Errors?

One of the common charges leveled against the Bible is that we don't have the original documents (technically called the "manuscripts" or "autographs"), and therefore many errors from the originals have been introduced through generations of copies of copies. This charge tries to undermine the reliability of the Bibles we hold in our hands, and therefore give an excuse to discount the entire Bible, and therefore all of Christianity.

Believe it or not, the charge got part of it right.

It is true that we have not (yet) uncovered any of the original documents penned by Paul, James, Peter, Matthew, John, and so on. It is also true that what we do have are copies and copies of copies. It is also true that in the process of copying, changes have been introduced. It's not that hard to demonstrate that some copyists did not do a perfect job. Some find that fact unnerving; others claim that this undermines the reliability of our Bibles.

So how can we rely on the Bible at all?

Here are the facts:

• We have over 5000 ancient copies and fragments of the Bible. This is orders of magnitudes more copies than any other ancient document (which we also consider to be accurate to the originals). Just a few copies are enough to demonstrate authenticity, but we have an embarrassing wealth of manuscript evidence for the Bible.
• The copies we have are much closer in age to the originals than other ancient documents. The earliest copies we have are just a generation or two removed from the original, whereas for most other important ancient documents, the copies we possess are hundreds of years removed from the originals.
• We also have a wealth of ancient Christian writings that allude to or even quote the early copies of the Bible. This means that we have early, separate testimony to the content of the original texts.
• We have early copies in a few different languages. Through backward translation, we get yet another angle on the content of the early manuscripts.
• These copies and fragments can be collected into "families." This means that we can group most texts into categories that help us trace back the history of copying the texts (a process called "transmission").
• Variations ("variants") do exist. When comparing copies and families, there are some differences.
• The differences are minor. Almost all of the differences are so minor as to cause no concern whatsoever. For example, one copy may say "the Lord Jesus Christ" where another copy may say "Jesus Christ our Lord." The differences do not affect the meaning at all, or in a very insignificant way. Another example is "our Lord" compared to "your Lord" (just one letter different in Greek as well as in English). They mean slightly different things, but both options are true, and in context, the difference doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
• No major doctrine is in question. For those differences that are a little more significant, we still have zero doctrinal issues in question. In other words, the variants don't threaten to undermine any important plank of our belief system.
• The variants are well-documented. No one is trying to hide anything! All the known variants are documented, including which manuscripts contain which variant. All the data is there for everyone who wants to examine.
• There are methods and procedures for determining which variant is most likely original. There are several different considerations that scholars use to make educated conclusions on which variant is most likely to be correct. Scholars often also have a "confidence" rating for their choices, and give reasons why their confidence is high or low on a particular choice.
• The criteria for choosing are not theological, but linguistic. Scholars don't prefer variants just because they favor a particular view. They look at things like context, how the author uses similar phrases in other locations, what explanation best explains how all the variants for a word could have arisen, and other literary markers. The only theological considerations would be comparing a word to the theological points that the same author makes elsewhere, but that's only one of many factors considered.
• Using purely linguistic criteria, scholars conclude that we have more than 99% of the original texts reproduced. As you can see, the impact of the variants is on less than 1% of the texts, and in a majority of those cases, the difference in meaning is negligible or non-existent.
• We have every reason to believe that we have 100% in hand. The preponderance of evidence suggests that somewhere in all our copies, we possess 100% of the originals. The only question is which variant is original in a given case - the question is not whether or not we have a copy of the original.
• For every verse, we know where the variants are. The importance of this is that when we study a particular word or verse, we don't have to wonder whether or not this word is reliable. If there are no variants, we're set. If there is, then we can turn to the scholars to see their reasons for choosing one variant over another, and then see what the other possibilities are. I've yet to see any case where any of the options would affect what I believe or the theology I hold.

So, the critics got part of the facts right, but not all the facts, and therefore they drew the wrong conclusions. The right conclusions are that we can in fact rely on our Bibles that we have today. We do not possess copies of copies that are irretrievably changed from the originals - we have gotten extremely close to the exact originals. On any given word in the Bible, we know if a variant exists and what the possible options are. No doctrine is at risk. We have bankable copies of God's Word!

