August 19, 2015

From Gary... Bible Reading August 19



Bible Reading 
August 19

The World English Bible


Aug. 19
Job 13-16

Job 13:1 "Behold, my eye has seen all this. My ear has heard and understood it.
Job 13:2 What you know, I know also. I am not inferior to you.
Job 13:3 "Surely I would speak to the Almighty. I desire to reason with God.
Job 13:4 But you are forgers of lies. You are all physicians of no value.
Job 13:5 Oh that you would be completely silent! Then you would be wise.
Job 13:6 Hear now my reasoning. Listen to the pleadings of my lips.
Job 13:7 Will you speak unrighteously for God, and talk deceitfully for him?
Job 13:8 Will you show partiality to him? Will you contend for God?
Job 13:9 Is it good that he should search you out? Or as one deceives a man, will you deceive him?
Job 13:10 He will surely reprove you if you secretly show partiality.
Job 13:11 Shall not his majesty make you afraid, And his dread fall on you?
Job 13:12 Your memorable sayings are proverbs of ashes, Your defenses are defenses of clay.
Job 13:13 "Be silent, leave me alone, that I may speak. Let come on me what will.
Job 13:14 Why should I take my flesh in my teeth, and put my life in my hand?
Job 13:15 Behold, he will kill me. I have no hope. Nevertheless, I will maintain my ways before him.
Job 13:16 This also shall be my salvation, that a godless man shall not come before him.
Job 13:17 Hear diligently my speech. Let my declaration be in your ears.
Job 13:18 See now, I have set my cause in order. I know that I am righteous.
Job 13:19 Who is he who will contend with me? For then would I hold my peace and give up the spirit.
Job 13:20 "Only don't do two things to me; then I will not hide myself from your face:
Job 13:21 withdraw your hand far from me; and don't let your terror make me afraid.
Job 13:22 Then call, and I will answer; or let me speak, and you answer me.
Job 13:23 How many are my iniquities and sins? Make me know my disobedience and my sin.
Job 13:24 Why hide you your face, and hold me for your enemy?
Job 13:25 Will you harass a driven leaf? Will you pursue the dry stubble?
Job 13:26 For you write bitter things against me, and make me inherit the iniquities of my youth:
Job 13:27 You also put my feet in the stocks, and mark all my paths. You set a bound to the soles of my feet,
Job 13:28 though I am decaying like a rotten thing, like a garment that is moth-eaten.
Job 14:1 "Man, who is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of trouble.
Job 14:2 He comes forth like a flower, and is cut down. He also flees like a shadow, and doesn't continue.
Job 14:3 Do you open your eyes on such a one, and bring me into judgment with you?
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.
Job 14:5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months is with you, and you have appointed his bounds that he can't pass;
Job 14:6 Look away from him, that he may rest, until he shall accomplish, as a hireling, his day.
Job 14:7 "For there is hope for a tree, If it is cut down, that it will sprout again, that the tender branch of it will not cease.
Job 14:8 Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stock dies in the ground,
Job 14:9 yet through the scent of water it will bud, and put forth boughs like a plant.
Job 14:10 But man dies, and is laid low. Yes, man gives up the spirit, and where is he?
Job 14:11 As the waters fail from the sea, and the river wastes and dries up,
Job 14:12 so man lies down and doesn't rise. Until the heavens are no more, they shall not awake, nor be roused out of their sleep.
Job 14:13 "Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would keep me secret, until your wrath is past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me!
Job 14:14 If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my warfare would I wait, until my release should come.
Job 14:15 You would call, and I would answer you. You would have a desire to the work of your hands.
Job 14:16 But now you number my steps. Don't you watch over my sin?
Job 14:17 My disobedience is sealed up in a bag. You fasten up my iniquity.
Job 14:18 "But the mountain falling comes to nothing. The rock is removed out of its place;
Job 14:19 The waters wear the stones. The torrents of it wash away the dust of the earth. So you destroy the hope of man.
Job 14:20 You forever prevail against him, and he departs. You change his face, and send him away.
Job 14:21 His sons come to honor, and he doesn't know it. They are brought low, but he doesn't perceive it of them.
Job 14:22 But his flesh on him has pain, and his soul within him mourns."
Job 15:1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered,
Job 15:2 "Should a wise man answer with vain knowledge, and fill himself with the east wind?
Job 15:3 Should he reason with unprofitable talk, or with speeches with which he can do no good?
Job 15:4 Yes, you do away with fear, and hinder devotion before God.
Job 15:5 For your iniquity teaches your mouth, and you choose the language of the crafty.
Job 15:6 Your own mouth condemns you, and not I. Yes, your own lips testify against you.
Job 15:7 "Are you the first man who was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills?
Job 15:8 Have you heard the secret counsel of God? Do you limit wisdom to yourself?
Job 15:9 What do you know, that we don't know? What do you understand, which is not in us?
Job 15:10 With us are both the gray-headed and the very aged men, much elder than your father.
Job 15:11 Are the consolations of God too small for you, even the word that is gentle toward you?
Job 15:12 Why does your heart carry you away? Why do your eyes flash,
Job 15:13 That you turn your spirit against God, and let such words go out of your mouth?
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? What is he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:15 Behold, he puts no trust in his holy ones. Yes, the heavens are not clean in his sight;
Job 15:16 how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks iniquity like water!
Job 15:17 "I will show you, listen to me; that which I have seen I will declare:
Job 15:18 (Which wise men have told by their fathers, and have not hidden it;
Job 15:19 to whom alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them):
Job 15:20 the wicked man writhes in pain all his days, even the number of years that are laid up for the oppressor.
Job 15:21 A sound of terrors is in his ears. In prosperity the destroyer shall come on him.
Job 15:22 He doesn't believe that he shall return out of darkness. He is waited for by the sword.
Job 15:23 He wanders abroad for bread, saying, 'Where is it?' He knows that the day of darkness is ready at his hand.
Job 15:24 Distress and anguish make him afraid. They prevail against him, as a king ready to the battle.
Job 15:25 Because he has stretched out his hand against God, and behaves himself proudly against the Almighty;
Job 15:26 he runs at him with a stiff neck, with the thick shields of his bucklers;
Job 15:27 because he has covered his face with his fatness, and gathered fat on his thighs.
Job 15:28 He has lived in desolate cities, in houses which no one inhabited, which were ready to become heaps.
Job 15:29 He shall not be rich, neither shall his substance continue, neither shall their possessions be extended on the earth.
Job 15:30 He shall not depart out of darkness. The flame shall dry up his branches. By the breath of God's mouth shall he go away.
Job 15:31 Let him not trust in emptiness, deceiving himself; for emptiness shall be his reward.
Job 15:32 It shall be accomplished before his time. His branch shall not be green.
Job 15:33 He shall shake off his unripe grape as the vine, and shall cast off his flower as the olive tree.
Job 15:34 For the company of the godless shall be barren, and fire shall consume the tents of bribery.
Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. Their heart prepares deceit."
Job 16:1 Then Job answered,
Job 16:2 "I have heard many such things. You are all miserable comforters!
Job 16:3 Shall vain words have an end? Or what provokes you that you answer?
Job 16:4 I also could speak as you do. If your soul were in my soul's place, I could join words together against you, and shake my head at you,
Job 16:5 but I would strengthen you with my mouth. The solace of my lips would relieve you.
Job 16:6 "Though I speak, my grief is not subsided. Though I forbear, what am I eased?
Job 16:7 But now, God, you have surely worn me out. You have made desolate all my company.
Job 16:8 You have shriveled me up. This is a witness against me. My leanness rises up against me. It testifies to my face.
Job 16:9 He has torn me in his wrath, and persecuted me. He has gnashed on me with his teeth. My adversary sharpens his eyes on me.
Job 16:10 They have gaped on me with their mouth. They have struck me on the cheek reproachfully. They gather themselves together against me.
Job 16:11 God delivers me to the ungodly, and casts me into the hands of the wicked.
Job 16:12 I was at ease, and he broke me apart. Yes, he has taken me by the neck, and dashed me to pieces. He has also set me up for his target.
Job 16:13 His archers surround me. He splits my kidneys apart, and does not spare. He pours out my gall on the ground.
Job 16:14 He breaks me with breach on breach. He runs on me like a giant.
Job 16:15 I have sewed sackcloth on my skin, and have thrust my horn in the dust.
Job 16:16 My face is red with weeping. Deep darkness is on my eyelids.
Job 16:17 Although there is no violence in my hands, and my prayer is pure.
Job 16:18 "Earth, don't cover my blood. Let my cry have no place to rest.
Job 16:19 Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven. He who vouches for me is on high.
Job 16:20 My friends scoff at me. My eyes pour out tears to God,
Job 16:21 that he would maintain the right of a man with God, of a son of man with his neighbor!
Job 16:22 For when a few years are come, I shall go the way from whence I shall not return.

