educated, tolerant, broad-minded, and suave? No, you will sound like a crazy person and probably be escorted off the premises by security (which is why we don’t recommend that you actually try this).

What if spiritual laws are as real as the laws of mathematics? What if the consequences of your religious beliefs are able to impact your future even more than your bank account can? Given the possibility that the soul exists, why would anyone begin by denying it? Or let others coerce them into groupthink for the sake of political correctness? The common sense response is to carefully look at the possibility, to weigh the evidence, in case it is real.

Before just assuming that you can’t know what is true, or that you don’t have an immortal soul, that there is no God, or any spiritual realm, the smart thing to do is to: Make sure it’s not real first!

Doesn’t “faith”, by definition mean believing in something for which there is no evidence?

No. Our culture uses the word “faith” to mean-“dog-like trust in something despite a complete lack of evidence”, but the biblical concept of faith is just the opposite- “informed trust as a result of strong evidence”.

Why would a holy God allow evil to exist in the world? Is suffering God’s fault? Does the existence of evil prove that God is not good?

Let’s look at some examples of evil- murder, abuse, neglect, rape, genocide…These are things that people choose to do, out of selfishness, ignorance, hatred, laziness. So the real question might be: Why does God allow people to do these things? The most obvious answer is that He chose to give people free will, rather than making them into vegetables or automatons. Free will is a mighty gift, one which can be terribly misused. But ask yourself what is worse: that evil exists for a while (to be judged and punished later), or that everyone go stand in line and get their lobotomy so they can be automatons forever, unable to make any choices for themselves?

Ironically, our culture which says one minute that it can’t believe in God because there is so much evil in the world- is likely the next minute to turn around and say it doesn’t believe in objective moral truth. But you can’t have it both ways. For those people who want to judge God because of all of the evil in the world, they must first believe that there is such a thing as moral truth- an objective right and wrong. And then there’s the question of how objective right and wrong can possibly exist unless there is a God!

If one says that there is no truth, then there is no meaning, it’s all just pure random chance. From that viewpoint, there is no basis for complaint because the words “evil” and “wrong” simply have no meaning.

But what about all of the suffering inherent in nature? Why do animals eat each other? Why is there disease and death?

The Bible indicates that Adam and Eve were immortal before the Fall. It doesn’t go into great detail about exactly how nature was affected by the Fall of Man, but does seem to hint that there were drastic changes. In the book of Matthew, we see something very interesting. These verses describe how Satan tried to tempt Jesus: (Mat 4:8-9) “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. ‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’" These verses seem to indicate that Satan may have some real (but temporary) power on the Earth, which could well include power over nature. This idea seems to be supported by the verses Isaiah 11:6-9, which describe what conditions will be like after the return of Jesus: “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. From these verses, it sounds like the natural world may be reflecting the evil spiritual conditions that currently predominate on earth, but that this won’t always be the case.

Isn’t religion (Christianity) one of the main causes of violence, war, and suffering in the world? What about all of the evil that has been done in the name of religion (Christianity)?

A common charge against Christianity is that, historically, there has been a lot of evil done in the name of Christianity. That is certainly a fact. There are undoubtedly many reasons why people and institutions have chosen to do evil (either purposefully or out of ignorance) in the name of Christianity. However, the bad acts of Christians (or those who call themselves Christians) do not disprove Christianity. Jesus never told Christians to kill anyone, he simply told them to spread the message. It was man’s tradition, man adding on to what the Jesus said, that led to the bad acts attributed to Christianity in history. But even with the screw-ups of mortal men added into the mix, the Christian church throughout all of history has had nowhere near the death toll of atheistic relativism. In this century alone, the death toll under atheistic leaders like Stalin and Mao has far exceeded that of those ever killed in the name of Christianity. Unfortunately, the trend in some of the current anti-Christian bestsellers is for the authors blame the “intolerance” of Christianity and cite the evil done in its name, but fail to dwell on the far greater evil done by atheistic totalitarian regimes.

We can definitely call evil done in the name of Christianity- evil . But what do we call evil done in the name of postmodernism or the New Tolerance? The natural result of denying moral absolutes.

Then why does God endorse killing in the Old Testament?

From our discussion above, we can at least have a common starting point, If someone is willing to pass judgment on some of the events in the Old Testament as “bad” or “wrong”, we can at least agree that there is moral truth, that there is such a thing as right and wrong. What we are disagreeing on is whether the Bible is true- whether it is an accurate account of historical and spiritual facts, and whether these facts are morally justified.

Before we focus directly on the pieces we dislike, let’s look at the whole picture- the “Bible-eye” view of reality itself. The Bible says there is a God, there is a spiritual/supernatural realm, and there is absolute good and evil. The Bible does not describe humans as neutral biological organisms, but as composite physical/spiritual beings which were once perfect, but are now fallen. Additionally, the Bible does not paint history as a collection of neutral or random or unpredictable events, but as a universal ancient battle between good and evil, in which seemingly unrelated or isolated events are connected in complicated ways.

