What Is Bible “Inspiration”?

by Jason Jackson 

 

“What do Bible scholars mean when they speak of the ‘inspiration’ of the Scriptures?”
The Bible makes a claim that most books do not. It claims to be from God. Unlike the few that make the claim, the Bible’s claim is true. This is the concept called “inspiration.” There are several things involved in considering the “inspiration of the Bible.”
First, “inspiration” of the Bible means that it had a divine origin. The term “inspiration” is found in the New Testament one time (2 Tim. 3:16).

“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”

The Greek word theopneustos is actually a compound term. Its two parts (theos and pneustos) literally mean “God-breathed.” For this reason, English translations render the word by the phrase “inspired of God,” rather than just “inspired.”

Paul said that “scripture” is inspired of God. The word “scripture” comes from the Greek term graphe, which means “writings.” Paul was considering a specific body of writings. The word “scripture” is used in the Bible in a technical sense to distinguish writings whose origin is God, from those that originate with men. Practically speaking, the terms, “inspired of God” and “scriptures,” are interchangeable.

The apostle said that “every” or “all” scripture is from God. When Paul said that “every scripture” is inspired of God, he affirmed that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms — the Lord’s three-fold designation of the Old Testament (Lk. 24:44) — were all from God. Both Old and New Testaments are called “scripture” (see 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Pet. 3:15-16; cf. 1 Cor. 2:10-13).

Second, “inspiration of the Bible” means that God used prophetic agency. The writer of Hebrews referred to the human element in scripture when he said, “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets” (Heb. 1:1; emphasis added). The prophets were speaking; they were writing with pen and parchments. But, the words actually were God’s.

The apostle Peter noted that “the word of prophecy” was of God’s design. In communicating his will, however, “men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21).

The “inspiration” of the human writers did not mean that they were mere transcribers. God employed their human personalities and experiences in the process. Inspired men were not omniscient or personally infallible. But what they wrote was from the mind of God — and it was recorded without error.

They also used firsthand knowledge, the aid of eyewitnesses, and written sources in the composition of Scripture (cf. Lk. 1:1-4). All of these methods, however, were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the guarantee of accuracy (cf. Jn. 16:13).

Third, “inspiration of the Bible” means that this book is authoritative. The Bible is the final word in religious matters. As Paul discussed some doctrinal issues in Romans, he said, “What saith the scriptures?” (Rom. 4:3). The Lord charged the Sadducees, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” (Mt. 22:29). What God has revealed is important when considering any religious matter.

The Bible is the will of God. It is his authoritative word. For that reason, Jesus Christ said, “and the scriptures cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35). We cannot dismiss God’s written word. It is as authoritative as if God spoke directly from heaven (cf. Mt. 22:31; 2 Pet. 1:18-20).

Scripture References

2 Timothy 3:16; Luke 24:44; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Hebrews 1:1; 2 Peter 1:21; Luke 1:1-4; John 16:13; Romans 4:3; Matthew 22:29; John 10:35; Matthew 22:31; 2 Peter 1:18-20

Cite this article

Jackson, Jason. "What Is Bible "Inspiration"?" ChristianCourier.com. Access date: April 23, 2016. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1158-what-is-bible-inspiration

What is Sin?