 
Aug. 19
Acts 28

Act 28:1 When we had escaped, then they learned that the island was called Malta.
Act 28:2 The natives showed us uncommon kindness; for they kindled a fire, and received us all, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.
Act 28:3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
Act 28:4 When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said one to another, "No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped from the sea, yet Justice has not allowed to live."
Act 28:5 However he shook off the creature into the fire, and wasn't harmed.
Act 28:6 But they expected that he would have swollen or fallen down dead suddenly, but when they watched for a long time and saw nothing bad happen to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.
Act 28:7 Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the chief man of the island, named Publius, who received us, and courteously entertained us for three days.
Act 28:8 It happened that the father of Publius lay sick of fever and dysentery. Paul entered in to him, prayed, and laying his hands on him, healed him.
Act 28:9 Then when this was done, the rest also who had diseases in the island came, and were cured.
Act 28:10 They also honored us with many honors, and when we sailed, they put on board the things that we needed.
Act 28:11 After three months, we set sail in a ship of Alexandria which had wintered in the island, whose sign was "The Twin Brothers."
Act 28:12 Touching at Syracuse, we stayed there three days.
Act 28:13 From there we circled around and arrived at Rhegium. After one day, a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli,
Act 28:14 where we found brothers, and were entreated to stay with them for seven days. So we came to Rome.
Act 28:15 From there the brothers, when they heard of us, came to meet us as far as The Market of Appius and The Three Taverns. When Paul saw them, he thanked God, and took courage.
Act 28:16 When we entered into Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard, but Paul was allowed to stay by himself with the soldier who guarded him.
Act 28:17 It happened that after three days Paul called together those who were the leaders of the Jews. When they had come together, he said to them, "I, brothers, though I had done nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers, still was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans,
Act 28:18 who, when they had examined me, desired to set me free, because there was no cause of death in me.
Act 28:19 But when the Jews spoke against it, I was constrained to appeal to Caesar, not that I had anything about which to accuse my nation.
Act 28:20 For this cause therefore I asked to see you and to speak with you. For because of the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain."
Act 28:21 They said to him, "We neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor did any of the brothers come here and report or speak any evil of you.
Act 28:22 But we desire to hear from you what you think. For, as concerning this sect, it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against."
Act 28:23 When they had appointed him a day, many people came to him at his lodging. He explained to them, testifying about the Kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and from the prophets, from morning until evening.
Act 28:24 Some believed the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved.
Act 28:25 When they didn't agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had spoken one word, "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah, the prophet, to our fathers,
Act 28:26 saying, 'Go to this people, and say, in hearing, you will hear, but will in no way understand. In seeing, you will see, but will in no way perceive.
Act 28:27 For this people's heart has grown callous. Their ears are dull of hearing. Their eyes they have closed. Lest they should see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their heart, and would turn again, and I would heal them.'
Act 28:28 "Be it known therefore to you, that the salvation of God is sent to the nations. They will also listen."
Act 28:29 When he had said these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.
Act 28:30 Paul stayed two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who were coming to him,
Act 28:31 preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, without hindrance.

