How reliable are the Gospels in the Bible?
By James I. Nienhuis

SOME skeptics claim that the Gospels were written long after the Crucifixion, and so are unreliable.

However, Rome destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and no mention of that destruction is in the Gospels (although around A.D. 30 Jesus did predict the destruction). Therefore, the Gospels must have been written before A.D. 70 (within a few decades of the Crucifixion in A.D. 32).

The spread of the Gospel message was rapid after the Crucifixion, no doubt aided by these written Gospels and letters from the Apostles. Translations into other languages were early and often, with no discrepancies of facts. This demonstrates that the Gospels were consistent and written shortly after Christ's Crucifixion.

As the written Gospels were circulated in the decades after Jesus' incarnation, it is obvious that many people who witnessed the works, words, and Crucifixion of Jesus were still alive, and none of them objected to the accuracy of the circulating Gospels.

Confirmed by secular sources
Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus confirm the historicity of Christ and the faith that He fostered, as does the Hebrew Talmud, which confirms that Jesus performed miracles.

Roman historian Thallus recorded that the sun went dark at midday during the time of the Crucifixion in A.D. 32, as the Bible describes. Thallus said that the darkness was due to a solar eclipse, however the Passover (when Christ was crucified) always occurs during full moons (when solar eclipses cannot happen). And the Bible describes three hours of darkness, whereas solar eclipses last only minutes. Therefore, the pagan Thallus accurately recorded the midday darkening, but not the cause. (The mechanism for the sky's darkening at the Crucifixion remains a mystery.)

Skeptics say that the Apostles may have conspired to fake the resurrection of Jesus, and that they deceitfully sought believers who would gullibly embrace a resurrection charade. This notion is illogical, because the Apostles would never die for what they knew to be a lie. Eleven of the twelve Apostles suffered violent martyrdoms for their public proclamations about the resurrected Christ — why then would they send themselves to a life of persecution and eventual martyrdom for something they could easily have disavowed?

Jewish officials who wanted the death of Jesus hadn't any motivation to fake Christ's resurrection, for that would have only confirmed the claims of the One that they wanted to dispatch. The Roman officials also hadn't any motivation for essentially the same reasons. Were the Roman sentries guarding the tomb of Jesus to blame for a faked resurrection? No, the sentries faced execution if they worked with the Apostles in a charade of defiance against Roman hegemony.

Life and death of Jesus are well documented
The Jews were expecting the Messiah at that time, but most were expecting a military hero who would throw off the yoke of Rome. Daniel 9 predicted that the “Anointed One” would be cut off (killed) four hundred and eighty-three years after the command to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (which was decreed by Cyrus of Persia around 450 B.C.). Therefore some Jews realized that Jesus truly is the Messiah.

Many Jews also realized that the circumstances of Christ's incarnation fulfilled the centuries-old prophecies about the Messiah in minute detail.

The life and physical death of Jesus Christ are historically well documented, and there are no logical reasons to think that any of the factions involved in the Crucifixion would have been motivated to fake the Resurrection. So we can safely say that Christ's Resurrection is a fact because there were hundreds of eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrected body (and remember, the Gospels were not considered to be inaccurate by the Apostles' contemporaries in the decades after the Crucifixion).


Source: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/gospel.html


Thought this was an interesting read ! Discuss !!!!!

More likely they were written long after. It's really easy to "predict" an event that already happened 300 years ago. Really, this is proof that they were written much later.

This is interesting. How come there are many New testament contradictions if the gospel is highly reliable? I am not discrediting the gospel in any way, just asking a simple question. Probably the gospel was highly reliable back in the day (and still is , but not as accurate as it was in past times). I belive that translations of the Bible is what is caused some contradictions between the gospels. For more information about New Testament Contradictions and exact places to find them ..