The Sacrifice Before the Sacrifice

Why the Sacrifice Before the Sacrifice

Why the Sacrifice Before the Sacrifice

Scientific Foreknowledge and Medical Acumen of the Bible by  Kyle Butt, M.A. While it is the case that the Bible does not present itself as a scientific or medical textbook, it is only reasonable that if God truly did inspire the books that compose the Bible, they would be completely accurate in every scientific or medical detail found among their pages. Furthermore, if the omniscient Ruler of the Universe actually did inspire these books, scientific and medical errors that fill the pages of other ancient, non-inspired texts should be entirely absent from the biblical record. Is the Bible infallible when it speaks about scientific fields of discipline, or does it contain the errors that one would expect to find in the writings of fallible men in ancient times? That the first five books of the Old Testament are a product of Moses is a matter of historical record (Lyons and Staff, 2003). Furthermore, the story of Moses’ education among the Egyptian culture was well understood. In fact, even those Jews who did not convert to Christianity were so familiar with the historic fact that Moses was educated in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22), that Stephen’s statement to that effect went completely undisputed. Moses had been trained under the most advanced Egyptian educational system of his day. With such training, it would have been only natural for Moses to include some of the Egyptian “wisdom” in his writings if he were composing the Pentateuch by using his own prowess and mental faculties. A look into the medical practices from ancient Egypt and those found in the Pentateuch, however, reveals that Moses did not necessarily rely on “wisdom” of the Egyptians (which, in many cases, consisted of life-threatening malpractice). While some medical practices in the Pentateuch are similar to those found in ancient Egyptian documents, the Pentateuch exhibits a conspicuous absence of those harmful malpractices that plague the writings of the Egyptians. Moses penned the most advanced, flawless medical prescriptions that had ever been recorded. Furthermore, every statement that pertained to the health and medical well-being of the Israelite nation recorded by Moses could theoretically still be implemented and be completely in accord with every fact modern medicine has learned in regard to germ spreading, epidemic disease control, communal sanitation, and a host of other medical and scientific discoveries. It is the case that the ancient Egyptians were renowned in the ancient world for their progress in the field of medicine. Dr. Massengill noted that “Egypt was the medical center of the ancient world” (1943, p. 13). During the days of in the Medo-Persian Empire, the ancient historian Herodotus recorded that it was king Darius’ practice “to keep in attendance certain Egyptian doctors, who had a reputation for the highest eminence in their profession” (3.129). Thus, while the medical practices of the Bible could be equally compared to those of other ancient cultures and found to be flawlessly superior, comparing them to that of the eminent Egyptian culture should suffice to manifest the Bible’s supernatural superiority in the field. It Will Cure You—If It Doesn’t Kill You First Among the ancient documents that detail much of the Egyptian medicinal knowledge, the Ebers Papyrus ranks as one of the foremost sources. This papyrus was discovered in 1872 by a German Egyptologist named Georg Ebers (the name from which the papyrus acquired its moniker) (Ancient Egyptian..., 1930, p. 1). It consists of a host of medical remedies purported to heal, enhance, and prevent. “Altogether 811 prescriptions are set forth in the Papyrus, and they take the form of salves, plasters, and poultices; snuffs, inhalations, and gargles; draughts, confections, and pills; fumigations, suppositories, and enemata” (p. 15). Among the hundreds of prescriptions, disgusting treatments that caused much more harm than good can be found. For instance, under a section titled “What to do to draw out splinters in the flesh,” a remedy is prescribed consisting of worm blood, mole, and donkey dung” (p. 73). [Doctors S.I. McMillen and David Stern note that dung “is loaded with tetanus spores” and “a simple splinter often resulted in a gruesome death from lockjaw (2000, p. 10).] Remedies to help heal skin diseases included such prescriptions as: “A hog’s tooth, cat’s dung, dog’s dung, aau-of-samu-oil, berries-of-the-xet-plant, pound and apply as poultice” (Ancient Egyptian..., 1930, p. 92). Various other ingredients for the plethora of remedies concocted included “dried excrement of a child” (p. 98), “hog dung” (p. 115), and “a farmer’s urine” (p. 131). One recipe to prevent hair growth included lizard dung and the blood from a cow, donkey, pig, dog, and stag (p. 102). While it must be noted that some of the Egyptian medicine actually did include prescriptions and remedies that could be helpful, the harmful remedies and ingredients cast a sickening shadow of untrustworthiness over the entire Egyptian endeavor as viewed by the modern reader. As medical doctor S.E. Massengill stated: The early Egyptian physicians made considerable use of drugs. Their drugs were of the kind usually found in early civilizations; a few effective remedies lost in a mass of substances of purely superstitious origin. They used opium, squill, and other vegetable substances, but also excrement and urine. It is said that the urine of a faithful wife was with them effective in the treatment of sore eyes (1943, p. 15). In addition, it seems that the Egyptians were among the first to present the idea of “good and laudable pus” (McMillen and Stern, 2000, p. 10). Due to the idea that infection was good and the pus that resulted from it was a welcomed effect, “well-meaning doctors killed millions by deliberately infecting their wounds” (p. 10). Needless to say, the modern-day reader would not want to be a patient in an ancient Egyptian clinic! PRESCRIPTIONS IN THE PENTATEUCH The first five books of the Old Testament, admittedly, are not devoted entirely to the enumeration of medical prescriptions. They are not ancient medical textbooks. These books do, however, contain numerous regulations for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures that were to govern the daily lives of the Israelite nation. Missing entirely from the pages of these writings are the harmful remedies and ingredients prescribed by other ancient civilizations. In fact, the Pentateuch exhibits an understanding of germs and disease that much “modern” medicine did not grasp for 3,500 years after the books were written. Blood: The Liquid of Life Blood always has been a curious substance whose vast mysteries and capabilities have yet to be fully explored. Doctors in the twenty-first century transfuse it, draw it, separate it, package it, store it, ship it, and sell it. And, although modern-day scientists have not uncovered completely all of the wonders of blood, they have discovered that it is the key to life. Without this “liquid of life,” humans and animals would have no way to circulate the necessary oxygen and proteins that their bodies need in order to survive and reproduce. Hemoglobin found in the red blood cells carries oxygen to the brain, which in turn uses that oxygen to control the entire body. A brain without oxygen is like a car without gas or a computer without electricity. Blood makes all of the functions in the body possible. In the past, ignorance of blood’s value caused some “learned” men to do tragic things. For instance, during the middle ages, and even until the nineteenth century, doctors believed that harmful “vapors” entered the blood and caused sickness. For this reason, leeches were applied to victims of fever and other illnesses in an attempt to draw out blood containing these vapors. Also, the veins and arteries located just above the elbow were opened, and the patient’s arms were bled to expunge the contaminated blood. George Washington, the first President of the United States, died because of such misplaced medical zeal. An eyewitness account of Washington’s death relates that he came down with a chill, and in an effort to cure him, those who attended him resorted to bleeding; “a vein was opened, but no relief afforded” (“The Death of George Washington,” 2001). Thousands of years before the lethal practice of bloodletting was conceived, mankind had been informed by God that blood was indeed the key to life. In Leviticus 17:11, Moses wrote: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” Today, we understand completely the truthfulness of Moses’ statement that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” But how did an ancient shepherd like Moses come to know such information? Just a lucky guess? How could Moses have known almost 3,500 years ago that life was in the blood, while it took the rest of the scientific and medical community thousands of years (and thousands of lives!) to grasp this truth? The Old Testament’s conspicuous failure to institute improper medical procedures as they related to blood speaks loudly of its medical accuracy. Germs, Labor Fever, and Biblical Sanitation In their book, None of These Diseases, physicians S.I. McMillen and David Stern discussed how many of the hygienic rules established by God for the children of Israel still are applicable today. To illustrate their point, they recounted the story of Ignaz Semmelweis. In 1847, an obstetrician named Ignaz Semmelweis was the director of a hospital ward in Vienna, Austria. Many pregnant women checked into his ward, but 18% of them never checked out. One out of every six that received treatment in Semmelweis’ ward died of labor fever (Nuland, 2003, p. 31). Autopsies revealed pus under their skin, in their chest cavities, in their eye sockets, etc. Semmelweis was distraught over the mortality rate in his ward, and other hospital wards like it all over Europe. Nuland noted that Australia, the Americas, Britain, Ireland, and practically every other nation that had established a hospital suffered a similar mortality rate (2003, pp. 41-43). If a woman delivered a baby using a midwife, then the death fell to only about 3%. Yet if she chose to use the most advanced medical knowledge and facilities of the day, her chance of dying skyrocketed immensely! Semmelweis tried everything to curb the carnage. He turned all the women on their sides in hopes that the death rate would drop, but with no results. He thought maybe the bell that the priest rang late in the evenings scared the women, so he made the priest enter silently, yet without any drop in death rates. As he contemplated his dilemma, he watched young medical students perform their routine tasks. Each day the students would perform autopsies on the dead mothers. Then they would rinse their hands in a bowl of bloody water, wipe them off on a common, shared towel, and immediately begin internal examinations of the still-living women. Nuland commented concerning the practice: “Because there seemed no reason for them to wash their hands, except superficially, or change their clothing before coming to the First Division, they did neither” (2003, p. 100). As a twenty-first-century observer, one is appalled to think that such practices actually took place in institutes of what was at the time “modern technology.” What doctor in his right mind would touch a dead person and then perform examinations on living patients—without first employing some sort of minimal hygienic practices intended to kill germs? But to Europeans in the middle-nineteenth-century, germs were virtually a foreign concept. They never had seen a germ, much less been able to predict its destructive potential. According to many of their most prevalent theories, disease was caused by “atmospheric conditions” or “cosmic telluric influences.” Semmelweis ordered everyone in his ward to wash his or her hands thoroughly in a chlorine solution after every examination. In three months, the death rate fell from 18% to 1%. Semmelweis had made an amazing discovery. On the inside cover-flap of the book about Semmelweis, written by medical doctor and historian Sherwin Nuland, the text reads: Ignác Semmelweis is remembered for the now-commonplace notion that doctors must wash their hands before examining patients. In mid-nineteenth-century Vienna, this was a subversive idea. With deaths from childbed fever exploding, Semmelweis discovered that doctors themselves were spreading the disease (2003, inside cover flap). Had Semmeliweis made a groundbreaking discovery, or is it possible that he simply “rediscovered” what had been known in some circles for many years? Almost 3,300 years before Semmelweis lived, Moses had written: “He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean.” Germs were no new discovery in 1847; the biblical text recorded measures to check their spread as far back as approximately 1500 B.C. The Water of Purification Also germane to this discussion is the composition of the “water of purification” listed in Numbers 19. When Old Testament instructions are compared to the New Testament explanations for those actions, it becomes clear that some of the ancient injunctions were primarily symbolic in nature. For instance, when the Passover Lamb was eaten, none of its bones was to be broken. This symbolized the sacrifice of Christ, Whose side was pierced, yet even in death escaped the usual practice of having His legs broken (John 19:31-37). With the presence of such symbolism in the Old Testament, it is important that we do not overlook the Old Testament instructions that were pragmatic in value and that testify to a Master Mind behind the writing of the Law. One such directive is found in Numbers 19, where the Israelites were instructed to prepare the “water of purification” that was to be used to wash any person who had touched a dead body. At first glance, the water of purification sounds like a hodge-podge of superstitious potion-making that included the ashes of a red heifer, hyssop, cedar wood, and scarlet. But this formula was the farthest thing from a symbolic potion intended to “ward off evil spirits.” On the contrary, the recipe for the water of purification stands today as a wonderful example of the Bible’s brilliance, since the recipe is nothing less than a procedure to produce an antibacterial soap. When we look at the ingredients individually, we begin to see the value of each. First, consider the ashes of a red heifer and cedar. As most school children know, the pioneers in this country could not go to the nearest supermarket and buy their favorite personal hygiene products. If they needed soap or shampoo, they made it themselves. Under such situations, they concocted various recipes for soap. One of the most oft’-produced types of soap was lye soap. Practically anyone today can easily obtain a recipe for lye soap via a quick search of the Internet (see “Soapmaking,” n.d.). The various lye-soap recipes reveal that, to obtain lye, water often is poured through ashes. The water retrieved from pouring it through the ashes contains a concentration of lye. Lye, in high concentrations, is very caustic and irritating to the skin. It is, in fact, one of the main ingredients in many modern chemical mixtures used to unclog drains. In more diluted concentrations, it can be used as an excellent exfoliant and cleansing agent. Many companies today still produce lye soaps. Amazingly, Moses instructed the Israelites to prepare a mixture that would have included lye mixed in a diluted solution. Furthermore, consider that hyssop was also added to the “water of purification.” Hyssop contains the antiseptic thymol, the same ingredient that we find today in some brands of mouthwash (McMillen and Stern, 2000, p. 24). Hyssop oil continues to be a popular “healing oil,” and actually is quite expensive. In listing the benefits of hyssop, one Web site noted: “Once used for purifying temples and cleansing lepers, the leaves contain an antiseptic, antiviral oil. A mold that produces penicillin grows on the leaves. An infusion is taken as a sedative expectorant for flue, bronchitis, and phlegm” (see “Hyssop”). Other ingredients in the “water of purification” also stand out as having beneficial properties. The oil from the cedar wood in the mixture most likely maintained numerous salutary properties. A Web site dealing with various essential oils noted: “Cedar wood has long been used for storage cabinets because of its ability to repel insects and prevent decay. In oil form, applied to humans, it is an antiseptic, astringent, expectorant (removes mucus from respiratory system), anti-fungal, sedative and insecticide” (“Spa Essential Oils,” 2005). Another site, more specifically dealing with the beneficial properties of cedar, explained: Cedar leaves and twigs are in fact rich in vitamin C, and it was their effectiveness in preventing or treating scurvy that led to the tree’s being called arbor vitae or tree of life. In addition, recent research has shown that extracts prepared from either Thuja occidentalis or Thuja plicata [types of oriental cedar—KB] do in fact have antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties. A group of German researchers reported in 2002 that an extract prepared from cedar leaf, alcohol, and water inhibits the reproduction of influenza virus type A, while a team of researchers in Japan found that an extract of Western red cedar was effective in treating eczema (Frey, n.d). It is interesting to note that this information about the beneficial properties of the ingredients such as cedar, hyssop, and lye in the water of purification is not coming from Bible-based sources. Most of it is simply coming from studies that have been done through cosmetic and therapeutic research. Finally, the Israelites were instructed to toss into the mix “scarlet,” which most likely was scarlet wool (see Hebrews 9:19). Adding wool fibers to the concoction would have made the mixture the “ancient equivalent of Lava® soap” (McMillen and Stern, 2000, p. 25). Thousands of years before any formal studies were done to see what type of cleaning methods were the most effective; millennia before American pioneers concocted their lye solutions; and ages before our most advanced medical students knew a thing about germ theory, Moses instructed the Israelites to concoct an amazingly effective recipe for soap, that, if used properly in medical facilities like hospitals in Vienna, would literally have saved thousands of lives. Quarantine Moses detailed measures to prevent the spread of germs from dead bodies to living humans long before such was understood and prescribed in modern medicine. But the Old Testament record added another extremely beneficial practice to the field of medicine in its detailed descriptions of maladies for which living individuals should be quarantined. The book of Leviticus lists a plethora of diseases and ways in which an Israelite would come in contact with germs. Those with such diseases as leprosy were instructed to “dwell alone” “outside the camp” (Leviticus 13:46). If and when a diseased individual did get close to those who were not diseased, he was instructed to “cover his mustache, and cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!” (13:45). It is of interest that the covering of ones mustache would prevent spit and spray from the mouth of the individual to pass freely through the air, much like the covering of one’s mouth during a cough. Concerning such quarantine practices, S.E. Massengill wrote in his book A Sketch of Medicine and Pharmacy: In the prevention of disease, however, the ancient Hebrews made real progress. The teachings of Moses, as embodied in the Priestly Code of the Old Testament, contain two clear conceptions of modern sanitation—the importance of cleanliness and the possibility of controlling epidemic disease by isolation and quarantine (1943, p. 252). In regard to the understanding of contagion implied in the quarantine rules in the Old Testament, McGrew noted in the Encyclopedia of Medical History: “The idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease” (1985, pp.77-78). Here again, the Old Testament exhibits amazingly accurate medical knowledge that surpasses any known human ingenuity available at the time of its writing. LAWS OF FOOD CONSUMPTION Food regulations enumerated in the first five books of the Old Testament have been scrutinized by credentialed professionals in the fields of dietary and pathological research. The regulations have proven to coincide with modern science’s understanding of various aspects of health and disease prevention. In 1953, an extensive study, performed by David I. Macht and published in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine (a publication of the American Association of the History of Medicine and of The Johns Hopkins Institute of the History of Medicine), tested the toxicity of the meat of animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Macht’s technique was to place a certain seedling (Lupinus albus) in fresh muscle juices of the various animals noted as clean and unclean in the biblical text. This method was used at the time to study the blood of normal human patients as compared to the blood of cancerous patients (1953, p. 444). Macht noted that his results revealed “data which are of considerable interest not only to the medical investigator but also to the students of ancient Biblical literature” (p. 445). Some of his results were indeed of interest. For instance, he would take a control group of seedlings that grew in normal solutions and compare that group to seedlings placed in the various meat juices. He would then record the percent of seeds that grew in the meat juices as compared to those that grew under normal circumstances. For example, when placing the seedlings in meat juices from the Ox, the seeds grew 91% as often as they would if placed in a regular growing solution. Seeds in sheep juices grew 94% as often as those in the control group in regular solution. Seedlings in meat juice from a calf—82%; from a goat—90%; and from a deer 90%. Since these animals chew the cud and have a divided hoof, they were listed as clean in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14: Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat’” (Leviticus 11:1-3). When several unclean animals were studied, however, they showed significantly higher levels of toxicity and much lower levels of seedling growth. Seedlings in meat juice from pigs grew only 54% as often as the control group under normal growing conditions; rabbit—49%; camel—41%; and horse—39%. These results for larger mammals suggested that the biblical division between clean and unclean could have been related to the toxicity of the juices of such animals. Macht did similar research on birds, in which he found that extracts from biblical clean birds such as the pigeon and quail grew his seedlings 93% and 89%, while those from unclean birds such as the Red-tail hawk (36%) and owl (62%) were