Greg Koukl contrasts the Bible’s verifiable historical record with the unverifiable claims of other religious texts, showing why faith in Scripture is grounded in truth.
Transcript
Caller: So, my question is, I am looking for a concise way to answer a question from someone who doesn’t believe that the Bible is true. They were on YouTube on a video, actually, that Alisa Childers had posted about the blood of the lamb over the doorpost. And they’re like, “That’s just magic and blood such-and-such.” And I felt like I should comment and encourage them to read from Genesis through Exodus to see what it actually says and what the reasoning is for. And they came back a few times with, “I've read it.” And I’m like, you know, “Read it. Ask God to show you who he is and give you understanding.” And they’re like, “Why should I read that—the Bible—instead of the Quran or the Book of Mormon?” And I was like, “Oh, no. I don’t know how to answer this in a quick and concise way.”
Greg: Okay. Well, a couple of thoughts that come to mind, but I have a question. Did you say at the beginning that the person you’re talking with said, “Well, the Bible’s not true“?
Caller: They didn’t. They were...I forget the wording they called it. They were referring to it as like magic or inferring that we are a blood cult.
Greg: Like the Christians were a cult?
Caller: Yes, because of, you know, in the Exodus story where the Lord tells the Israelites to sacrifice the lamb, to place the blood of the lamb on their doorpost.
Greg: Okay. Sure. That seemed weird—to sacrifice the lamb and everything. All right? But if he’s saying that, okay. So, is the person just saying, well, that’s just kind of bizarre, and that’s why they don’t believe it?
Caller: Seems like it. They seem to be very opposed, but they’re also asking questions that make me think that maybe they’re searching, but I can’t really tell.
Greg: Okay. Well, there’s a lot going on there in the Old Testament in that particular account, and a lot could be said about that. But if you have a person who says, “Well, I think that’s crazy. I’m not going to believe it,” okay, I’m not sure if that’s the best—well, you had another question about the Quran and the Book of Mormon, and I think there’s maybe a better tack with this, all right? And some people—of course, I’m not sure about the person who’s questioning you—but sometimes the question is raised because they see these religious clubs that have their holy book, and one club is as good as another. You find the one you like, and this person doesn’t like the Christian club or the Bible club because it has bloody doorposts on it, you know, and that’s weird. And so, what about the Quran or the Book of Mormon? What makes one so-called holy book better than another?
Well, I would start questioning the person and asking, well, what do they understand the Book of Mormon to be? Are they familiar with the Book of Mormon? Okay, well, the Book of Mormon is a history—an alleged history—of Jesus visiting North America. After his time in Israel and his death and resurrection, then Jesus comes to North America, and there’s a whole civilization that’s happening there. And this entire book is about the interactions of the civilization, but it’s history—or purported to be history. Okay?
Well, what about the Bible? Well, the Bible is mostly history, too—at least, it purports to be. It’s a record of things that took place in the history of ancient Israel and, in the New Testament, the person of Jesus—the life of Jesus of Nazareth—and then the life of the early church. So, that would be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and then the book of Acts. And then you have letters. And the letters are theological, but they do have historical elements in them because they describe different peoples that they’re written to who existed at the time.
Okay, the Quran. Now, I’m not very familiar with the Quran, and I wish Alan Shlemon was here because he could tell me the answer to this, but I think the Quran is much more theological than it is historical. In other words, I don’t know that it just tracks the life of Mohammed or not. I could be mistaken there.
But the question I would want to pursue is, given these three different books, which one tells you the truth about the history they’re describing?
Now, back to the Book of Mormon. We have absolutely no reason at all to believe that anything that’s written in the Book of Mormon actually took place on the North American continent—except for, the only reason is that when people pray about it, they have a feeling that it’s true. Now, that may be—some might consider that—an unfair way of characterizing it, but I think that’s what it amounts to. Mormon missionaries tell people they talk to that they should read the Book of Mormon, and then they leverage a verse out of James in a way that James never intended them to use it, I’m sure, to encourage someone, when they read the Book of Mormon, to pray and ask God that God show them that the book is really a divinely inspired book. And the way God would show them that is by an experience—they call it a burning in the bosom—and that is used to verify the legitimacy of the book.
Now, it strikes me as unusual, but I’m thinking—by the way, I’m not giving you a nice, fast, snappy answer; I’m just realizing that, but I’ve got to lay some foundation here—It seems to me unusual that someone would provide us with a book allegedly of history, and then the only way they are able to verify it is by asking people to pray and have a feeling. When people have the Bible—the Old and New Testaments—there are all kinds of ways that we can cross-check the events with archaeology and with artifacts and with other known history that can verify and corroborate it. And, in fact, the Gospels themselves are acknowledged by historians to be really reliable accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, they don’t believe everything in those accounts, because there are supernatural things that they don’t believe for other reasons. Nevertheless, characteristically, these Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are considered old and cross-verified and a number of other things that historians look for to find accuracy.
