Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions

I am a United Methodist pastor, and in the UMC, like many mainline Protestant churches, the role and authority of the Bible is greatly in question these days. This trend is troubling, and I've been looking for books that engage the canonization, inspiration, and authority of the Bible in a way that his robustly historical without becoming so scholarly that God need not have been involved. Blomberg makes a cogent argument for the inspiration of the Bible and for the inerrancy of the Bible when understood in a nuanced manner that takes into account the complexities, genres, and language issues of the text. He speaks about inerrancy much in the way the early church fathers did: not seeing every single text as something to be interpreted "literally" without regard to the complexity of the text, but every text as in some way revealing the heart, will, or character of God.He makes a strong argument for preservation of the Bible as he engages the vast amount of scholarship that has developed in the art and science of text criticism. Rather than rejecting text criticism as a contemporary means of rejecting the Bible's authority, he sees how text criticism has actually helped to strengthen arguments that the Bible has been well-preserved and can be trusted as a means of revealing God to us. He also addresses the translation issues and makes a sound argument for the use of gender-inclusive language for humans in modern translation.Unfortunately, his mostly well-argued content is weakened by various places where anti-Catholicism was obvious and distracting. He doesn't seem to seriously grapple with the Apocrypha, and just dismisses the possibility that they could be considered inspired without providing much of a historical argument - he ignores the significant role of the Septuagint in the early church and makes the dubious claim that the apocryphal / deuterocanonical writings were never even considered for inclusion in the Jewish canon. Maybe for some communities, but their inclusion in the Septuagint makes this claim one that he should have argued more cogently. Similarly, he makes some dubious claims about the role of the papacy in Catholic biblical interpretation: "When the pope, patriarch, or prophet goes astray, he needs to convince only a small group of his closest followers, who might then let him cling to power and wreak havoc for far too long. When evangelical Protestant leaders working from Scripture cannot convince a majority of the communities they serve of the truth and biblically based nature of their views, they will be ousted from their positions of leadership." This is a very weak argument against the papacy, and seems to be more driven by a love for democracy than anything else. Popes ultimately need the assent of the Catholic faithful as well even if there is no formal "vote" on such a process, and Protestant pastors have also regularly misled their communities. Majority rule in a local congregation doesn't solve the possibility of abuse of power or dangerous misinterpretations. See the dangerous rise of the prosperity Gospel as one example where Protestant pastors have managed to convince a large number of followers of the correctness of a biblically unsound doctrine.Despite my reservations, though, I can still recommend this book as a well-researched, well-argued text.

I bought this book because I had a hunch that my professor for Christian Scriptures was only presenting one side of the issue when discussing the reliability and historicity of the Bible. After reading Blomberg's book, I know my hunch was right.Blomberg deals with this issue very fairly. He does a good job refuting both liberal views (like the idea that our copies of the Bible are hopelessly corrupt) and ultra-conservative views (like KJV only, or the idea that anything other than the autographs are inspired).Blomberg offered one particularly compelling defense for inerrancy by pointing to its result in the church: despite minor denominational differences, there is a HUGE amount of doctrinal agreement in churches around the world who accept the inerrancy or authority of the Bible. This, he argues, makes inerrancy particularly attractive, as it unifies the body of Christ.What lost Blomberg his 5th star in my rating was his treatment of the idea of possible pseudonymous letters in the New Testament. Basically, some scholars today believe that some letters (the Pastorals and 2 Peter, for example) were not written by the apostles whose names they bear. Blomberg unfortunately defends his view that pseudonymity does not conflict with inerrancy and shouldn't keep a book out of the canon; I respectfully disagree. Blomberg even admits that "what evidence we have...suggests that Christians did not knowingly support pseudonymous works for inclusion in the New Testament." If this very characteristic is what kept some works (ex. Apocalypse of Peter) out of the canon, I don't believe we should accept it now. In his defense, Blomberg does not himself support the idea that any books in the NT are pseudonymous, he only defends the idea that it would be okay if some were.I felt like I have probably been too harsh on Blomberg for only one minor point of disagreement. Overall, this is an excellent book. Read it! I learned more in this book than in an entire semester of Christian Scriptures. Especially if you have liberal friends or teachers and want to present your views on the Bible's authority to them in a respectful and fair way, this would be an excellent book to read.

