Is the Bible hooey?
Nov 9, 2009 Print This Post
When I was a student at MSU, I encountered people with an opinion I had never heard before: they believed the Bible was hooey.
Growing up I had always seen the Bible as God’s Word, even when I lived a life that rejected its teachings. This new viewpoint I was exposed to sent me on a bit of a tailspin. But it was in a history class, when we were examining the proofs for the authenticity of a historical text that I began to become personally convicted that the Bible was indeed the Word of God. It was a variation on this chart that blew my mind:

Since then, I have loved reading about how we got the Bible that we have in our hands today. You can read the transcript of a message I gave on this once here.
Perhaps this is why I devoured two books over the last week that many would find boring. The first is “The Canon of Scripture” by FF Bruce:
This is a great book for any history buffs who are wondering how we got the Bible in the form we have it today. A ton of time is spent on the first few centuries of the church, which is awesome. Most people who dispute the historical validity of the Bible tend to repeat the common (yet historically inaccurate) mantra that the New Testament wasn’t seen as Scripture until the 300s. This book soundly defeats that position and includes more historical references and footnotes than any non-nerd has time to look up.
This is largely a historical book, focusing on the dates, places and people. The second book, “Inerrancy” edited by Norman Geisler, takes a different approach
This book hits on more of the theological / philosophical issues people have with the Bible. It tackles perceived inconsistencies, human / divine authorship, and stuff like that.
If you are wrestling with the hooeyness of the Bible, I highly recommend these two resources.




Facebook comments:
Leave a Reply