Well, if that’s the case—and you don’t even have to go to the Old Testament. Just focus, for our purposes now, on the New Testament. The question is, do we have a reliable record of the life of Jesus of Nazareth? Never mind the miracles, but just in general, that aside. And the historian’s answer is yes. In fact, there are actually a number of facts of Jesus’ life that virtually every single historian of that period, no matter what their personal convictions, agrees took place. One, Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross and buried. Three days later, there was no corpse in the tomb. The tomb was empty. And then you have his band of disciples, who had been hiding—knees knocking, doors closed, lights out—coming out saying they saw the risen Jesus, and they put their life on the line for that purpose. And the same thing happened to James, Jesus’ half-brother, a skeptic. And then you have Saul of Tarsus, who was a persecutor of Christians, who turned on a dime because he said he saw the risen Christ.
Okay, now the question is, what best explains that? I talk about this in the book The Story of Reality. I work through this. But it’s called a minimal facts approach. Gary Habermas is well known for advancing this idea, but it’s a very powerful way of arguing. What I’m simply doing—and the answer that best fits all the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. Fast-forward to the conclusion because, you know, why the empty tomb? Where’s the body? Oh, somebody stole it. Well, the Jews didn’t steal it. They wanted Jesus dead. The Romans, they didn't steal it. They wanted Jesus dead. The disciples? Why would they steal the body when it was guarded by Romans, anyway? There's no reason. And then, if they lied about it, they went to their graves—many in a brutal execution—with the lies on their lips. They could have recanted and saved their lives. So, that doesn't make sense. Etc., etc.
So, here’s the case we’re making, then, for the person who says, “Why not the Quran or the Book of Mormon or the Bible?” Well, these are different religious views. The Book of Mormon is not Christian. I mean that Mormonism is not Christian the way we understand Christianity. It is a competitor to Christianity. And this is what Joseph Smith himself identified. He basically said, “Look, real Christianity got lost. We are going to restore real Christianity.” So, all these other denominations who think they’re Christian, they’re not. They’re abominations. We’ve got the real Christianity. So, even by Joseph Smith, he’s acknowledging that we have two different competing religious views. Same thing with the Quran.
Now we have to ask ourselves, then, which one’s true, if any? Do we have any reasons to believe? And we can go to the Bible and say there is history recorded in the Bible—in the person and the life of the person of Jesus—that we can rely on to tell us true things about his life. But the life we discover is magnificent, and we have every reason to believe, based on the early references, that he was a miracle worker. Indeed, the Talmud, writing about Jesus, said that Jesus was executed because he was a sorcerer. Isn't that interesting? What do sorcerers do? They work magic. So, this is almost a hostile witness affirming the magical powers that Jesus seemed to have, from their perspective—the miracles.
And then we have a good line, thinking of evidence—the minimal facts I just described—that this Jesus actually rose from the dead. The Quran says that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The Gospel writers say he did. Those Gospels were written sometime in the mid to late first century—not very late, though, not after AD 70. And there’s a number of reasons for that. Mohammed was born in AD 675. Okay? And so, the Quran was written in the eighth century. Why should we believe Mohammed writing about Jesus eight centuries later instead of believing what was written about Jesus by those who walked with him right around the time that he lived? It’s crazy.
So, the claims the Quran makes about the historical person Jesus—like he didn’t die on a cross and he didn’t rise from the dead—why should I believe that over these other things? Notice what I’m trying to put together—a case, given these three books—that there’s only one that we have good reason to believe recorded accurate history. And even if we shrink it down—we’re not talking about the whole Bible. We’re just talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And we’re treating them here as historical documents, not as the inerrant Word of God. We don’t have to go down that road. We just have to show the history is reliable, and here’s what happened in history. And if Jesus died and rose again, wow. That changes everything. That means the Muslims—or that Mohammed—was wrong about what he wrote about Jesus. And that means what the Mormons are writing in their book, which actually is contrary to the New Testament teaching, are wrong as well. And they can’t verify their history, anyway, except by a feeling.
So, that’s the approach I would take. I realize it’s kind of a little complicated, but if I could suggest you get a copy of The Story of Reality. I think it'll be helpful for you to read that, especially the portion about Jesus. You can go two-thirds of the way into the book and just start with “Jesus.” The portion that starts—actually the whole section is called “Jesus,” and then there’s another section called “Cross.” Read those two sections. They’ll be easy. You’ll read them in two hours, but they’ll set the whole thing up. There I make the case—under the guidance of others who have done the heavy lifting for me—using the minimal facts method, to show that you can rely on these historical accounts that record the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And that sets those books apart from everything else. Everything else.
Mohammed worked no miracles. The miracle of Islam, according to Muslims, is the Quran. But, of course, that’s just a statement of faith by them. Jesus actually worked miracles. He made blind men see. He fed thousands from a few loaves and fishes. He did it twice. He raised people from the dead, including Lazarus just a week before he was crucified. And, over and over again, these kinds of things are recorded in the text. And then predicted his own death and his own resurrection. And when he was crucified, three days later, he walked out of the grave and appeared to more than 500 people, which is what transformed them. So, this is what sets the Bible in general, but especially the Gospels—because these are the ones that speak of the life and death of Christ, and he’s the central figure—apart from the Quran and the Book of Mormon.