Snark ahead. You have been duly warned!
Recently, Bodie Hodge, a writer for Answers in Genesis, decided to take a crab-fork stab at the question, Other Religious Writings: Can They Be from God, Too? According to Hodge, the son-in-law of Ken Ham, only the sixty-six books of Protestant Bible are from God. Hodge writes:
Other alleged divine writings are not from God because they are not part of the Bible.
The answer seems too simple: other alleged divine writings are not from God because they are not among the 66 books of the Bible and, in fact, they contradict the Bible.
This is a “presuppositional” approach, which means to presuppose that God exists and that His Word, the Bible, is the truth. This is the starting point or axiom.
God never tried to prove His existence or prove that His Word is superior to other writings. God simply opens the Bible with a statement of His existence and says His Word is flawless (Genesis 1:1; Proverbs 30:5). The Bible bluntly claims to be the truth (Psalm 119:160), and Christ repeated this claim (John 17:17).
In fact, if God had tried to prove that He existed or that His Word was flawless, then any evidence or proof would be greater than God and His Word. But God knows that nothing is greater than His Word, and therefore He doesn’t stoop to our carnal desires for such proofs.
There ya have it, boys and girls. Only the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are from God. Why? Because the Bible says so. So there, take that you liberals! Hodge and his daddy-in-law Ham are presuppositionalists. They presuppose that the Christian God is the one true God and that the 66 books of Bible are this God’s words. No evidence is necessary. These truths are correct because Hodge and Ham, and by extension God, say they are.
According to Hodge, God will not contradict himself. Yes, sir he says that sober and with straight face. Here’s the quote:
In the Bible, we read that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). This is significant because it means that God’s Word will never have contradictions. Though skeptics have alleged that there are contradictions in the Bible, every such claim has been refuted. This is what we would expect if God’s Word were perfect.
Yet the world is filled with other “religious writings” that claim divine origin or that have been treated as equal to or higher than the Bible on matters of truth or guidelines for living. In other words, these writings are treated as a final authority over the Bible.
Any religious writing that claims divine inspiration or authority equal to the Bible can’t be from God if it has any contradictions: contradictions with the Bible, contradictions within itself, or contradictions with reality.
And around and around we go. These other religious writings cannot be from God because he only wrote one book, the Bible. And unlike Harper Lee of To Kill a Mockingbird fame, God is not planning to write a sequel.
At the end of article, Hodge proves “conclusively” that other religious writings such as the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon are not from God. How does he do this you ask? Why he compares these writings to the Protestant Bible and shows that they have different teachings and words. This is a ploy commonly used by people who think the King James Bible is God’s perfect Word for English-speaking people. Here’s how this works. Take Isaiah 7:14, a verse Evangelicals believe prophesies the virgin birth of Jesus. The King James version renders the verse this way:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
However, the New Revised Standard Version renders the verse this way:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Oh Lord, the NRSV takes away the virgin birth, says the King James onlyist. This is PROOF that the NSRV is not from God.
Let me give one more example of this kind of thinking. Take Mark 16:9-20. You know the passage that says in verses 16-18:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Some newer translations omit this passage or footnote it saying that verses 9-20 are not found in the oldest manuscripts. King James onlyists see this omission as proof that modern versions are removing God’s Words. If God didn’t want these verses in the Bible he would never have written them to start with. But he did, end of story.
What’s interesting here is that while King James onlyists believe Mark 16:9-20 is the very word of God, they pretty much ignore or explain away what the verses teach. Most King James onlyists are Baptists who believe that salvation is by grace. Baptism has no salvific effect. It is nothing more than a ceremonial act. Yet, this passage clearly says, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Now who is the one taking away from the Word of God? The same goes for the verses that say that the followers of Jesus will cast out devils, speak with new tongues, take up serpents, drink poison without adverse effect, and heal the sick. I don’t know of one King James onlyist church that takes these verses seriously and attempts to put them into practice. Hey Maude, pass the strychnine. It’s my turn to drink poison.
In a similar manner, Hodge thinks if he compares the teachings of Bible with the teachings of the Qur’an he will show that the Protestant Bible is from God and the Qur’an is not. I suspect readers are by now doing a face palm. It’s like a man comparing a Ford owner’s manual with a Chevrolet owner’s manual. Yep, only the Ford is an automobile. Why? The owner’s manuals are different. Of course they are different. One’s for a Ford and the other is for a Chevrolet. Both are automobiles.
