Lie #6:

'The Bible is out of date, inaccurate and over-rated.  People
in the 21st century are way too smart for that.'

~~~

Reader,

   At first blush this doesn't seem like an 'Organized Religion'
thing.  The reason I include it here is that many large religious
organizations do teach it today.

   Let me ask you something: Don't you think it's a lot easier for a 
leader to sneak in his own agenda when there's no outside authority to
compare it to?

   Mortimer Adler, one of the greatest living literary scholars, 
spent decades researching a book called 'The Great Ideas.'  He 
read every single major piece of literature in Western history, 
and his book explores the 102 most influential ideas that have 
defined Western culture.

   In the first chapter, he talks about 'The Twentieth Century 
Delusion.'  What's that?  It's the fact modern people *think* that 
we are more enlightened about all subjects than people were 1000
years ago.  

   Are we more enlightened about science and technology?  

   Yes.

   Are we more enlightened about morality, philosophy and politics?

   Hardly.

   In college I took a class called 'English Authors Before 1800.'
I was amazed at how sharp those writers were.  Once you get past 
the 'old English' language, you discover that Shakespeare's 
characters are just like the people you talk to every day.

   The book of Proverbs in the Bible was written 3000 years ago,
but its advice has saved my butt many, many times.  

   'A soft answer defuses anger, but harsh words stir up evil.'

   'A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.'

   'The fool hates to be corrected by his father, but a wise son
listens to advice.'

   Are we really wiser in the 21st century than people were thousands
of years ago?  

   Solomon, the author of Proverbs, said 'There is nothing new
under the sun.'  Many people have laughed at that statement.  But he 
wasn't talking about technology.  He was talking about the issues of 
the human heart.  Malcolm Muggeridge said, 'News is old things 
happening to new people.'

   So is the Bible a translation of a translation of a translation?  
Could it be reliable?  Is it worth taking seriously?

   For centuries, the oldest existing copies of the Old Testament
were from 1100 AD.  Because so many prophesies in the O.T. had 
come true, many scholars declared that it was written after the 
fact.  

   For example, Isaiah described the crucifixion of Jesus with 
remarkable precision, 700 years before it happened.  Daniel 
predicted the rise and fall of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and 
Roman empires, in sequence, including remarkable details - in 
550 BC.  

   Astonishing stuff.

   The skeptics had the upper hand in this debate until a boy 
threw rocks into a cave in the Qumran valley in 1947 and discovered 
what are now known as the 'Dead Sea Scrolls.'

   Not only did these scrolls date back to 200BC, proving that these 
astonishing predictions were written BEFORE the events took place,
but the text was virtually identical to the later versions.

   Similarly, we have 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the New
Testament, some of them dating back to ~60 A.D.  The text is 
unquestionably solid. 

   There are plenty of people who say that the Bible is flaky 
and full of holes, but honestly, the facts simply don't support 
that conclusion.

   Take the 'Gospels' -- same-generation accounts of Jesus' life 
in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  There are *no* other events 
in ancient history that are documented as well as Jesus' life.  
If we can't believe those history books, how can we believe 
any other ones?

   Of course the only reason anybody doubts this stuff is that it talks 
about miracles.  Jesus feeds 5000 people with five loaves of bread
and two fishes.  He heals the blind and the lame.  He himself 
rises from the dead.

   Can this be believed?  Or was it just a big conspiracy?

   Well, that is THE question.  

   Right?

   Chuck Colson, a former US Government official who went to jail
for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, tells this story:

   "Watergate was a conspiracy to cover up, perpetuated by 
the closest aids to the President of the United States. 

   But one of them, John Dean, testified against Nixon, to save his 
own skin - only two weeks after informing the president about what 
was really going on.  Two weeks! 

   The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two 
weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves.  
What's more, nobody's life was at stake.'

   Why do I bring this up?  Because conspiracies planned by
big groups of people always fall apart.  Somebody always narks.

   Well in the case of Jesus, eleven disciples were crucified, 
tortured, stoned to death and burned to the stake because they 
stuck to their story.

   They were all ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that Jesus rose from the dead.

   The historical narrative reports that the first witnesses to the
resurrection were women.  Given the legal standing of women at 
that time, nobody would have written the story that way had it
been made up.

   What do you think?

   Well, you really can't make an informed decision until you read
the story.

   Fortunately there are four versions of that story -- Matthew's,
Mark's, Luke's and John's.  Read one or all and decide for yourself.

   If you don't read the story, you're not in any kind of position
to decide.  Examine the evidence so you can make an educated decision.


   Tomorrow, in the last installment, I'm going to take on #7:

   'If God was really good and powerful, he wouldn't allow so much
evil and suffering to go on.'

   This is a tough question indeed.  Pat answers and platitudes just
won't do.  I promise to handle this one with kid gloves.

   Respectfully Submitted,

   Perry Marshall
   www.CoffeehouseTheology.com