| Title | : | Why I Trust the Bible: Answers to Real Questions and Doubts People Have about the Bible |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0310109949 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780310109945 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 288 |
| Publication | : | Published September 14, 2021 |
Why I Trust the Bible: Answers to Real Questions and Doubts People Have about the Bible Reviews
-
I cannot accurately express the gift that this book has been to me. If you have questions about the historicity and reliability of the Bible, this is the book for you.
-
I wanted a deepish dive into higher level questions against the bible. It's a place I find personal weakness when I attack my own faith and I felt ill equipped when others pressed these areas. I won't remember 70% of the details, but I will keep 100% of the confidence. It was written clearly by someone who has had these conversations and has no intention of side stepping the hard questions. It is written by a Christian for Christians, but could be a helpful resource to anyone with questions. I wish I read this when I was challenging the Faith. It gives tons of references, and lays out clear arguments. Some of my favorite parts include the assembly of canon and translation criticism. He often points the reader back to the heart of these questions, which helps with pace and perspective. With his ability to zoom in and out, the work felt comprehensive and clear and was a joy to read,despite it being strictly informative.
I'd recommend it to any Christian. -
Really enjoyed this book. The author did an excellent job of being readable, but not sacrificing scholarship. A good portion of this book seemed to be a response to Bart Ehrman, and its a very good one. The author does not come off as arrogant and snobbish (as some can) and even admits strengths of other points of view as well as weaknesses in his own, which I appreciate.
Most of the book deals with the big question of "How can I be sure that the Bible I have today, is the Bible God wants me to have?" Mr. Mounce answers this question mostly with outlining how the Bible we have today came to be, and why we can be certain that it is pretty close to the Bible early Christians had. He also spends a good amount of time addressing differences in older copies of the Bible as well as differences in translations.
The last portion of the book is one of the more interesting sections, as he reconciles some tricky ethical question about believing the Bible, specifically some of God's actions in the Old Testament. While he did not have enough space to answer these in the detail it deserves, he does try to give an overview of the most controversial topics.
My only real critique is in the chapters about translations, its clear he wants to defend the NIV against some recent backlash it has received. This is really the only portion of the book I feel he is clearly biased and one sided. -
This is an excellent book. Mounce writes with masterful clarity on the vitally important topic of scripture. He provides a well thought out, honest, and persuasive apologetic that will help Christians of various backgrounds, education, and age.
This book should be on the shelf of every Church bookstore. Why should you trust the Bible? If your asking that question, that’s ok. You’re not a second-rate Christian because you have questions. Ask your questions boldly! The truth is freeing… You can and should trust the Bible. Let Bill Mounce guide you through some of your questions and help you to see the beautiful answers that you may have overlooked in the past. -
This is yet another book recommended by Tim Barnett for those interested in Apologetics 101.
Amusingly, I didn’t realise there were so many contradictions, questions and doubts surrounding the Bible when I started this book, but nevertheless, each doubt that threatened to raise it’s ugly head was quickly squashed by a logical answer or assurance of faith.
William D. Mounce is an academic, but you wouldn’t be able to tell based on how accessible his writing style is. Over the course of the last seven months, his voice has been a somewhat comforting one and I’ve spent several hours writing notes in my Bible based on things I’ve learnt from him.
Highly recommended to Christians especially and some curious non-Christians. -
What an outstanding book dealing with the hot button topic: Is the Bible trustworthy and reliable? Dr. Bill Mounce does an outstanding job taking hard to understand verses of the Bible and making them clear to the average reader. This book is great for skeptics of religion and their holy books, those who are cynical toward religion in general and the casual believer who’s always had questions about scripture. This book will also speak to practicing Christians who need to strengthen their confidence in divine providence. This is one of the best treatments of scriptural apologetics currently available and one of my personal top three treatments on the authority and reliability of the Bible. Thanks Dr. Mounce!