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/pau...radictions.html

I can only assume that they were written from followers probably like 100 years AD or so, and is that Zombie Jesus ? lol

People of that time where rather naive and pliable to explanations and theories. The fact that there was no objections does not verify the events in my opinion, only the absence of diffrent opinions in writting.

The Bible, Gospells and other written accords although they provide us with a source of information, they display a certain degree of personal interpetation or vague descriptions to distort certain facts. Truth is that since we have no cross reference over such reports, most of the history revolving around the subject will remain a theoritical approach at best.

Due to the highly religious zeal of the middle east and the fanatical belief of the later christian nations, many actual facts have either been destroyed or hidden away countless times and that leaves a lot of smaller fragments to make sense.

My personal view is that the Bible has been edited time and again to serve its purpose, contrary to the dogma's suggestion of being a mortal sin to do so.

After I read this, It kinda made me feel like the Bible was a means of control, and it is, I mean, it is a bunch of storys to help people live the Good way, and take the higher path towards righteousness and stuff, but there are a LOT of contradictions in the bible from what this article stated.

heres an example, from after Jesus' Resurrection, when they remove the stone from the tomb.

Who did they find at the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.


Four !!! Four them !!! Four Different accounts of what happened at the tomb !!!! All written by different apostles !

source : http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/pau...radictions.html

I wholeheartedly agree, it seems that it has been edited and subjugated time and time again. Basically going back 2000 years and not being able to find information about the life and times of Jesus, yet we find Dinosaur bones, fossils, and such from a million years ago, makes you think if it was a coverup on the behalf of the church.

Dennison,

I have moved your thread to this forum as it is more likely to get feedback.

Lottie

The conquered nations comprising the Roman Empire watched with incredulity as the Jews, single-handed, fought the Roman Goliath. Josephus was given the task to commander the Jewish forces. The Jews were so close to winning the war that Rome was forced to use her full military weight against them to insure victory. The Romans knew the world was watching and knew that the stakes were high. If the Jews were to win their independence the whole empire would be in revolt. The extreme Jewish patriots were not satisfied with the tame manner in which Josephus conducted his preparations; they had grounds to suspect that the aristocrat, who had formally belonged to the peace party, had not his heart in the undertaking. The bloody business of massacre and counter-massacre succeeded one another with unrelenting horror. Jews were killed in Caesarea, Scythopolis, Ascolon, Tyre, Alexandri. Josephus ends up turning collaborationist for the Romans.

Josephus tells us that when Cestius Gallus had earlier come with his army against Jerusalem, after some time he raised the siege. After he had left, many of the oldest of the Jews went out from Jerusalem as from a sinking ship. He says that a few years later, when Vespasian come with his troops against Jerusalem, a great multitude fled from Jerusalem to the mountains for security. It is reasonable to suppose that some Christians were among these. When Jerusalem was surrounded, the Christians were to think of their safety, and seize the first opportunity for flight. Jesus had warned them when these things started happening to flee into the mountains. link

Seems the mountians rather than in ancient city sites would be the best place to look for traces if there are any left to find. - Bella

Adherents to the Bible when questioned may simply state that a everything is true and paper over the contradictions,"god moves in mysterious ways", or they give a modern interpretation of it or ignore you and quote other passages at you."it is a holy book it is full of scared and mysterious texts and you should believe it or eternal damnation will surely follow.", some ignore the text and look for bible codes!

That said, if you take god out of the Bible it is a wonderful book, The Old testament is a whole history of the downtrodden conquered people of that time in that small corner of the world who needed a bit of help. When you study religion you are studying the history of the world from its beginning and in many cases, to its end.

They may have added their thoughts too.. i don't think.. until finishing that.. the writer was in full bliss.. but as said... it is scared holy book.. the subject or moral.. is true..

actually, it's the "Jesusinator", from
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/10...n-killed-by.php

the exchristians have many such adorable pic's.