much more toxic. As Moses said: “And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind” (Leviticus 11:13-19). Other studies included several different kinds of fish. The biblical regulation for eating fish was that the Israelites could eat any fish that had fins and scales (Deuteronomy 14:9). Those water-living creatures that did not possess fins and scales were not to be eaten (14:10). In regard to his study on the toxicity of fish, Macht wrote: Of special interest were experiments made with muscle juices and also blood solutions obtained from many species of fishes. Fifty-four species of fishes were so far studied in regard to toxicity of meat extracts. It was found that the muscle extracts of those fishes which possess scales and fins were practically non-toxic [Herring—100%; Pike—98%; Shad—100%—KB], while muscle extracts from fishes without scales and fins were highly toxic for the growth of Lupinus albus seedlings (pp. 446-448). Macht’s study, even after more than five decades, continues to remain of great interest. His rigorous research led him to conclude: The observations described above corroborate the impression repeatedly made on the author in investigations as a physician (M.D. Johns Hopkins, 1906), as an experimental biologist (Member of Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine), and as Doctor of Hebrew Literature (Yeshiva University, 1928) that all allusions of the Book of Books, to nature, natural phenomena, and natural history, whether in the form of factual statements or in the form of metaphors, similes, parables, allegories, or other tropes are correct either literally or figuratively.... Such being the extraordinary concordance between the data of the Scriptures and many of the modern and even most recent discoveries in both the biological and physico-chemical sciences, every serious student of the Bible will, I believe, endorse the assertion of Sir Isaac Newton, that “The Scriptures of God are the most sublime philosophy. I find more such marks of authenticity in the Bible than in profane history anywhere” (p. 449). Some, however, have questioned Macht’s results. Prior research done by Macht in 1936 and 1949 produced discordant results from his research in 1953. But there are several compelling reasons for accepting Macht’s 1953 research. First, it could be the case that Macht’s 1953 research simply was more refined and the procedure better understood. As one would expect in the scientific field, research generally tends to improve with time. Second, Macht was a high-profile doctor with copious credentials. His research in 1936 and 1949 had been published and was easily accessible. Yet even though his previous research was available, the Johns Hopkins Institute considered it acceptable to publish his 1953 research, which would suggest that the 1953 research included additional methods and/or information that would override the earlier research. Third, Macht’s procedure as described in the 1953 paper was fairly simple and easily reproducible. But those who question the work have failed to produce experimental data after 1953 that would negate Macht’s study. If his 1953 procedures were fraught with error, a few simple experiments could be done to prove that. No such experimental data refuting Macht has been produced. For these reasons, the findings of Dr. Macht aid in the defense of the Bible’s inspiration and remarkably accurate medical procedures as far back as the time of Moses. But the validity of Old Testament food consumption laws certainly does not rely solely on Macht’s 1953 research. Additional confirmation of the beneficial, protective nature of Mosaic food consumption laws is readily available. Fins and Scales As was previously mentioned, the Mosaic criteria for eating water-living creatures was that the creatures have scales and fins (Leviticus 11:12). This injunction was extremely beneficial, since a multitude of problems surround many sea creatures that do not have scales and fins. The Blowfish The blowfish has fins but does not have scales. Thus, it would not have been edible under the Old Testament laws—fortunately for the Israelites. The blowfish can contain toxin in its ovaries, liver, and other organs that is highly potent and deadly. This toxin, called tetrodotoxin, is thought to be “1250 times more deadly than cyanide” and 160,000 times more potent than cocaine. A tiny amount of it can kill 30 grown adults (Dilion, 2005). As odd as it sounds, blowfish is served as a delicacy all over the world, especially in Japan and other far eastern countries. As a delicacy, it is called fugu, and is prepared by certified, licensed chefs. The toxins can be removed successfully, making the food edible, but the procedure often goes awry. Some who have researched fugu say that it is a food connoisseur’s version of Russian roulette. Due to the extreme danger involved in eating fugu, it is illegal to serve it to the Emperor of Japan! The Mosaic instructions concerning edible fish would have helped the Israelites avoid the dangerous blowfish, as well as danger posed by eating other toxic sea creatures such as certain jelly fish, sea anemones, and octopi. Shellfish Although shellfish are edible today, there are inherent dangers in eating ill-prepared types such as oysters. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has produced a twelve-page tract warning people about the dangers of eating raw or partially cooked oysters (“Carlos’ Tragic...,” 2003). In the tract, the FDA warns that some raw oysters contain the bacteria Vibrio vulnificus. In regard to this dangerous bacteria, the tract states: Oysters are sometimes contaminated with the naturally occurring bacteria Vibrio vulnificus. Oysters contaminated with Vibrio vulnificus can’t be detected by smell or sight; they look like other oysters. Eating raw oysters containing Vibrio vulnificus is very dangerous for those with pre-existing medical conditions such as liver disease, diabetes, hepatitis, cancer and HIV.... 50 percent of people who are infected with Vibrio vulnificus as a result of eating raw contaminated oysters die (2003). Eating oysters if they are not cooked properly can be potentially fatal, says the FDA. Thus, the wisdom of the Mosaic prohibition is evident to an honest observer. In a time when proper handling and preparation procedures were difficult to achieve, the best course of action simply would have been to avoid the risk of eating potentially contaminated foods, especially since the contamination cannot be detected by smell or sight. Reptiles and Salmonella In Leviticus 11, Moses included reptiles in the list of unclean animals. Obviously, they are not cud-chewers that walk on cloven hooves, so they would not classify as clean, edible animals according to Leviticus 11:3. But to make sure that the Israelites understood, Moses specifically mentioned reptiles such as the large lizard, gecko, monitor lizard, sand reptile, sand lizard, and chameleon (Leviticus 11:29-31). Immediately following this listing of reptiles, the text states: “Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening” (11:31). Interestingly, reptiles have a much higher rate of carrying Salmonella bacteria than do most mammals, especially those listed as clean in the Old Law. The Center for Disease Control has repeatedly warned people about the possibility of being infected with Salmonella passed through reptiles. In summarizing the CDC’s 2003 report, Lianne McLeod noted that the CDC estimates over 70,000 cases of human Salmonella infection a year are related to the handling of reptiles and amphibians (2007). The CDC recommends that homes with children under five should not have reptiles as pets. Furthermore, while other animals such as cats and dogs can pass Salmonella, McLeod noted: As high as 90% of reptiles are natural carriers of Salmonella bacteria, harboring strains specific to reptiles without any symptoms of disease in the reptile. While it is true that many pets can carry Salmonella, the problem with reptiles (and apparently amphibians) is that they carry Salmonella with such high frequency. It is prudent to assume that all reptiles and amphibians can be a potential source of Salmonella (2007, emp. added). In light of such evidence, the prudence of the Mosaic prohibition to eat or handle reptile carcasses is clearly evident. Of further interest is the fact that reptilian Salmonella contamination can occur without even touching a reptile. If a person touches something that has touched a reptile the bacteria can spread. The ARAV (Association of Reptilian and Amphibian Veterinarians) made this statement: “Salmonella bacteria are easily spread from reptiles to humans. Humans may become infected when they place their hands on objects, including food items, that have been in contact with the stool of reptiles, in their mouths” (“Salmonella Bacteria...,” 2007). When this statement by the ARAV is compared with the injunctions in Leviticus 11:32-47, the astounding accuracy of the Old Testament regulation is again confirmed. Anything on which any of them falls, when they are dead shall be unclean, whether it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack, whatever item it is, in which any work is done, it must be put in water. And it shall be unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. Any earthen vessel into which any of them falls you shall break; and whatever is in it shall be unclean: in such a vessel, any edible food upon which water falls becomes unclean, and any drink that may be drunk from it becomes unclean (Leviticus 11:32-34). After reading Leviticus 11:32-34, it seems as though a microbiologist was present with Moses to explain the perfect procedures to avoid spreading Salmonella and other bacteria from reptiles to humans. How could Moses have accurately laid down such precise regulations that belie a superior understanding of bacteria? An honest reader must conclude that he had divine assistance. Bats and Rabies Moses specifically forbade the Israelites to eat bats (Leviticus 11:19). The wisdom of this instruction is demonstrated by the fact that bats often carry rabies. While it is true that many animals are susceptible to rabies, bats are especially so. The American College of Emergency Physicians documented that between 1992 and 2002, rabies passed from bats caused 24 of the 26 human deaths from rabies in the United States (“Human Rabies...,” 2002). In the Science Daily article describing this research, “Robert V. Gibbons, MD, MPH, of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Silver Spring, MD, reviewed the 24 cases of humans with bat rabies.” From his research, he advised “the public to seek emergency care for preventive treatment for rabies if direct contact with a bat occurs” (“Human Rabies...,” 2002). Moses’ instruction to avoid bats coincides perfectly with modern research. Once again, the super-human wisdom imparted through Moses by God cannot be denied by the conscientious student of the Old Testament. As the eminent archaeologist, W.F. Albright, in comparing the list of clean and unclean animals detailed in the Pentateuch, noted that in other ancient civilizations, “we find no classifications as logical as this in any of the elaborate cuneiform list of fauna or ritual taboos” (1968, p. 180). Case in Point: Pork Consumption One of the most well-known Old Testament food regulations is the prohibition of pork consumption (Leviticus 11:7). Under close scrutiny, this prohibition exemplifies the value of the biblical laws regarding clean and unclean animals. During the days of Moses, proper food preparation and cooking conditions did not always exist. In fact, the general knowledge of the need to separate certain uncooked foods, especially meats, during preparation from other foods was virtually non-existent. Certain meats, if contacted raw or under-cooked, have greater potential to carry parasites and other harmful bacteria that can infect the end consumer (in this case, humans). Due to the fact that pigs are scavengers, and will eat practically anything, they often consume parasites and bacteria when they eat the carcasses of other dead animals. These parasites and bacteria can, and often do, take up residence in the pigs’ muscle tissue. Fully cooking the meat can kill these harmful organisms, but failure to cook the meat completely can cause numerous detrimental effects. R.K. Harrison listed several diseases or other health maladies that can occur due to the ingestion of improperly cooked pork. He noted that pigs often are the host of the tapeworm Taenia solium. Infection by this parasite can cause small tumors to arise throughout the body, including on the skin, eyes, and muscles. Furthermore, these tumors can affect the brain and cause epileptic convulsions. Additionally, humans can develop trichaniasis (trichinosis) infestation from eating undercooked, as well as tape worm known as Echiococcus granulosus from water polluted by pigs. Further, pigs can pass on the microorganisms that cause toxoplamosis, a disease affecting the nervous system (Harrison, 1982, p. 644). Due to a much more exhaustive body of knowledge concerning parasites and pathogens, modern readers are increasingly attune to the dangers of consuming raw or undercooked pork. In fact, most pork bought in grocery stores contains nitrates and nitrites that have been injected into the meat to hinder the growth of harmful microorganisms. But Moses and the Israelites did not have access to such modern knowledge. How is it that the food regulations recorded by Moses over 3,000 years ago contain such an accurate understanding of disease control? Albright noted along these lines, “thanks to the dietary and hygienic regulations of Mosaic law...subsequent history has been marked by a tremendous advantage in this respect held by Jews over all other comparable ethnic and religious groups” (1968, p. 181). Circumcision In the book of Genesis, the text relates that God chose Abraham and his descendants to be a “special” people who were set apart from all other nations. The covenant that God made with Abraham included a physical “sign” that was to be implemented in all future generations of Abraham’s descendants. According to the text, God said: He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant (Genesis 17:12-14). Thus, the covenant with Abraham and his offspring was to be indelibly marked in the flesh of every male child. The inclusion of this medical, surgical practice provides another excellent example of the medical acumen of the biblical text. Two significant aspects of biblical circumcision need to be noted. First, from what modern medicine has been able to gather, circumcision can lessen the chances of getting certain diseases and infections. Pediatrician, Dorothy Greenbaum noted in regard to the health benefits of circumcision: “Medically, circumcision is healthful because it substantially reduces the incidence of urinary tract infection in boys, especially those under one year of age. Some studies cited in the pediatric policy statement report 10 to 20 times more urinary tract infection in uncircumcised compared with circumcised boys.” She further noted that sexually transmitted diseases are passed more readily among men who have not been circumcised (2006). In addition, circumcision virtually eliminates the chance of penile cancer. In an article titled “Benefits of Circumcision,” the text stated: “Neonatal circumcision virtually abolishes the risk [of penile cancer—KB]” and “penile cancer occurs almost entirely in uncircumcised men” (Morris, 2006). [NOTE: Morris’ work is of particular interest due to the fact that it has an evolutionary bias and was in no way written to buttress belief in the biblical record.] Not only can a litany of health benefits be amassed to encourage the practice of infant circumcision, but the day on which the biblical record commands the practice to be implemented is of extreme importance as well. The encyclopedic work Holt Pediatrics remains today one of the most influential works ever written about child care, pediatric disease, and other health concerns as they relate to children. First written in 1896 by L. Emmet Holt, Jr. and going through several revisions until the year 1953, the nearly 1,500-page work is a master compilation of the “modern” medicine of its day. One section, starting on page 125 of the twelfth edition, is titled “Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn.” The information included in the section details the occurrence of occasional spontaneous bleeding among newborns that can sometimes cause severe damage to major organs such as the brain, and even death. In the discussion pertaining to the reasons for such bleeding, the authors note that the excessive bleeding is primarily caused by a decreased level of prothrombin, which in turn is caused by insufficient levels of vitamin K. The text also notes that children’s susceptibility is “peculiar” (meaning “higher”) “between the second and fifth days of life” (1953, p. 126). In chart form, Holt Pediatrics illustrates that the percent of available prothrombin in a newborn dips from about 90% of normal on its day of birth to about 35% on its third day of life outside the womb. After the third day, the available prothrombin begins to climb. By the eighth day of the child’s life, the available prothrombin level is approximately 110% of normal, about 20% higher than it was on the first day, and about 10% more than it will be during of the child’s life. Such data prove that the eighth day is the perfect day on which to perform a major surgery such as circumcision. How did Moses know such detailed data about newborn hemorrhaging? Some have suggested that the early Hebrews carried out extensive observations on newborns to determine the perfect day for surgery. But such an idea has little merit. McMillen and Stern noted: Modern medical textbooks sometimes suggest that the Hebrews conducted careful observations of bleeding tendencies. Yet what is the evidence? Severe bleeding occurs at most in only 1 out of 200 babies. Determining the safest day for circumcision would have required careful experiments, observing thousands of circumcisions. Could Abraham (a primitive, desert-dwelling nomad) have done that (2000, p. 84)? In fact, such amazing medical accuracy cannot be accounted for on the basis of human ingenuity in the ancient world. If circumcision was the only example of such accuracy, and the Hebrew writings were laced with incorrect, detrimental medical prescriptions, such an explanation might be plausible. But the fact that the entire Old Testament contains medical practices that would still be useful in third world countries, without a hint of error in regard to a single prescription; divine oversight remains the only reasonable answer. CONCLUSION In reality, entire books could be written on the Old Testament’s amazing medical accuracy. Medical doctors McMillen and Stern have done just that in their extremely interesting volume None of These Diseases. Many physicians who have compared Moses’ medical instructions to effective modern methods have come to realize the astonishing value and insight of the Old Testament text. As Dr. Macht once wrote: “Every word in the Hebrew Scriptures is well chosen and carries valuable knowledge and deep significance” (Macht, 1953, p. 450). Such is certainly the case in regard to the medical practices listed in its pages. Indeed, the accurate medical practices prescribed thousands of years before their significance was completely understood provide excellent evidence for the divine inspiration of the Bible. REFERENCES Albright, W.F. (1968), Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Bryan, Cyril (1930), Ancient Egyptian Medicine: The Papyrus Ebers (Chicago, IL: Ares Publishers). “Carlos’ Tragic and Mysterious Illness: How Carlos Almost Died by Eating Contaminated Raw Oysters” (2003), U.S. Food and Drug Administration, [On-line], URL: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat/vvfoto.pdf. Collins, Anne (2002), “What is Saturated Fat?” [On-line], URL: http://www.annecollins.com/dieting/saturated-fat.htm. “The Death of George Washington, 1799,” (2001), EyeWitness to History, [On-line], URL: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washington.htm. Dilion, Denise (2005), “Fugu: The Deadly Delicacy,” Welcome Magazine, [On-line], URL: http://www.welcome-moldova.com/articles/fugu.shtml. Frey, Rebecca J. (no date), “Thuja,” [On-line], URL: http://health.enotes.com/alternative-medicine-encyclopedia/thuja. Greenbaum, Dorothy (2006), “Say ‘Yes’ to Circumcision,” [On-line], URL: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/8/story_813_1.html. Harrison, R.K. (1982), “Heal,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition. Herodotus, (1972 reprint), The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Sẻlincourt (London: Penguin). “Historical Chronology of Significant Medical and Sanitary Engineering Discoveries” (no date), from Gerald Friedland and Meyer Friedman (1998), Medicine’s Ten Greatest Discoveries (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), [On-line], URL: http://bridge.ecn.purdue.edu/~piwc/w3-history/discoveries/med-env-eng- discoveries.html. Holt, L.E. and R. McIntosh (1953), Holt Pediatrics (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts), twelfth edition. “Human Rabies Often Caused by Undetected, Tiny Bat Bites” (2002), Science Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020506074445.htm. “Hyssop” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.taoherbfarm.com/herbs/herbs/hyssop.htm. Lyons, Eric and A.P. Staff (2003), “Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch—Tried and True” Reason & Revelation, 23:1-7, January. Macht, David I. (1953), “An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI and Deuteronomy XIV,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 27[5]:444-450, September-October. Massengill, S.E. (1943), A Sketch of Medicine and Pharmacy (Bristol, TN: S.E. Massengill). McGrew, Roderick (1985), Encyclopedia of Medical History (London: Macmillan). McLeod, Lianne (2007), “Salmonella and Reptiles,” [On-line], URL: http://exoticpets.about.com/cs/reptiles/a/reptsalmonella.htm. McMillen, S.I. and David Stern (2000), None of These Diseases (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell), third edition. Morris, Brian (2006), “Benefits of Circumcision,” [On-line], URL: http://www.circinfo.net/#why. “New Dietary Guidelines from the American Heart Association,” (2000), [On-line], URL: http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/972602194.html. Nuland, Sherwin B. (2003), The Doctor’s Plague (New York, NY: Atlas Books). “Salmonella Bacteria and Reptiles” (2007), ARAV, [On-line], URL: http://www.arav.org/SalmonellaOwner.htm. “Soapmaking” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_information_service/ soapmaking.pdf. “Spa Essential Oils” (2005), [On-line], URL: http://www.mysticthai.com/spa/essential_oil.asp. Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Inspiration of the Bible" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