From Jim McGuiggan... Torah: Grace and Truth came by Moses

Torah: Grace and Truth came by Moses

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17
John 1:17 is often used to show that Moses didn't bring truth or grace and that what he did bring was a religion that was essentially a legal system. We know that's not correct.
John summarizes the purpose of his gospel in 20:30-31. He wants his readers to "keep the faith," (NEB) or, less likely, to come to faith in Jesus Christ so that they might have eternal life. In pursuing that end he has a number of sub themes and one of them is that Christ outshines all who went before him whether it's Jacob who gives water, the Baptist who bore witness to him, Abraham who rejoiced to see Christ's day or Moses who gave manna in the wilderness.
That theme begins early in the book where the Baptist's light bears witness to the true light and where the glory of God (the Shekinah) that dwelled among the people is exceeded by the incarnation of God in all his glory (Compare 1:14 with Exodus 40:34). That glory, we're told, is seen in his very Son who is full of grace and truth. 1
The contrast then moves to Moses who had been intimately associated with God and even reflected the glory of God (Exodus 33:13-22; 34:29-35). But Moses had never seen God himself. The only Son whose eternal intimacy with the Father made the Father known in a way that wasn't possible for Moses or anyone else.
It was out of the fullness of grace and truth that Messianic believers were blessed. Moses brought glory and grace (compare Paul's 2 Corinthians 3:7-11) 2 but the Son brought fullness of glory and gave "grace upon grace".3 Moses brought grace and truth when he came in God's name, proclaiming God's loving faithfulness to the patriarchs, and anyone who doesn't know that has been blinded to the truth of the scriptures by an over-eager defense of the peculiarly Christian faith. Blinded, too, by a misunderstanding of the nature of Old Testament Torah.
John has no intention of denying Old Testament grace or truth; he fully intends to insist that that truth and glory and grace has reached its summit and completion in God's own Son. In Christ we have received glory upon glory, truth upon truth and grace on top of (or in place of) grace.
According to Hebrews 4:2 what Moses brought from God to Israel was gospel. "For good news came to us just as it did to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers."
Not only does the Hebrew writer insist that what Moses brought was "gospel," he insisted that an appropriate response to that gospel was faith. He had earlier made the point that those to whom that gospel came, died without blessing because they were disobedient, and he calls that disobedience "unbelief". (3:16-18; compare also 4:2 and 4:6.)
It's clear from this that the profound difference between the Old and New Testament messages is not that one was legalistic and the other gospel or that one required (a legalistic response of) "deeds" rather than "faith". Both messages were gospel and both messages required the obedience of trust. This shouldn't surprise us and we shouldn't give the impression that the contrast throughout Hebrews is between a "system of works" and a "gospel of grace". It is no such thing. Hebrews 11 insists that the New Covenant called for nothing more nor less than what had counted before God from the very beginning the obedience of faith! 4
And no wonder the Hebrew writer calls Moses' message "gospel", listen to Moses' commission in Exodus 6:2-8, "I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them. I also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they dwelt as sojourners. Moreover I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold in bondage and I have remembered my covenant. Say therefore to the people of Israel, 'I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burden of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment, and I will take you for my people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; I will give it to you for a possession. I am the Lord.' " All these rich promises and what they imply about the God who makes them is nothing short of "good news". And part of that gospel was that God would take them as his people and he would be their God in a covenanted relationship (compare Exodus 19:5-6 and 24:3-8).
To contrast the obedience the Torah calls for with the gracious redeeming work of God in Christ is to contrast the wrong things and create needless tension. To make a proper contrast we need to compare God's gracious redeeming work in rescuing Israel from Egypt with his redeeming work in rescuing a human race. One outshines the other but it doesn't deny the glory or grace of the other. It wouldn't be difficult to create a pseudo tension if we compared the blunt demand for obedience found in a host of New Covenant texts with God's gracious redemption of Israel from Egypt. If we did that, it would make the New Covenant writings look legalistic. God's free and sovereign grace undergirds the call for obedience in both covenants and that gives obedience a responsive character rather than a creative one.
Moses brought grace and truth. He takes almost eleven chapters of Deuteronomy to lay a foundation of salvation and life with God by free grace, before he repeats and expounds the commandments of the Torah.
He rehearses how good God has been to them; multiplying them, delivering them, guiding them, tolerating their unbelief and presumption, sustaining them for forty years in the awful wilderness, overcoming their enemies and giving them even more land than he had promised. He reminds them that God honoured them by giving them a covenantal Torah that the world would be jealous of and that he offered them such intimacy with himself in that covenant that was totally unheard of.
All of this, not because Israel was impressive or strong (Deuteronomy 7:7; 8:17) and it certainly wasn't because they were a righteous people. Note how repetitive this text is as it drives its truth home. "Do not say in your heart...'It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess the land'; ...Not because of our righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land...but that he may confirm the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, the Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know therefore, that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn people..." (9:4-6) And the rest of the chapter documents this description of them.
Whoever came up with the notion that the Old Testament Torah taught a "save yourself by the merit of your obedience" doctrine, didn't get it from the Torah itself. The redeeming history it rehearses and the theological meaning it gives to those redemptive acts are death to any self-salvation message. In addition to this, it always links Israel's obedience with God's prior grace and redemptive work.
Years ago I read a man who was Mr. Death on legalism. In the course of his argument he said Israel should have said 'no' to God's offer of the Torah. He said God was only putting them to the test and they failed that test by agreeing to do whatever the Torah asked. But Deuteronomy 5:27-28 disagrees with that. Israel says to Moses: "Go near and listen to all that the Lord our God says. Then tell us whatever the Lord our God tells you. We will listen and obey." God's response to that was, "I have heard what this people said to you. Everything they said was good." God knew that they wouldn't keep the word they gave but he did commend the response.
Joshua (24:2) reminds Israel that their forefathers, in the days of Terah and Abraham, worshipped idols beyond the Euphrates. And what is it that redeemed them? God graciously made himself known to Abraham and so the night of idolatry and polytheism began to dawn toward a full blown knowledge of the one true God who gave Israel his covenant name, Yahweh.
Was this a privilege? Was Israel advantaged by this light? Were they blessed when compared to other nations who worshipped things that crawled and rattled and slithered? Paul gives voice to a Jewish protest in Romans 3:1, "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew...?" and answers, "Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God." And later, in Romans 9:3-5, the gifts and privileges he says belonged to Israel include "the receiving of the law". God made himself known to Israel as to no other nation and a part of that self-revelation was the Torah.
Moses is thrilled with the privilege he had brought to Israel in the commandments of Torah. He has no thought that he's delivering to them a yoke of bondage. Far from it; in Deuteronomy 4:6-8 he delights to tell them:
Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you this day?
Not everyone was as fortunate or as privileged as those to whom Moses spoke when he said (Deuteronomy 5:2-3): "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today."
And it was when they were called to, "Stand up and praise the Lord your God" that the returnees from exile confessed how good God had been to them down the years delivering them from captivity and sustaining them through the awful wilderness. It was in that celebratory setting that they said, "You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good." (Nehemiah 9:5-13)
No wonder Jacob Neusner, probably America's most prolific Rabbi, reminds us that, for the Jews, the Torah finds its place among the gifts of a gracious God: "We thank Thee, Lord our God...for Thy Torah which Thou has taught us, for Thy statutes which Thou has made known to us, for the life of grace and mercy Thou has graciously bestowed on us..."  In describing halakhah (the authoritative interpretation of Torah) he remarks, "When people think of law, they ordinarily imagine a religion for book-keepers, who tote up the good deeds and debit the bad and call the result salvation or damnation, depending on the outcome. But when we speak of life under the halakhah law, we mean life in accord with the halakhah, the rules and regulations of a holy life." 6
Agreeing with this viewpoint, Old Testament scholar, Walther Eichrodt, said: "This new saving act by God consists in his giving of the law. In it the Exodus from Egypt reaches its objective...The value set on the law makes it clear that it constitutes the actual divine gift of life...God's law as a new order of society takes a man out of the cursed sphere of sin and remoteness from God, and gives him his place in the living God's sphere of blessing, where the powers of death cannot lay hold on him. This seems to characterize the law of the covenant as the great gift of life...Here is not a set of severe demands made by an arbitrary and alien will, narrowing down life, and subjecting it to a rigid regime of reward and punishment." 7
The gracious nature of the covenantal Torah is stressed not only in the redeeming acts of God which were the prelude to the giving of the Torah, it's cultic service proclaimed the nation's debt to God's amazing grace. B.W. Anderson is surely correct when he says: "Ritual is belief that is acted out by the people in corporate worship or by their representatives, the ministers or priests. In religion what is done in worship is sometimes more important than what is said. Actions may express convictions about God and God's relation to the people more eloquently than words or even specific theological statements." 8
The Christian will think about baptism and the Lord's Supper in this connection. In the Jewish setting, take the Feast of the Firstfruits as observed corporately and individually. Here's Deuteronomy 26:1-10: When you have entered the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance and have taken possession of it and settled in it, take some of the firsfruits of all that you produce from the soil of the land the Lord your God is giving you and put them in a basket. Then go to the place the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name and say to the priest in the office at the time, "I declare today to the Lord your God that I have come to the land the Lord swore to our forefathers to give us." The priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the Lord your God. Then you shall declare before the Lord your God: "My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the Lord, the God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, O Lord, have given me. "Place the basket before the Lord your God and bow down before him.
Notice the repeated confession that the land was "given" to them by God even as he had long ago promised. Note the confession of desperation and utter helplessness and the witness that God listened to their cries, rescued them, brought them safely to the land and richly blessed them.
And there was the Passover that bore witness to God's gracious passing over Israel at the time of judgment on sinners. The feast said, "We should have died and the only reason we are alive and flourishing this day is because of the Lord's goodness and kindness."
The sacrificial system, which included the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), was only possible because God gave them the blood on their altars (Leviticus 17:11) to make atonement. Sinners though they were, the continuing mercy of God extended to them through the sacrificial arrangement enabled them to live in relationship with the holy Lord who was pleased to dwell among them.
In the Torah, the Tabernacle and sacrificial system is not seen as man's self-chosen means of securing God's favor despite sin. In Exodus 39:40 we're told about seventeen times that the Tabernacle and all connected with it was carried out by "Moses...as the Lord commanded him."  Moses didn't invent the Tabernacle, priestly or sacrificial system to gain God's good grace by sacrifice; God set it all up and gave it efficacy.
Finally, when Moses came back down the mountain Israel had violated the covenant in the most fundamental way and came under threat of obliteration. Moses pleads on their behalf and the God of all grace extended mercy. They lived because of grace and not merit accrued by deeds. They earned nothing but death and received life as an expression of God's grace.
All this Israel knew! All this the Torah proclaimed! All this meant that there was truth and grace abundant in the ministry of Moses to Israel. See Exodus 32:33.
1. It hardly needs to be said that Moses brought "truth". Paul insists on this in Romans 2:20 and says Christ came to confirm God's truthfulness in light of Torah's promises (Romans 15:8).
2. I think 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 connects well with John 1 in following a contrast. What is prior is glorious, what follows is more glorious. See especially 3:18 as part of the argument.
3. In the phrase "Grace upon grace" the preposition is "anti" which often (Hendriksen and others would say usually) has a substitutionary notion. Both Hendriksen and Morris settle for the substitutionary use in this passage but suggest that the phrase means something like: the Christian has one experience of grace following another. If what I've suggested above has merit, it might be better to see the fullness of God's grace through Jesus Christ replacing the grace that came through Moses. Morris and Hendriksen treat the passage as a contrast between law religion brought by Moses and gospel brought by Christ. I don't think we should understand it that way.
4. This raises questions about Paul's claims about the Torah. I'll say something about these elsewhere, God enabling.
5. An Introduction to Judaism, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, 1991, page 5. It won't hurt us to note again this phrase in which the Jewish Synagogue service expresses thanks to God, "for the life of grace and mercy Thou has graciously bestowed on us." We read a lot of quotations from evangelical writers which are assigned a "legalistic" thrust. Here's one of many that humbly confesses that life is a gift of grace and mercy.
6. Ibid., page 63
7. Ezekiel, Westminster, Philadelphia, 1970, page 267
8. Contours of Old Testament Theology, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1999, page 116.
9. In Exodus and Numbers there's a clear defense of Moses against accusations that he seized authority and acted like a dictator. This is probably the immediate point for this reiteration. Nevertheless, the constant refrain that the Tabernacle and its services were structured by Moses "as the Lord commanded" him establishes the point made above.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Will You Be Silenced? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3541

