Van Robison on "Are You Offended Because Many Challenge the Validity of the Bible?"

Are You Offended Because Many Challenge the Validity of the Bible?

Searching for answers does not mean that one must automatically accept that the entire Bible is pure truth.  Nor does it mean that everything in the Bible is fiction.  Some don't like what they call "cherry picking", but who reads a newspaper and believes that everything in it is true, or that it is without bias?  It is very true that none of us would believe in Jesus Christ without the four Gospels and what we read about the life of Christ.  It has been passed down from that time forward.    We can either believe that Jesus Christ in fact is real and did exist or alternatively we can choose to not believe.  Either way, Jesus Christ has never appeared to any of us in a physical and visible form and spoken with us, so then all belief in Jesus is strictly based upon FAITH.  It is more than obvious that there would be no faith in Jesus without the Bible.  Still that does not make everything penned in the Bible---truth, as apologists want everyone to believe.

For those who want to believe that the Bible is 100% total truth, you have to admit that you only believe that based upon "faith" and not because you can prove it.  Many attempt to prove the Bible is infallible and inerrant, but it is impossible to do so.  Quoting from the Bible itself is not proof that it proves itself, simply because any human writer throughout history with pen in hand could write "thus saith the Lord" or any type of similar saying and then proceed to pen anything they wished to that phrase in an attempt to cause the readers to believe that God was the author, when He was not.  Like anyone I also quote from the Bible.  If faith in Jesus Christ hinges totally upon the belief that everything in the Bible from cover to cover is absolute truth, then it seems to me that those who think that way, do not really place faith in Christ, but in INK on PAPER.

There are two books in the Old Testament that do not so much as mention God and yet we are suppose to believe that these two accounts are "inspired" by God?  As with everything else, I have read how Bible apologists defend this issue, but it does not hold water.  The word "Easter" is found in the New Testament and it is a very obvious and flagrant insertion and not based upon the real meaning of the word from the original.  Should we deny Jesus Christ because even one word in the Bible is found to be a complete fraud?  The idea that you "cannot" believe in Jesus Christ "unless" you accept that the entire Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God, is simply not reality.  I for one do believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and at the same time I discount that many things in the Bible are inspired by God.  What is the real reason people are offended by those who question the validity of the Bible in many parts of it?

Some sources have published entire books about the origin of the Bible and as with all other issues in human life, there are disagreements and differences of opinion.  On one side there are those who publish books in
defense of the "inspiration" of the Bible and then there are those who publish books dealing with many of the issues in the Bible and challenging what is said.  Often times it is the Bible apologists who attack the person
rather than confronting the subject matter and issues.  So when those who challenge subjects in the Bible such as who really authored the first five books of the Old Testament, the worldwide flood and Noah's ark and many other issues, the authors are often slandered.

Is it possible to confront facts, rather than to deal with issues on an emotional level?  We see the identical tug-of-war with "Biblical" archaeology.  On one side, there are those who publish their "findings" and assert that they have positive proof that the Old Testament is valid history and there are those who publish books detailing that archaeology proves that O.T. history has been greatly distorted as to what truth really is.  So who do you believe? Each side cast stones at the other.  I am not sure that it is even humanly possible to not have preconceived bias.

I am not sure what the issue is with Bible apologists, because it is not sufficient that one believes in Jesus Christ, unless one also accepts that the Bible is the total word of God.  Why is that?  Again, of course no one would believe in Jesus Christ without the Bible, but must we believe that it is totally true in every detail?  I wonder why Jesus Christ taught to BEWARE of false prophets and teachers, unless such people put words in the mouth of God that are not true, and Jesus knew it.  Is what is called "the Bible" an exception to potential deception?  I wonder why Jeremiah in the Old Testament spoke about LYING SCRIBES, false prophets, false pastors and false teachers?  How much of what we read in the Bible came from such sources?  So we read that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" and yet we have no clue exactly what that "all scripture" is, that is supposed to be inspired by God.  The writers and those who compiled the many different writings into one volume and called it "the Bible", could just as easily have inserted many other works or deleted from some texts they included and they would still call it the "Holy" Bible and people would believe it.

I seriously doubt that God Almighty sat down at His desk, penned the Bible in His own hand writing and then sent it to earth by Fed-Ex or Ups.  Did He really dictate word for word what we read, to those who penned it?  I would suggest that if anyone believes in Jesus Christ, while doubting Bible infallibility, then that is OK.    In fact if one wants to be an atheist, that is their decision.  No one but God Himself really knows all truth and I have no doubt that there is no human being who ever lived, apart from Jesus Christ who understood then or now what all truth is.  Casting stones never serves a good purpose.  Jesus even stated once, that he that is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone (talking about the woman taken in an adultery).