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Trust-Bibl... -
I was honored to receive an embargoed copy of this excellent book. It is a very easy to follow and clear guide to help readers to understand why the Bible is trustworthy. I put this on the same level as Lee Scoble's excellent scholarship. It will strengthen your faith and help in your understanding of scripture, while also giving you the tools that ned to defend your faith. For long time believers, new believers, and seekers alike I highly recommend this book.
-
It covers everything that it promises to cover, in the amount of space that is given. Dr. Mounce writes well, and he is not trying to be incredibly heady. His footnotes and recommended reading lists give a great stepping stone for the person wanting to go further. This book was a great refresher on many things I had learned at Moody and Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. I highly encourage purchasing it.
-
An excellent book to give to someone asking questions about the Bible especially the New Testament.
The book is succinct. It argues for the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible, especially the New Testament, and answers common objections to it.
The emphasis is on the New Testament with only a couple of short chapters devoted to the Old Testament. The author is a New Testament scholar and this is reflected in the book's structure. -
One of the better books I've read about the Bible's trustworthiness, covering historical reliability of gospels, apparent contradictions, canon, textual criticism, translation, and historical reliability of Old Testament (OT). Each section starts shallow and dives deeper, so it's appropriate for readers who are new to these topics, and those already familiar with them.
Mounce defends the historicity of the Bible, but he backs away from defending some numbers in the Bible, claiming that some may be symbolic (e.g., the many instances of "40 days"). He says numbers in the OT may be "numerical hyperbole" (exaggeration), because that was common in ancient literature in countries surrounding Israel, and the numbers in OT are larger than those recorded in ancient literature in countries surrounding Israel. He says the lifespans of people before Flood may have been symbolic, but at least he also says they could be literal/factual.
Mounce was on the translation committee for the ESV, and is on the translation committee for the NIV. He used to be a pastor.
The narrator mispronounces Craig Blomberg's name as "Bloomberg" many times throughout book.
In my notes, "ms" means manuscript, and "mss" means manuscripts.
Notes
Preface
Recommended books
• The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Craig L. Blomberg
• Dethroning Jesus by Darrell L. Bock
• Reinventing Jesus by J. Ed Komoszewski, Daniel B. Wallace, M. James Sawyer
• The Question of Canon by Michael J. Kruger
• Misquoting Truth by Timothy Paul Jones
Jesus before the Gospels
There's plenty of non-Biblical evidence of Jesus' existence. There aren't more historical records because during His life, He was relatively unimportant from the perspective of the Roman Empire (He was from an unimportant town in a relatively unimportant country, with no political power).
Oral cultures have much better ability to memorize and recall than non-oral cultures.
Oral tradition is very different from telephone game. In oral tradition, stories were spread in communities, not individual to individual, and people who knew stories could correct mistakes. Those retelling stories had a personal interest in truthfulness of what they said.
Gospels have differences (not contradictions) because they're summaries, paraphrases, abridgments.
Eyewitnesses and church leaders were guardians of Christian tradition, able to point out false info when it arose (Acts 1:15; 15:15; 1 Cor 15:6).
Holy Spirit helped disciples remember Jesus' teachings (Jn 14:26).
Mark was written at latest by middle of 60s; other gospels were written within 1 generation of Jesus' disciples.
Jesus of the Gospels
Names of authors were added to gospels before end of 1st century. Authorship of 4 gospels was unanimously attributed by mid-2nd century, which could've happened only if church knew authors for quite some time. There's no record of disagreement over authorship of 4 gospels throughout Roman Empire.
There are no copies of 4 gospels that are anonymous or with different names than traditional authors. In every gospel text where beginning or end survives, traditional authorship is assigned.
Conservative scholars date Mark in 60s, Matt and Luke 70s-80s, John 90s. Others date Mark in 70s, Matt and Luke 80s, John 90s. Regardless, they're 1st-century documents written by eyewitnesses or secondhand witnesses, giving accounts that could be checked and corrected by community.
Gospels were written decades after Jesus because people valued oral tradition to written accounts. Written accounts became necessary as witnesses began dying. Also, time gap is incredibly short compared to most ancient writings, which were often written hundreds of years after events.
