The Bible Was Written in Hebrew and Greek, But We Can Generally Trust Our Good English Translations

As we seek to understand the bible correctly we must remember that it was originally penned in Hebrew and Greek (and a little bit of Aramaic). While we don't need to be able to read Hebrew and Greek to comprehend scripture, it remains important that we respect how it was first put down on parchment.

This is part nine of my ten part series Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

The original languages are important. This is because all languages have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies about them. All are unique. Additionally, languages change over time. For example, the Greek spoken in Greece today differs significantly from the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Because of these things the church needs a significant number of believers who can read and teach biblical Hebrew and Greek to the next generation. If for no other reason this is important for apologetic purposes. It would do great damage to the body of Christ if no one could say with certainty what the Greek and Hebrew mean.

I'm generally not a fan of seminaries (even though I attended a fairly good one). However, I am glad that most evangelical seminaries in this country strongly support the teaching of Greek and Hebrew. Many require classes in both. Until the church gets to the point of teaching Hebrew and Greek one to another we need seminaries to keep doing what they are doing.

The Reformer Martin Luther said the following:

We will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments….

I am exceedingly glad that I speak English. The reason I say this is that the bible has been translated into English in many good forms. We have an abundance of excellent translations, for example the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NET, HCSB, ISV, and YLT. With modern technology it's even easy to compare translations by using a site like Bible Gateway. Because of all this we English speakers can feel confident that we know what the bible truly means even if we cannot read the original languages.

This brings us to another issue: the importance of bible translation into all languages. While we English speakers have lots of choices, some Christians around the globe have only one relatively poor translation or no translation at all. I encourage you to consider giving to those who spend their lives doing translation work; Wycliffe Bible Translators is a wonderful example.

One final thought: some of the English translations do not handle leadership issues well. Because many of those doing the translating are enmeshed in the institutional church framework they tend to translate in a way that gives pastors more authority than they actually should have. In my opinion this is the biggest weakness of many English translations. Therefore, if you are dealing with church leadership/authority issues, I highly encourage you to read multiple translations and consult numerous commentaries prior to coming to any significant conclusions/decisions.

To sum up: let's always remember that the bible was written thousands of years ago in Hebrew and Greek. Despite this, we can know what the bible means.

God's Not Dead

During the July 4th holiday I actually purchased and began reading a book. Amazingly, I found a good one as I was looking around a Barnes and Noble. My wife and I went there to get coffee. As I was trolling for something to look at I came upon God's Not Dead.

The book's subtitle explains well what it is all about, "Evidence for God in an age of uncertainty." The author, Rice Broocks, penned this excellent book in apologetics. He argues in a straightforward manner for the existence of God based on a number of reasons including life having meaning, the reality of good and evil, the fine tuning of the universe, the start of the universe, Jesus' resurrection, the witness of scripture, and the change in the lives of Jesus' followers.

This book has enough depth to make it worth the time, but is it not heavy or boring. Broocks includes numerous personal anecdotes that make it fairly easy to read. I highly recommend God's Not Dead for all Christians and anyone wondering about Jesus Christ.

Silence Does Not Equal Agreement

A while back I blogged that I'm done arguing. This does not mean that I'll not counter false teaching about the gospel. It does mean that I'm not going to argue with other Christians about secondary issues. I'll talk about them, but no more arguing.

I came to this decision because I realized (finally) that silence does not equal agreement. Just because I don't counter what I hear, it does not automatically mean that I agree with what I've heard. I don't know why it's taken me almost 42 years to come to this conclusion.

As Christians we know we must stand for the truth of the gospel. The problem is that we also tend to think that we must stand for the truth of whatever it is that we believe about church structure, leadership, creation, education, women's roles, the meaning of the Lord's Supper, the form of the Lord's Supper, baptism, etc., etc.

Everything does not have to be argued nor should it be. When we are silent, this does not mean we've lost, caved in, or surrendered. It simply indicates that we aren't going to discuss the topic anymore at that time with that person. Since it takes two to argue, that stops it cold.

My advice to you is to pick your arguments very carefully. They can often lead to unnecessary division within the church. Instead, try being quiet. I've enjoyed it so far.

Missions in I John

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life — the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us — that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete." I John 1:1-4

The letter of I John tells us something extremely significant as it relates to missions. In the opening to the epistle (1:1-4), John testifies to being an eyewitness to the person of Jesus Christ.

The gospel message is significant only if Jesus is a real person who actually did the things the bible describes. John announces in this letter that he, along with others, spent real time with Jesus Himself. John had not simply heard that Jesus existed. Rather, he saw, heard, and even touched Christ.

Eyewitness evidence is extremely important. When we present the gospel we have the advantage of saying that numerous people actually saw Him alive. The one hearing this must deal in some way with this evidence. It is impossible to ignore.


To read any or all posts in this NT missions series, click here.

Evolution is a Slippery Word

(I include the above photo simply for fun.)

The word "evolution" is a slippery one. I'm referring to the fact that it is used in a variety of ways by various people. This often leads to lack of actual communication and accompanying consternation/frustration for everyone involved.