We need not be afraid of any accusation leveled against God's Word. Rather than pretend like variations don't exist, we just simply need to learn more facts. More truth always leads us to more reliability of God's Word.

So Where Does the Desire to Sin Come From?

We asked this question last week and invited you to respond. There were several brave souls who pondered aloud, with not a few differences in opinions. See last week's post and see the comments (either on my "Notes" in Facebook or on http://colbykinser.blogspot.com).

Many noted that God created us with the freedom to choose. Certainly, without the freedom to choose, then our glorification of God is empty, the praise of mere automatons. But with the freedom to choose also comes the ability to sin - the ability to do something against God's will. Without freedom to choose, sin is impossible. True, but freedom to choose brings the ability to sin, not necessarily the desire to sin. Freedom does not explain the origin of the desire to sin.

Also, many noted that the desire to sin came from the desire to be independent from God or to be equal to God. These are, in fact, root issues with sin. Certainly, if we did not desire to be independent from God, a vast majority of sin would never occur (if not all of it - just playing it cautious, here). But this does not explain the origin of the desire to sin - it merely describes it in more detail. The desire to be independent from God is itself the desire to sin, so we can't explain the origin of something by describing it in better detail. Where did the original desire come from?

One mentioned a lust for power, which is similar to a desire to be independent from God. Likewise, it describes sin, but doesn't describe it's origin.

Another argued that man invented sin - that it does not exist as an objective reality, but is merely culturally defined. However, I have asked this particular contributor a number of times to answer the question, "It is always wrong to torture babies for fun?" To date, that contributor has not answered this question. I find it untenable to suggest that this particular example is only sinful if a particular society says so (as if any society ever agreed on right and wrong in the first place).

A few noted the very human habit of wanting something merely because it is forbidden. That is certainly the case with us today, in many cases. But I'm not sure that this is a universal attribute of humanity, and it's also not clear if that was a factor in Eden. Yes, Eve wanted the fruit, but it's not necessarily the case that she wanted it because it was forbidden. So, this remains a viable answer, but hard to establish definitively.

A tandem team offered the idea that the desire to sin comes from a longing for God. This is most intriguing - explaining sin by means of the goodness of creation. This would mean that man was created without sin and without a pure desire to sin. Rather, he was, as Scripture states, created pure and uniquely fashioned in the image of God. That imago Dei (image of God) makes us uniquely capable of a relationship with God and uniquely capable of worshiping Him (we are the only creatures to have theology and doxology, which I cannot fully attribute to mere higher brain function). We were created with a unique capacity and longing for God. We are also uniquely capable of sin. Is there a connection?

It has been argued, and I tend to agree, that all sin can be boiled down to fulfilling God-given desires with God-forbidden means. For example, the sin of acting on one's lust is a misguided effort to fulfill the God-given need for love and companionship. The sin of theft is a misguided attempt to fill the need for the security that is only really found in God. Is it possible, then, that the desire to sin originates from a godly desire, and more specifically, a desire for God?

Eve wanted good things: food, attractive things, and wisdom. That was her desire, and they were godly things to desire. However, she was deceived into pursuing them in ways God had forbidden. Her desire was not a desire to defy God or drive Him away. But she pursued her longing for God in a way that He had prescribed against.

And let's not let Adam off the hook - it's not all Eve's fault. Romans 5 gives the blame to Adam, not Eve, because of his failure in his duties as husband (which is an entirely different topic, discussed in earlier posts).

And it all went downhill from there. Once Man had fallen, his desires fell, too. Now, his desires were as vandalized as the imago Dei he bore. Now the desire to sin would be inherent - human desire was corrupt (except for the Sinless One, who bore human flesh but was without sin).

But, you might observe that Satan fell before Man. How do we explain his desire to sin? We do not have any real, detailed description of these events (despite our over-reliance on Dante for theology). So, we can't really know, but I would venture a guess that we would find a similar origin.