Arguments for accuracy of gospels
• Gospels contain embarrassing details. Fabrications wouldn't.
• Gospels contain difficult, troubling teachings. Fabrications wouldn't.
• Gospels don't contain teachings that would've been useful in solving early church disagreements. Fabrications would've included them.
Contradictions
Contradictions in the Bible
Jesus didn't contradict Himself by saying "He who is not with Me is against Me" (Mt 12:30; Lk 11:23) and "For he who is not against us is on our side" (Mk 9:38-40). The former is about people who aren't Jesus' disciples; the latter is about people who are.
When Jesus said, "this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (Mt 24:24; Mk 13:29), "these things" refers to destruction of temple in AD 70.
Digging Deeper into Apparent Contradictions
Ancient standards for historical writing were less precise than ours. It was acceptable to abbreviate events by combining them into a single account.
Jesus' Passover meal (Last Supper) was Thu evening, His examination before Jewish leaders late Thu to Fri morning, His trial before Pilate was Fri morning. "Day of preparation" (Jn 19:31) must be Fri; it was day of preparing for festivities, not for Passover meal. Jn 18:28 could refer to lunch day after Passover, or it's possible that difference is due to 2 different calendars used by people and temple authorities.
The Canon
Why Do We Have the Twenty-Seven Books in the New Testament?
When someone questions NT canon, ask, "Have you read the book(s) you think should be in NT?" or, "Which book(s) do you think should be in the NT?" Then ask, "Who wrote it? How does it agree with rest of canon? Why didn't church include it in canon?" Follow up with, "Which book(s) do you think shouldn't be in Bible?" This will help determine if their objection is truly about canon, or about Bible's teachings.
Process of accepting apostolic writings as authoritative began during NT (Jn 14:26; 16:13). Apostles taught with Jesus' authority (1 Cor 7:10-12; 14:37; Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Pet 3:2; Rev 1:1-2), so church accepted their writings as equal in authority to Jesus' sayings. Paul calls Deut 25:4 and Lk 10:7 "Scripture" (1 Tim 5:18). Paul gives equal authority to his own and Jesus' teaching (1 Cor 7:10, 12). Peter called Paul's writings "Scripture" (2 Pet 3:15-16).
Church fathers in 2nd century quoted wide selection of apostolic writings as authoritative. Polycarp knew John personally, and quoted Paul's writings as "Scripture."
Majority of canon was formed as soon as apostles wrote books and letters (by middle to end of 1st century).
Digging Deeper into the Canon
There were not alternative canons
• There was always a core of canon as soon as apostolic books were written. Debates were about epistles.
• Books that weren't part of core didn't represent their own orthodoxy that contradicted accepted core.
• Heresies of 1st and 2nd centuries didn't develop on their own; they were in contrast to existing orthodoxy (perversions of it), not competing orthodoxies.
• That lists of canonical books were discussed for 6 centuries shows that one group wasn't powerful enough to suppress all debate.
• Existence of heresy doesn't mean there was no orthodoxy.
Church fathers weren't necessarily considering non-canonical books canonical simply because they quoted them.
Textual Criticism
Are the Greek Texts Hopelessly Corrupt?
Reading that best explains others ("harder" reading) is more likely to be original.
Shorter reading is more likely to be original.
Thousands of mss show scribes were hesitant to remove words, but were willing to add them.
Greek is inflected language, so there are many ways to express same idea in different words, which leads to variants that are viable but not meaningful.
Over 70% of variants are spelling and grammatical errors, which are easy to identify, and don't prevent discovering original text.
Angel stirring pool at Bethesda (Jn 5:3b-4) was added decades after John wrote gospel.
Last line of Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:13) was added centuries after Matthew wrote gospel. Scribes probably borrowed from 1 Chr 29:11-13.
Fewer than 1% of variants are both meaningful (they change meaning) and viable (they could be original). None cast doubt on a single Biblical doctrine.
UBS text identifies 373 out of 1,408 places where there's significant doubt about a meaningful variant; 0.09% of 400,000 total variants.