In general "evolution" means change. We've all seen change, both good and bad, occur in almost uncountable ways in our lives. For example, the technological evolution just during the past thirty years is immense. I can remember when we bought our first microwave oven. Nowadays we can't live without the internet. These are significant changes.

When it comes to the world's beginnings, we must be clear in what we are talking about. Darwinian evolutionists demand that macro evolution occurs through processes of natural selection, mutation, and random chance. They state unequivocally that no higher intelligence is behind it. No discussion/debate on the issue is tolerated (especially within secular universities).

This is fascinating because the positive changes we've experienced in this world occur through much planning and intelligence. The evolution we have seen in technology has come from many smart techno-folks logging long hours to create software, computers, cell phones, flat screens, etc. None of these types of changes have happened through people simply sitting around waiting for something to happen by chance.

Evolution, when simply meaning change, can be a positive thing only when intelligence is behind it. On the other hand, evolution apart from intelligence and planning leads only to a big mess or worse. A great example of this is the state of my kids' bedrooms. I've blogged about this before, so I'll simply say here that order does not stem from chance. Their bedrooms only become clean through much effort and planning.

This is not to say that God controlled evolutionary processes to bring this world into existence. That is simply not the case. Genesis 1-2 makes it clear that God crafted this world in a highly organized, step-by-step process.

Changes do, however, occur in this world. Evolution, meaning simply change, even happens within species over time. However, it never happens at the macro level. Species tend to remain the same, not change from one to another.

Let's be careful in our definitions. Statements such as "I don't believe in evolution" are not helpful because they are not precise enough. In order to have intelligent conversation on this issue, we must define what we are talking about.

There was no evolution in the creation process.

There is evolution (meaning simply change) in the world as we know it. Positive change only stems from intelligence and planning.

Changes that come from lack of order or planning are only negative ones. Order never comes as a result of disorder.

As followers of Jesus we must be clear in what we are talking about as we engage the world on these issues.

Proof That God Exists

There are three primary reasons that we know God exists. First, the Holy Spirit tells us. Second, the bible tells us. Third, creation tells us.

Additionally, albeit less important than the above three reasons, it can be logically reasoned that God exists. Take a look at this site to see.

"God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"

God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is a significant text by noted atheist Christopher Hitchens.  After its release in 2007 it was a best seller for quite some time.  This book has contributed mightily to the rise of the New Atheism within this country.

Because of its impact, I decided to give this book a try.  Since I'm obviously a theist, I knew that it would be a challenge to read it.  Let's face it: it's always easier to read someone you agree with than someone you don't.

Not wanting to add to Hitchens' already full wallet, I checked this one out of a local library.

I must admit that I selectively skimmed this book.  The reason is that I have no interest in Hitchens' discussion of world religions outside biblical Christianity.  My interest was two-fold.  First, how does Hitchens interact with biblical claims?  Second, what does he propose as the best belief system?

Creation, Resurrection, Evolution, and Biblical Interpretation

I've heard a number of Christians say that it doesn't really matter how we interpret Genesis chapters 1-2 as long as we have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. While I agree that salvation does not directly depend on what we believe about the first two chapters of the bible, I profoundly disagree with the idea that "it doesn't really matter." It matters a great deal because it tells a lot about how we interpret scripture, what our ultimate authority is, and whether or not we are being consistent in how we read the bible.

A simple reading of Genesis 1-2 suggests a literal six day, 24 hour creation. If we hold to the bible as our final authority, then we will come to this conclusion. Since I believe all of the bible is true, I am a young earth creationist.

Christians who are theistic evolutionists may say that they believe the bible is true. However, they look to secular science as their authority on how the universe came to be as it is. Therefore, they believe that God used some form of evolution to bring about His creation. This conclusion cannot come from scripture. Genesis 1-2 does not even hint at this. Therefore, theistic evolutionists force scripture to fit into what secular science says.

We see, then, a significant difference. When it comes to how things are, creationists look to the bible as their final authority while theistic evolutionists look to secular science.

Let's now turn to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is a core doctrine of our faith. If you reject the truth of the resurrection, then quite simply you are not a follower of Jesus Christ.

Creationists, like myself, read in the bible that Jesus rose from the dead. The bible says it and I believe it. Despite the fact that secular science rejects the idea that a dead man can rise from the dead three days later, I still believe it is true. This is a literal interpretation of scripture. This view believes the bible is the final authority.

This is where theistic evolutionists who claim to be Christians have a significant problem. By embracing evolution, they have shown that secular science is their final authority. Therefore, the bible is not. Secular science rejects the resurrection. The bible proclaims it. Which will they choose?

Christian theistic evolutionists obviously agree with the resurrection of Christ. By definition they have to. In doing this, they claim that biblical truth supersedes secular scientific theory on this issue. The clear problem is this: theistic evolutionists are completely inconsistent in what their final authority is.

On the issue of creation, they reject the bible in favor of secular science (they would not say this, but listening to them force scripture to say things it doesn't further proves the point). On the issue of the resurrection of Christ, they reject secular science in favor of what the bible teaches.

As the saying goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." Theistic evolutionists cannot fairly claim different sources of authority. Either the bible is true in all aspects or it should be rejected.