The Bible Secure In Its Eternal Existence

The Book Secure In Its Eternal Existence

Charles C. Pugh III

March 6, 2012

   The Bible has a self-evidencing nature to the effect that it consists not of merely “passing or temporary enactments, but eternal laws” (Rawlinson 112). The indestructibility of the Bible, as evidenced from history, sustains the biblical claim, and the experience of those who, as the Psalmist, can say, “I have known of old that You have founded them [Your testimonies] forever” (Ps. 119:152).

   Consider the following argument concerning its indestructibility as proof of the divine origin of the Bible:

1. If the Bible’s continued survival could not be achieved by unaided human effort, then the Bible’s origin must be the result of a supernatural source (i.e. God).
2. The Bible’s continued survival could not be achieved by unaided human effort.
3. Therefore, the Bible’s origin must be the result of a supernatural source (i.e. God).

   As evidence of the remarkable continued survival of the Bible, I cite data from a mid-twentieth century (1959) classic book on apologetics and an early twenty-first century (2001) book authored by a world renowned manuscript scholar. From the former, consider the following evidence of the unique survival of the biblical revelation, which testifies to its everlasting foundation:

. . . Any ancient book had to run the gamut of the forces of decay and neglect. . . . [I]n antiquity books were produced entirely by hand and so were greatly restricted in number and distribution. Through fire, sword, decay, neglect, insects, mold, storms, and all other sorts of improvidence, the toll taken on ancient manuscripts was great. 

    In view of all this the survival of the Bible from antiquity with such a remarkable attestation is amazing. In reference to the Old Testament we know that the Jews preserved it as no other manuscript has ever been preserved. . . . [T]hey kept tabs on every letter, syllable, word, and paragraph. They had special classes of men within their culture whose sole duty was to preserve and transmit these documents with practically perfect fidelity. . . . Who ever counted the letters and syllables and words of Plato or Aristotle? Cicero or Seneca? 

 In regard to the New Testament there are about thirteen thousand manuscripts, complete and incomplete, in Greek and other languages, that have survived from antiquity. No other work from classical antiquity has such attestation. . . . 

. . . The Bible has survived the ravages of time in all its manifold means of destruction with a numerical and textual attestation that is many furlongs beyond even the closest competitor. 

. . . No other book has been so persecuted; no other book has been so victorious over its persecutions. . . . 

. . . The attacks have been publicized abroad in a never-ending stream of periodicals, journals, pamphlets, monographs, books, and encyclopaedias. The larger universities of the world and hundreds of theological seminaries have taken up the cause of radical criticism. A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and the committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put. 

No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology . . . has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? with such venom and skepticism? with such thoroughness and erudition? upon every chapter, line, and tenet? 

. . . The Bible is still loved by millions, read by millions, and studied by millions. No doubt a terrible amount of damage has been done by radical criticism, and millions have lost faith in the veracity and authority of the Bible, as tragically witnessed by the decay of church attendance, the spiritual enervation of our western culture, and the cancerous secularism of America, England, and continental Europe. But even so, radical criticism has not put the Bible out of circulation. It still remains the most published and most read book in the world of literature. Its survival through time, persecution, and criticism is remarkable. (Ramm 230-233)

    Christopher de Hamel, whose book History of Illuminated Manuscripts (1994) is a standard work in its field, is a scrupulous scholar. In the early part of this decade he also authored what has been described as an “utterly gripping account of the world’s most remarkable book. Writing as an historian who is an expert in ancient manuscripts, De Hamel says,

 THE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE is perhaps the biggest subject in the world. . . . It is generally and credibly asserted that more copies of the Bible have been published . . . than any other text. . . . It is more widely disseminated than any other written text, and there is probably hardly a person in the world now without achievable access to a copy, usually even in their own language. That cannot be said of any other written text. . . . 

. . . The history of the Bible also includes accounts of burning and deliberate destruction. . . . The Bible exists simultaneously in many languages (in this it differs from many holy texts of other religions) but its actual text has hardly changed at all in thousands of years, except for the occasional disputed phrase here or there, or a delicate realignment of emphasis. This will reassure those who believe and use the Bible now. . . . 

. . . [A]ll evidence confirms that the text of the Christian Bible as we have it today has been maintained and transmitted with extraordinary accuracy. . . . No significant variations or deliberate falsifications have ever been found to shake public confidence in the Bible as a whole. (vi, viii, 319-20, 329, emp. added).

   Two thousand years of history evidence the unique indestructibility of the Bible. We believe the objective mind concludes that the Bible’s continued survival, in light of all to which it has been subjected from the negative side, evidences it is the result of a supernatural source (i.e. God).   “Concerning Your testimonies I have known of old that You have founded them forever” (Ps. 119:152).

Works Cited:
De Hamel, Christopher. The Book. A History of the Bible. New York: Phaidon, 2001.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. 1953. Chicago: Moody, 1959.
 Rawlinson, G. “The Book of Psalms: Exposition.” Vol. 3. Pulpit Commentary. Vol. 8. 1950. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

ALL SCRIPTURE IS BREATHED OUT BY GOD

All Scripture is Breathed Out By God

Charles C. Pugh III, Director

December 2, 2009

In 2004 Antony Flew, who was arguably the best-known atheist in the English-speaking world,
announced that he had accepted the existence of God. Three years later, in his 2007 book, There
Is a God, Dr. Flew describes how his commitment to follow the argument wherever it leads
resulted in his endorsement of theism. In his concluding reflections Flew asks, “Is it possible that
there has been or can be divine revelation? . . . [Y]ou cannot limit the possibilities of
omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to
omnipotence” (213). What Flew meant by “divine revelation” has been defined by another
prominent British theistic philosopher, David Conway, whose argument for God’s existence
Flew says has persuaded him above all others (92). In his book, The Rediscovery of Wisdom:
From Here to Antiquity in Quest of Sophia, Conway concludes his discussion on the existence of
God with the affirmation that “there are no good philosophical arguments for denying God to be
the explanation of the universe and of the form of order it exhibits” (134). With his unequivocal
position on the existence of God Conway then considers whether God has provided “some
supremely important body of truth that has been disclosed to man by God through revelation
which is not capable of being known apart from revelation” (134). He says, “The term
‘revelation’ signifies the communication of some doctrine or precept to man by God by way of
some specific human being to whom God directly discloses the doctrine or precept and who then
relays it to others” (135-36).

There are two great volumes of revelation: (1) General revelation and (2) Special revelation.
General, or natural revelation, is that which is available to humans in the creation of (1) the
world and (2) themselves. It is from this revelation that Antony Flew became convinced of the
existence of God. He said, “I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a
purely natural level. . . . It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology”
(93). The case for the existence of God can be proved with exclusive appeal to general revelation
(cf. Psalm 19:1-6; 139:14; Romans 1:20; Hebrews 3:4, et al). A proper handling of the available
evidence in general revelation results in the knowledge that God exists and that He is infinite in
all His attributes.

