BOOK REVIEW - A PRIMER ON BIBLICAL LITERACY BY CORY M. MARSH

 

 What does it mean to be Biblically Literate? Should it be considered a rarity when there are "bumper sticker" Scriptures taken out of context or those who identify as Christians can't name most of the Ten Commandments or the four Gospels?

A Primer on Biblical Literacy by Cory Marsh is an excellent little book dealing with the subject of Biblical literacy (as you probably suspected by the title). I called it a little book - it composes of three chapters, and doesn't reach the triple digits in page length when the appendices start.

The first chapter focuses on the need for Biblical Literacy by reminding us of Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Marshall Applewhite, showing extreme examples on what happens when people don't know the Bible and challenge those who teach something contrary to Scripture. The second chapter defines Biblical  Literacy as developing an awareness of God through Scripture and a proficiency in understanding the meaning of the Biblical text. The final and longest chapter is an introduction to hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation). 

The appendices includes the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. One of my classes my first semester at Bible College was "Doctrine of Scripture and God," and the professor (Dr. David Nicholas) was off for a week to take part in signing this document. This is the first time I had the privilege of reading it.

I highly recommend this book. I found it an encouragement to get to know the Word of God - and thus, the God of the Word - better.

WHAT'S THE REAL REASON PEOPLE DON'T TRUST THE BIBLE?

 

I  know of three groups that believe the Bible was corrupted by the Catholics. Why?

The first are new-agers who believe the original Bible taught re-incarnation. Have they found an original language manuscript pre-dating the 300's that confirms that? Well, no. Then what basis do they have for believing the real Bible teaches re-incarnation? Basically, because they believe in re-incarnation, and thus the real Bible would teach what they believe is truth.

The second are Muslims. They agree with the New-Agers that the Bible is corrupt, but they don't believe in re-incarnation. Then why do they think the Bible is corrupted? Because they believe the true Bible would have had prophecies of Mohammed. Like the New Agers, there's no text that backs that up. It's just what they believe, and being wrong is not a possibility. Thus, those rascally Catholics corrupted it.

Then, there is a group called House of Yahweh. Again, they agree with the "fact" that the Bible is corrupted, but disagree with what the corruption was. In the case of the House of Yahweh, the corruptions were not removal of pet teachings but the inclusion of things they disagree with: Sunday worship and the Trinity. Now, they claim the New Testament was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and not Greek (unintentionally or not forgetting that Greek was basically a global language in NT times and that some of the places Paul wrote letters to were in Greece and thus would normally speak Greek).

For the record, I find the House of Yahweh's claims ironic and revealing. Groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists likewise agree that the Lord's Sabbath is Saturday, but they'll tell you the idea of Sunday worship is nowhere in the Bible. On the other hand, there are other groups who like the House of Yahweh deny the Trinity, but they likewise don't think it's in our current Scripture. In my opinion, the House of Yahweh's claims reveal that Sunday Worship and the Trinity are in the Bible, despite what other detractors say.

What do these groups have in common? Their claims of corruption are all subjective. None have recognized objective proof of their claims. Rather they want you to trust them and their teachings rather than the Bible. 

I find it interesting that if these groups were correct that the Catholic Church corrupted Scripture, why don't they believe in Sola Scriptura? To the Roman Church, the Bible is not corrupted. It's just not sufficient. We need the official teachings of the Church in addition to the Bible. Likewise, the Mormons say that we have one part of the story of Jesus, but we need the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Mormon prophets to have the complete truth.

Are there other things that need to be added to Scripture to teach truth? I've heard some say that scientific theories, political ideologies, or psychological teaching must be considered.

There are Christians who also use their view of interpretation or how they translate certain words from the original languages to win arguments. One friend, for example, believes God is a God of love and not of wrath. But what about John 3:36 which says that "He who does not believe in the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him?" My friend says that mistake was due to "weak translators", and that word means "desire", not "wrath." Never mind that the same Greek word is regularly translated "wrath" in contexts where "wrath" was the best choice.

Hope you make it to this point. Yes, I do believe each of these is an attempt to get us to trust the word of men and not the Word of God as our authority. But let me also state that you shouldn't trust me over the Bible either. Be a Berean. Go to Scripture. Read it in context. Compare Scripture with Scripture. 

Likewise, you need to discern whether the person is a fellow believer who agrees on the essentials of the faith and those who reject false teachings. Some people who expect me to take their word for it agree with me about the inerrancy of Scripture, the Deity of Christ, and salvation by grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. Others deny one or more of these. 

Is the Bible your authority? Have you ever unconsciously expected people to trust your word rather than check it out with Scripture? How do you defend the truth when someone claims the Bible is corrupt or insufficient or doesn't really mean what it says?