Many people have asked this in differing ways but they all equate to the same basic question. How can modern day men and women rationally believe in a book whose newest words were written over two thousand years ago? Given the advances of modern science isn't it more reasonable to rely upon the standard scientific answers for the origins of man than upon a book that is little more than a grand fairy tale?
This is an excellent question I would say. In fact, it is a foundational question. What then separates a fairy tale from historical fact? Lets consider Santa Claus and Arthurian legends. What these have in common is that they depict people, places and things that not only are not real but never were. The great question is ‘How do we know that they are not real’?
Pondering this for a while one begins to see that any objection can be explained away with a simple reference to some form of ‘magic’. We might say that Santa uses magic to enter locked homes and still more magic to enable him to deliver presents to the entire world in one night. We could explain that Arthur and his knights rely upon magic, in the form of Merlin, to allow them to overcome their magical challenges. While both figures have their roots in historical figures the modern version of them have nothing to do with the reality.
Now consider the stories about Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Napoleon. Do we have reason to believe that they are factual? The answer is ‘of course we do’. The lives of these men rest upon well attested historical documentation. In short, the same historians that tell us our modern Santa Claus never existed, also tell us that George Washington most certainly did.
The difference in the two categories is therefore clear. One group has solid historical attestation for their existence and the other group does not. What we have done is to apply logic to the existing facts to determine what we believe about these stories.
Is it not reasonable, therefore, that we should apply this same logic to the determination of what we believe in concerning our own origins? I think so.
What, then, are the available facts? There are entire books written on this subject. I can only skim some of that information here in the hope that you will investigate further on your own later.
Today there is overwhelming Archeological evidence that validates nearly every person, place or thing in the Bible. Considering that, even into the mid nineteen hundreds, many critics were objecting to the validity of the Bible, this is rather amazing. The latter half of the last century uncovered so much supporting evidence that the critics (at least the educated ones) have gone nearly silent concerning the validity of the Bible.
The last half of the nineteen hundreds also opened gigantic holes in the existing scientific theories as to the origins of life. Whereas, at the beginning of the century, any credible scientist could explain how it was that life had appeared, by the end of the century those same scientists were furiously debating those same issues. The seriousness of the debate is highlighted by the fact that Sir Francis Crick, a world renowned British scientist, has been forced to suggest that life did not, in fact, begin here on Earth, but that the early Earth was ‘seeded’ with life from an external source. This theory is known as Panspermia.
The two gaping holes in the Evolutionary Titanic of today are 1) the fossil record and 2) cellular biology. It turns out that the fossil record shows exactly the opposite of what Darwinism predicted: stasis as opposed to gradualism. Cellular biologists are now faced with the conundrum of what they term ‘irreducible complexity’. In short, life could never have made even the first step and, if it somehow had, there is absolutely no evidence that life evolved anyway.
Today there is overwhelming Literary evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Bible that we have now is the Bible as it was originally written. We know that the Bible has not, in fact, been corrupted by generations of copyists. It is now clearly reasonable to presume that the books of the Bible were written by the men to whom they were credited at the times they were supposed to have been written. This final point is of incredible importance. If the Bible was written in the manner and in the times that have always been claimed then we can detect the Signature of God written across its pages. That signature is Prophetic Fulfilment.
The Bible is full of prophecy. From one end to the other it is covered with prophecies. Christians believe that only God knows the future. It may be possible that other beings can make predictions, and then attempt to manipulate events to emulate such foreknowledge, but God, and only God, truly knows the future.
Suppose I predict that tomorrow morning at 8:00 am a glass will fall off my table and shatter. Tomorrow morning I get up, place a glass on my table and, at exactly 8:00 I knock it off. Smash. Did I make a prediction that came true? Certainly. However, I clearly was not telling the future.
What if, however, I tell you that a foreign nation will rebuild Washington. The White House and Capitol will be restored to their present Glory and that a man named Xerxes will give the decree that will begin the rebuilding.