In a sense, a really simplified view of the Bible looks kind of like a chess game between good and evil, God and Satan. God creates humans- Satan tempts them and they fall. God has a special relationship with a specific human (Abraham) and promises his ancestors a special piece of land- Satan fills that area with evil giants. God destines a man (Moses) to lead his people out of slavery- Satan has Pharaoh kill all of the Hebrew baby boys. God establishes the nation of Israel- Satan lures them into paganism. God re-establishes them and causes the Savior, Jesus Christ, to be born as one of them- Satan has Herod try to kill all of the young Jewish boys… and on and on.

Eventually, you see a pattern emerge. God has a plan - he is trying to save Man (or as many of them as possible) and return them to their original, unfallen, immortal state. Jesus Christ is the person, both God and Man, who can make all of this happen. From the start, God is setting up His plan of redemption for mankind - creating the human line Jesus would be descended from, creating a country and society He could be born into to do His vital work - and Satan is trying to block God at every turn. Satan, the one who caused Man to fall in the first place, does everything in his power to try to stop God from saving Man.

Now we will look at the question of whether acts in the Old Testament which were sanctioned by God (ones where the text says that God specifically told people to do them) were morally wrong. To do this, we will look at them from the “Bible-eye” perspective, where we begin with the Bible’s perspective of reality.

If it were true that God’s goal is to save the eternal souls of all of mankind, would He be justified in temporarily killing the mortal bodies of some men (men who were being used by Satan to stop God’s plan) in order to make it possible for everyone to have the opportunity for eternal life and salvation?

It is true that God instructed the Israelites to a) uphold a death penalty for certain wrong acts committed amongst themselves, and b) to wipe out some of the people who were occupying the land that would become Israel. Atheists love to attack the Bible on these points, but here is where it becomes critical to look at all of the evidence. If the historical, prophetic, and scientific evidence supports the Bible as being what it claims to be: a supernatural book--if the evidence supports that the Bible is from God, and that God actually knows what He’s talking about—could these instructions possibly be justified? Think about this: what if the specific acts that called for the death penalty in Old Testament Israel were so inherently destructive to society that God had to completely ban them in order for the nation of Israel to exist long enough for Jesus to be born?

In the case of the second main objection- that the Israelites were instructed to wipe out some of the occupying nations- if God is outside of time and could see that these nations would destroy Israel, the society being specifically prepared for the Messiah, Jesus Christ, to be born into-- is the creator of the universe justified in killing some mortal men in order to make salvation possible for all men?

Let’s be honest. People don’t object to the events of the Old Testament because they feel that a finite lifetime is more important than immortality or the salvation of the soul. They object to these events because they don’t believe the Bible’s account of reality is true. Because if it is true, it would be completely justified for God to cause temporary suffering or mortal death for someone, if His goal was to save that person’s (and the rest of mankind’s) immortal souls. For a more down-to earth example: if you saw some guy crossing the street who was about to be hit by a speeding car, and you ran into the street and tackled him so that he was thrown out of the path of the speeding car, would he be justified in complaining that you sprained his ankle? You just saved him from being run over by a car!

Probably the main fear behind this common complaint about the Old Testament is the worry that Christians nowadays might feel like they can or should take some of those same actions. But the New Testament doesn’t state anything like this at all. After the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which made the salvation of all men possible, the Bible’s mission for Christians in regards to non-Christians is a peaceful one- simply to spread the Gospel throughout the whole world.

The vast majority of the controversial acts in the Old Testament are not acts that are condoned by God, but are recorded to serve as a warning or to give historical perspective. The Bible is not only an instruction book; it’s also a history book. In fact, these two functions often go hand in hand. The Bible gives detailed accounts of historical events and human actions that actually occurred, both good and bad. For instructional purposes, the good actions serve as positive examples, and the bad actions as warnings. The vast majority of those actions that could be viewed as bad are not condoned in the text; they are recorded to serve as a warning of what not to do. From a biblical perspective, humans are spiritually deformed (fallen) and have a natural tendency to do what is wrong due to their own fallen nature and evil outside spiritual influences. So, in the Old Testament Law, when God goes into all sorts of detail about what not to do, He clarifies that He doesn’t want the Israelites to follow the example of their pagan neighbors. These were all common activities taking place in the nations around them at that time.

Christians always seem to go around telling people how they ought to be living, and yet they themselves never seem to live up to their own words. Doesn’t that make them hypocritical and self-righteous?

From an atheistic perspective, Christians are horribly hypocritical and self-righteous, because atheists often a) secretly feel that they themselves are morally “good” people (in a relative sense), and/or b) don’t feel like it’s anyone’s business what they do because they don’t have to answer to anyone. But from a Christian perspective, it’s a fact of life that no human, including Christians, are “good” in and of themselves, which is why Jesus had to sacrifice his life to pay for everyone’s sins; also, we are all answerable to God who expects us to do our best, even though we often fall woefully short. So, in fact, as humans we are all hypocritical and self-righteous whether we want to admit it or not.

Home Is the Bible True?

Home