So it is with religious texts. Difference is not proof of a text’s truthfulness. Perhaps the Book of Mormon is from God and not the Protestant Bible. It is impossible to know one way or the other just by playing the world-famous Hodge Religious Text Comparison Game®. And Hodge knows this. He concludes his survey of the astounding wonders of the closed Evangelical mind with this statement:
So there are two options: place our faith in the perfect, all-knowing God who has always been there, or trust in imperfect, fallible mankind and his philosophies. The Bible, God’s Holy Word, is superior to all other alleged holy books. God will never be wrong or contradict Himself. So start with the Bible and build your faith on its teachings so that you please Him.
Finally, Hodge gives the answer to every question about the Bible and its teachings: faith. Why not start with this answer? All Hodge had to say is that by faith he believes the Protestant Bible is from God. Faith cuts off any rational inquiry. Faith keeps Evangelicals from investigating Hodge’s false claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Hodge doesn’t want Answers in Genesis supporters to think for themselves. Just have faith, he says. How else can someone believe the universe is 6,020 years old? Such a belief, along with a plethora of other literalistic beliefs, require great faith. This is a faith that becomes blinders for the mind, keeping people from daring to rationally investigate the claims made by men such as Bodie Hodge.
Never will there be found in their possession one of Bart Ehrman’s books. Reading such books and comparing them to what the keepers of Evangelical Biblical Truth® say will certainly lead to questions and doubt. And we can’t have that. Doubt is a lack of trust in God. Doubt is sign that Satan is gaining a stronghold. We must not have questions and doubt, Evangelical preachers say. Just have faith and your doubts will go away. And if they don’t? Dammit, stop asking questions and believe what I tell you to believe!!
Note
If you are interested in reading what Hodge thinks about atheists, please read Dear Atheists, from Bodie Hodge. Please grab a barf bag and have it nearby when you start to read. Trust me, you will need it.
I’m not a bible scholar, quite the reverse in fact. Yet it seems to me that these arguments over which translation is best follow a very long, historical pattern.
First, nobody but priests could read.
Next make sure bible is in Latin, as priests are able pretty well only to speak that (so translation from original texts already needed).
Then make sure no bibles get outside churches in case, God forbid, ordinary scholars get to read it.
Fast forward – printing presses. Church resists because of possibility of bibles coming into the possession of ordinary folks.
Then more ordinary people start learning to read. Church resists. Bible to be kept in Latin.
Finally bible starts being translated (from Latin) into English. Lots of versions.
Here we are now. Bible ‘scholars’ (of whom, paradoxically, the likes of Hodges are not) argue over the meaning of the bible. They realise that pretty well no part of the Old Testament can survive historical scrutiny so they dismiss it as allegory (and, somewhat disingenuously, claim they never suggested it should be taken literally). But so much is still left. Is the virgin birth allegorical? The resurrection? Even Jesus himself?
On top of that they are faced with modern philosophy, that challenges their, long held prejudices, such as homosexuality, celibate priests, and slavery. They’ve got round these, and continue so to do, by going back to ‘original’ translations, now needing you to be familiar with Hebrew. But what the…? Wasn’t Jesus speaking Aramaic? What languages were the originals.
So Hodges doesn’t make sense, even at the most basic level at which he pleads. If the KJV, or any other version, is so great, then why the need to keep second guessing it by reverting to so called original. I suppose Hodges does have the good grace of being genuinely stupid, well totally ignored anyhow, in not even conceding he’s been factually trampled, but anybody with the slightest intellectual ability who reads his nonsense is going to have great trouble dealing with it. Perhaps that’s just as well.
“Lord, I believe… help thou my unbelief”
Bodie Hodge reduces my need to use my brain and makes belief so much easier.
Hey I betcha God made all the Bibles to prove that one Bible is the genuine article! See how easy it is!
Put your CAPSLOCK on and get after those atheistics!
Now I know for certain I’m a heretic; my first bible (when I was 6, as an Easter present) was an RVS hardback with sturdy pages and clear font, that was given to me by my Quaker maternal grandparents. Of course when I was attending the fundie church with my maternal step-grandmother 6 years later, she was appalled and promptly bought me an Oxford KJV complete with a soft “Moroccan leather” cover and genuine 24 carat gold edges for Christmas. It even had my name embossed on the cover, “so the bus kids can’t steal it”. She was so glad I now had a “proper” Bible to take to church.