When we look at the issue this way, we see how clear it becomes. The position of theistic evolution is one that all Christians must reject. Even many ardent atheistic evolutionists despise the theory of theistic evolution because of its inconsistency. At a basic intellectual level, it is an embarrassing position to hold.

We must be consistent with what we believe is true and why we believe it. The resurrection of Jesus matters, but so does the account of how the world began. How life began is absolutely critical. It is one of the most fundamental questions we can ask and answer. To reject the bible's answer to one of these questions but then embrace the bible's answer to the other is inconsistent and dangerous.

If we are to be consistent in how we read and interpret the scriptures, the only fair conclusion we can come to about creation is that God did it in six 24 hour days, just like it says in Genesis 1-2.

Voddie Baucham Asks the Right Question

I love this video from a few years back:

Ravi Zacharias on the Bible

Zacharias is a brilliant speaker and apologist. I'm thankful to God for him. Listen to this lucid and firm answer to why we should believe the bible.

James White on the Koran Burning

Apologist James White skillfully confronts the errors of the would-be Koran burners here. Enjoy.

Why Does the Universe Look So Old?

I love to hear well thought out, biblical answers to difficult questions. In this video, Dr. Albert Mohler answers why the universe look so old.

This is a question we need to be able to answer in such a way that the world can understand. We must not cave in to those who would say that the universe is millions of years old. If we cave, we also say that death comes before sin. If we accept that, we have a huge theological problem on our hands. Additionally, the straightforward reading of Genesis 1-2 indicates a six 24-hour day creation. When we read other interpretations into Genesis 1-2, we are in effect saying that scripture does not mean what it appears to say. What can we then say about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus?

When you have about an hour, take the time to listen to Dr. Mohler. It will be worth it.

Ravi Zacharias Shows Weaknesses in Atheistic Worldview

Ravi Zacharias is one of my favorite Christian apologists. He is both brilliant and easy to understand. He is gifted in defending the Christian faith, in particular against the attacks of the new militant atheists and their denial of objective morality.

According to Zacharias, "The reality is that the emptiness that results from the loss of the transcendent is stark and devastating, philosophically and existentially. Indeed, the denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself."

To read more, click here.

"The Ultimate Proof of Creation"

I am a young-earth creationist because I believe this is what the bible teaches. Because of this, I am a big supporter of Answers in Genesis.

Dr. Jason Lisle, of AiG, has written a book that I enjoyed very much and found very helpful. The text, entitled The Ultimate Proof of Creation, is an apologetic work that focuses on why a young-earth creation position is the only reasonable and logical position to hold. Lisle debunks both atheistic/materialistic/evolutionary positions and various Christian positions that do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2, such as theistic evolution.

Three aspects of this book stood out to me as memorable:

First, Lisle proposes that "the ultimate proof of creation is that if biblical creation were not true, we could not know anything." I found his thesis to be convincing. I'll let you read the book to find out more about it.

Second, Lisle suggests a two-fold strategy, based on Proverbs 26:4-5, for answering people who hold to unbiblical presuppositions. As creationists, we are not to agree with the faulty assumptions of those who are unscriptural, but are to show the illogical endpoints that their assumptions would lead to.

Third, Lisle states that when giving a reason for the faith, there are basically two positions: the "evidence first" approach and the "bible first" approach. The author indicates that we must take a "bible first" approach. If we set the bible to the side, we give up our primary evidence for a young earth.

It is this last point that has had the most impact on me. In the past, I have had a tendency to argue for God's existence and God's creation from the scientific evidence. Quite simply, I left out the bible. From now on, I'm going to speak from the bible first when discussing the existence of God and a literal young earth creation. Of course, I'll mention scientific evidence, but the bible will come first.

The reason for this, as Lisle states, is that the bible is the only objective source of information we have. All scientific evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways. While the bible is absolute, scientific evidence is relative.

Even if you don't plan to buy this book, it is fun to read a few of the reviews on Amazon.com. Not surprisingly, the book was either reviewed very favorably or very negatively. It all depends on the worldview the person has.

God's Self-Evidence - Part 2

The biblical writers do not spend much time trying to prove the existence of God. The reason for this is that God's existence is self-evident. In other words, it is obvious to all (even those who deny it). However, this does not mean that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Paul makes this clear in Romans chapter 1:

Romans 1:18-20, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (ESV)

Paul tells us several important things related to God's existence:

1. What can be known about God is plain to man.
2. God has shown what is plain about Him to man.
3. God's invisible attributes have been clearly perceived (understood) by man.
4. The evidence for these attributes is the things God has made (God's creation).
5. Man is without excuse if He does not believe in God. God's wrath is upon unbelieving man.

Atheism claims that God does not exist. God, however, has made it clear to all human beings that He does exist.

God's existence is self-evident. Those who deny this are suppressing the truth.

God's Self-Evidence - Part 1

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

The bible assumes that God exists. The biblical writers realize that God's evidence is so self-evident, that they do not even need to try to prove the point. It ought to be clear to all.

In fact, it is so clear that anyone denying the existence of God is described as a "fool."

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Psalm 14:1