In centuries long buried in the mists of time, the Bible was a book for which people were willing to die—whether burned at the stake or thrown into prison. There was a time when Bibles were chained to monastery walls. Today, they are printed and distributed by the millions. Yet it seems fewer people are actually reading them.
Familiarity with the Bible—its characters, events, and basic content—is steadily declining. A 2009 study[1] by researchers at Durham University surveyed 900 individuals from various churches, as well as those unaffiliated with any denomination. On average, only one in twenty participants could recall the Ten Commandments. One respondent even confused the prophet Daniel—famously thrown into the lions’ den—with “The Lion King,” the animated Disney character. The study also found that many young people consider the Bible “irrelevant” and “outdated.”
Three pillars, all shaken
In earlier centuries, theology was crowned the queen of the sciences, and the Church played a dominant role not just in religious life, but also in social, political, and cultural spheres. The Bible was widely regarded as the expression of God’s Word. Today, far fewer people are inclined to see the biblical text as anything more than a cultural artifact with a clearly defined ethical message.
Paradoxically, the increase in detailed, scholarly knowledge about the Bible—its contents, its formation, and its transmission over time—has coincided with growing skepticism about its inerrancy.[2] Three major aspects of the Bible have come under increasing scrutiny: its origin, its authority, and its interpretation.
Whether one accepts or rejects the Bible’s divine origin and authority has real-world consequences for understanding and engaging with contemporary issues—such as the clash between creationist and evolutionist perspectives, or ongoing debates around the rights of sexual minorities. These societal tensions are often shaped, in part, by how individuals view the authority of Scripture.
The Bible of the early Christians
In the first centuries of the Christian era, the Bible served as the foundation of the Church’s proclamation of the Christian message and as the primary source for answering critics—both from outside and within the faith. “Scripture remained central; indeed, sermons based on scripture, and commentaries which expounded it in detail, were at the heart of the normal theological life of the church in the early centuries.”[3]
Initially, the Bible fulfilled two key roles. First, it was the source of the Church’s doctrine and teachings. Second, for individual believers, it was the means through which they could “hear” the voice of God.
During the turbulent history of the early Church—when Christians faced persecution, were thrown to lions in the arena, or burned at the stake—it was those who read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John who chose the path of martyrdom. Apocryphal gospels, such as the Gospel of Judas—much publicised today—never inspired anyone to lay down their life for the faith.
The detail is telling: it reflects the early Christians’ deep convictions about the Bible’s divine origin and authority, as well as the profound impact this Book had on their lives. Things began to change gradually after Christianity became a state-sanctioned religion—and eventually the official religion of the empire. The institutionalisation of the Church shifted biblical interpretation into the exclusive domain of the clergy. It wasn’t until the Reformation of the 16th century that the Bible was symbolically unchained from monasteries and tradition, with the declaration of the principle Sola Scriptura—Scripture alone.
In search of Jesus
The religious revival movements of the 19th century once again centred the Bible as the foundation of faith. At the same time, rationalism, Darwinism, and the emergence of disciplines like sociology—which offered a framework for understanding the world through the lens of human development within specific socio-cultural contexts—began to reshape theological thinking and the way people related to the Bible. The Industrial Revolution also contributed by fostering individual confidence in humanity’s ability to shape its own future.
While accepting that Jesus was a historical figure, some began to question which parts of the Gospel accounts could be trusted and which could not. The 19th and 20th centuries saw an intense pursuit of the “historical Jesus”—an elusive attempt to separate fact from fiction. Apologist Francis Schaeffer noted that liberal theologians and rationalist philosophers had trapped themselves “in the round room without an exit. […] The supernatural was so intertwined with the rest that if they ripped out all the supernatural, there was no Jesus left! If they removed all the supernatural, no historical Jesus remained; if they kept the historical Jesus, the supernatural remained as well.”[4]
Faced with the Bible, the modern reader ultimately has only two options: to acknowledge its divine origin and the authority that flows from it, or to reject both. Some have attempted a middle path—picking and choosing what seems reasonable in the text and discarding the rest. But the result has been a fractured faith. One cannot believe in an all-powerful God and simultaneously claim that the laws of physics would have prevented Jesus from walking on water or rising from the dead.