Will You Be Silenced?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When individuals in the 21st century teach what God’s Word says about the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:22-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), even when done in a spirit of “love,” “meekness and fear” (as the Bible teaches—Ephesians 4:15; 1 Peter 3:15), they are often labeled as unloving, unkind, hateful, and mean-spirited. Take, for example, the response that Kirk Cameron recently received after being interviewed on Piers Morgan’s CNN show Tonight. When asked about his thoughts regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, Cameron respectfully called it “unnatural” and “destructive,” and “detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization….” “Marriage,” he said, “was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either” (“Kirk Cameron…,” 2012). For these comments, individuals and media members all over the country ridiculed Cameron as being, among other things, “out of step with the modern world” (Dray, 2012), “extremist” (Badash, 2012), “self-righteous” (Burt, 2012), and a “homophobic bigot” (Silverthorne, 2012).
After a Christian posted a comment on his Facebook page recently about President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, saying, “As Christians, this is another sad moment in our nation’s moral downfall,” a young lady responded by writing:
For once, I beg of you, as Christians, to look at someone who is gay or different from you and love them. Just love them. Don't tell them their [sic] immoral or disgusting or brainwashed or bad. LOVE them. As God loves them. As Jesus loves them. Stop spreading HATE and FEAR. You are hurting yourselves. Your children. You are making the world a bad place, the exact opposite of what I know you want. Why is it that the Christians are the ones who seem to be the most judgmental of them all? (2012, emp. added, capitalization in orig.).
Notice that there was no hate in the gentleman’s statement—only perceived hate by someone who would much rather Christians remain completely silent about what the Bible teaches regarding God’s pattern for the home.
In the Fall of 2011, a ninth-grade honors student in Fort Worth, Texas was given a disciplinary referral form, one day of in-school suspension, and two days of out-of-school suspension because he said to a friend in class that “he was a Christian and ‘being a homosexual is wrong’” (Stames, 2011; Khalil, 2011). This one statement, which was overheard by the teacher (who previously had posted a picture in the classroom of two men kissing), allegedly warranted a reprimand and three days of suspension from class. [Thankfully, administrators dropped the suspension completely, but only after Dakota’s mother solicited the help of a constitutional attorney (Khalil).]
A Catholic church in Acushnet, Massachusetts recently changed their marquee to read, “Two men are friends not spouses.” Their words were described by those who opposed the sign as “subtle bigotry,” “hateful,” and “disrespectful.” One woman called the church saying that the church “should be burned” for spreading such hate. One man said that he was “outraged” that a church would choose to speak out on the issue of gay marriage (see “Controversial Sign...,” 2012).
In April 2012, “outspoken gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocate” Dan Savage spoke at an anti-bullying conference in Seattle, Washington before thousands of students and teachers from along the west coast (“Dan Savage…,” 2012). In his speech he stated: “We can learn to ignore the bull**** in the Bible about gay people” (“Anti-bullying Speaker…,” 2012). After several students walked out, the anti-bullying speaker stated: “You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny, as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy***** people react when you push back” (“Anti-bullying Speaker…”).
No doubt, some people who claim to be Christians have spoken about the sin of homosexuality with unChristlike attitudes and in ungodly ways. Such hypocrisy certainly should be condemned, as should all ungodliness (Romans 12:9; 1 John 5:17; Galatians 5:19-12; Revelation 21:8), including homosexuality. However, what we increasingly witness today is, even when Christians teach what Almighty God has revealed about homosexuality in the most loving, kind, meek manner, they are still blasted by homosexual activists and many in the media as being guilty of “hate speech.” For teaching what the Creator has revealed (and expects Christians to teach without compromise; cf. Acts 4:17-20; 5:29), Bible believers have been expelled at school, ridiculed at work, and threatened in their churches. Even homosexual “anti-bullying experts” apparently enjoy “beating up the Bible” (and all the alleged “bull****” in it) and bullying the “pansy*****” Christians that they are supposedly teaching not to bully.
We should not be surprised at the reactions (even highly hypocritical reactions) of the world to the preaching of God’s Word. John the Baptizer, of whom Jesus said “among those born of women there has not risen one greater” (Matthew 11:11), was beheaded for courageously telling a King that it was wrong for him to be married to someone who was not his lawful wife (Mark 6:14-29). Jesus was crucified following three years of preaching a message of repentance (Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3,5). Paul, who knew very well what true, biblical love was (1 Corinthians 13), likewise preached a message of repentance (Acts 17:30-31; 26:20), including the encouragement of mankind to repent of the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:22-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-10).
Will the Christ’s church continue to teach what God says on every subject and on every evil, including the sin of homosexuality? Or, will the Lord’s church cower at the threats made against her and remain quiet as homosexual activists, Hollywood actors, and influential media members attempt to silence the alleged unloving “hate speech” of Christians? “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).
“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20, emp. added).
“[W]e should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Ephesians 4:14-15, emp. added).
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15, emp. added).
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent” (Revelation 3:19, emp. added).

REFERENCES

“Anti-bullying Speaker a Bully?” (2012), Fox News, April 30, http://video.foxnews.com/v/1612875073001/anti-bullying-speaker-a-bully.
Badash, David (2012), “Kirk Cameron: I Should Be Able to Slander Gays Without Being ‘Slandered’ for Slandering Gays,” March 6, The New Civil Rights Movement, http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/kirk-cameron-i-should-be-able-to-slander-gays-without-being-slandered-for-slandering-gays/politics/2012/03/06/35819.
Burt, Jacqueline (2012), “Kirk Cameron is Even More Self-Righteous and Bigoted than We Thought,” Cafémom, http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/133963/kirk_cameron_is_even_more.
“Controversial Sign at St. Francis Xavier Church, Acushnet, MA” (2012), May 16, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMFvrdb0vQ0.
“Dan Savage Addresses Journalist Conference Speech Controversy, Denies Attacking Christianity”  (2012), Huffington Post, May 1, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/dan-savage-journalist-conference-controversy_n_1464486.html.
Dray, Kayleigh (2012), “Kirk Cameron: Homosexuality is ‘Unnatural’,” Entertainment, March 4, http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/70939/Kirk-Cameron-Homosexuality-Is-Unnatural.
Khalil, Cathryn (2011), “Student’s Homosexuality Comment Leads to Suspension,” September 22, http://www.cbs19.tv/story/15526115/students-homosexuality-comment-leads-to-suspension.
“Kirk Cameron Says ‘Homosexuality is Unnatural’” (2012), CNN, March 2, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhGQUKoH_TE.
Silverthorne, Sarah (2012), “Kirk Cameron is a Homophobic Bigot,” March 3, http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2012/kirk-cameron-is-a-homophobic-bigot-video-0303/.
Stames, Todd (2011), “Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality,” Fox News, September 22, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/.

Common Sense, Miracles, and the Apparent Age of the Earth by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4082

Common Sense, Miracles, and the Apparent Age of the Earth

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

To many people, the Earth looks extremely old—not hundreds or thousands of years old, but millions or billions of years old. When these individuals hear a creationist talk about a “young Earth” that is only a few thousand years old, they may wonder how someone could hold such a view. “How can anyone look at Earth and think it was created less than 10,000 years ago?” Aside from their reliance on faulty (and often contradictory) assumption-based radiometric dating methods, evolutionists simply believe the Earth looks exceedingly old. The Earth’s rocks, hills, canyons, and mountains leave them with the impression that the Earth has been around for billions of years.

Evolution’s Demand

One must first recognize that evolutionary theory demands an old Earth. As evolutionist Michael Le Page acknowledged in 2008: “A young Earth would…be a problem for evolution, since evolution by natural selection requires vast stretches of time—‘deep time’—as Darwin realized” (198[2652]:26, emp. added). He went on to admit forthrightly that one of the main “sorts of findings…that could have falsified evolution…is a young Earth” (p. 26). If it is the case that a young Earth would be a lethal blow to evolutionary theory, it should come as no surprise that evolutionists cannot help but see the Earth as being billions of years old. Even if they did not always have “old-Earth impressions,” the man-made theory of evolution demands such an interpretation of our planet, else the entire theory of evolution would have to be abandoned. [NOTE: Evolution should be abandoned anyway since it is impossible—whether the Earth is young or old. What’s more, many dating methods exist that point to a young Earth (see Humphreys, 2005).]

Define “Old”

How does anyone actually know what a billion-year-old Earth looks like? Older humans can be identified accurately as “old” (1) because their actual birthdates can be known (i.e, people witnessed their births and gave them birth certificates), and (2) possibly because their appearance can be compared to both older and younger people. The same can be said for animals and plants. People can know exactly when various animals were born or when a tree was planted. But what about the Earth as a whole? No one was alive when this or any other planet was “born.” No one was present on Earth to see the first rock formed, hill raised, or canyon created. How can anyone reasonably say, “The Earth looks billions of years old”? Old compared to what?

Apparent Age and the Great Catastrophe

People who contend that the Earth appears billions of years old must also discount the very real possibility that one or more great catastrophes could have occurred in the past to drastically change the appearance of the Earth. Many have witnessed how earthquakes, local floods, volcanoes, etc. have radically altered the looks of certain places on Earth (e.g., Mt. St. Helens and Spirit Lake). Consider how a tree that has been struck by lightning or damaged during a flood might appear much older than it is. Newly formed igneous rocks from volcanoes often appear old. A person in his twenties who is badly burned may appear as if he is much older—perhaps two or three times his real age. In truth, Christians rightly interpret the Earth based upon the fact that only a few thousand years ago, God supernaturally altered the Earth’s appearance forever by causing “all the fountains of the great deep” to break up and the “windows of heaven” to open, bringing rain “on the Earth for forty days and forty nights” (Genesis 7:11-12; cf. Psalm 104:6-8). Most of the oil, coal beds, fossil graveyards, etc. in the Earth, which many contend are evidence of an old Earth, can be easily and rationally explained as a result of the worldwide Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-8; see Whitcomb and Morris, 1961). In short, even if it could be proven that “the Earth looks very old,” evolutionists cannot rationally deny that such apparent age could be the result of one or more great catastrophes.

Miraculous Maturity

The fact that the Earth appeared older than it actually was at Creation is perfectly logical in light of the nature of God’s miracles. When Jesus miraculously turned water to wine, He did not plant a vine, wait for the grapes to grow over the course of several years, and then harvest them. He supernaturally by-passed this normal, time-laden process and instantaneously made an extremely tasty drink (John 2:1-10). When Jesus fed several thousand men, women, and children with only five loaves of bread and two fish (Matthew 14:13-21), He did not make the large amounts of bread needed to feed this many people after planting a crop of wheat, waiting months for it to grow, and then harvesting, threshing, grinding, and baking it. Again, Jesus by-passed a lengthy, natural process and miraculously created bread. Similarly, God made the creation full-grown. He made “the fruit tree” (Genesis 1:11), not just a seed that would eventually grow into a fruit-bearing tree. He created “every winged bird” (Genesis 1:21), not eggs from which birds would hatch months later. He created a grown man capable of walking, talking, working, and procreating (Genesis 1:26-2:25). God miraculously made a mature Creation.