You would wonder what in the world I was talking about would you not? After all, Washington does not need rebuilding. But, if a hundred years went by and our Capitol were destroyed, you would then understand that my prediction may have concerned the far future. If another hundred years passed and the then President of the European Union, Robert Xerxes, signed an order to rebuild our Capitol you would begin wondering ‘How did he know this would happen’? This is an analogy of just one of the many events that occurred in the Bible.
The point is that it is not sufficient to claim the fulfillment of some generic prophecy as proof that a book was inspired by God. No, one needs to point to multiple prophecies of detailed nature that were fulfilled in exactly. If someone is going to claim that a set of writings have been handed down from the Lord of the Universe we should expect that He is capable of getting it right on the first try. We should not be impressed with a prediction such as “A great leader will fall in the year of the RedBill”. After all, in any given year one can always find some important person who died. However, if we are told that "A national leader in south America will die by poison administered by his son in July of 2050" were getting fairly specific. If this event actually occurs then perhaps we can begin to believe that the predictor was getting his information from a higher source.
Therefore, if one wants to weigh the relative merits of one religion verses another, they should read the respective writings and then begin asking some hard questions.
Does it pass the Archeological test? That is, for people, places and things which are mentioned within the text, is there Archeological data to suggest that those things existed or, if not, is there other data to prove that it could not have?
Does it pass the Literary test? This is too large a subject to delve into here. After reading Evidence that Demands a Verdict this will become clear to the reader.
Finally, do the writings contain multiple prophecies which were made far in advance of their subsequent fulfillments? If so, were the prophecies detailed and were the fulfillments of them exact?
If the answer is no to any of these questions then you are, most likely, reading something more reasonably classified as a Fairy Tale and not as historical fact.
If, however, you conclude that the Bible is the word of God, then many other, more theological, questions will shortly begin presenting themselves to you. Did Jesus really claim that He was the only way to God? What about those who died before hearing the Gospel? Is Hell real? This dissertation is not meant to answer those questions. Please feel free to post any questions you have on the site.
Many Christians will say that we rely upon faith and I agree with that. However, I believe in Rational Faith as opposed to Blind Faith. The difference is important to the discussion of religious matters.
Let us say that I, a total unknown to you, walk up off the street and ask you to jump off a building. If you are wise, you will refuse. If you are foolish you will exercise Blind Faith and die. Many people in our world are exercising Blind Faith by following religions that, to the Christian mind, are no religions at all.
Now imagine instead that we have a long history going back twenty years and during that time I have repeatedly shown you that I have only your best interests at heart. Now I walk up and ask you to jump. Depending upon our mutually shared history you may determine that, while the request is crazy and nonsensical, you will do it anyway because you have come to trust me implicitly. You decide to exercise what I call Rational Faith. You make the jump only to find out that I previously had a net placed all around the building in order to catch you.
My hope is that you will develop a Rational faith. This, however, requires a great deal of effort. It takes reading, re-reading, studying and asking questions. If you willing to do this then I am confident of where you will end up.
Before you start, however, you should ask yourself a serious question in order to save you some time. "Am I willing to completely change my way of thinking and lifestyle if I determine that the Bible meets all my factual expectations?"
It is said that some people cant find God for the same reason that a burglar cant find a Police Officer. They don't want to. If you don't want to find God, and in fact are determined not to find him, then no amount of reason will change your mind. If you are determined to find God then you will end up somewhere and I hope that these guidelines will help you end up on the right path; the one to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. If you are an honest searcher then, again, I think these guidelines may help.
Well, this has been a long answer to a short question and it is by no means complete. To get the complete answers, and develop your reading skills, obtain some of the books in our suggested reading section for your library.
One warning though. The books in the scientific section can be very heavy going for even the scientifically trained. They are meant for the layperson but, still, at times they become thought expanding to say the least. I would recommend "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" as a first read and "Darwin on Trial" as a second.
We hope that this helps to answer, as briefly as possible, this very important question.
Thank you so much.
Web-Net Solutions Staff