Digging Deeper into Textual Criticism
As church expanded westward, mss needed to be understandable, so scribes expanded and simplified text. Mss from Western text-type tend to be less reliable than Alexandrian.
Byzantine texts are most common Greek mss. They seem to be combination of Alexandrian and Western text-types. There are no examples of Byzantine texts before 4th century, but by 9th century 95% of all mss were Byzantine.
Modern English Bibles have only 2 paragraph-length passages that aren't original: Jn 7:53 - 8:11; Mk 16:9-20.
Jn 7:53 - 8:11 isn't original
• It's missing from oldest mss.
• No church father wrote a commentary on it until 12th century.
• 1st ms to contain it is from 5th century, and it contained many added readings.
• Many mss mark it with explanatory comments that it's inauthentic.
• Erasmus' #1 ms omits it, and he said it wasn't in majority of Greek copies.
• It appears in different locations in different mss.
• Its style and vocabulary are different from rest of gospel.
• It interrupts flow of Jesus' discourse.
Mk 16:9-20 isn't original
• It's missing from most important old mss, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
• It's missing from some mss of ancient translations.
• Some church fathers knew of mss that didn't include it, and many church fathers don't comment on it.
• It's not in Eusebius' 4th-century numbering system. He said accurate copies of Mark ended at Mk 16:8, and subsequent verses were absent from almost all mss.
• Many mss that include it indicate that older mss lack it. Other mss mark it as an addition.
• Jerome included it in Vulgate, but said almost all Greek copies didn't include it.
• Erasmus' #1 ms said it was uncertain.
• There are other alternate endings to Mark. If this ending was authentic, there wouldn't be a reason to create alternatives.
• Transition from Mk 16:8 to v 9 is awkward.
• Style, grammar, lexical choices are different from rest of gospel.
There are a couple dozen other variants of 1-2 verse length.
1 Jn 5:7b-8a was added centuries after John wrote original.
In vast majority of cases, textual criticism has given us original reading. There are very few places it can't.
It's misleading to emphasize number of variants without discussing their significance.
Erasmus relied primarily on 3 mss, all from 12th century, for his Greek NT (used for KJV).
There are ~20 editions of Textus Receptus (TR) based on Erasmus' work.
Most notable variants are caused by differences between modern translations based on Alexandrian mss and KJV based on TR.
Digging Much Deeper into Textual Criticism
Because mss can be copied from same source, counting mss isn't enough; you must weigh them by internal (words within ms) and external evidence (mss text-type, versions, patristic quotations).
In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman admits, "of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance."
Most mss lasted 100-125 yrs, but some were usable for 300 yrs, and a small number for 500 yrs.
Scribes made mistakes, but were quite careful and faithful in copying, not lax, careless, willing to change text. There isn't evidence that early scribes made more mistakes and deliberate changes than later ones.
Controls that ensured accuracy of early mss
• They could've been compared to autograph and its copy.
• Writings were respected as authoritative.
• Documents were read aloud (1 Tim 4:13), and people memorized them.
• Early scribes were Jewish, and Jewish scribes were obsessed with accuracy.
If there had been serious changes to text in 1st and 2nd centuries, we wouldn't have relatively uniform text in 3rd and 4th centuries.
There's no evidence that all early scribes were Christians, despite claim that early scribes conspired to change text for theological reasons.
Translations
Translation Theory
Categories of translation theory
1. Interlinear: Lists Greek words in Greek word order, giving English gloss (approximation) for meaning of each. Closest to "literal" translation.
2. Formal equivalence: Tries to reflect grammatical structures of original. Tries to adhere closely to original words and be minimally interpretive. Often has awkward, antiquated English. ESV, NASB, KJV.
3. Functional/dynamic equivalence: Aims to convey original meaning of text in English. Involves more interpretation. Is more understandable, but can be more idiomatic. NIV, CSB.
4. Natural language: Tries to repeat meaning of original language in English in natural style. Easy to understand. Often introduces ideas not in original. NLT.