“Mature” Light

Certainly one of the most amazing, time-defying, mature miracles of God’s Creation was the creation of the heavenly bodies on day four. God had previously made light (intrinsic light) on day one of Creation; on day four He made the generators of light. [NOTE: Keep in mind that “the Father of lights” (James 1:17), Who is “light” (1 John 1:5), could easily create light without first having to create the Sun. Just as God could produce a fruit-bearing tree on day three without a seed, He could produce light supernaturally on day one without the “usual” light bearers.] Since light travels nearly six trillion miles per year, and since some stars are an estimated 15 billion light years away, evolutionists assume that the Universe must be at least 15 billion years old. Otherwise, how could we see the light from stars that are so far away?
Once again, the answer (or at least a major part of the answer) to this supposed conundrum goes back to the fact that God worked an amazing miracle at Creation. When God created the heavenly bodies (the generators of light) on day four of Creation, He simultaneously (and supernaturally!) made their light to appear on Earth. Light that might naturally take long amounts of time to reach Earth, miraculously reached Earth in an instant. Just as God had said on day one, “‘Let there be light’…and there was light” (Genesis 1:3), on day four He said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens…. And it was so” (1:14,15). These lights were created to “give light on the earth” (1:15,17) and to “divide the day from the night” (1:14,18). God also “set them in the firmament of the heavens…for signs and seasons, and for days and years” (1:17,14, emp. added). God had a purpose for creating the heavenly bodies, and He made them so that man benefitted from them without having to wait long periods of time for their light to reach Earth.
Starlight did not have to travel for 15 billion years before reaching Earth. When God made Adam and Eve two days after His creation of the heavenly bodies, the first couple immediately profited from God’s miraculous creation of starlight. The first couple did not sleep under starless skies for years waiting for light from distant stars to reach Earth. God spoke the stars and their light rays into existence. Similar to how God created full-grown trees in one day (which if cut down may have had dozens or hundreds of visible tree rings), God made light from far-away stars appear instantly. Indeed, considering the nature of God’s miracles at Creation, a star that might “appear” to be extremely old, is actually only a few thousand years old. [NOTE: It is beyond the purview of this article to answer every quibble about starlight and time. Plausible, creation-friendly explanations regarding fluctuations in light from stars, the formation of supernovas, etc. have been offered by various scientists (see Norman and Setterfield, 1987; Humphreys, 1994). Evolutionary physicist João Magueijo (2003) has even proposed that the speed of light is not a constant.]

CONCLUSION

The fact that the Earth and Universe may appear much older than it is in no way bolsters the case for evolution. In truth, Scripture reveals that both the miracle of a mature Creation and the cataclysmic Flood are adequate explanations for a perceived “old Earth.”

REFERENCES

Humphreys, Russell (1994), Starlight and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books).
Humphreys, Russell (2005), “Evidence for a Young World,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/.
Le Page, Michael (2008), “Evolution: The Ultimate Guide to a Beautiful Theory,” New Scientist, 198[2652]:24-33, April 19.
Magueijo, João (2003), Faster Than the Speed of Light (New York: Perseus).
Norman, Trevor and Barry Setterfield (1987), The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, Technical Report (Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute International).
Whitcomb, John and Henry Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

God’s Original Superhydrophobic Material by Kyle Butt, M.A.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1785

God’s Original Superhydrophobic Material

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

One cannot help but be amazed at ever-increasing technology that continues to offer better, more efficient products and services. Hardly a week goes by that a new discovery does not find its way into the headlines. Interestingly, many of the most advanced, beneficial discoveries are occurring in the field of study known as biomimicry—the copying or mimicking of the natural, biological world.
For instance, on February 23, 2006, the on-line version of Technology Review featured an article titled “Super-Repellent Plastic.” Admittedly, the title of the article itself does not indicate that biomimicry is involved. Yet, knowing that many new discoveries derive from mimicking nature, I could not help but think that this new plastic might be the result of some phenomenon that God had already designed. As I suspected, about three-fourths of the way through the article, the reader is informed that the scientists who are working on this new plastic “took their inspiration from the leaves of the lotus plant, which is naturally superhydrophobic.... GE set out to mimic this pattern on the surface of its polycarbonate materials” (Talbot, 2006).
This amazing new superhydrophobic (“extremely repellent of water”) plastic will “shed” liquids at a much more efficient rate than many current materials, and it will be more inexpensive to manufacture than current substances—like Teflon. Multiple uses for this plastic have been suggested, including ketchup bottles in which the ketchup will not adhere to the sides of the container, and building panels that would be virtually self-cleaning because rain would wash away dirt (Talbot, 2006).
The technology is not supposed to be on the consumer market for another five years, but its potential is excitedly anticipated. In the midst of the excitement, do not lose sight of an important aspect of this technological wonder. Very intelligent, well-educated scientists have spent hundreds (or thousands) of hours on this advancement. And yet, the prototype for it, the lotus plant, has contained the superhydrophobic capacity for the entirety of its existence. What Intelligent Designer is responsible for endowing this amazing plant with such efficient water-shedding abilities? Those who believe in evolution would say that it acquired this ability over millions of years due to random, chance processes at work in nature. But with the same breath they would laud the creative abilities of the GE scientists. Why is it that evolutionists miss the implication that to recognize design in human invention, while attributing the more efficient design in nature to non-intelligent processes, is logically irrational. It is high time that the Creator of nature’s design be given the plaudits He deserves as the Ultimate Engineer.

REFERENCE

Talbot, David (2006), “Super-Repellent Plastic,” Technology Review, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_16415,295,p1.html.

Newsweek Article's Attack on the Bible: So Misinformed It's a Sin by Dave Miller, Ph.D.Kyle Butt, M.A.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5104

Newsweek Article's Attack on the Bible: So Misinformed It's a Sin

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.
Kyle Butt, M.A.

Abraham Lincoln is credited with the statement: “How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” With that thought in mind, we turn our attention to the cover story of the December 23, 2014 issue of Newsweek titled, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin.” Kurt Eichenwald, the author, said concerning his article: “This examination is not an attack on the Bible or Christianity.” He says about his writing, “None of this is meant to demean the Bible, but all of it is fact.” Eichenwald may say that his article is not an attack on the Bible or is not designed to demean it, but that claim is simply not true. He boldly states that the Bible is “loaded with contradictions and translation errors and wasn’t written by witnesses and includes words added by unknown scribes to inject Church orthodoxy.” In fact, the bulk of his writing is an effort to prove these errors, contradictions, and discrepancies. Having declared that they are facts (which is the furthest thing from the truth, as we will show in this response), he says, “Christians angered by these facts should be angry with the Bible, not the messenger.” Make no mistake about it, Eichenwald is bashing the Bible, and he does so without the facts.
In a way, Eichenwald’s attack on the Bible is reassuring to the Bible believer for the simple reason that Eichenwald uses information that has been refuted literally for centuries. His article consists of warmed-over skepticism that has so often been easily refuted; we at Apologetics Press already have articles on virtually every subject he mentions (www.apologeticspress.org). In another way, however, his article is troubling. Why, if his arguments are so easily answered, does the author feel that they will resonate with his audience or cause others to question the Bible? The most reasonable answer seems to be that he knows his audience is ignorant of the responses to his attacks. The Proverbs writer once stated, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). To those who have not given these matters much thought, Eichenwald’s information may seem legitimate and may cause one to doubt the Bible’s inspiration. However, when one examines this information, it will be seen for what it is—a thinly veiled, inept attack against the inspired Word of God.