To proclaim that if one does not believe the Bible from cover to cover is totally inspired by God, misses the point that Jesus Christ never taught such a belief.  In fact Jesus Christ never mentioned a book called the New Testament, which was penned many years after the life of Christ, nor did Jesus mention the name of a man called the "apostle" Paul, or speak of a book called the book of "Revelation."  We all have an emotional attachment to what we want to believe.


Van Robison

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

Being part of Armstrongism you naively follow along with the 'restored knowledge' that comes from the enlightened minds of the apostle, evangelists and ministers.  Since they are the direct mouthpiece for God you are instructed to inculcate the words from them as God spoken.  Most members only study the Bible  accompanied by myriads of booklets and articles from those chosen mouthpieces.  HWA, Meredith or Flurry says it and it becomes etched in stone.

But how many ACTUALLY study the Bible without using COG approved literature?  Not very many!  Not even those in UCG, LCG, and PCG's little 'colleges'.  Their study programs are geared to promote the views and understandings of their individual churches.  Anything beyond that understanding is considered demonic and unimportant.

Because of that, most COG members have no idea on how the Bible is written, who wrote it, the significance of the myth, metaphors, saga's, legends and anthropomorphism is to the story. Eschatology, hermeneutics, exegesis, are incomprehensible words to the average COG member.  Armstrongism deals exclusively with eisegesis and proof-texting.  Neither of which have any validity in Biblical studies.

In-depth study of the Bible is not done because if there are discrepancies found between official church teaching and things dug up during studies,  then it would 'damage' the faith of the brethren.

How many have even looked into WHO wrote the books of the Bible?  How many know about "Q", the four source documents: "E", "P", "D" and "J"?  How many know the difference between 'fact' and 'truth'?

There is a new book that is coming out that can be useful in learning about these things.  So many in Armstrongism and Evangelical Christianity have 'checked their brains at the door' and never attempt to expand their knowledge.  It's not about disproving something but about learning, enriching one's mind, and moving the relevance of the Bible into the 21st century.  How it can be useful for ones benefit instead of being used as a weapon.

Now I can hear the rabid Armstrongites claiming this is a book that's claiming the Bible is a forgery.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Check out James McGrath's comments about this:

The subtitle gives a misleading impression of what the book is going to be about, in three important respects. First, it sounds like it could be addressing the issue of people claiming to write in God’s name, when in fact they aren’t. No, the book is about forgery in the more mundane sense – people writing in the name of other people and trying to pass their work off as genuinely by some other person.  Describing the book's focus as on “the Bible’s authors” is also misleading, both because there is little about the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (there is a brief mention of Daniel) and because a great deal of attention is given to forgeries and pseudepigrapha outside of the canon. These are, to be sure, helpfully brought into the picture as examples of the broader context of New Testament forgery. But it remains the case that readers may find themselves surprised, given the subtitle, by just how much space in the book is devoted either to non-Biblical examples, or to phenomena other than forgeries in the strict sense. Finally, whether the Bible’s authors are or are not who we think they are depends on whether one has kept up-to-date on Biblical scholarship. While there are certainly a few new or distinctive suggestions in the book, for the most part the works which are discussed as not having been written by their purported authors are ones that most scholars would agree with Ehrman about.

So what is the book about? It is about forgery in early Christianity, with primary (but not exclusive) interest in the New Testament. The most distinctive component is summed up well by the book’s title: Ehrman argues throughout that the attempt to sugar-coat pseudepigraphy as something acceptable, non-deceptive – in short, something other than forgery – is problematic. As Ehrman himself puts it, “The Bible…contains what almost anyone today would call lies. That is what this book is about” (p.5). The irony that Christianity historically presents itself as being focused on and offering “the Truth” is highlighted throughout. Ehrman mentions that he is working on a scholarly monograph on this topic – and emphasizes that this book is not it – but nevertheless, scholars will definitely find that even in this format, Ehrman makes suggestions that are worth reflecting on and engaging.

A more in-depth review can be found here:  Book Review of FORGED



You can also checkout this book to further enrich your thinking:

Who Wrote The Bible 

Why Does Questioning the Bible Make People So Nervous and Defensive?

Why Does Questioning the Bible Make People So Nervous and Defensive?



If you wish to see the good, the bad and the ugly side of people of faith, just question the faith. I was a pastor soaking in Christianity and the Bible for three decades. I heard, read and studied all the plain and simple truth in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I can tell you the truth is neither plain nor simple and rather liked Paul's description of it all as being "the present truth." At least calling truth something that is currently understood gives some wiggle room for those times which shall come to grow a bit in the grace and knowledge that most Christians think they are open minded enough to really do. Most I know grow neither in grace, unless they attach a few dozen laws that you must keep to be one of the good people, nor knowledge which seems to scare the bejesus out of them when they really run up against it.