5. Transculturations: Changes/distorts historical meaning of original to make it more apparent (sometimes inaccurately called paraphrases). The New Testament in Modern English, The Message, The Living Bible.
No standard English Bibles are "literal" (translators merely translate words). Each word must be analyzed for meaning, an interpretive decision made, then meaning expressed in English (requiring another interpretive decision). Closest to "literal" is interlinear Bible.
Digging Deeper into Translation
Translations rarely disagree; difference is usually in how vague (e.g., "love of Christ") or specific (e.g., "Christ's love") they are.
The Old Testament
The Historicity of the Old Testament
Judaism never accepted OT Apocrypha as authoritative (Josephus' "Against Appian" 1.38).
Jesus never quoted from Apocrypha. At His time, some of these books were interspersed with canonical OT books.
3 most important Greek mss (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) include some of Apocrypha. Septuagint contained some of Apocrypha.
Some early church fathers included some of Apocrypha in their lists, even if they though they were only appropriate for devotional reading. Other fathers said they were clearly not canonical.
Jerome included Apocrypha in Vulgate, but stated that he doubted their authenticity.
Reformers rejected OT Apocrypha as canonical
• Judaism never accepted it as canonical.
• It was written after God stopped speaking to Israel in 4th century BC and before Christ's birth.
• It includes doctrines that don't fit canon (prayers for dead, purgatory).
Conclusion: Why I Trust the Bible
Case for trusting Bible
• Bible claims to be from God.
• No challenges against Bible are convincing.
• Bible is accurate and deserves benefit of doubt, even if we can't answer all questions about it.
• Trusting Bible is most rational choice. It provides best answers to questions of life; they make sense. It's consistent with itself and reality. -
“How can you trust the Bible? Didn’t you know there are 400,000 disagreements between all the different copies of the New Testament alone, while there are only 110,000 words in it?”
“The Bible contradicts itself, so it can’t be the Word of God.”
“Church leaders picked and chose what went into the Bible, leaving out books and letters they didn’t agree with, so how can you trust what it teaches?”
“Even the different versions of the Bible disagree with one another, so how can it be reliable?”
“Jesus is more myth than historical figure, cobbled together from a bunch of ancient sources and religions. He’s made up, so can’t be a real savior.”
Skeptical claims like these, and plenty others, are leveled against the Bible ALL. THE. TIME. On social media, in popular media, and in documentaries purporting to give the straight dope about the history surrounding the Word of God. We should not be surprised. After all, the enemies of God hate Him, and hate His Word. However, many Christians lack the ability to refute these claims. Many of us merely shout “nuh uh,” all the while wondering if there really are answers to these claims.
There are answers to these claims, Christian. There is an entire field of study, namely apologetics, which provides a defense of the faith. “Why I Trust the Bible” is a one-stop-shop of introductions to several topics which comprise much of the field of apologetics these days:
- The Historical Jesus
- Contradictions in the Bible
- How We Got the Canon (list of books in the Bible)
- Textual Criticism (making sense of textual discrepancies or variants)
- How Translation Happens
- The Supposed Contradiction of the Old Testament
In “Why I Trust the Bible” Dr. Mounce, renowned Greek language scholar, explains why he trusts the Bible, and why you should too.
As a layperson who has done a lot of study in these areas, I found the this book a great introductory survey of these topics, with a great set of footnotes and bibliography for further reading. Most skeptics tossing out the objections covered are merely repeating talking points, and this book will be more than enough to equip you to answer them. “Why I Trust the Bible” is a great introduction to all of these subjects and can provide a great foundation for further study into any and all of them.
If you have studied any of these subjects in greater depth, you may find Mounce’s treatment of them entirely too brief, but for someone who is new to apologetics and specifically the reliability of the Bible, this book is an excellent choice! -
My mother loved the bible. She read it every day and she took me to church every Sunday. I was so pleased when my Sunday School teacher gave me a copy of the bible. That was 1939 and I was only seven. Since then, I have read through the bible many times and I now have several modern translations. I also have some understanding of the Greek of the New Testament thanks to Bill Mounce and this is very helpful. At Grammar School I heard the occasional critical voice but, most of my form mates believed that the bible was God’s word to mankind, so we were in the majority.