Now ... this is my opinion. Please don't take this as indisputable theology. Actually, once the question came up, I've been shocked by the fact that I've yet to find any scholarly work on this particular question. It may be out there, and I've not spent a lot of time hunting, but it's not readily available in the standard works I refer to. But short of saying that the desire to sin preceded the Fall, which would conflict with all kinds of orthodox doctrine, this is about the only way that I've seen that makes any sense.

Feel free to comment, disagree, propose alternate theories. It's an interesting question, in my opinion. (I would be particularly curious to hear what the tandem team has to say - does this summarize what you were thinking, or does your point go in a different direction?)

Where Did the Desire to Sin Come From?

One of our own was asked this question by a skeptic on an airplane recently, and the answer was not immediately obvious. It's actually a profound question.

We know that sin, as such, does not exist as its own substance. Sin is the absence of something, the vandalization of something, but not its own something. Sin is the absence of good, the act of taking something good and twisting it, profaning it, or otherwise rendering it imperfect. Satan was created completely good, but then twisted himself by trying to make himself equal with God. Adam and Eve were created good, bearing the image of God, but violated God's express will and damaged (but not destroyed) the image of God they bore. Everything that departs from God's perfection is sin.

But this doesn't address the question that was asked. Where did the desire to sin come from?

If Satan was good before sinning, then desiring to sin would be sinful, wouldn't it? If Adam and Eve were really created good, then why would they ever desire to depart from God's express will? Jesus was tempted in every way we are, and yet was without sin - but did He desire to sin?

They were all given the freedom to make choices, and sin was inevitable for mankind, but that doesn't explain where the desire to sin came from. The mere existence of choice does not create desire.

So what I'm going to do with this post is to throw it out there and see what you think. Please feel free to add your own comments as to where you think the desire to sin came from in beings that were sinless at one time.

(All I ask is that you show respect for everyone, that you not become argumentative, that you not criticize anyone else's idea, and that you post only one time. Consider this a survey, not a debate.)

If you'd rather not post your idea publicly, then send me an email.

I'll let this run a week or two, and then summarize my thoughts on the matter.

Showing that Christianity is Authentic

I had a great time with the youth last night probing the authenticity of Christianity.

First, we made up our own religion. I asked several questions about what they wanted their religion to have - from how many gods to whether or not we'd have idols to features of our holy book and what the religion would require of its members. There were two full pages of questions, which were geared toward creating a religion that would attract as many people as possible, and to be the most palatable to us. Plus we just wanted the religion to be a humanly logical as possible.

This may sound like heresy, but first, our students are sharp enough to know what I'm getting at, and second, they were quick to note when what they said wasn't really theologically true.

Then we compared their answers to the features of Christianity, and of course, we came up with a radically different religion than Christianity. We ended up with three "gods" - but they were not complete in themselves. We rejected having any hard-to-fathom realities (like a Trinity, losing your life to save it, a leader who is fully God and fully man), and salvation was based on the whims of the gods, who had to be placated and pleased (especially the "god" who was insecure!). We allowed sin, because that would attract more members. We only had 9 authors of the holy book, and they had to collaborate together in order to get their story straight, and still they had to run their writings past the gods. We would promise potential new members an easy life, not a hard life. There were many more features especially geared toward trying to make our religion popular. (By the way, all infidels are to be burned if they don't accept this religion.)

The point of the exercise was to show that no one would ever make up Christianity. If you were to make up a religion, the chances are incredibly small that you make up something that resembles Christianity. No one would make up a Trinity (a key doctrine that we can't even fully comprehend), no one would write about the first followers of the religion as a bunch of dunderheads (like the apostles are in the Gospels), no one would say you have to die to yourself as part of membership, no one could have a completely consistent holy book written by over 40 different authors over 1500 years from different languages and cultures (and some writing without the knowledge of what the others were writing), and so on down the line. We didn't ground our religion in historical events, because they could be proven wrong. Our "gods" wanted glory because they don't already have all glory. The list goes on. (We say "no one" - theoretically someone could do one or two, but the point is that if you were going to make up a religion, you wouldn't make up all the things Christianity is.)

It was also important to note that the group couldn't agree on the features of the religion. They were all in the same room at the same time from the same culture speaking the same language, and they could not agree on the features of their religion, even when they were told to. Furthermore, not even the three "gods" could agree! Each had their own ego, and they each advocated for the features they wanted, especially those that would benefit the self most.