I saw my brother and fiancee just today. They'd gone bushwalking up at Janolan Caves. They came home and told me they passed the smallest town they had ever seen. No general store and only 2 houses. No..... wait. There were 4 houses, says his fiancee. No, my brother retorts, I only saw 2. Well you're wrong, I saw 4, his fiancess comes again.

Now, let's print this out into two separate accounts of their travels at Janolan Caves. Then forward this 2000 years into the future and put it in the hands of historians - OMG, a contradiction

Obviously one account is more "accurate" than the other. But I think the point to be made was that they went bushwalking, and they passed a small town. The other details are unimportant.

That is extremely accurate. It is impossible to do one without the other since they are completely mixed together.

THANK YOU LOTTIE !!!! I'm Still new to the forums here ! hehe

I was just saying that there are always going to be contradictions regardless, because no two people are ever going to write down the exact same account, but still, there being four separate accounts of one thing going on in the bible, makes you wonder why all the apostles aren't on the same page with their story.

Hey Dennison I have posted this quiz before here.

Gospel Story Quiz


Tell us how you do.

methinks its a broken link, dragon man, cuz its not coming up on my screen ! lol

The link is good...web site is down.

If you like it I can PM you more.

sounds cool with me !

how reliable are the gospels? quite a broad question. i guess ill add my two cents
textually, nothing beats the NT. if you were to go out and buy a copy of the NA27 greek new testament, you would have a text that is closer to what the original autograph would have said than any other ancient document. there are less than 20 places in the NT where the correct reading is still debated and only a few, like the ending of mark, are of any real significance in the broader scheme of things.


and do i need to go drag up my speech over contradictions again?

hehe, nah, I just saw the article and felt like posting.

no you are quite alright lol If I read that word again(contradictions) ..i'll scream

If the gospels are accurate, then tell us when Jesus was born and make sure your answer agrees with what is recorded in Matthew and Luke and agrees also with recorded history. Also tell us exactly what happened in the period just prior to the arrest, trial, execution through the ascension...it must agree with all of the gospels. This will show how reliable the gospels are!

And most of those can be seen the same way as the story of my bushwalking story. The rest are simple misunderstandings of the text. I've also posted them before too

Not very well if at all!

Dennison the link is good.

If you can't give a valid date of the birth of this supposed man-god or a valid period that agrees with history and the birth year, how can this book be trusted? If it is wrong on one major point, how many major points might it be wrong on?

it could be wrong on all of them, or none, or somewhere in between. there is no logical correlation between being wrong on one thing and being wrong on others.

In your opinion......

hi folks, first post here so be kind... tought i'd reply to this post as its a subject ive read a lot on but im dreaging a lot up from memory so here goes...

the reliability of the gospels can only be assertained by messuring a number of factors :

when they were written: the gospels were written at least 60 years after jesus's death. scholars disagree which was written first. some say mark with the others been based on it and some say matthew and a second sorce now unkown. what is agreed apon is that they were written 60 - 100 years later based on oral tradition and as previous posters sugested this would probably lead to many inacuracies. this fact of been based on earlier oral tradition is the reason why "Rome destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and no mention of that destruction is in the Gospels" altough more on that later...

translation: the earliest known gospels now are greek translations from much later. it is known now from language analysis that editing went on at this phase. with items being added and subtracted for political ends by early church fathers.

borrowing :we also know that the writers took much license with the text borrowing from earlier religons in attempts to convert people. the birth story was taken wholesale from the mithar religon which was popular among the roman legions. virgin births appeared in many religons but the 25th of december, and many other images were taken from mitharism.

politics: finally the choosing of the canonical gospels was a much disputed and political event in the early church. with the decisions as to what went in, and what didnt been used to sideline many of the other early forms of chritianity. remember ours is just the one to survive as it was adopted by the roman state ( as a political tool by constantine who was never a christian but realised with just 1 church to control things would be a lot easier). these other gospels were then destroyed by the early roman church. thankfully some survived (thomas, judas , peter & mary among others). and by reading them we can clearly see why a early church would want rid of them. for example the gospels of thomas, a gnostic gospel, sugests that the spark of divinity is within us all which just might eliminate the need for an organised church.