As marvelous as God’s revelation of Himself is in the natural world, and in humans, such is, in
one sense, an insufficient revelation. Special revelation is necessary if humans are to know God’s
will and purpose for their (i.e. human) lives on Earth, and if they are to know whether it is the
case that there is life after death. Details concerning how to live life on Earth, and whether there
is life to be lived after this life, including any details about such a life after death, will have to
come from special divine revelation. Richard Swinburne has summarized well this need for
special revelation. In a 2008 book, Was Jesus God?, published by Oxford University, Swinburne
says:

We need more information about . . . God. . . . Even if humans easily recognized the
force of arguments for the existence of God, it would help them (and especially the less
sophisticated among them) if they were told that there is a God by an apparently reliable
source of information. We need to know more about what God is like (for example, that
he is a Trinity) and how he has acted towards us (for example, that he became incarnate
to share our human condition), in order that we may worship him better for what he is
and has done, and interact with him better. Although, I believe, my a priori arguments for
the doctrines that if there is a God, God is a Trinity, and that God would become
incarnate in order to share the human condition, are valid, not all humans may be fully
convinced by them. And even if humans believe that God has become incarnate to
provide atonement for our wrongdoing, they still need to know when and as which
human he became incarnate and how they ought to appropriate that atonement for
themselves (e.g. by seeking baptism); and no a priori argument can show all that. It is an
obvious general fact about humans that we would be ignorant of these things unless we
were taught them by some person (perhaps by God Incarnate himself) who comes to us
with credentials (public evidence) that he has been sent by God to teach us about these
matters. This would provide a ‘propositional revelation’, a revelation from God that
certain propositions (e.g. ‘God became incarnate in Jesus Christ’) are true. (61)
Given the above information, I conclude that it is both possible and necessary that God reveal
Himself to humans by means of a special revelation. But is it probable that God would give
humans a special revelation in addition to the general revelation He has provided in the natural
world and in humans themselves?

In a popular volume concerning evidence for the Christian faith, Keyser wrote:
If there is a personal God, the probability that He would reveal Himself in a personal
way is very great. He has, indeed, revealed Himself more or less clearly in nature and
reason; but surely He would scarcely think a general, impersonal revelation sufficient for
His rational creatures. This would be particularly true if they should fall into sin and evil.
Why would He not go to their rescue? An earthly parent would do so. (69)

That God has revealed Himself to humans beyond general revelation is probable because of (1)
God’s nature and (2) human nature. God is the Being who seems likely to give such a revelation
and humans are beings who are exactly fitted to receive such a revelation. Since God is a moral
Being we may infer that if special revelation were beneficial to humans it would be in harmony
with the nature of God to give it. It would seem that God would care for the welfare of His
creation as a father would care for the welfare of his children. It seems probable that if a human
father loved his children that he would wish to communicate with them. It seems unlikely that
God would create humanity without desiring to communicate with humans in the same way that
it would be unlikely for a man to paint a picture without looking at it, or arrange a concert
without listening to it.

Furthermore, as we consider humans, we find that they have the nature fitted exactly to receive
such a revelation from God. First, human mental character would enable them to understand and
appreciate such a revelation. Turton has stated: “A revelation which would influence him [a
human] to act right, and yet without forcing him, and thereby destroying his freedom, and
making it possible for him to act either right or wrong, is certainly not improbable” (112). And
not only can humans understand and profit by such a revelation, but they desire it. “A thoughtful
man cannot help wishing to know why he is placed in this world; why he is given free will; how
he is meant to use his freedom; and what future, if any, is in store for him hereafter: in short,
what was God’s object in creating him” (113).

In summary, special revelation from God is (1) necessary, (2) possible, and (3) probable. It is
necessary because man cannot know many things without it (Jeremiah 10:23; 1 Corinthians 2:9-
13). It is possible and probable because of (1) God’s infinite nature and (2) human nature. Turton
summarizes:

[A] revelation seems for several reasons to be somewhat probable. To put it shortly, if
God is good and really cares for man’s welfare, it seems unlikely that He should withhold
from him that knowledge which is the highest, the noblest, and the most longed after; –
the knowledge of Himself. While, if man is really a free and immortal being, occupying a
unique position in the world, and intended to live forever, it seems unlikely that he should
be told nothing, and therefore know nothing, as to why he was created, or what is his
future destiny. Thus when we consider both God’s character and man’s character, it
seems on the whole to be somewhat probable, that God would make some revelation to
man; telling him how he ought to use his freedom in this world, and possibly what future
is in store for him hereafter. (116)

A Passage of Affirmation
The Bible makes the claim that it is the exclusive document which is the one and only source
of special divine revelation today and unto the end of the world. This claim is crucial as
evidenced in the following statement:

To ignore the Bible’s claims would be a terrible mistake. For example, what if the Bible
actually admits that it is not an infallible book? There would be nothing more to say in
behalf of the thesis of this book! Or what if the Bible simply makes no claim to being
inspired? The unbeliever could then say that to claim inspiration for the Bible is to press a
claim which is not inherent in the book itself and is thus going beyond the evidence at
hand. If, on the other hand, the Bible does make an explicit claim to inspiration, fairness
will demand that we examine the claim in the light of all the available evidence. (Shelly
11)

Although it is the case that there are numerous biblical passages that affirm that the Bible
claims to be the revelation of the mind of the infinite God, perhaps no passage is any clearer
concerning this than 2 Timothy 3:14-17. The passage very well may contain the greatest single
statement concerning what is referred to as the inspiration, authority, and purpose of the biblical
writings. The passage reads as follows:

But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of,
knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known
the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is
in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be
complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NKJV)

The above passage implies at least the following significant facts concerning the Bible: (1) its
assurance, (2) its aim, (3) its authorship, (4) its ability, and (5) its all sufficiency.
The Assurance of the Scriptures. First, the assurance of the message of the Bible is implied in
this passage. The statement urged Timothy, the initial recipient of these words, to “continue in
the things which you have learned and been assured of” (v. 14). The Bible makes remarkable
claims and confirms such claims concerning the reliability of its message. That concerning which
Timothy had been assured had its basis in the Holy Scriptures (i.e. the Bible). The word used
here that is rendered assured is derived from that which means “to make reliable” (Rogers and
Rogers 505). It involves the idea of confirm or prove (Liddell and Scott 1408). Paul reminded
Timothy that he could trust the message of the Bible. “. . . [T]he testimony of the Lord is sure . .
.” (Psalm 19:7). “Your [God’s] testimonies are very sure” (Psalm 93:5). “All His precepts are
sure” (Psalm 111:7). Christopher de Hamel, whose book History of Illuminated Manuscripts
(1994) has become a standard work, wrote, “. . . [A]ll evidence confirms that the text of the
Christian Bible as we have it today has been maintained and transmitted with extraordinary
accuracy. . . . No significant variations or deliberate falsifications have ever been found to shake
public confidence in the Bible as a whole” (319-20).

The things which Timothy had “learned and been assured of” were those things revealed in the
Sacred Scriptures. Paul conjoined that which Timothy had learned and been assured of with the
fact that “from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures” (v. 15). The reliability and
dependability of Scripture is the result of the divine origin of this special revelation. In another
classic text Peter affirmed, “We also have the prophetic word made more sure . . . knowing . . .
that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will
of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:19-21,
emp. added).

Furthermore, those from whom Timothy, even in childhood, had learned the Holy Scriptures
were, in some sense, a reminder of the veracity of the authoritative source (the Scriptures) from
which he had learned these things. Paul said, “. . . [C]ontinue . . . knowing from whom you have
learned . . .” (v. 14). “Jewish children commonly were taught the Scriptures from infancy (see
Deuteronomy 11:19; 4:9; 6:7)” (Roberts 90). Timothy had the rich heritage of great teachers. Not
only was it the case that in more recent years he had sat at the feet of Paul as a student of the
great apostle (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:10-11), but from his childhood he had the legacy of the
wonderful teaching of his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice (cf. 2 Timothy 1:5).
Hendriksen explains Paul’s point (v. 14) as follows:

Timothy must never forget that he had learned these things from no less a person than
Paul himself (see verses 10 and 11 above) and, going back even farther, from those
highly esteemed worthies: grandmother Lois and mother Eunice (II Tim. 1:5). . . .
It is clear that Paul, Lois, Eunice, and any others who may have nurtured Timothy, are
not viewed as independent authorities, apart from the Word, but as secondary or
intermediate sources of knowledge, avenues of instruction, and even this only because
they accepted Scripture! (295-96)

Lenski says, “. . . [T]he main point is that from early childhood these dear persons led him
[Timothy] to know sacred letters, the divine source of all spiritual wisdom” (838). The poet
Whittier captured the beauty of the thought:

We search the world for truth; we cull
The good, the pure, the beautiful,
From graven stone and written scroll,
From all old flower-fields of the soul;
And, weary seekers of the best,
We come back laden from our quest
To find that all the sages said
Is in the Book our mothers read. (342)

The Aim of the Scriptures. Additionally, Paul implies the aim of the Bible when he says, “. . .
[T]he Scriptures . . . are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ
Jesus” (v. 15). This statement is one of the clearest affirmations of both the purpose and theme of
the Bible. First, the aim of the Bible is the salvation of humans.

What is the purpose of this amazing book? What is its theme? It is in a sense a library of
66 books, and yet it is one book. It contains the record of numerous events, addresses
many topics, and refers to hundreds of persons by name and thousands unnamed, and yet,
when understood, there is the sense in which it is a one subject book and a one Person
book. It is not a text of history, science, geography, psychology, or sociology. It
addresses these (and other matters), but the Bible is really a one purpose . . . book. (Pugh,
Bible 3).

Mathematics, Psychology, Science, and various other books aim to make one wise in their
respective area of study. The Bible makes one wise in the matter of salvation. It is also the case
that the Bible claims to be the exclusive source that is able to fulfill this purpose. One might use
one of many books when he is concerned with other areas of study. There are numerous books
available that enable one to become wise in language, logic, geology, math, etc. However,
though there are a multiplicity of books that may assist one in his study of the Holy Scriptures, it
is the Bible alone that is the one, and only, authoritative source concerning matters that relate to
“life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3).

The purpose of the Bible unfolds throughout the Bible with the implication of four basic
spiritual needs of humanity. These needs are woven throughout biblical revelation, more
obvious in some sections than others, but these universal needs of humans tie together the
various parts of the whole purpose of the Bible. These four needs are as follows: First,
there is the need that man has for a prophet to reveal God. Second, there is the need for a
priest to represent man before God. Third, there is the need of a propitiation (i.e.
sacrifice) with which to approach God, and finally there is the need for a prince to lead
man to center his heart and life on God. (Pugh, Bible 4-5)

As the Bible makes one wise for salvation, it does so through a thematic focus on Jesus Christ.
Paul wrote of “salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (v. 15). This statement implies
the theme of the Bible which is the redemption of man from sin to the glorification of God
through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Collett, in his classic volume, All About the Bible,
says:

[W]hat we really see, as we open the Bible, is “the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6) . . .
“the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person” (Heb. 1:3). . . .
As the planets revolve round the sun, so the truths of the Bible may be said to revolve
round the person of the Lord Jesus. . . . [I]n every part of the sacred Book these may be
found that which will lead the seeking heart to Christ. . . . [I]t matters not where the Bible
is opened–Christ will be seen everywhere. He is set forth in prophecy and in type of
almost every kind. . . . The Old Testament reveals Christ the Messiah; the New
Testament reveals Jesus the Saviour. (189-91)

Jesus Christ–His person and His work in redemption and salvation–relates to every individual
book in the Bible. A book-by-book glance at each of the 66 books that comprise the Holy
Scriptures evidences how the Bible marvelously is a one-purpose, one-theme Book (cf. Pugh,
Bible 11-14). Beginning in Genesis, He is Shiloh from Judah, the seed of woman, and the seed of
Abraham. Concluding with the Book of Revelation, He is the Alpha and Omega, the Lamb who
is the Lion, the Lord of lords and King of kings who will lead the faithful to victory. He said, “. .
. [T]he Scriptures . . . testify of Me” (John 5:39). “. . . [T]he testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy” (Revelation 19:10).