Christianity is not something that man would make up for himself. It demands too much of the self, it defies our ability to comprehend, it does not allow us to earn anything, it has a holy book that could never be created by a committee but simultaneously bears the marks being written both by God and by men. Christianity is not geared to become as large as possible, but as pure as possible, which automatically means that most people will reject it. It paints its first leaders not as saints but as societal nobodies who get it wrong more than they get it right. You don't make this stuff up.

I found it particularly fascinating that the main leader of this new religion had to be attractive, charismatic, and have a good voice. Scripture is clear that Jesus was plain in appearance. Scripture is also clear that the Antichrist will be particularly good looking and charismatic.

What we did end up with was a religion that resembles every other religion in the world except Christianity. That's no accident.

Prof

I'm mid-week through my class at Dallas Theological Seminary (thanks again for letting me go!). And it's yet another great experience.

The saga of getting here is a very long, complicated, frustrating story that involves very bad weather, some measure of incompetence, some every helpful people, and extra expenses. I won't bore you with the details, but I got to Dallas 24 hours later than scheduled, missing the first full day of class, and the process at times became so frustrating that I was very tempted to just give up and come back to Dublin. However, I'm grateful that the Lord carried me through to enduring.

I've been most excited about taking this class because it is co-taught by one of the most beloved professors at DTS, Dr. Howard Hendricks. Everyone calls him "Prof." All the professors here are "profs," but only Hendricks is universally called "Prof." If you say, "I learned that in Prof's class," everyone knows you're talking about Hendricks' class.

The impact from Prof's ministry over the last several decades is impossible to calculate - he is quoted by hundreds (or thousands) of former students, he's traveled the world many times over teaching, and most likely, he has indirectly impacted your life through one of your pastors who has been directly or indirectly impacted by Prof. He has a building named after him because some generous families wanted to honor his contribution.

Prof is the first to admit that age is starting to overtake him. Well into his 80s, one eye has gone completely bad, his body is slowing down, and even his brilliant mind doesn't have the same razor sharpness it once had - although he still remains sharper than most people you'll ever meet.

I had never met Prof before. We had a reception Tuesday night, and we took turns sitting next to Prof to talk with him one-on-one. One fellow student suddenly turned to me and said, "It's your turn!" I had no idea what to say - I didn't want to treat him like a rock star, I did want to say something meaningful, and I didn't want the conversation to be about me. He immediately asked me to share my story and then I spent the rest of our time finding out about his family.

Today in class, Prof shared an interesting story. When he was a senior at Moody Bible Institute, he was paired with a freshman to mentor (our class this week is on mentoring). This freshman was Jim Eliot, the missionary that became a household name when he was killed at age 28 in 1956 while trying to reach an unreached people group in Ecuador. Prof said that in this pairing of mentor and mentoree, it was the mentoree who mentored the mentor. Even as a college freshman, Eliot was a deeply spiritual, amazingly mature believer - the more senior man, who eventually became one of the most influential seminary professors in our age, was awed by this younger man.

Prof's humility in this way is inspiring. Another one of our students (who also is a professor at my alma mater, Talbot School of Theology) mentioned to Prof that they both teach the same courses. Prof genuinely said, "I wish I could take your class." What a memorable moment for my fellow student.

But it was a simple comment to me in the short time I sat next to him at the reception that was my memorable moment. This man, who has taught and mentored so many fantastic pastors and theologians, looked me in the eye and said, "If there's any way at all that I can help you, just ask." He clearly sees himself as a servant-leader. That is was ministry is all about. With all of his influence, impact, and accomplishments, after helping hundreds of the truly impactful Christian leaders, he hurries to offer his help to a student barely qualified to be in the program.

I'm beginning to learn why so many people love Prof.

A Review of the Circus

The following post is not a critique on Michael Jackson, his music, or his life. Let me make that clear from the start. I am not concerned here about evaluating anything about him. My comments are strictly related to the circus that has surrounded his death. For example, I just read that the memorial service that the city of Los Angeles put on was so expensive that they've set up a website to receive donations to help pay for it.

