Today’s quote about the Bible is from Soren Kierkegaard. He said: “When you read God’s Word, you must constantly be saying to yourself, ‘It is talking to me, and about me.'”
Today, we are going to continue our overview of some topics that will help us as we study the Bible throughout future episodes.
Our topic for today is titled: “Why We Study the Bible According to the Traditional View” from the book, “The Promise and the Blessing” by Michael A. Harbin
The two basic schools of thought regarding the Bible begin with drastically different assumptions. The traditional school assumes that the Bible is a historical document to be taken at face value. Scholars who follow this approach recognize that there are items in the Bible that are difficult to understand or believe. However, because the Bible has been shown correct so often, these scholars prefer to take a “wait-and-see” attitude regarding controversial areas. The modern school, on the other hand, assumes that the Bible is essentially pious fiction to be accepted only when supported by modern science, despite the fact that this assumption is constantly being shattered by archaeology.
We will follow the first view because I consider that in scholarly work it is more honest to allow the text to have its say until proven wrong, especially when it has been proven correct so often. As we go along, I will illustrate the historicity of the Bible in a variety of ways, although I will also point out areas where questions still remain. For example, I will show how the Old Testament and New Testament characters fit within their historical time frames. I will provide key anchors to other events in the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean area, including some we can calculate down to the very day. Also, we will show how the biblical records fit closely with the written evidence from other areas of the region. As a result, I will be able to demonstrate that the Bible is a unified document portraying actual historical events.
On our next broadcast, we will look at “The Value and Limitations of Archaeology.”