to quickly return to "However, Rome destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and no mention of that destruction is in the Gospels (although around A.D. 30 Jesus did predict the destruction). Therefore, the Gospels must have been written before A.D. 70 (within a few decades of the Crucifixion in A.D. 32). " some scolars suggest that in the apocalypse to john, babylon refers to rome and the apocalypse refers to the destruction of the second temple. whether it was written before or after....

so thats my two pennies worth ,in reality if you have faith in your religion you will believe that all the above have conspired to give the true word of god, if like me your faith is not that strong after a year of studying theology you'll loose your faith and become a committed atheist.

thanks for reading parka

ps - the resurection , he wasnt long enough on the cross to die in the first place,.

WOW I got a zero on that quiz, when i went back to do it again with different answers, i still got a zero !!!! Its rigged !!!!

But of course it's rigged. Did you expect something different?

3. When Jesus sent his disciples out to spread the gospel message to the cities of Israel, did he command them to take only a staff or to take no staff?
* take a staff
* take no staff

the two accounts that this question is based on are here:

Take a staff: "These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic." (Mark 6:8-9)

Take no staff: "Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep." (Matthew 10:10)

It is assumed on these journeys that necessities are taken - tunic and sandals being obvious, unless you're expected to go naked. The passage in Matthew is broken into two sections, taht zandore's quiz conveniently ignores - Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff

The first section is italicized, the second boldened. In regards to the staff, it's obvious Matthew's account is saying don't take an extra tunic or extra sandals, or an EXTRA staff..... of course meaning to take one for the journey.

The Mark account is slightly different in wording, but the effect is the same, take only what you can carry in your hands - a staff, no extra tunic, no bags, no money.....

Therefore, no contradiction, except that the writers of this biased quiz needed to put one in.

BUt this thread isn't really the place to discuss this, so I'll leave it there, ok.

Regards, PA

And many others agree.

And many others disagree
I guess we are again at a stalemate......

Here we go again!
PA all of the different versions of the Bible state in singular terms....as in one staff and not two staffs. Look for your self.

Contradiction.

If you can't trust a book or belief system on one point, how can you trust it on any point?

You also ignore grammar Look at it. Not just that part, but the whole verse: Matthew 10:9-10 - Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff

The first half of the passage describes what not to take, the second half, what not to take extra of. After stating "extra tunic", it can be argued that the passage retains the "extra" in refering to the sandals and staff, without the need to repeat it.

I've boldened the relevant information. It is grouped together. It is not unreasonable to think that it relates to each other - extra tunic, extra sandals, extra staff. Unless you would like us to think they left without wearing shoes to walk across the desert

This is not revisionist dogma, this is linguistic fact.

I'm sure you're going to reply with a "but PA - it says "or a staff" - so feel free. You can ignore grammar if you so wish, the point is that this is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable way of understanding the passage.

Regards, PA

[quote name='Paranoid Android' date='Apr 19 2006, 10:17 AM' post='1154702']
But of course it's rigged. Did you expect something different?
[/quote]


No, I didn't expect it to be any different, I just thought it was rather comical, that you can find contradictions about every single question, being stated in two different books of the bible.

Taking that into account, of course people are going to have different viewpoints when they write something down, but considering that the Bible has been supposedly re-written quite a few times over the 2000 years since its inception, I just find it funny that one writer says:

[/quote]
Take a staff: "These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic." (Mark 6:8-9)

Take no staff: "Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep." (Matthew 10:10)
[/quote]

The bible in itself is a paradox. Its neither here nor is it there. But the point of the bible is to learn to live your life being a good person, so regardless of contradictions, its still something people will overlook when reading the scriptures.

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They are faith documents written so that others might believe, in order to answer particular questions about Jesus arising in particular communities.