The Authorship of the Scriptures. Not only is it the case that the assurance and aim of the
Bible are affirmed in the great text of 2 Timothy 3:14-17, but the authorship of the Holy
Scriptures is also emphatically implied. Herein is the crux of the Bible’s claim for itself: “All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God . . .” (2 Timothy 3:16, emp. added). Scripture (graphe)
“can refer to a body of documents, or to a single passage . . . (Mt. 21:42; Jn. 5:39; Rom. 4:3; Acts
1:16)” (Jackson 271). Arndt and Gingrich say it means, “. . . the individual Scripture passage . . .
all the parts of Scripture, the scriptures . . .” (165). The word graphe is used 51 times in the New
Testament and “is used exclusively of Holy Scripture” (Brown 490). “It never has the meaning
of mere ‘writing’” (Roberts 91).

There has been an on-going controversy as to whether the verse (16) should be rendered “All
Scripture is given by inspiration . . .” or “Every Scripture, inspired of God. . . .” I agree with
Young’s conclusion when he says,

Whatever modern men may think about the matter, one is certainly safe in asserting that
the Apostle Paul firmly regarded all Scripture, all that to which the name Scripture could
be given, as inspired of God. There is not a particle of evidence to support the position
that Paul thought some Scripture uninspired. All things considered, we believe that the
thought of the Apostle is most accurately set forth in the world “All Scripture is inspired
of God.” (20)

The key word is theopneustos which is rendered “inspiration of God” or “inspired of God.”
The meaning of this word, itself, should settle any question concerning what is meant by the
inspiration of Scripture. An artist may stand and look across vast open plains to a beautiful
sunset and be inspired to paint. One may see the towering Alps of Switzerland or the grandeur of
the Grand Canyon and be inspired. Another may read a masterpiece of literature, or hear a
talented musician, and be inspired. However, the inspiration implied in these illustrations is not
the inspiration of the Scriptures. Theopneustos means breathed out by God. The construction of
this compound word (God/theo) and (breathed/pneustos) is crucial. Young explains:
In the Greek language, words which 1) end in – tos and 2) are compound with theo (God)
are generally passive in meaning. An example will make this clear. There is a Greek
word theodidaktos . . . which means “taught of God.” . . . [C]learly seen, it ends in –tos
and also contains the element theo (God). [Theopneustos] . . . likewise is passive in
usage, and we should properly translate, “breathed of God.” . . . [T]here have been those
who have somewhat vigorously insisted that the meaning is active. They would therefore
translate by the phrase “breathing out God,” in the sense that the Scriptures breathed forth
or were imbued with the Spirit of God. Such, however, . . . is not the true meaning. The
true meaning is passive, “that which is breathed out by God.” . . .
. . .[Paul] wished to make as clear as possible the fact that the Scriptures did not find
their origin in man but in God. It was God the Holy Ghost who breathed them forth; they
owed their origin to Him; they were the product of the creative breath of God Himself. It
is a strong figure, this expression “breathed out by God.” A strong figure, however, is
needed, in order that Timothy may realize that he is being asked to place his confidence
not in writings which merely express the hopes and aspirations of the best of men, but
rather in writings which are themselves actually breathed out by God, and consequently
of absolute authority.

. . . According to Paul, the Scriptures are not writings into which something Divine has
been breathed; they are not even writings which are imbued with the Divine Spirit (at
least, that is not the emphasis in this passage). The Scriptures, Paul vigorously asserts, are
writings which came into being because they were breathed out by God Himself. . . . [I]t
is this fact of being breathed out by God that constitutes the very heart and core of the
Biblical doctrine of inspiration. . . . They, and they alone of all writings, were breathed
out of the mouth of God. Could words be found to make clearer the Divine origin of the
Bible? (20-23).

Therefore, the Bible in the ultimate sense was not “breathed into” by God. Although the
prophet was, in some sense, said to be “in the Spirit” (cf. Matthew 22:43; Revelation 1:10), the
teaching of rabbinical tradition “was that the Spirit of God rested on and in the prophets and
spoke through them, so that their words did not come from themselves but from the mouth of
God . . .” (Rogers and Rogers 506). David declared, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke to me. His
word was on my tongue” (2 Sam. 23:2). B. B. Warfield wrote what has become to many a classic
volume on the inspiration of the Bible. He said, “. . . [T]he Scriptures are a Divine product,
without any indication of how God has operated in producing them . . . the product of a
specifically Divine operation” (433). “The language is metaphorical, in the sense that, ‘God
breathed [H]is message into the minds of the sacred writers,’ while allowing individual
vocabulary styles to prevail” (Jackson 271-72). And so, a recent translation (2001) has rendered
the passage as follows: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable . . .” (ESV).
The Ability of the Scriptures. As a result of its Divine origin, Paul affirmed the ability of the
Bible. “All Scripture is . . . profitable” (v. 16, emp. added). “. . . [B]ecause of this its Divine
origination, [it] is of supreme value for all holy purposes” (Warfield 134). Scripture has a
fourfold profitability. It is able to profit in reference to (1) doctrine, (2) reproof, (3) correction,
and (4) instruction in righteousness. The Scriptures are profitable for doctrine (teaching,
didaskalian). “This [is] the teaching of the person reading [studying, hearing] the Scriptures. . . .
It is not [Timothy’s] ability as a teacher, but his stability as a Christian . . .” (Alford 397). The
Bible teaches the right teaching (cf. Proverbs 4:2). It teaches us those things we simply cannot
discover apart from Divine revelation (cf. Jerermiah 10:23; 1 Corinthians 2:9-13).

Furthermore, the Scriptures are able to profit with reference to reproof. Reproof (elegmon) is
“proving, convicting . . . refuting error and rebuking sin” (Rogers and Rogers 506). Secular
books do not convict of sin. Many of them even deny the reality of sin. However, “the word of
God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division
of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the
heart” (Heb. 4:12). Additionally, the Bible is profitable for correction (epanorthosin) which is
“setting right . . . setting upright on their feet” (Rogers and Rogers 506). We not only need to
know what the problem is (i.e. reproof), but we need the solution and put on the right way. “The
law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. . .” (Psalm 19:7). Finally, the Sacred Scriptures
are able to profit with regard to “instruction in righteousness.” Righteousness is what is right.
Such is not discovered by feelings, psychology, sociology, etc., but is breathed out by God in His
written revelation, the Bible. The Scriptures reveal the way humans are made right by God–i.e.
through the gospel of Christ (cf. Romans 1:16-17). The Bible also provides great incentives for
doing what is right (cf. Isaiah 32:17).

The All-Sufficiency of the Scriptures. The concluding implication concerning the Bible’s
affirmation for itself in 2 Timothy 3:14-17 can be identified as the Bible’s claim to its allsufficiency.
Paul concludes this classic text with the statement “that the man of God may be
complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (v. 17). The word translated complete
(NKJV, ASV, RSV), perfect (KJV), competent (ESV), and adequate (NASV) is artios. It means
“capable, proficient, able to meet all demands . . .” (Arndt and Gingrich 110). Thayer says, “. . .
fitted, complete, perfect (having reference apparently to ‘special aptitude for given uses’)” (75).
“. . . [T]o completely outfit, fully furnish, fully equip or supply . . . used of documents–or of a
wagon or rescue boat–which were completely outfitted, or of a machine sold in good condition;
i.e. capable of performing the service expected of it” (Rogers and Rogers 506). The man of God
is any spiritual person (cf. Alford 398), and the Bible makes such a one complete or proficient in
all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), or living the Christian life, because it is
complete. It is complete in that it is all the revelation needed for a human to be completely
outfitted with the information he needs to live life as it is meant to be lived on Earth. “The
Scriptures are complete for every requirement of humanity” (Jackson 273). There is nothing
humans need to know or do in reference to living life properly that the Bible does not reveal.
The Bible is all sufficient in reference to life–the Christian life, the home, the community, the
nation. It has the sufficient principles to guide one in every aspect of life on Earth. Furthermore,
it is all sufficient in reference to death.

Why is it that such a large proportion of skeptics, when near the close of their lives, or are
in the immediate expectation of death, renounce and repudiate their skepticism? Why
does their foundation fail them at the very time when they need support more than at any
former period? Why is it that, at the gate of death, so many of them renounce what had
been upon their lips for years? Why is it that the most impudent scoffers, bold and
ridiculing unbelievers, in such large proportions, when they approach the change of
worlds, repudiate, frequently with their last words, the unbelief that had dwelt upon their
lips for years? Why does the meekest believer in the kingdom of God press his faith to
his heart the more closely as he approaches death? Why is it that not a man who claimed
to believe the Bible, while in life and health, ever denied it when he approached death?
The answer is, that the divine testimony is sufficient for all confidence, worthy of all
acceptation; and the human soul, at the hour of dissolution, when it needs support, leans
on that which is infallibly safe, as also infallibly correct. (Franklin 360-61)

The Bible is all sufficient in reference to life after death. Only its testimonies ultimately can be
trusted for what humans will experience at the moment of death and thereafter. As nothing else
has, or can, the Bible reveals how that Jesus Christ has “abolished death and brought life and
immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:10). In summation, concerning the
marvelous sufficiency of the Bible the Psalmist wrote, “Therefore all Your precepts concerning
all things I consider to be right; I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128). It is “a closed system”
with such completeness and finality that it is the source of “all the truth” (John 16:13, ESV).
Woe be to anyone who would add to it or take from it (cf. Revelation 22:18-19).

The Place of Argumentation

In the preceding discussion, the biblical passage (2 Timothy 3:14-17) that affirms the basic
claim of the Bible has been considered. The Bible claims to have been breathed out by God. The
details concerning how this was accomplished are not given, but there can be no doubt
concerning the claim. But how does one determine whether the biblical claim concerning its
Divine origin is true? The answer is by reason and logical argumentation. Thompson provides
the following excellent explanation:

Reason does not tell us what to find in revelation, and in this respect revelation is not
dependent on reason. But there is a way in which revelation does depend on reason, and
this is in our need to use reason to examine the claims of that which purports to be
revelation. No claim of revelation can be self-justifying; for what is claimed to be a
revelation is always claimed to be a revelation of something. That it does reveal what it
claims to reveal cannot be shown in the supposed revelation itself. The claim has to be
examined independently.

To those who assert that the true recognition and authentication of revelation in religion
is an act of faith the reply is that this only pushes the matter back a step. Even those who
take such a position must have some marks of faith which they accept, and must have
some reason for accepting these as the marks of faith. For they surely do not accept at
face value every claim of everything which announces itself to be the product of religious
faith. . . .

To test the genuineness of a purported revelation we have to look at the evidence, and
the knowledge that it is genuine will have a rational basis if it is knowledge at all. This
does not mean that what is revealed is revealed in rational terms. What is revealed may
be something we could never have reached by our own efforts and our own reason. . . .
The claim to be a revelation is subject to reason’s tests; the only way it can escape its
debt to reason is to abandon its claim of truth, but with this it gives up also its claim to be
a revelation. A faith which does not have its roots in knowledge becomes the creature of
the imagination, the disguise of self-interest, the rationalization of prejudice and malice.
(395-98)

Concerning the place of reason and argumentation as the means to identify what is God’s
special revelation, I have written elsewhere the following:

[R]eason must be used to identify what is true revelation and [to] properly interpret the
revelation. . . . As the law of rationality is honored, and a purported revelation is put to
the test, one of two results will follow. Either that which claims to be revelation will
prove to be genuine, or it will prove to be spurious. . . . Everyone must use the process of
sound reasoning when it comes to determining: (1) whether God exists, (2) whether
special revelation is available from God, (3) whether the Bible is that special revelation
from God, (4) whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and if special, divine revelation is
available, (5) what is the meaning of its explicit statements (i.e. what its explicit
statements imply). It needs to be emphasized that there simply is no other means
available to determine the truth on these important matters. There is nothing more basic,
more crucial, or more needed than rationality as one seeks to find the truth. (Joy 64-66)
Personally, I feel an extremely deep sense of indebtedness to the late Thomas B. Warren for
helping me see the proper place of logical argumentation in the procedure one must use to
identify whether a document is the word of God. In my judgment, it likely is the case that no one
among us during the last 100 years did more than Thomas B. Warren to help people see how
crucial it is to honor the law of rationality (i.e. draw only those conclusions that are warranted by
the evidence) through sound argumentation (i.e. valid arguments and true premises). Concerning
the inspiration of the Bible, Warren wrote:

It has long been a three-fold abiding passion of mine: (1) to develop the basic argument
which would prove without doubt that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and
authoritative word of God, (2) to help younger men to see this truth, and (3) to encourage
them to communicate this truth to others by means of oral speech, journal articles, tracts,
and books.