Awesome book! It was written for scholars and goes on and on ... but if you're like me and are a Christian that wants to actually KNOW about the history of the Bible and how the various translations were created and not just follow it blindly this is for you. Like it or not there are different historical versions of the Bible and many different ways to translate parts of it, but this study of how it all works will actually renew your faith while revealing facts that some modern evangelicals might find a bit "bothersome." If you're a believer who has doubts about the Bible this can actually help renew and reinvigorate your faith.If you're NOT a person of faith but would like to know the history of the holy book that better than a billion people on earth still believe in ... this will at least arm you with facts and a greater understanding of its followers and why they persist in viewing it as a significant and faithful recounting of history and the life of Jesus (whether you think him man or Messiah).

The author is a New Testament scholar who offers an authoritative voice. This book does a great job presenting the case for the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible. Since this is the #1 issue critics of Christianity attack, every believer needs to have a solid grasp on this subject. Take away the authenticity of the Bible and, Christian, what do you have? Just a matter of opinion, nothing more than what the atheist and agnostic offers. Readable and highly recommended.

One of the best evangelical literature that defends the authority of the bible.Packed with a latest debate and evidence, this book will equip the readers with the tool to engage in dialog with skeptics and seekers.

As you might expect from the title and subtitle, this book addresses several specific recent objections to the reliability of the Bible. You may have seen or read some of these arguments against the Bible’s trustworthiness in television documentaries, magazine articles, or books written by skeptics. In each of the six objections Craig Blomberg tackles, he shows that “new findings, or at least more intense study of slightly older discoveries, have actually strengthened the case for the reliability or trustworthiness of the Scriptures, even while the most publicized opinions in each area have claimed that there are now reasons for greater skepticism!”The first chapter addresses the reliability of the biblical text we have now, nearly 2000 years after the last of the books of the New Testament were written. Is it true that all we have are hopelessly corrupt copies of the original New Testament writings, copies so full of variants—400,000 is the number some give—that it is impossible to know what the authors originally wrote?Blomberg’s answer is no. The 400,000 figure for the number of variants comes from counting all the differences in 25,000 New Testament manuscripts in Greek and other ancient languages. Do the math: That’s an average of sixteen variants per manuscript. We have hundreds of thousands of variants in our New Testament texts because we have thousands upon thousands of ancient copies, ten times more than any other ancient text.This abundance of manuscripts actually works to our advantage by giving scholars more information from which to reconstruct the text. That there are so many ancient copies should increase your confidence that the New Testament you have is faithful to what the New Testament authors originally wrote.In chapter two, Blomberg considers objections related to the canon of scripture, particularly the notion that fourth-century power politics was the deciding factor in the selection of books for the New Testament. The claim is that the winning faction in a previously diverse Christianity chose the books of the New Testament in order to control what people believed.In response, Blomberg counters that most of the books in our New Testament were accepted as scripture very early on because they met the criteria for scripture. The canonical books were all apostolic in origin, had a wide distribution in the early church, were faithful to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, and possessed the qualities of inspired books. There just wasn’t all that much dispute over the New Testament canon.Next, Blomberg focuses on the reliability of our English translations, listing the strengths and weaknesses of the various translation policies. He concludes that while there are editions of the Bible that we should use with more caution—paraphrases, for instance, or sectarian translations—all the major translations available to us “are more than adequate for teaching God’s people everything God wants them to know that really matters.”In chapter four, Blomberg tackles contemporary criticisms of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. His first step in defending inerrancy is explaining what this doctrine does and does not claim about the nature of scripture. The doctrine of inerrancy does not, for example, require that the Bible meet modern standards of accuracy. Inerrancy is not called into question, for instance, when the writers quote people according to ancient quotation practices, summarizing and paraphrasing what was said rather than quoting verbatim. Once the doctrine of inerrancy is correctly defined with all the necessary caveats, many objections to it disappear.Blomberg then offers strong rebuttals of a few specific attacks on the inerrancy of scripture, like the argument that the existence of so many different interpretations of scripture makes the question of inerrancy irrelevant, and the assertion that attempts to harmonize seemingly contradictory details in scripture are dishonest. To conclude this chapter, Blomberg notes that the biggest deterrent to belief in the doctrine of inerrancy is the intuitive understanding that if the Bible is inerrant, there is an obligation to believe and obey it.The next chapter moves to the related (and complicated) topic of the literary genres of scripture. Knowing the genre of a passage of scripture helps us know how to interpret it. It helps us determine the truths a passage is intended to convey. Blomberg warns that sometimes an interpretation of a text of scripture is said to conflict with the doctrine of inerrancy when the real disagreement is not about the inerrancy of the text, but the literary genre.The final chapter discusses the problem of the miracles recorded in scripture. Aren’t the miracle stories even more reason to consider the Bible unreliable? And aren’t the biblical miracles just copies of pagan myths and legends, anyway? Blomberg argues that the first objection arises from an irrational prejudice against the supernatural. To rebut the second, he demonstrates the remarkable differences between ancient legends and the miracle stories told in the Bible. What’s more, the Gospel miracles most often pre-date the pagan parallels they supposedly copied.This book’s most notable shortcoming, as I see it, is Blomberg’s tendency to be a bit contentious in his responses, especially when he’s refuting Christians who are more conservative than he is, with whom he seems to have less patience than with unbelieving skeptics. His points don’t become stronger because he questions his opponents’ motives and character, and this book would be better if he hadn’t.Overall, Can We Still Believer the Bible? is an excellent defense of the trustworthiness of scripture. Have recent objections to the reliability of the Bible caused you to doubt it? Or maybe it’s a friend who has questions. Either way, this book should help resolve the doubts—your own or those of others you know.