Therefore, to conclude, in the matter of eyewitness and contemporary accounts to Jesus' earthly life, there is a striking absence. The situation is adequately summed up by Professor Fuller, Professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, New York, in his A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: "Of the 27 books of the New Testament only the authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul...was not a witness of the historical Jesus. Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing...there is not a single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus..." (p.197).

"Who Do Men Say That I Am"

Biblical scholars and theologians are sketching a new portrait of the man called Jesus

BY

Kerry Temple

{Managing editor of Notre Dame Magazine, a Catholic publication}

The Jesus Debate

One of the problems with retrieving the historical Jesus is that so little can be known of him with certainty.  He is mentioned briefly in about a half-dozen non-Christian texts of the time:  works by Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger.1  But these say little more than that he lived, preached, and was crucified [which was based on what Christians said, rather than what they knew from their own historical research]...

... In many ways the figure of Jesus is like a poemor, as one prominent Catholic scholar wrote, Jesus is a parable.  The story of his life has not come to us like a news report or documentary film that presents historical events literally and factually. 

One day I sat in the office of the Reverend Robert Krieg, C.S.C., who teaches Christology at Notre Dame, and tried to explain this analogy to him.  "Looking for Jesus," I said, "is like being back in a poetry class dissecting a poem.  The poem is layered with meanings, and everyone has a different opinion."  Nobody is certain any more what the poet intended, and you’re left with a variety of very subjective interpretations.

Krieg nodded but cautioned against individual interpretations not supported by the Catholic faith tradition and centuries of scholarship.  And he warned against looking for the truth about Jesus in terms of literal or historical facts.

[T]he first thing to remember, he [Reverend Edward Schillebeck, O.P., a top Catholic, Dutch scholar] once said, is that there are limitations to what we can know by using the historical-critical approach.  The only text that we have show Jesus already proclaimed as Christ by the church and by his first disciples.  The New Testament is the testimony of a believing people, and what they are saying is not history but expressions of their belief in Jesus as Christ.

The fundamental Jesus debate (mere man or divine messiah?) as been waged since before the Sanhedrin and the Roman authorities contemplated his execution.  Many of the churchs teachings about his nature, so familiar to us today, were not hammered out until centuries after his deathand after heated argument... 

Most of what we know of Jesus come from the four gospels.  Yet scholars agree that these are hardly dependable as historical sources.  For one thing, they did not take shape until late in the first century, a generation or two after Jesus died; until then the stories and teachings of Jesus were spread orally, and it is probably that neither his exact words nor the stories details survived the retellings.  Scholars also agree that the gospels were not written by any of the 12 apostles (probably not by anyone named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, probably not by anyone who was even alive when Jesus was.2 Most importantly, the four gospels were compiled not as historical documents but as testimonies of faith by communities of believers.3 One of the intended effects, he [John Collins, internationally know biblical scholar from Notre Dame] was to make the New Testament accounts fit Old Testament prophecies. The stories were generated, say Collins, by authors trying to infer facts from biblical prophecies.  And for that reason many scholars would regard these as fictions to make theological points.

Many of the stories about Jesus contained in these ancient documents [Gospels, both canonical and not] Kannengiesser says, were tales commonly applied to mythical figures and heroes of the time.  It was almost obligatory to have such stories available, the theologian says; they were stock stories told to convert people to Jesus.  Tales of virgin births, divine heroes, and miracles workers were relatively common 2,000 years ago and simply did not mean what they do to us today...

Sean

Can you imagine carrying two staffs?
Two tunics and/or two pair sandals perhaps.

A staff is 1 1/2 - 2 inches in diameter and 6 - 8 feet long it would be very awkward to carry two.

Your words indicate an opinion.


That is only one out of twenty questions.

No, I can't imagine carrying two staffs. But I can imagine holding one staff and having a spare on the cart.......