Today, it is very different. Many young people do not have a good example from their parents. Even if they do, they will soon be subject to many negative views and they will find they are in the minority. Bill shows that these criticisms appeal to the emotion, but they are usually not supported by the facts. I hope many young people will read the book, but I fear most will not. I urge others, like me, who love the bible and have found it a great help in their lives, to read the book so that they are well equipped to give an answer to everyone who asks them to give a reason for the hope that they have (1 Peter 3:15). Some will give the book as a gift.
Bill gives good answers to many questions. Some you may be hearing for the first time. It may not answer all your questions, but we should expect that. God’s ways and thoughts are different from ours (Isaiah 55:8-11). We must believe even though we do not have all the answers (Hebrews 11:6). This book will show you that there is good reason to believe the bible is Almighty God’s word to his creation. It contains instruction to show us how to enjoy life to the full.
Bill is very good at explaining difficult matters in a way which makes it easy to understand. This is probably due to his extensive teaching experience. I like the way there is a chapter for each of the six main subjects. Then there is a follow up chapter going into the subject in more detail. Finally, there are suggestions for extra reading and some links to appropriate free courses on
www.Biblicaltraining.org. I think the book will be very popular. My suggestion for an improvement for the second edition would be an extra chapter on the Old Testament. I say this because two thirds of the bible is the Old Testament. This is where many readers will still have unanswered questions. A chapter discussing scientific developments such as DNA and Quantum Physics would be good. -
Generally speaking a well written book, with a lot of very useful teachings for believers and unbelievers alike. A good defense of the Bible. But a very mixed bag, with some great and with some rather heretical teachings.
Significant concerns:
- He sees Genesis rather as a myth and says that nowhere in Scripture can we read that humanity is a few thousand years old. Kind of true. But the full truth is that this can be easily calculated based on the 77 generations in Luke. Nobody has the exact number, but +/- 400 years is sufficient. Interestingly, he later in the book criticizes those who see Genesis as a myth.
- He presents only the erroneous 4004 BC reference (he singles it out as an Ussher thing), and entirely neglects the more generous age presented in the Greek Old Testament. It is a scandal that a Greek scholar entirely ignores the Greek Old Testament, while knowing that this text dominated the Christian and Jewish world for ~650 years in Christ's time on earth. The only mention the Greek Old Testament gets in all the book is when it comes to the Apocrypha. He seems to have a serious issue with the Septuagint.
- Although pretending to offer some faithful options for the enormous lifespans of OT figures, he concludes "the numbers are not meant to be understood precisely, but are meant to draw a picture".
- He says that Scripture has generally to be read in the respective cultural context, which has a rather liberal connotation. But he is even contradicting himself, when he interprets the exception clause and precisely denies seeing it in its cultural context, namely the refusal to insert the word 'unchastity' (a concept mentioned all over the OT) for the oxymoron 'except on the basis of adultery causeth her to commit adultery'. (Mat 5:32 and Mat 19:9). It then becomes even heretical and dangerous teaching when he states without any differentiation, that (practically anyone) can divorce, if he or she is abandoned.
- Origen is mentioned several times without any discernment. He can be a secondary reference, but the reader has to be informed that he was a heretic for several reasons. To present him as a credible source, is not worthy of somebody with a theological title. Discernment is also lacking when it comes to the approval of the heretic C.S. Lewis, whom his brother even read on the deathbed of his mother. It is also a bit disturbing that he calls the death of his mother 'a story'. What words.