I am convinced that I did develop the basic argument for such proof. I have set forth
that argument (with full proof that the premises of that argument are true) in the
classroom. I also have set forth in print the basic argument (first, in a journal article [cf.
Warren, Sword 1-3] and, second, in a lecture during a college lectureship [cf. Warren,
Bible 1-24]). (Introduction v-vi)

The aforementioned basic argument developed by Dr. Warren that proves the Bible to be the
one and only Divine revelation for humans today is as follows:

1. If it is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C . . .
property Z (where the total situation involved in having such properties makes it
clear that the Bible is beyond mere human production) then the Bible is the word
of God.

2. It is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C . . .
property Z.

3. Conclusion: Therefore the Bible is the word of God.

In this argument, when I refer to property A, property B, property C, etc., I mean for
these designations to stand for affirmative propositions regarding some fact regarding the
Bible. It is clear that the argument is valid in form (it is a hypothetical syllogism in which
the antecedent of the major premise is affirmed). Thus the only way the argument could
be shown to be unsound (that is, that the truthfulness of the conclusion does not follow
from the premises) would be to show that at least one of the premises is false. (Bible 17-
18)

Some would minimize the value of the proper place of logical argumentation in Christian faith.
They attempt to “logically argue” that we should not depend on logical argumentation when it
comes to religious faith. They “reason” that reason and revelation are mutually exclusive. One
author, in a book on inspiration, in which he says many good things, makes the unfortunate
statement that “[o]ne does not come to belief [in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures]
because of logical deduction although he finds that his faith fits what he knows of the world,
logic, and living” (Jividen 58). Such a statement reflects a misunderstanding of the place of
logical argumentation in learning that the Bible is God’s one, and only, written revelation. A
statement as simple as the following implies the essentiality of logical deduction in Christian
faith. John wrote: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which
are not written in this book; but these are written than you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31).
John implies that through a logical (reasonable, valid) deduction based on truth (adequate
evidence, true premises) one is able to come to believe that Jesus is the Christ. Belief (Christian
faith) is obedient “trust beyond the range of experiment” (Sweet 105). However, it is not trust
beyond the range of knowledge and certainty (cf. Luke 1:1-4). Pierson has explained the
relationship of reason and faith in proving the Bible to be the word of God, as well as in proving
Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.

The teachings of the Bible are at once so peculiar and so important that it is one of our
first duties and privileges to attain a certainty of conviction as to the divine origin of the
Holy Scriptures, and the divine character and mission of Jesus Christ
.
Such certainty ought to be attainable. If any human ruler should address to his subjects
the most ordinary proclamation, touching their duties as citizens, those subjects have a
right to claim good plain proofs that whoever may have written or composed that
proclamation, it is by the King’s authority, and that he is its proper author. No subject
should be satisfied unless the grand royal signature and seal are found upon the decree;
otherwise it might prove the device of some traitor or enemy to mislead and betray
subjects, and even to overturn lawful rule.

If therefore God has given to mankind a revelation of His will upon matters of the first
moment, there can be no doubt that it is in some plain, unmistakable way marked by His
hand: it has on its very face God’s signature and seal: there are many infallible proofs to
satisfy honest doubt.

. . . God could not ask of us anything which is not right and reasonable; and it would be
neither reasonable nor right to ask us to take it for granted that the Bible is God’s own
Book, simply because it says so, or somebody says so, or even because any number of
people honestly believe it. God himself gave us reasoning powers to weigh evidence
with, and He means that we shall test truth and falsehood, proving all things and holding
fast the good. (9-10)

What I am affirming and defending is not rationalism. There is a difference between rationality
and rationalism. Rationalism is the result of an eighteenth century intellectual movement that
emphasized the “autonomy of human reason” (cf. Campbell-Jack and McGrath 592-94).
Rationalism subordinates Divine revelation to human reason and/or dismisses special revelation
as a source of knowledge altogether. It champions the all-sufficiency of human reason. It
emphasizes the “pursuit of knowledge by means of unfettered human reason alone” (Craig 20).
However, as earlier implied in my discussion of special revelation and 2 Timothy 3:14-17, all
truth cannot be deducted from reason alone (cf. Clark 130). Special Divine revelation is a source
of truth not discovered by reason alone. When he set forth the basic argument he had developed
to prove the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and authoritative word of God, Warren anticipated
the misunderstanding held by some concerning the place of reason and logical argumentation in
identifying a document as inspired. He replied to this misunderstanding when he said:
The following question might well be raised: How do you decide just what criteria a
document would have to have in order to be regarded as inspired and authoritative? The
answer is: By the use of reason. If the objector should then say, “But you thus make
human reasoning the ultimate judge.” then we reply that such is simply not the case.
While it is true that we must use our powers of reason in order to ascertain the marks
(criteria) which would identify a document as inspired and authoritative, it is not the case
that reason thus becomes ultimately authoritative. We simply use our powers of reason to
find out which claim to “revelation” really is the revelation from God to man. Further, we
use those same powers to accurately interpret that authoritative revelation. But we insist it
is the Bible itself, not human reason which is ultimately authoritative. (This is the case
because it is God’s word.) We must use our reason correctly in order to be sure that what
we regard as the authoritative revelation from God really is such, but, having drawn the
conclusion (by the use of our reason) that the Bible is inspired and authoritative, we then
depend upon the Bible as the only source of the right answer to questions pertaining to
salvation from sin. (Bible 18-19)

A few years later, Dr. Warren wrote an excellent statement that shows the proper balance
between reason, emotion, and special revelation. He observed:

It must be re-emphasized that all men, having been created by God with intelligent minds
(able to recognize, to observe and to properly consider the evidence which God has
given) are required by God to draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the
evidence. It has been noted already that logical reasoning is not the answer to everything.
Logic is necessary to a proper life, but logic alone is certainly not sufficient for such a
life. Correct reasoning has its place and so does emotion. But both reasoning and emotion
must be given content by the revelation of God, the Bible (Jer. 10:23; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
No purely intellectual life can be adequate any more than can a purely emotional one.
Both are necessary, but both also need revelation from God. (Example 31)

The Properties of Verification

Understanding (1) the biblical claim of inspiration and (2) the place of logical argumentation in
deciding whether such a claim is true, we now turn attention to (3) the properties (marks, criteria)
that identify the Bible as inspired. With reference to the above basic argument, which proves the
Bible to be the word of God, by “properties” I mean those characteristics (A, B, C, . . . Z),
possessed by the Bible, which make it clear that the Bible is beyond mere human production.
These properties, understood within the framework of a valid argument, prove the Bible to be the
word of God. It is not enough to present facts concerning the Bible. “Many writers set forth facts
without bothering to incorporate them in a logical argument. In the strictest sense of the term,
such a parading of data without logical structure does not ‘prove’ anything at all” (Shelly ix).
Josiah Stamp said, “We know well that a fallacy that would be obvious to all in a three-line
syllogism may deceive the elect in 400 pages of crowded fact and argument,” but to fit these
facts into the framework of a valid argument will “lay bare the bones of the argument” (qtd. in
Black 13).

Much of the material that follows is taken from my book, Life’s Greatest Acclamation-God
(55-66). Attached to, and deposited in, biblical revelation are a multitude of characteristics or
properties that make it impossible for the Bible to be a mere human production. Some of the
evidences that necessitate this conclusion (rationally) that the Bible is from God include the
following:

Predictive prophecy clearly made in advance of its unquestioned fulfillment.

A humanly impossible unity of theme, teaching, and structure.

A view of reality otherwise unknown in human thought.

Confirmation by all the accepted means of historical research.

The absence of demonstrable error.

A treatment of matters of science in a way that transcends human invention in the
days when its various parts were written.

A presentation of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ that is beyond human
invention.

Numerous additional features that are beyond human wisdom or invention. (cf. Shelly
ix-x)

As an example of one of many properties (marks) that show the Bible to be beyond human
production, I call attention to the biblical treatment of science. The Bible is not a textbook on
science, but it evidences a marvelous scientific accuracy. The Bible’s treatment of science is
such that it simply could not have been produced without a Divine origin. The biblical treatment
of science transcends human invention (cf. Genesis 1:1; 15:5; 17:12; Leviticus 12-14; 17:11 Job
38-39; Psalm 8:8; Ecclesesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 40:22; Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:39 et al). The
Bible also contains great scientific-accuracy-questions (cf. Job 38-39)
.
The logical argument for the proof that the biblical treatment of scientific matters is sufficient
evidence that the Bible is the word of God is as follows:

1. If the particular characteristics of the Bible’s treatment of science transcends mere
human invention, then the Bible is of divine origin.

2. The particular characteristics of the Bible’s treatment of science transcends mere
human invention.

3. Therefore the Bible is of divine origin. (Shelly 41)

As an example of evidence that proves the above argument for the Bible’s divine origin, I call
attention to the biblical treatment of scientific matters concerning the oceans. In The Depths of
the Sea by Sir John Murray and Dr. Johan Hjort, Science of the Sea edited by G. Herbert Fowler,
and Founders of Oceanography by Sir William A. Herdman, justification is provided for
referring to Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873) as “The Pathfinder of the Seas.” The above
writers all affirm that meteorology dates from Maury’s time (Lewis 249). In his biography of
Maury, Lewis says, “Not only is this title [The Pathfinder of the Seas] appropriate in that Maury
laid out on his charts the best track for voyagers to follow on the Seven Seas, but it is also fitting
in a figurative sense for he was indeed a pathfinder in the realm of a new science–the physical
geography of the sea” (249). The Saturday Review (October 20, 1888) reported “that scientific
investigation was almost non-existent before Maury’s work and that he had improved the course
of every ship on the sea” (qtd. in Lewis 243). In 1918 a destroyer ship was called the Maury and
the Secretary of the Navy named the Naval Oceanographic Research in Maury’s honor. At the
United State Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD, the left wing of the Academic building bears the
name Maury Hall because of his “distinguished and world-wide reputation in connection with
meteorology and the study of ocean currents, etc.” (247).

An impressive monument to Matthew Fontaine Maury is erected at Richmond, VA. Sculpted
by William F. Sievers, it is nearly thirty feet high and pictures Maury in a large chair with a
globe and various figures representing a storm on land and sea. Prior to the erection of the great
Maury Monument, Virginia Lee Cox wrote a description of the monument for the Richmond
Times. She stated:

On the plinth of the monument in the flattest relief are figures of fish, representing
Maury’s interest in the paths of the sea. The story goes that once when Maury was ill he
had his son read the Bible to him each night. One night he read the eighth Psalm, and
when he came to the passage–“The fishes of the sea and whatsoever walketh through the
paths of the sea”–Maury had him read it over several times. Finally he said, “If God says
there are paths in the sea I am going to find them, if I get out of this bed.” Thus the Psalm
was the direct inspiration of his discoveries.” (qtd. in Lewis 252, emp. added)

Some have denied the factuality of the above story from Cox including Major. However, he
also admitted “the apparent reliability of the source” (87, emp. added). It should be noted that
the above alleged incident regarding Maury and Psalm 8 appears in a biography that is “based
chiefly upon the Maury Papers, comprising letters, diaries, scientific notebooks, and other
manuscripts . . . presented to the United States Government in 1912 by Maury’s only living child
. . . and other descendents, and then deposited in the Division of Manuscripts, Library of
Congress” (Lewis xi). The very title of Lewis’ biography of Maury witnesses to the validity of
viewing him in this way and the volume is filled with numerous references from various sources
who described Maury accordingly. Even Major, who called it “The Psalm 8 Legend” (86),
admits it is “quite possible” that Maury launched his venture of “his systematic mapping of
large-scale wind and ocean currents . . . after reading about the ‘paths of the seas’ in Psalm 8:8 . .
. because the Bible was an integral part of Maury’s approach to science” (86-87).
Biblical truth and scientific truth are consistent. Both find their ultimate source in God, and
both are in harmony with the other. The prominent oceanographer Maury summed up this
consistency when he explained:

I have been blamed by men of science; both in this country and in England, for quoting
the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say,
was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of
science. I beg pardon! The Bible is the authority for everything it touches. What would
you think of the historian who should refuse to consult the historical records of the Bible,
because the Bible was not written for purposes of history? The Bible is true and science is
true. . . . They are both true; and when your men of science, with vain and hasty conceit,
announce the discovery of disagreement between them, rely upon it the fault is not with
the Witness of His records, but with the “worm” who essays to interpret evidence which
he does not understand.