The “Contradictions” in the Bible

The Birth of Jesus

One of the clearest examples of Eichenwald’s errant thinking is seen in his repetitious claim that the Bible is “loaded with contradictions.” In his section titled “No Three Kings,” he contends that the accounts of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke are contradictory. He writes: “Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. No wise men showed up for the birth…. No angel appearing to Mary…. Not born in a manger….” Then he asks the reader: “Not the version you are familiar with...? You may not recognize this version, but it is a story of Jesus’ birth found in the Gospels. Two Gospels—Matthew and Luke—tell the story of when Jesus was born, but in quite different ways. Contradictions abound.”
Is it true that the versions of Jesus’ “birth” are filled with contradictions? Not at all. Let us see how he proceeds to fabricate contradictions that are not there. First, notice how he begins his section: “Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem.” Note that he did not provide a verse reference for that claim—for good reason: there is no Bible passage that claims that Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. The account in Luke makes it clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (2:4) and, contrary to Eichenwald’s charge, in a manger (2:7,16)—i.e., a barn-animal feeding trough. Did an angel appear to Mary? The Gospels make no such claim, and therefore, cannot be said to contradict one another. An angel appeared to shepherds in the field at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8-13) and to Mary before Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:26-31), but this does not contradict any other passage. Did wise men come to the birth? When we turn to Matthew’s account, the chapter begins its narrative about the wise men: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King…” (2:1). How long after Jesus was born in Bethlehem? The text does not say. In fact, king Herod asked the wise men what time Jesus’ star appeared (vs. 7), and based on that information, the evil king issued a decree to kill the young males in Bethlehem who were from “two years old and under” (vs. 16). Obviously, between the time the star appeared, and the time the wise men arrived, several months had elapsed. In fact, from Herod’s calculations to kill two year olds, it could have been as much as 18 months to two years. So, the story in Matthew 2 is not even a “birth” story. The Bible makes no claim that wise men were at Jesus’ birth. The only contradiction that can be levied concerning the appearance of the wise men is not a contradiction in the Bible, but a contradiction between what the Bible says and what people have erroneously claimed the Bible says—as with the case of the appearance of the angel to Mary.
Eichenwald has committed the very mistake that he accuses so many evangelicals of committing. Early in the article he bemoans the fact that many people who call themselves Christians do not even know what the text says. Sadly, he is right. Many Christians do not study the Bible as they should. He insists that his article is “designed to shine a light on a book that has been abused by people who claim to revere it but don’t read it.” Ironically, Eichenwald’s attack is filled with heat, but very little light. His examples of obvious “contradictions” in the “birth” accounts of Jesus are attacks against information that is not even in the Bible. In an article that purports to straighten out those who are biblically illiterate, to boldly proclaim that the Bible states that “Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem”—when the Bible nowhere makes such a statement—is inexcusable, slipshod scholarship. [For more information, see the A.P. article: “When Did Jesus Go to Egypt?” (Lyons, 2011).]
In addition, Eichenwald claims that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ bloodline through Joseph, “Except…Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father…. Mary, the mother of Jesus, can be the only parent with a bloodline to David, but neither Gospel makes mention of that.” This allegation has been decisively answered in the A.P. article titled, “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke.” Here is the short answer to this alleged discrepancy:
Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus’ legal right to inherit the throne of David—a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However, an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from David—a point that could not be established through Joseph since “after His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). This feature of Christ’s Messiahship was established through His mother Mary, who was also a blood descendant of David (Luke 1:30-32). Both the blood of David and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate Jesus as the Messiah (Miller, 2003, emp. in orig.).
Isn’t it interesting that Eichenwald left out the fact that Luke’s genealogy mentions Jesus “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:24)? By using the phrase “as was supposed,” Luke demonstrates that Jesus was not the actual son of Joseph, just the perceived one. In addition, the Newsweek author neglected to mention that in Matthew 1:16, when the text says that “Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,” the word “whom” (in the Greek) is in the feminine form. It could only be referring to Mary. Thus, neither of the genealogies states that Jesus was born to Joseph.

Alleged Contradictions in the Resurrection Accounts

Eichenwald continues his attack on the Bible, stating that the “stories in the four Gospels of Jesus’ death and resurrection differ as well.” He asserts: “And who went to anoint Jesus in his tomb? In Matthew, it was Mary and another woman named Mary, and an angel met them there. In Mark, it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and a young man met them. In John, it was Mary alone; no one met her.” Supposedly, these “differing” accounts are so blatantly contradictory that no further examination need be applied to them. When we apply proper reasoning to this allegation, however, we see there are no contradictions.
For instance, what if John mentions one Mary while Matthew mentions Mary and another woman named Mary? This difference is not a contradiction. John would have had to qualify his statement by saying that “only” Mary or Mary “alone” went to the tomb. Did you notice that Eichenwald includes the word “alone” with Mary, but the biblical text never does? Just because one writer gives additional or supplemental information does not make him contradict the other account. [For more information, see the A.P. article titled, “The Resurrection Narratives” (Butt, 2002).] Consider Eichenwald’s own statement that at the Council of Nicaea, “Constantine arrived wearing jewels and gold on his scarlet robe and pearls on his crown.” Suppose that another person were to say that Constantine arrived with numerous courtiers and was wearing boots. Would that statement be a contradiction? Not in any way. Such accusations barely deserve to be answered—if it were not for their prevalence.

Two Accounts of Creation?

Eichenwald further suggests that “biblical scholars have concluded that two Jewish sects wrote many of the books. Each prepared its version of the Old Testament, and the two were joined together without any attempt to reconcile the many contradictions” (2014). Once again, the Newsweek writer conveniently mentions only those “biblical scholars” who happen to agree with him. What about the thousands of scholars that do not agree with this specious position? As an example of these “doublets,” he states: “The next time someone tells you the biblical story of Creation is true, ask that person, ‘Which one?’ Few of the Christian faithful seem to know the Bible contains multiple creation stories…. Careful readers have long known that the two stories contradict each other.” In truth, careful readers have long known just the opposite. As Wayne Jackson concluded: “When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been considered carefully, one thing is clear: an objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics” (See the A.P. article, “Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?” [Jackson, 1991; Cf. McGarvey, 1910, p. 66]). [NOTE: In his section dealing with such doublets, Eichenwald mentions that “biblical scholars” have concluded that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. The evidence, however, reveals that Moses certainly did write these books. See the A.P. article “Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch—Tried and True” (Lyons, 2003; cf. McGarvey, 1902).]
The article also uses the Flood story as an example of doublets causing contradictions. Eichenwald says the “water flooded the earth for 40 days (Genesis 7:17), or 150 days (Genesis 7:24).” His careless use of the Scripture is painful to endure. The text does not say in Genesis 7:17 that the Flood stopped after 40 days. It simply details things that occurred at that time, such as the waters lifting the ark off the ground. The text in Genesis 7:24 specifically says that at the end of 150 days the water began to decrease. The previous 7:17 says nothing about the complete duration of the Flood or when the waters stopped rising. [NOTE: For an exhaustive list of answers to these types of alleged contradictions, see A.P.’s Web site category titled “Alleged Discrepancies.”]

Sunday As the Christian Day of Worship

The title of the Newsweek article, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” explains much about the author’s method of bashing. He approaches the subject in light of the idea that many Christians do not read or understand the Bible. One of the author’s grievous faults, however, is that it is apparent that he does not read or understand the Bible either, and he writes in a way that betrays this fact. For instance, when discussing the Christian day of worship, Eichenwald suggests that Constantine was responsible for establishing it as Sunday instead of the Sabbath (or Saturday). He alleges:
Things that are today accepted without much thought were adopted or reinforced at Nicaea. For example, the Old Testament was clear in declaring that God rested on the seventh day, making it the Sabbath. The seventh day of the week is Saturday, the day of Jewish worship and rest. (Jesus himself invoked the holiness of the Jewish Sabbath.) The word Sunday does not appear in the Bible, either as the Sabbath or anything else. But four years before Nicaea, Constantine declared Sunday as a day of rest in honor of the sun God…. Many theologians and Christian historians believe that it was at this moment, to satisfy Constantine and his commitment to his empire’s many sun worshippers, that the Holy Sabbath was moved by one day, contradicting the clear words of what ultimately became the Bible (2014).
Notice the author’s tactic. First, he says that both the Old Testament and Jesus invoked the Sabbath (our Saturday) as holy. Then he states that the Bible never even uses the word Sunday. And, lastly, he implies that Christians were not “officially” worshiping on this day prior to Constantine, but that Constantine changed the day of Christian worship to Sunday.
Eichenwald’s assertions regarding the day of Christian worship contradict both biblical and historical fact—and are easily answered. First, he confuses the issue when he says that the word “Sunday” is not even used in the Bible, since none of our modern names for the days of the week are used in the Bible. The term “Saturday” does not appear. You will not read the terms “Friday” or “Monday” in the original text either. Such is to be expected. The real question is: did the writers of the Bible have their own designation for the day that we call Sunday? Of course they did; it was called “the first day of the week,” Saturday (or Sabbath), being the last or seventh day of their week. We could ask, then, do we read about anything in the New Testament happening on the first day of the week? Absolutely. In fact, Jesus rose early “after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn” (Matthew 28:1). Christians were to come together to give money to support the church’s work every “first day of the week” in the city of Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:2). And the book of Acts explains that the Christians gathered to partake of the Lord’s Supper (referred to as “breaking bread”) on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).
Early Christian writers that lived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries verify this truth. As Eric Lyons wrote in the A.P. article titled “Did Paul Want Christians to Come Together on Saturday or Sunday?”:
Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Magnesians (believed to be penned around A.D. 110) how Christians “have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day” (1:62, emp. added; cf. Revelation 1:5). And, in chapter 67 of his First Apology (written around A.D. 150), Justin Martyr noted how Christians would gather together “on the day called Sunday” to read the writings of the apostles and prophets, instruct, pray, give, and eat of bread and wine (2005; see also the A.P. article, “The First Day of the Week” [Lyons, 2006]).
Biblical scholar Robert Milligan wrote, “That the primitive Christians were wont to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on every first day of the week is evident.... During the first two centuries the practice of weekly communion was universal, and it was continued in the Greek church till the seventh century” (1975, p. 440).
In addition to these facts, Eichenwald seems to be totally unaware of the overwhelming testimony of the New Testament that the Old Testament has been fulfilled and removed. Yes, the Old Testament mandated worship on the Sabbath—for the Jews; but Christ’s death and resurrection changed the law. As the Hebrews writer so concisely observed, “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete” (8:13). And again Paul wrote that the Old Law, “was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:25). Christians no longer sacrifice animals as the Israelites did, they no longer celebrate the Passover, and they no longer hallow Saturday as the Holy Day. Those are vestiges of the Old Law that have been removed. For Eichenwald to misunderstand such clear and repetitive New Testament teaching is disappointing to say the least. The testimony of the New Testament and early Christian writers proves that Sunday was the Christian day of worship centuries before Constantine arrived on the scene.