Yes, but it still shows a lack of biblical knowledge. But if you like.......

1. How many men were in Jesus' tomb when the women arrived?

* 1
* 2

Mark 16:5 - And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed

Luke 24:4 - While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel.

Nothing in Mark's account says there weren't 2 men. It only documents one. Perhaps this is because only one man spoke. Both accounts have the man giving similar stories. If Mark only recorded the bare details, he may not mention an unimportant, silent figure.

Do you remember my 'Miscommunications and incomplete data' thread? In one account two men were mentioned, in the other only the important man was mentioned. BOth were there, but only one of the accounts chose to mention the unimportant one.

2. On the way to Golgotha where Jesus was to be crucified, who carried Jesus' cross?

* Jesus
* Simon of Cyrene

Matthew 27:32 - As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. They compelled this man to carry his cross.

John 19:17 - and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.

Imagine this. The writer of John and Matthew are viewing the event. Jesus sets out bearing his own cross. John gets lost in the crowd. Meanwhile, Matthew sees Jesus stumble. Whippings, beatings and torture are finally catching up - obviously Jesus can't carry his cross any further. So the Romans force Simon of Cyrene to carry it for Jesus. THen the accounts are written. John writes his based on what he saw, and Matthew does likewise.

I'm not saying this is definitely what happened, there could be other reasons why they are slightly different. Perhaps the emotion of seeing his friend carrying the cross got to John and he left distraught, only to turn up and see Jesus up on the cross, thus missing seeing Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross altogether. Perhaps the author of John didn't feel it necessary to go into details about Jesus getting help to carry the cross. There are a dozen possible reasons.

Including the earlier post, I have now discussed the first 3 questions. They aren't as clear cut as you'd like to think. Eye-witness accounts ALWAYS differ. They focus on different things, leave out details they see as unimportant, stress details they think are vital. The sad thing is (and I've said it before), if the accounts were the same, you'd dismiss the stories because they were "too perfect". There must be collusion between the author's.

Accounts coincide perfectly - must be collusion between the authors.
Accounts differ slightly - must be contradictions.

Do you see the contradiction in the reasoning there?

Regards, PA

This will always be a debatable subject given the inconsistencies, but its fun to pick your mind and letting the thoughts stir.

What Bible are you reading.....where did you get a cart?



That one is self explanitory....also your key words are"perhaps" and "he may not mention".




If you rationalize enough you can justify anything....but there will still be contradictions.

It was on sale at Walmart
More likely it would have been strapped on a donkey, or a mule or some other beast of burden in any case. I was making a point.

It's a distinct possibility. that's where the difference between you and I are. I believe the accounts to be true. You believe them to be false. I can't say with absolute certainty that you are wrong, anymore than you can say with absolute certainty I am wrong - where you see a contradiction, I see another person's point of view.

Regards, PA

well the world is said to have been rebuit four times.. us being the fourth. maybe those are the four different accounts.

Since the Gospels were written 300 years later, it doesn't matter.

Making a point with a personal opinion. The Bible does not even state they took a pack animal.


No the difference between you and I are, I am just pointing out places that the Bible says different things about the same event by using the Bible and not my opinion or what I believe to be true.

And that means there was no pack animal then?

You seem unwilling to entertain the possibility of point of view affecting the testimony of the authors. You're not "just pointing out places that the Bible says different thing", you also are trying to make a point.

Regards, PA

By the way ... The four Gospels are not four different accounts--let alone eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life. Matthew and Luke (80-90 CE) relied on Mark (70CE) for the vast percentage of their material (the rest came from Q et al)--hence the term "Synoptic Gospels." John is a separate Gospel written between 95-110 CE and already has Jesus as "logos." He is way out in left field, his Gospel laden even more than the others with heavy theological spin. At most you have one account--and it is not an eyewitness account. This is consensus amongst Biblical exegetes.

Sean

PA are you saying that the Bible is not the word of God?