I've (unsuccessfully) tried to avoid the whole mess, but you can't turn anywhere without hearing about it. (In fact, you're reading about it right now! Ugh - I'm a carrier!) You sit in a restaurant with a TV on, and there it is. You listen to sports radio (sports radio!!!), and there it is. You overhear someone at work, and there it is. You buy anything from the grocery store, and there it is all over.

I'm amazed that anyone's death would generate so much attention (but I'm not surprised). No offense, but the man sang songs and danced. He sang songs, and he danced. But there something inside a whole lot of people (perhaps some of you reading this) that has been deeply affected by his singing and dancing. For some, that resonance is so strong that they are highly motivated to be a part of the funeral event. Somehow, Jackson was that important to them.

Some have expressed anger that a man accused (but acquitted) of heinous acts would receive such adulation. Like the recent death of former NFL star Steve McNair, I've also read those who advocate that we completely ignore any moral indiscretions because the performance on stage (or on the football field) was so good. Apparently, talent is of higher value than ethics.

But, there's a certain logic to all of this circus, at least in a non-Christian environment. In a society that rejects Christ, or God in any way, must venerate societal icons. If all we have is what people accomplish during their short lifetimes, then those who achieve in even one particular area logically must be celebrated, regardless of other aspects of their lives. That's all we have to lift up, if there is no Christ to lift up.

So, my anger (I'll admit it) gives way to pity. Rather than seeing the circus and getting mad, my emotional response is becoming pity more and more. How sad it is that instead of venerating Christ, people worldwide are lifting up a mere man. Not that we shouldn't properly grieve the passing of individuals, but the iconic adulation is misplaced. We should grieve the Cross more than we grieve the loss of an entertainer. We should celebrate the resurrected Christ more than we should give our devotion to a quarterback or a singer or a politician.

We are witnessing misplaced devotion. And it is profoundly sad - more sad than the loss of a mere man.

What a Week

In one week's time, we saw the passing of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon, and Billy Mays: the "King of Pop," the queen of pin-up girls, the longtime sidekick to the king of late night television, and the king of informercials. They had world-wide fame, had millions of dollars, and were the most achieved in their fields during their day. And what I'm about to say is in no way intended to say anything negative about any of them.

My point is simply this - are any of the things that we know them for (fame, wealth, success) providing them with any satisfaction now? I don't know their spiritual states, I have no idea of their relationship with God, and I won't speculate on what each of their eternal destinies are. Whether their present states are good or bad, the question is the same: Are of the things we know them by giving them any satisfaction now? If any of them are satisfied now, it's not because of those things. If any of them are not satisfied now, these things are obviously not fulfilling them. (I sincerely hope that each of them are fully satisfied now.)

What do people know you for? By what means do people know of your name, know you exist, even interact with you? By what means do you want people to know you? If I were to ask people around you to describe you, what attributes would they focus on?

We have every temptation possible to want to be known by things that will not bring us one bit of satisfaction after we shed these mortal coils. We want to be known as having X or doing Y or being Z, and the temptations are to pursue the XYZ's that will not benefit our eternal satisfaction one bit. If the kings and queens of XYZ are not satisfied by them, how can mere citizens of those kingdoms be satisfied?

Satisfaction can be had - satisfaction now as well as satisfaction after we pass on. The Christian life is not only about delayed satisfaction, but true satisfaction now (otherwise, the Gospel would say, "Grab fleshly satisfaction now while you can"). In fact, it only stands to reason that the same things that will satisfy us after death are the same things that can most satisfy us before death.

Let the ridiculously overblown coverage of these deaths prompt you to ask yourself where you are really seeking to find satisfaction. Ask if your pursuit is something that will be satisfying you 2 seconds after you die ... or 500 million years after you die.

Our deepest satisfaction now and forever is found in a person - The Person. Pursue Him. Chase after Him with the same fervor as the world pursues satisfaction in XYZ. Make knowing God through Christ your life's career goal. Do not be satisfied with only being saved - be satisfied by walking with Him closely on a daily basis.

Only what will satisfy you after death can truly satisfy you before death.