By far, the writings I have done that have proven to be the most popular for the open minded and enraging for those who enjoy that frame of mind a bit less, have been on Questions Your Pastor Will Hate. Many appreciate the questions and admit that they too have had the same questions as they sincerely study the text of the Bible stories and accounts of varied topics. These are the people who see the politics behind the texts. They admit that James and Paul really did bash heads and Peter was bashed by Luke and John as one who was totally unworthy of any authority in the church. Judas had betrayed Jesus and Peter had denied him, so that's pretty much the end of them in the eyes of John, Luke and Paul.


The story of Annias and Sapphira in Acts 5 is not a story about Peter killing two church members for not coughing up all the money they had "pledged" to the church. It is a spoof that the readers of Luke and Paul's community would understand of the buffoon Peter who, like the two church members who said they would give something to the church and didn't, said he'd never leave Jesus and fled. Peter who said he'd do one thing and did another is now punishing a couple who said they'd do one thing and did another. It was hilarious and a poke at Peter the Pathetic according to Luke and Paul. John mentions Peter three times in his Gospel and each time sandwiches Peter stories between two comments about Judas. The point is not missed on the original audience as is the story of Peter being forgiven three times by Jesus tacked on to the end of John's Gospel to show Peter is just as able to be forgiven as anyone else. (Side note: A really fascinating possibility is that the 21st chapter of John is the Missing ending of the pro-Peter Gospel of Mark. Mark is known to have no good ending to the Jesus story. It's ending has been added to make up for the bummer ending at Mark 16:8. John, on the other hand, has two obvious endings in chapter 20, the real ending and chapter 21, the forgive Peter ending.)


At any rate, to question the story is to run great risk of abuse at the hands of the faithful who need the stories to be literally true as they learned in Sunday School and that all the characters of the New Testament Church loved each other in Jesus and got along famously in the faith. That is very far from reality, but don't question it.


I can't tell you how many, while not near as many as those who appreciate the inquiry, take the time to write and remind me I will change my mind when I am frying in the fires of Hell in the judgment. No one has bothered to answer one question posed, but they just know I should go to hell for asking it. Some who write are subtle in their warnings to me. Some sound like a human form of God who will warn me to "gird up my loins" (my loins are just fine) and get ready to answer, but that's where it ends. I guess they feel God himself is about to break out upon me for asking questions about the faith. So far so good. Some talk to me like I imagine Moses talked to the Children of Israel when he was really angry at them in God's name. Some are not so subtle as one reminded me that "Dennis, words can get you killed." Well the history of religion that does not appreciate questions proves that!


Is it wrong to notice the inconsistencies, errors, goofs, bad science, poor examples, contradictions, animosities, politic and real history of the Bible? Depends who you ask. Those who believe that none of those things exist in the Holy Book would shout "yes!" In my view, the answer is "no it is not." Why is it OK and even something one should demand of their honest selves? Because ideas have consequences. Because the stories and ideas expressed in the texts are used to control people in various life circumstances. Because some use the mythologies of the Bible to make up literally real laws that effect women and children, and generally not in a good way. Because many are kept in fear, guilt and life long shame being reminded way too often that they, as a human, are worthless without divine intervention. Being born right the first time, as I have said in the past, is a truth that is kept far from their consciousness.


It is always right to ask questions about that which seems like it deserves to have a question asked. If you can't imagine Joshua raising his hands and stopping the earth from rotating without planet wide consequences...just ask your Pastor how can that be. Of course be ready to hear, "with God all things are possible," which is not what you asked. If you can't picture penguins and polar bears ambling down to the middle east to get on the Ark, just ask your Pastor about that. If you wonder where dinosaurs or Homo Erectus fit in, just ask your Pastor. The answer might be ill informed, but it's ok to ask.


If you notice that Paul never quotes Jesus, yet gets to write most of the NT heavy meaning of Jesus, just ask. If you notice that Paul thinks Peter, James and John, the disciples of Jesus don't seem to have anything Paul needs to learn from them and he learns nothing from them, and think that's kinda strange...just ask. If you notice the Birth or Resurrection of stories as written in the Gospels don't match very well and seem contradictory, just ask. If you say "they seem to be contradictory," be prepared to have the word "seem" jumped upon, but you still have the right to ask. I'm not saying you'll get a good or correct answer. You might, but probably not. But you have the right to ask. And you certainly have the right to notice the many problems in the Bible if you know the Bible well enough to notice in the first place.


One thing is for sure. If you are a genuine seeker and you truly notice that the Bible has some real problems with what we truly know today about many topics and even within itself in the form of many contradictions and editing done by one to correct the problems of the other, it's ok to ask. A real seeker cannot not notice what they notice. You can't go back to the lame apologetics that many offer to explain away the problem as if there is no problem. You can't unsee what you do see. You can't unring a bell. Oh..you also have the right to expect not to be penalized for asking in the first place. Just don't count on it.

DenniscDiehl@aol.com