Jesus and Family Values

In the first paragraph of his article, Eichenwald caricatures certain “Christian” fanatics and caustically attacks them, demanding that “they are God’s fraud’s, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch.” As we have seen throughout this review, Eichenwald is often guilty of the very tactics he condemns others for using. As an example, consider his statements concerning Jesus and family values. He wrote:
Some of the contradictions are conflicts between what evangelicals consider absolute and what Jesus actually said. For example, evangelicals are always talking about family values. But to Jesus, family was an impediment to reaching God. In the Gospel of Matthew, he states, “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life” (2014).
Talk about cafeteria style Bible interpretation! Eichenwald conveniently fails to include the fact that one of Jesus’ dying statements was to ensure that His mother was taken care of after His death (John 19:26-27). He leaves out the fact that Jesus’ apostles insisted that husbands are called to love their wives and give their very lives to protect them (Ephesians 5:25). In addition, children are to honor their parents (Ephesians 6:1), fathers are to train and discipline their children (Ephesians 6:4; Hebrews 12:7-11), families are to financially support their own (1 Timothy 5:8), and wives are to love their husbands and their children (Titus 2:4). In addition, Jesus insisted that God is like a loving Father who longs for the return of His children (Luke 15:11-32). It is only possible to question Jesus’ and the apostles’ family values if a handful of verses are ripped from their context.
What is Jesus really saying when He mentions that His followers are to “forsake” families or homes for His cause? The easy-to-understand message here is that a relationship with Jesus must be the most important relationship in the life of His followers. That means if a spouse were to demand that a Christian participate in pagan idol worship or the spouse was going to leave, then with much sadness but firm resolve, the Christian should let the spouse leave and not join in the pagan idol worship. If Hindu parents insist that if their college son becomes a Christian they will disown him, that son should follow Christ and be disowned by his parents. We can all understand that a person should never commit murder, theft, or adultery to preserve a close relationship with family or friends. Jesus was merely stating that the relationship with Him is the most important. [See the A.P. article “Hate Your Parents—or Love Them?” Butt, 2004).]

Has the Bible Been Corrupted?

One of the longest sections of the Newsweek article deals with the idea that the Bible has been corrupted over time, that we do not really know which books belong in the Bible, and that translation errors are so plentiful that we do not have the original message. Yet these allegations have been confronted and refuted time and time again. [Cf. A.P.’s soon-to-be released video series titled, “Has the Bible Been Corrupted?” in which such assertions are debunked.] Many books over the years have masterfully answered the skeptic in this regard, including such volumes as J.W. McGarvey’s Evidences of Christianity, F.F. Bruce’s The Canon of Scripture, Bruce Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament, and a host of others. The Newsweek article manifests abysmal, inexcusable ignorance of the long established facts of the matter.
For example, Eichenwald states that we do not have the original message of the Bible because the originals are lost and the translations are filled with errors and variations. He claims that
no television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times (2014).
Supposedly, according to Eichenwald, since we don’t have the originals, and our translations are from copies that were written in other languages, there is no way we have actually read the Bible.
This naïve, uninformed view of message transmission cannot be maintained in light of the evidence. Are we to believe that since we have never seen Eichenwald’s original article that he personally typed or penned, then we cannot have the information he intended to present? Is it true that since some people read the article on-line, but others in printed form, then the original message is hopelessly lost? Is it true that anyone who reads the article in a language other than English has never really read the article, since it would be a translation? What Eichenwald and other skeptics are attempting to do is suggest that it is impossible to pass information accurately from one language to another, or from one printed page to another; but that suggestion is simply not true. If it is possible for a person to copy accurately a message once, it is possible to do so twice, and so on.
When we approach the Bible, we must simply ask, “Do we have the message that the original authors penned?” When we explore that question, we discover that the books of the New Testament are the most extensively verified books of ancient history. If we deny the Bible is verified, then we are saying that it is impossible for any information to be conveyed accurately from the past to the present. The skeptics’ attack is not against the Bible, per se; it is against the idea that we can know anything from ancient history. If it is possible to know what any writer has ever penned, then the skeptic’s accusations against the Bible cannot be sustained. When Eichenwald states, “And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones,” he implies there are so many variations in the manuscripts that the original message has been lost. This misleading exaggeration is a typical ploy by those who wish to discredit the integrity of the text of the Bible. What’s more, when he states, “Scribes added whole sections of the New Testament, and removed words and sentences that contradicted emerging orthodox beliefs,” he unwittingly admits that scholars have been able to identify and isolate those very words and sentences! In actuality, those manuscripts wherein scribes manifested doctrinal bias are in the small minority, do not represent the mass of manuscripts, and are identifiable.
Due to length constraints, a detailed analysis of textual variants is beyond the scope of this article. However, the sincere inquirer may easily access the analyses that have been made on each passage. For example, for a thorough discussion of the last 12 verses of Mark, see Miller, 2005; Scrivener, 1861, pp. 429ff; et al. For a discussion of the manuscript support pertaining to the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), see Scrivener, pp. 439-443; Woods, 1989, p. 162; McGarvey, 1974, p. 16; Metzger, 1971, pp. 219-222; Jackson, 2011, p. 161; et al. For 1 John 5:7, see Woods, 1962, pp. 324-326; Metzger, 1971, pp. 716-718. For Luke 22:17-20, see Metzger, 1971, pp. 173-177. Any standard text on textual criticism discusses these and many other variants (e.g., Aland and Aland, 1987). If the reader desires the truth regarding the authenticity and integrity of the Bible, the evidence is available—if the individual is willing to spend the time and effort to weigh that evidence and arrive at the proper conclusion (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1).
What Eichenwald fails to divulge are several facts that completely undermine and discredit his attack on the integrity and transmission of the Bible:
  1. God knew that the original autographs would not survive, and that His Word would have to be transmitted through the centuries via copies. The transmission process is sufficiently flexible for God’s Word to be conveyed adequately by uninspired, imperfect copyists.
  2. We know how the original New Testament books read because we have three surviving classes of evidence by which to reconstruct the original New Testament: Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic citations.
  3. The current number of Greek manuscript copies containing all or part of the New Testament now stands at 5,795. This amount of manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament is far greater than that available for any ancient classical author.
  4. The time between the writing of the original books of the New Testament and the earliest surviving copies is relatively brief.
  5. Although no two manuscript copies agree in every detail, the degree of accuracy achieved by most scribes was remarkably high. The vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake.
  6. Suitable solutions to these differences are detectable. Even if they weren’t, the original reading is one of the extant options. And even those variants that some might deem “doctrinally significant” pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness/certainty is unquestioned.
  7. We can confidently affirm that we have 999/1000ths of the original New Testament intact. The remaining 1/1000th pertains to inconsequential details.
These observations have been verified by the greatest textual critics and linguistic scholars of the past two centuries. Their conclusions have not become outdated, but remain as valid today as when first formulated. If the integrity of the text of the Bible was fully authenticated in their day, it remains so today. Consider the following statements by some of these world class authorities.