When I, a pioneer in one department of this beautiful science, discover the truths of
revelation and the truths of science reflecting light one upon the other and each sustaining
the other, how can I, as a truth-loving knowledge-seeking man, fail to point out the
beauty and to rejoice in its discovery? . . . As a student of physical geography, I regard
the earth, sea, air, and water, as parts of a machine, pieces of mechanism not made with
hands, but to which nevertheless certain offices have been assigned in the terrestrial
economy. . . . Thus as we progress with our science we are permitted now and then to
point out here and there in the physical machinery of the earth a design of the Great
Architect when He planned it all. (qtd. in Lewis 98-100)

As an additional example of a biblical property that proves the Bible’s divine origin, I cite the
united simplicity and inexhaustibility of the Bible. The logical argument is as follows:

1. If the content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production, then the content of the
Bible is of divine origin.

2. The content of the Bible is characterized by a united simplicity and
inexhaustibility that is beyond mere human production.

3. Therefore the content of the Bible is of divine origin.

Even skeptics have admitted the uniqueness of the biblical message. Rousseau, the prominent
eighteenth century thinker to whom such philosophers as Kant and Hegel acknowledged their
debt (Collier 205) said:

I will confess to you farther that the majesty of the Scriptures strikes me with admiration,
as the purity of the Gospel has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works of our
philosophers, with all their pomp of diction, how mean, how contemptible are they,
compared with the Scriptures! Is it possible that a book, at once so simple and sublime,
should be merely the work of man? (qtd. in Mitchell 425)

Milligan offered proof of this argument when he set forth the following:

The second argument that I shall submit in proof of the Divine Origin of the Holy Bible,
is taken from its great simplicity associated with a length, and breadth, and depth of
meaning that far transcends the range and capacity of the most inspired genius.
. . . The . . . truth is . . . very clearly taught in the actual developments of the Gospel. Its
requirements are all so very plain that no honest man can well misunderstand his duty. . .
. [C]onsider . . . [w]hat is required in order to admission into the Kingdom of Christ here
on [E]arth, such as faith, repentance, confession, and baptism; and . . . [t]he conditions of
continued membership, and of admission into God’s everlasting Kingdom. For a
summary of these, see 2 Peter 1:1-11.

But connected with this wonderful simplicity of the Gospel plan of salvation, there is
also in it a depth of meaning which no finite or uninspired mind can ever fully
comprehend.

. . . For [two thousand] years, infidels of all schools have labored to explain this and
other similar characteristics of the Holy Bible on the assumption that the whole Book is
of human origin. But hitherto they have given us no solution of the problem that is even
satisfactory to themselves. (27, 29, 30)

The Scriptures refer to “His wonders in the deep” (Psalm 107:24). The prophet declared that
God “will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:19, emp. added). Describing the
astounding depth of the sea. Dubach and Taber say:

The sea bottom is divided into three distinct areas: the continental shelf, the continental
slope, and the ocean floor.

The continental shelf has numerous hills, ridges, terraces, and even canyons
comparable to the Grand Canyon. The average width of the shelf is 30 miles, but it may
extend several hundred miles from shore. . . .

. . . Many mountains under the sea are higher than Mt. Everest [29,000 ft.]. All oceans
except the North Pacific are divided by an almost continuous system of mountains, the
largest being the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. (23)

The depth of the sea is profound. The deepest known point in the oceans is 36,198 feet in the
Mariana Trench in the western Pacific Ocean (Museum of Science).

The extensive depth of the oceans is used biblically to illustrate the inexhaustible depth of the
Scriptures. We read, “Your righteousness is like the great mountains; Your judgments [i.e. the
Scriptures, cf. Psalm 19:7-9] are a great deep” (Psalm 36:6). The Psalmist also said, “I have seen
a limit to all perfection, but [Y]our commandment is exceedingly broad” (Psalm 119:96, ESV).
In other words, what the mind of man has originated and written the mind of man masters,
exhausts, and moves on to something else. However, the mind of man cannot plumb the depths
of Scripture. The Bible is a bottomless and unfathomable well of truth. I once heard Dr. Warren,
who received the doctorate in Philosophy from Vanderbilt University, say that he had read the
Bible for over seventy years but never had done so without being amazed at some enormously
wonderful truth in it.

Paul wrote, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How
unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Romans 11:33). The word,
unsearchable, here means “literally, not be tracked out, incomprehensible” (Rogers and Rogers
338). The Bible is like the mighty ocean whose immediate shores man has explored but whose
mighty depth no man has fully penetrated. The inexhaustible depth of the Bible evidences the
existence and infinite power of God and the Divine origin of the Bible.

CONCLUSION

Humans need special revelation from God. Such a revelation is both possible and probable.
The Bible, in the basic passage of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 (as well as in other relevant passages)
makes the affirmation that it is the “breathed out” revelation of God. It implies it is the one and
only complete, final, infallible, and authoritative special revelation of God to humans. This claim
can be tested (as all purported revelations must) by reason and logical argumentation. A sound
argument (in valid form with true premises) that proves the Divine origin of the Bible is
available. The Bible is the word of God. Ultimately, this marvelous special revelation of God
reveals the Person and Work of Jesus Christ who, in one sense, is what the Bible is all about (cf.
2 Timothy 3:14-15).

In his book, You Can Trust Your Bible, Neale Pryor tells the story of an atheist who was
lecturing in a village in England. He was giving his reasons for not believing in God and the
Bible. At the conclusion he asked if there were any questions. One elderly woman said she had
one question. She said, “My husband died 10 years ago and left me with 10 children. It was my
faith in the Bible that saw me through those years of hardship, poverty, and illness. My faith
enabled me to rear my children and make it through those hard times. My question is this: What
has your faith done for you?” The lecturer had nothing to say and the assembly ended in
confusion (22).

“Have you experienced the richness of one of life’s greatest challenges–to read, study, and
apply the message of the Bible? Try it! You will find out what this marvelous Book is all about
and, beyond that, you will find out what your life is all about” (Pugh, Bible 17).
[T]hat supreme Book, super-natural in origin, divine in authorship, human in
penmanship, infallible in authority, inexhaustive in its adequacy, a miracle Book of
diversity in unity, infinite in scope, universal in interest, eternal in duration, personal in
application, inspired in totality, regenerative in power, inestimable in value,
immeasurable in power, unsurpassed in literary beauty, unequalled in simplicity of
expression, immortal in its hopes, the masterpiece of God. . . . [I]t . . . takes the pain out
of parting, the sting out of death, the gloom out of the grave. (Lee 36)

WORKS CITED
Alford, Henry. Alford’s Greek Testament. Vol. 3. 1856. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
Arndt, William F. and Wilbur F. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 1957. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1973.
Black, Max. Critical Thinking. 1946. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1952.
Brown, Colin. “Scripture, Writing-graphe: NT 1(c).” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
Gen. Ed. Colin Brown. Vol. 3. 1971. Grand Rapids: Regency-Zondervan, 1978.
Campbell-Jack, Campbell and Gavin J. McGrath, eds. New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics. Leicester:
InterVarsity, 2006.
Clark, Gordon H. Logic. 1985. 2nd ed. Jefferson:Trinity Found., 1988.
Collett, Sidney. All About the Bible. 2nd ed. Chicago: Christian Witness, n.d.
Collier, Terri. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau.” Great Thinkers A-Z. Eds. Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom. New
York: MJF Books, 2004.
Conway, David. The Rediscovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Quest of Sophia. 2000. Basingstoke:
PALGRAVE, 2005.
Craig, William Lane. Introduction. “Faith, Reason and the Necessity of Apologetics.” To Everyone an Answer.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
De Hamel, Christopher. The Book. A History of the Bible. London: Phaidon, 2001.
Dubach, Harold W. and Robert W. Taber. Questions about the Oceans. 1968. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Naval
Oceanographic Office, 1969.
Flew, Antony. There Is a God. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
Franklin, Benjamin. The Gospel Preacher: A Book of Twenty Sermons. Vol. 1. Delight: Gospel Light, n.d. 2 vols.
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. 1957. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1978.
Jackson, Wayne. Before I Die. Stockton: Christian Courier, 2007.
Jividen, Jimmy. Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 2005.
Keyser, Leander S. A System of Christian Evidence. 1922. 10th rev. ed. Burlington: Lutheran Literary Board, 1950.
Lee, Robert G. The Top Ten of Robert G. Lee. 1971. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to
Titus and to Philemon. 1937. Columbus: Wartburg, 1956.
Lewis, Charles Lee. Matthew Fontaine Maury: The Pathfinder of the Seas. Annapolis: U. S. Naval Institute, 1927.
Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott, comps. A Greek-English Lexicon. Vol. 2. 1843. Oxford: Clarendon, 1951.
Major, Trevor J. “Honor to Whom Honor . . . Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873).” Creation Research Society
Quarterly. 32 (1995): 82-86.
Milligan, R. Reason and Revelation. 1867. 4th ed. Cincinnati: Carroll & Co., 1868.
Mitchell, Graham. The Young Man’s Guide Against Infidelity. Edinburgh: Whyte, 1848.

Museum of Science. “Looking at the Sea: Physical Features of the Ocean.” Oceans Alive! Museum of Science,
1998. Web. 18 July 2009.

Pierson, Arthur T. Many Infallible Proofs. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.
Pryor, Neale. You Can Trust Your Bible. Abilene: Quality, 1980.
Pugh, Charles C. III. Life’s Greatest Acclamation-God. New Martinsville: Threefold, 2006.
- - -. That Your Joy May Be Full. New Martinsville: Threefold, 2007.
- - -. What the Bible Is All About. New Martinsville: Threefold, 2008.
Roberts, J. W. Letters to Timothy. 1964. Austin: Sweet, 1974.
Rogers, Cleon L. Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers, III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Shelly, Rubel. What Shall We Do with the Bible? Jonesboro: National Christian, 1975.
Swinburne, Richard. Was Jesus God? Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008.
Sweet, Louis Matthews. The Verification of Christianity. Boston: Gorham, 1920.
Thayer, Joseph Henry. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 1962. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.
Thompson, Samuel M. A Modern Philosophy of Religion. 1955. Chicago: Regnery, 1956.
Turton, W. H. The Truth of Christianity. New York: Putnam’s, 1913.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. 1948. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1970.
Warren, Thomas B. “The Bible Is God’s Word—The Meaning of and Basic Argument for this Claim.” The
Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. 1971 Bible Lectureship of Harding Graduate School of Religion.
Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1971.
- - -. Introduction. What Shall We Do with the Bible? By Rubel Shelly. Jonesboro: National Christian, 1975.
- - -. Spiritual Sword. 1. 2 (Jan. 1970).
- - -. When Is an “Example” Binding? 1975. Moore: National Christian, 1999.
Whittier, John Greenleaf. The Poetical Works of John Greenleaf Whittier. 1848. Boston: Houghton and Mifflin,
1886.
Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth. 1957. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.