Secondary concerns:
- He erroneously states that Origen and Athanasius did reject the Apocrypha, which is clearly wrong. While Athanasius considered 2 books of it as canonical, Origen considered at least 7 (!!!) books as canonical (probably all) and was absolutely decisive in bring the OOT Apocrypha into our Bibles - long before Augustine and Pope Damasus made it official. He used those apocryphal books indiscriminately with those of Scripture as sources for dogmatic proof texts, and cited as inspired / Scripture: Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Judith, Maccabees (plural), Tobith, Wisdom (of Solomon). He also defended Bel and the Dragon, Sirach and Susanna. He only discriminated against the Pseudepigrapha, which he called in fact 'Apocrypha' in the sense of being hidden / secret.
- He states regarding the Apocrypha: "... our 3 most important manuscripts from the Bible, dating from 4th and 5th c., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus include some of these books, in other words the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, did contain some of the of apocryphal books ..." This is an outlandish statement. The Septuagint (=5 Pentateuch books) was written in 250 BC, when not even one book of the Apocrypha had been written (his 4c BC statement is clearly wrong, it was written 2-1c. BC and finalized latest in 4c. AD!). Even if we very generously apply the term 'Septuagint' to the remaining 17 OT books written until 130 BC by others than the 70 translators, we still do not have the Apocrypha finished. But he even goes one step further, to say, just because some codices that were compiled 600 years (!) after the writing of the Septuagint included the Apocrypha, now the Septuagint written 600 years earlier consequently included the Apocrypha. This is desperately looking for a scapegoat. Might Bill as a translator never get such an accusation 600 years after his death, after someone thought it good to add some books to the ESV or NIV.
- He also makes the erroneous claim that the reformers agreed that these books should not be part of the canon. "Luther put them in a separate section and eventually they dropped out". Nothing could be further from the truth. Until the reformation never more than 7 apocryphal books had been used in a Bible. -ALL- reformers strongly increased the books printed in the Bibles to 11-15 books and the books remained for more than 400 years in our Bibles! THEOS does most probably not care if disguised as a separate section. He will judge all those who included, promoted and even those who did not speak against the inclusion of those books between the 2 covers of His Word. Woe!
- Mar 13:30 'Truly I say to you that this [set of] generation[s] will never pass away until all these things take place'). In his book 'Basics of Biblical Greek' he first intended to resolve this verse by translating it 'until all these things begin to come to pass'. Now in this book he ignores the word 'all' and isolates 'these things' to a partial event among all the events in the context. While the first intent has certainly some value, the second intent is simply bad exegesis. If he would read the Greek OT only once, he would have understood the meaning of this verse through the biblical definition of the concept of 'generations' found in Deu 32:6-9 (ΓΕΝΕAC ΓΕΝΕⲰΝ; generation of generations). Its meaning in this context is similar to that of 'this age' and of 'the last days'. We do not need to become dispensationalists in order to understand this wider concept of 'generation'.
- A death of Christ on Friday is contradicting Scripture on several levels, as we are all aware of. If I am not absolutely certain of an interpretation, I better remain passive and do not write a book about it. Christ died at the end of the Passover week as clearly proven.
- The book is a showcase for Mounce, and Christ often takes the backseat. He repeatedly praises his own references and inserts as often as possible references to people of academic rank, by presenting rather their titles than their spiritual fruits.
Room for improvement:
- When referring to the differing angels after the resurrection, he missed the differentiation between 1 sitting (Mat 28:2-4), 1 sitting (Mar 16:5-7), 2 standing (Luk 24:2-10) and 2 sitting (Joh 20:11-18) angels. And he did not consider the probability that CHRIST had been the very first messenger, the One light lighting and white as snow.
It often feels as if he would have simply summarized what others said about a topic and rather have not read Scripture for himself. We have today more than enough books written in the same manner. What we need is not people repeating over and over again the human wisdom showcased in other books, but authors who dig deep and who are on their knees asking the Spirit for HIS wisdom. -
I read this in order to learn more about biblical textual-criticism prior to reading Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman in my current book club.
As a Christian, the trustworthiness of the words I find in the Bible (and their meanings) are of the utmost importance. Their veracity - whether they truly are or are not the inspired words of God - makes or breaks my Christian faith.