I really appreciated this book,Blomberg makes many helpful points and isn't afraid of acknowledging and discussing difficulties,I would recommend this to believers and interested non-believers as a solid, readable defence of the Bible's reliability.

From a conservative standpoint it cannot be beat. Blomberg makes it clear in the preface that this is a subject of immense importance to him, and that the writing of the book took priority over other writing commitments. What I really appreciated is that he doesn't shirk from naming names. This really helps the ordinary believer to get the lie of the land. We read about the bullying tactics of evangelical hardliners Norman Geisler and Robert Thomas towards fellow evangelicals at one end of the spectrum, and the deliberate attempts of unbelieving professors Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos to cause their students to come away from the faith at the other end. Both situations are shameful.It's frankly shocking to read about how serious scholarly discussion is replaced by scaremongering within the evangelical bubble. No wonder, laments Blomberg, scholars walk away from such a restricted environment. The actions of men like Albert Mohler and Daniel Akin affect livelihoods and careers, such as the case of Michael Licona. And this over terribly small matters!If you want a wise approach to the question of the trustworthiness of Scripture, historicity of the books of Job and Jonah, authorship of Isaiah, nature of apocalyptic literature, etc, then this is the book for you. Although an evangelical, the author doesn't necessarily take a traditionally conservative position on these issues.

I would have given more stars, but for two things, and obviously this is subjective but then all reviews are. Firstly there is a lack of evidence and detail backing up the discussion in the early part of the book. Whilst I accept that there are space limitations I would have liked to have seen a lot more on the comparison of the different early texts, comments on these differences, a more informative analysis and so forth. For sure the topic is covered, but not in enough detail for me. Secondly there is far, far too much comment on what are essentially personal issues of who has been sacked by whom and for what standpoint they took, and who didn't agree with whom at a conference. I don't think this book is the right place for it, since most readers I suspect won't have a clue what the author is talking about, nor will they find it illuminating or uplifting, and also there is no place for the 'accused' to respond. The conclusion is particularly bad for this, referring to 'toxic' churches for example which I found quite distasteful (having no idea who is being talked about anyway), and doesn't do what a conclusion should which is to conclude the previous arguments, rather than bringing in fresh material which it does. It lost 1 star for the conclusion alone ! Having said all the above there is some very good material in here, and I found it worth reading. The framework it is hung on works OK - whether it would have been better if organised along a more traditional argument I don't know.