Bruce, I’m curious as to how the Living Bible is perceived among Evangelicals. My step-grandmother thought it was a good “study aid” but it wasn’t really the Bible. And I made it 3 whole paragraphs into that screed but now I must go search for the brain bleach. Excuse me, please.
Wow, I got halfway through and needed 2 barf bags and then I ran out.
Bruce, an honest, non-snarky question:
What about the fact that it took nearly 400 years of reviewing texts, creating lists, debate and criticism to determine the canon, or list of the books in the Bible?
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
It was humans who were doing this, not God. Do the literalists also believe that these decisions were divinely inspired, and therefore not subject to human error? How does the assmbly of the Bible fit into the debate?
What Evangelicals did was invent a new doctrine called the preservation of scripture. God, down through history, preserved (protected, kept safe) his words. This is why Evangelicals can say that the Bible they hold in their hands is the Word of God. Isn’t God amazing. Of course there is no proof that their claim is true. But faith can make anything believable. 🙂
I give liberal Christians credit for at least admitting that the Bible is a human document. While I think there are some Evangelical pastors and theologians who know and believe this, they dare not say it publicly. The myth must be protected at all costs.
Another line of bulls**t to explain a line of bulls**t. Yeah, that’s fundagelicalism.
Thanks for explaining this. I had never heard of this doctrine.
BTW, our dueling icons look great!
Hodge’s article has to be the worst in Christian apologetics I’ve ever seen.
I can remember getting some comfort from studying the Bible. It’s kind of nice to have certainty, that there is a Christian God whose son, Jesus, died for our sins. But since most of the Bible is mythology, believing any doctrines from the Bible is useless. I do miss the structure, as I believe in the Divine…? See, I can’t even put a name to it anymore. Maybe we’re in a giant computer simulation, an idea actually proposed by some physicists. (They even know what to look for and have found some evidence to suggest the possibility.) That would make our creator whatever is outside of the universe. Probably would be a form of Deism.
So now, my “religion” is down to: try to be kind and loving to my fellow man. Funnily enough, I find most liberal religious people and agnostics/atheists to be really good people. 🙂
enjoyed your article, Bruce.
i became an atheist at about nine years old when God didn’t seem to answer my prayer. At 33, I turned to a belief in Jesus because i was and am a loser (It’s all about grace). But i didn’t know him. He was trying communicate with me all that time. it took another 30 years for me to catch on. i am not talking about the Christian religion. Religion literally means about a person choosing. In Christianity God chooses you!
i think that Christian turn away because they don’t get in touch with him. that’s got to be discouraging. we can do nothing with our own strength.
I agree some with your points about KJV. The original tongues are better, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Still Jesus quotes some verses i don’t see in any scriptures. In spite of shortcomings the scriptures in any translation do point to Jesus. He also spoke about not changing a jot or a tittle — referring to Hebrew i suppose.
I am now aware of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, which i now see has been going on at least since i was two! I first became fully aware of him through fear. This was a total fear that only God can give. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”
The many little supernatural experiences are very convincing. Since he quotes scriptures sometimes, this gives me confidence in them. Not all experiences are quotations. Fortunately for me, he quotes in English.
All one needs to do is ask Jesus into one’s heart with a childlike faith. He does the rest. It can’t be easy or more people would do it!
I hope this helps.
Two thoughts, here:
First, your experiences and perceptions are a perfectly good reason for you to be a Christian. I have no issue there. However, they are utterly useless to me, or to anyone else.
Second, you’re talking to people who have tried (in some cases, many times) to “ask Jesus into one’s heart with a childlike faith”. And what we’ve found is that He doesn’t “do the rest”. (If we’d found otherwise, we wouldn’t be here.) So that’s no help, either. On top of that, you’ve given us this instruction almost immediately after telling us that “we can do nothing with our own strength”, which leaves me wondering why we’re supposed to try. I mean, if it’s all up to God, then there’s no point in worrying about it, right? We’re just waiting on Him. Might as well get on with doing the things we can do.
Thanks for your heartfelt comments, Michael.
Your Thought #1. It took me a long while to realize what God was doing.