Before reading this book, I already had faith in the Bible as the authoritative, accurate word of God. Already, I possessed a basic knowledge about the evidence we have affirming that our modern Bible translations possess the original meanings, despite not having the original documents or their immediate copies.
Now, having read this book, my faith in the Bible as God’s inerrant word has never been more firm. Mounce masterfully presents the difficult material in an accessible way. Also, I appreciated his direct engagement with some of Bart Erhman’s claims in his book. I now feel well-prepared to handle the challenges I may face when reading and discussing this book with skeptics. To God be the glory for preserving His word throughout the ages! -
Good introduction to the vast subject of answering objections to the Bible. Bill Mounce did well at straddling the line between making the book accessible but also giving enough technical details to properly answer questions. I would have liked more in-depth answers on some of the challenges he brought up, but, as the author states, a proper response to every challenge he brings up would take volumes. This is definitely an introduction to the issues, and for some challenges, it was necessary and adequate to state the challenge exists and to say in a sentence or two that the challenge does not hold merit. The author does a very good job at citing sources, and there is accordingly an extensive bibliography for those wishing to delve further into the topics.
I recommend this to anyone interested in apologetics and specifically the reliability of the Bible. I believe this pairs well with The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. -
Overall I greatly appreciated what Mounce contributed here. He brought a greater sense of clarity to several aspects I have known little about. I probably still only understand little, but it's less little than what it was before. There seemed to be a tonal shift in ch.12 that felt different from the rest of the book, from professor who appreciates nuance to pontificating preacher. I chalk that up to the OT not being his area of expertise and, given the fact he had little space for such a large topic, decided to zero in on the most common objections with candid replies. But overall, I am thankful for his content. I started reading, then grew disinterested and stopped for several months, then recently returned to it and was suddenly deeply interested enough to plow through the whole book with several highlights and fresh appreciation.
-
For some time I have been looking for a good book on the reliability of the Bible. Some books lost themselves in large theological arguments. Others conclude that the Bible was not reliable. Still others 75% I agreed with but the other 25% went to far. This book is one that I would recommend to anyone. It provided a good introduction to the topics of textual Criticism as well as Bible translation. Considering Mounce was on the Translating committees for both the NIV and the ESV he knows what he is talking about. His explanation of Bible translations was better than I have read or received from any of my professors including Greek and Hebrew professors. The one weakness of the book is that As Mounce is a New Testament scholar spends most of the time talking about the New Testament. But this does not detract from the scope of the book.
-
From looking at the cover, you might not think too much of the book. Honestly, the cover and title could be better because this is such a heavy book to read. This isn't a book that answers simple q&a questions. This book goes way deep into the construction of the Bible, the New and Old Testament, history, context, the language, translations, character of God, and much more. I certainly appreciate the Bible more after reading this because I do not envy anyone who has the arduous job of assembling a Bible. It is such a daunting task but a respectable one. I've read a few books about the Bible but this is perhaps my favorite because it stays focused on the topic and the author actually is a Bible translator and an educator.
-
Quite a lot of what's in here- most of it- you'll find in any evangelical apologetics book. The parts worth reading are the ones that get into the New Testament more fully; in particular, the sections on textual criticism and translation are excellent and will be massively helpful to a broad audience, even independently of any apologetic purpose. It was a pleasure to read Mounce's thoughts on translation philosophy. An odd but minor feature of the book is his habit of simply citing other apologetic literature for some sections, particularly when quoting ancient sources- I would have expected him to just cite the actual work directly. Overall, probably helpful if you don't already know much about biblical scholarship.
-
A solid, accessible overview of the reliability of transmission, textual criticism, translation, and canon. Heavy focus on NT, very light on OT. I'd recommend for someone interested for the first time in understanding how the Bible we have today came to be, OR who has previously studied this topic but needs a quick refresher. (Scrub some residual Brown and Ehrman out of those neurons ;) )
I appreciated the way Mounce's perspective as a member of translation teams for the ESV and NIV shaped the book. His insight into the difficulty of translating languages for meaning and accuracy will give you plenty to think about (and appreciate!)