Scholarly Verification of the Purity of the New Testament Text

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) was a biblical scholar who taught Greek at the University of Edinburgh and the University of Leeds, chaired the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield, received an honorary Doctor of Divinity from Aberdeen University, and served as the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester. He wrote over 40 books and served as Editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and Palestine Exploration Quarterly. Bruce declared: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the N.T. affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1975, pp. 19-20, emp. added). As if anticipating the Newsweek article, he also stated:
In view of theinevitable accumulation of such errors over so many centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament (1963, p. 178, emp. added).
Bruce further insisted:
Something more ought to be said, and said with emphasis. We have been discussing various textual types, and reviewing their comparative claims to be regarded as best representatives of the original New Testament. But there are not wide divergencies between these types, of a kind that could make any difference to the Church’s responsibility to be a witness and guardian of Holy Writ…. If the variant readings are so numerous, it is because the witnesses are so numerous. But all the witnesses, and all the types which they represent, agree on every article of Christian belief and practice (1963, p. 189, emp. added).
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was also a scholar of Greek, the New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism, serving as professor at Princeton Theological Seminary for 46 years. He was a recognized authority on the Greek text of the New Testament. He served on the board of the American Bible Society, was the driving force of the United Bible Societies’ series of Greek Texts, and served as Chairperson of the NRSV Bible Committee. He is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century. Metzger stated:
…even if we had no Greek manuscripts today, by piecing together the information from these translations from a relatively early date, we could actually reproduce the contents of the New Testament. In addition to that, even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers (as quoted in Strobel, 1998, p. 59).
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was a British bishop, biblical scholar and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham and holding the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Cambridge. His colleague, Fenton John Anthony Hort(1828-1892), was an Irish theologian who served as a Professor at Cambridge. Together, they pioneered the widely recognized Greek text The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881. They are still considered to be renowned textual critics. They forthrightly asserted:
With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament…there is no variation or other ground of doubt…. [T]he amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text. Since there is reason to suspect that an exaggerated impression prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testament…we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic’s labours (1882, pp. 2-3, emp. added).
These peerless scholars also insisted: “[I]n the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writing” (p. 278, emp. added). They add: “The books of the New Testament as preserved in extant documents assuredly speak to us in every important respect in language identical  with that in which they spoke to those for whom they were originally written” (p. 284).
Benjamin Warfield (1851-1921) was a Professor of Theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. He is considered to be the last of the great Princeton theologians. In his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Warfield insightfully observed:
[S]uch has been the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures, that not only is the New Testament unrivalled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use, but also in the abundance of testimony which has come down to us for castigating its comparatively infrequent blemishes…. The great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation (1886, pp. 12-13,14, emp. added).
Richard Bentley (1662-1742) was an English classical scholar, critic, and theologian who served as Master of Trinity College, Cambridge and was the first Englishman to be ranked with the great heroes of classical learning. He was well-known for his literary and textual criticism, even called the “Founder of Historical Philology,” and credited with the creation of the English school of Hellenism. Here are his comments on the integrity of the New Testament text:
[T]he real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edition, but is dispersed in them all. ‘Tis competently exact indeed even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them (1725, pp. 68-69, emp. added).
Sir Frederic George Kenyon (1863-1952) was a widely respected, imminent British paleographer and biblical and classical scholar who occupied a series of posts at the British Museum. He served as President of the British Academy from 1917 to 1921 and President of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. He made a lifelong study of the Bible as an historical text. In his masterful Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Kenyon affirmed:
One word of warning…must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Constant references to mistakes and divergencies of reading…might give rise to the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large, that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world (1895, pp. 10-11, emp. added).
In his monumental The Bible and Archaeology, Kenyon further stated:
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established (1940, pp. 288-289, emp. added).
Indeed, “the Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear of hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, faithfully handed down from generation to generation throughout the centuries” (1895, pp. 10-11).
Samuel Davidson (1806-1898) was an Irish biblical scholar who served as Professor of Biblical Criticism at Royal College of Belfast and Professor of Biblical Criticism in the Lancashire Independent College at Manchester. He authored many books on the text of the Bible. Referring to the work of textual criticism, Davidson concluded:
The effect of it has been to establish the genuineness of the New Testament text in all important particulars. No new doctrines have been elicited by its aid; nor have any historical facts been summoned by it from their obscurity. All the doctrines and duties of Christianity remain unaffected.… [I]n the records of inspiration there is no material corruption…. [D]uring the lapse of many centuries the text of Scripture has been preserved with great care…. Empowered by the fruits of criticism, we may well say that the Scriptures continue essentially the same as when they proceeded from the writers themselves (1853, 2:147, emp. added).
Frederick H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891) was a prominent and important New Testament textual critic of the 19th century. Having graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, he taught classics at several schools in southern England. His expertise in textual criticism is self-evident in that he served as a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee (Revised Version), edited the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis and several editions of the Greek New Testament, collated the Codex Sinaiticus with the Textus Receptus, and was the first to distinguish the Textus Receptus from the Byzantine text. In his A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Scrivener admitted:
[O]ne great truth is admitted on all hands—the almost complete freedom of Holy Scripture from the bare suspicion of wilful corruption; the absolute identity of the testimony of every known copy in respect to doctrine, and spirit, and the main drift of every argument and every narrative through the entire volume of Inspiration…. Thus hath God’s Providence kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His church and people (1861, pp. 6-7, emp. added).
J.W. McGarvey (1829-1911) was a minister, author, educator, and biblical scholar. He taught 46 years in the College of the Bible in Lexington, Kentucky, serving as President from 1895 to 1911. He summarized the point: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1974, p. 17).
Elias Boudinot (1740-1821) was a prominent Founding Father of America. He served in the Continental Congress (1778-1779, 1781-1784), as its President in 1782-1783, and was the founding president of the American Bible Society. In his refutation of Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, Boudinot explained: “[T]he facts upon which the Christian religion is founded, have a stronger proof, than any facts at such a distance of time; and that the books which convey them down to us, may be proved to be uncorrupted and authentic, with greater strength than any other writings of equal antiquity” (1801, p. 239, emp. added). This Founding Father’s view of the purity of the text of the New Testament was the view of the vast majority of the Founders.
With all the kindness one can muster, these imminent, well-studied, competent, peerless scholars, whose expertise in the field of Textual Criticism is unsurpassed, are far more qualified and accurate in their assessment of the credibility, integrity, and authenticity of the biblical text than the author of the Newsweek article.

conclusion

Here is the deeply disturbing predicament of our day:
  • Outstanding scholarship of bygone days fully demonstrated the authenticity and integrity of the text of the Bible, forcefully refuting the skeptics to the extent that the skeptics gained little traction in western civilization. The textual evidence that has come to light in recent decades has added even more weight to the arguments for biblical integrity.
  • But in recent years, such honest biblical scholarship has been succeeded by those who do not possess the same burning desire to seek the truth, but instead want to maintain their own infidelic agenda.
  • These biased unbelievers have the brazen effrontery to foist false information upon their unsuspecting victims who are completely unaware of the facts and ill-equipped to handle the onslaught.
  • Due to the propaganda to which the average citizen has been subjected (in an education system that long ago abandoned the pursuit of the truth)—professors and magazine writers know they will go largely unchallenged by the bulk of society.
Indeed, it is unfortunate that such articles as Eichenwald’s even need answering. There was a time when this type of anemic propaganda against the Bible would have immediately been dismissed for the slanted, biased, foolishness that it is. IfChristians will arm themselves with the evidence, and “always be ready to give a defense” to those who are attacking the Truth, God may grant that we see those times again. [NOTE: Those who are fearful that the integrity of the text of the Bible is compromised by the reality of textual variants need to be reminded that the world’s foremost textual critics have demonstrated that currently circulating copies of the New Testament do not differ substantially from the original (see Miller, 2005a, “Is Mark...,” 25[12]:89-95; Miller, 2010).]

REFERENCEs

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland (1987), The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bentley, Richard (1725), Remarks Upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking (Cambridge: Cornelius Crownfield).
Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickins), http://www.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ.
Bruce, F.F. (1963), The Books and the Parchments (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).
Bruce, F.F. (1975 reprint), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Butt, Kyle (2002), “The Resurrection Narratives,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=294.
Butt, Kyle (2004), “Hate Your Parents or Love Them?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=781.
Davidson, Samuel (1853), A Treatise on Biblical Criticism (Boston: Gould & Lincoln).
Eichenwald, Kurt (2014), “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,”  http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html.
Ignatius (1973 reprint), “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Jackson, Wayne (1991), “Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1131.
Jackson, Wayne (2011), A New Testament Commentary (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier).
Justin Martyr (1973 reprint), “The First Apology of Justin,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1895), Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode).
Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Row).
Lyons, Eric (2003), “Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch—Tried and True,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=36.
Lyons, Eric (2005), “Did Paul Want Christians to Come Together on Saturday or Sunday?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=23&article=1575.
Lyons, Eric (2006), “The First Day of the Week,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2022.
Lyons, Eric (2011), “When Did Jesus Go to Egypt?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=4132.
McGarvey, J.W. (1902), The Authorship of Deuteronomy (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Metzger, Bruce (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press).
Metzger, Bruce (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies).
Miller, Dave (2003), “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=932.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25(12):89-95, December, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=572&article=433.
Milligan, Robert (1975 reprint), The Scheme of Redemption (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Scrivener, F.H.A. (1861), A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co.).
Strobel, Lee (1998), The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Warfield, Benjamin B. (1886), An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton).
Westcott, B.F. and F.J.A. Hort (1882), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Brothers).
Woods, Guy (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Woods, Guy (1962), A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).