Your Thought #2. We can do a little with his strength.
Thanks again for answering.
Peter, at age 9, after God failed to answer your prayer, or rather to give you what you thought you desired at the time, you did not become an atheist. You perhaps became short term disillusioned, maybe even rebelled in some small ways, but a fully paid up atheist, no way. Far too young to possibly understand the concept and all it entails.
I still say, though some disagree, that full blooded atheism is a one way street with no return. It involves, among other things, realising that personal experiences that appear supernatural and not subject to reasonable explanation are, actually, simply delusions, or else readily explained. We’ve all had them; some grasp at them because that’s what they desire, whilst others see them as the delusions they are.
I studied science in school ( three degrees)– isotope dating, cosmology theory, and evolution on the side until i was 33.
How can i explain true supernatural experiences versus delusions?
God’s anger and his love are both overpowering … like nothing else.
Undeniable for me coming from a Western and scientific worldview.
Thank-you for reading my comment, and explaining your views.
peter, you are not a loser and never were… As a scientist, you are willing to waylay any ‘truth’ that is disproved by a new observation, leading to a new ‘truth’. I regret that you feel a need to give over your grasp of the world as it is because of some ‘experiences’ you cannot explain. As time goes on I think we will better understand the simply human realities that you feel must be supernatural or that others see as clearly delusional. There is no logic available to offset the emotional reality in our lives.
I wonder why you call yourself a loser… Why would a man do that to himself? Is it your own voice that speaks this way to you or is it another voice out of your experience? Why on earth would you accept such self-harm? Why not apply your training to this statement and trace it, study it. Find out what brings a man to harm himself, to give up his personal responsibility and become a slave to a mean-hearted, bully gawd…
Thank-you, Brian, for your concern.
Yes, science has theories to explain for ‘voices’ and ‘images’.
Apparently, i’m not the only loser.
The scriptures say, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
You do know that I am an atheist, right? Most of the regular commenters on this site are somewhere along the line between atheist and non-Evangelical. Quoting Bible verses carry no weight. You can safely assume that everyone knows that the Bible calls them losers/wicked/enemies of God/sinners/reprobates/haters of God. This is one of many reasons people reject your brand of Christianity. With that said, please engage in discussion if you wish to comment further. Please check out the commenting policy page for further information.
http://brucegerencser.net/comment-rules/
Sorry Bruce. So, no quotations.
Was i discussing okay until then?
peter, the scriptures say everything… What’s your pleasure?
For all have been humans, the glory and the shit of it, the light and the dark. For all have fallen short and risen above and slid home on a bunt. Don’t bore me with bullshit. The glory is right now, right here and begins with, wait for it, wait, wait, and let all the air out of your Bible clogged lungs: Now. Just breathe, peter. Glory. Everything has been given and you shit on it with self-harm. I am sure you are not quite the freak you want to think yourself. But if you want to join the tax-exempt dark cave of the church, carry on! Once we decide to mock our own humanity, to harm ourselves and others by telling them they are born evil, fallen, then we begin a journey into abuse. The American evangelical movement is a virus. peter.
Thank-you for sharing your view.
Bruce just corrected me on quoting scriptures.
He told me to discuss, so I’ll try again.
I don’t belong to an organized church, tax-exempt or otherwise. if that helps.
Jesus told his followers to send out his message just before he left.
I don’t think one is a Christian if one doesn’t.
What do you think?
Based on what you stated here, since the overwhelming majority of Christians (including Evangelicals) never share the gospel, are you saying they are not Christians? If you answer yes, are you not saying, then, that salvation is contingent on a work/works–sharing one’s faith?
If you are not part of a visible, local church, how can you call yourself a Christian (Hebrews 10:25,26)? It seems, based on the NT, that Christians were a part of local churches governed by pastors/elders.bishops. Every book in the NT has some connection to a church or a group of churches. I guess I am curious about how you square not being part of a church with what the NT teaches on the matter. Are you saying there are no churches that are right doctrinally — right being your interpretation of the Bible. How do you determine you are right and other Christians are wrong?
paragraph one
..perhaps not completely fulfilled. The scriptures have a better answer.
..I belong to THE church, but not a formal denominational one. Have informal fellowship. kicked out of, or severely restricted from denominational chuches. Again scriptures say it better.
great questions, Bruce