“Theology students are indoctrinated with the supposed decisive importance of sources like J, E, D, P, Q, and Ur-Mark—alleged documents for which critics have produced neither any actual originals nor even imperfect copies,” wrote Carl F. H. Henry in “God, Revelation and Authority” (Vol. II).
The old Bible in a new world
Marcus Borg, professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University, explains the new approach to interpreting the Bible through the lens of Western society’s evolution. Today’s society is more aware than ever of religious pluralism—an awareness that was largely absent in previous generations. The comparative study of religions has led some to reject a literal interpretation of the Bible, dismissing it as narrow and outdated. These new interpretations are also shaped by contemporary views on cultural relativism and the influence of social contexts.
The 21st-century individual is acutely aware of life’s transience, often assuming that future generations will hold different beliefs, embrace new values, and perhaps see today’s perspectives as old-fashioned fundamentalism. This outlook tends to relativise the Bible’s value and authority. Yet such a view of the world also leaves open the possibility that the future may bring a return to firmer convictions and stronger beliefs about truth, life, and the Bible itself.
The modern world places a high value on scientific knowledge, empirical evidence, and verifiable facts. This form of knowledge often fosters skepticism toward the spiritual realm—toward the transcendent, the infinite, and the unmeasurable. As Fred von Kamecke[5] points out, while we can describe actions and their effects—such as how teenagers may get flustered around the opposite sex or how parents instinctively protect their children—we cannot scientifically prove that these reactions constitute love. That doesn’t mean love isn’t real; just because some truths elude empirical verification doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
In this context, where the uncertainties of postmodernism have deepened apathy toward the Bible and its absolute claims, one could argue that the Bible is no longer disbelieved because of compelling arguments, but simply because we live in an age where doubt has become the dominant creed.
Beyond prejudice
Until the 19th century, it was widely believed that some of the peoples or tribes mentioned in the early books of the Old Testament had never existed—a view that served as a key argument for those who, at the time, dismissed the Bible as mere legend. The Hittites, for example, were long considered a mythical people. But the discovery of their ancient capital at Hattusa revealed not the remnants of a small tribe, but the ruins of a once-great empire.
Archaeology has since brought to light a wealth of inscriptions, artifacts, tombs, and manuscripts that can be linked to biblical events or figures, lending weight to their historical credibility. The mid-20th-century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran allowed scholars to compare the Old Testament with earlier manuscripts. Beyond a few minor copyist errors, researchers found no differences significant enough to alter the meaning of the biblical text.
The fulfillment of biblical prophecies (such as the one in Daniel chapter 2), the profound impact of the Bible on individual lives, and the remarkable way in which this book has been preserved and transmitted across centuries all suggest the presence of Providence and a guiding Intelligence behind it.
Many modern biases about the Bible reflect the prevailing mindset of our time. It is often assumed that the Bible must be validated by evidence from outside sources. Yet when such evidence does emerge, it is frequently denied or reinterpreted in ways that make it seem inconsistent with the biblical account. It is also widely claimed that miracles do not happen. Still, no one has scientifically proven that miracles do not occur—science can only show that the natural world operates according to certain laws. There is a common belief that science and the Bible are fundamentally at odds. However, there are scientists who challenge this assumption. Francis Collins, an American geneticist and former director of the Human Genome Project, acknowledged that “science is not the only way of knowing” and that “The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome.”[6]
Prejudices are not limited to critics of the Bible; they can also be found among those who venerate the text without question. Yet a genuine understanding of the Bible requires an honest reading—one that sets aside such preconceptions.
What the Bible says about itself
Beyond manuscripts and archaeological evidence in support of the Bible, it is equally important to consider what the prophets and biblical authors believed about the texts they wrote. In a sense, the history of biblical interpretation begins with Jesus’s own reading of the Old Testament—the Hebrew Bible. The central message of the Bible, taken as a whole, revolves around the person of Jesus. For that reason, any serious reading must also consider how Jesus Himself related to the Scriptures that now form the biblical canon.
During Jesus’s time, Jewish thought held a clear and unwavering view of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. They were regarded as divinely inspired—God’s infallible Word. Of course, even in Jesus’s day, there were misinterpretations of Scripture, as evidenced by His frequent disputes with the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Nevertheless, the inspiration and authority of the Hebrew Bible were broadly accepted.
Quoting King David, Jesus said, “David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared…” (Mark 12:36), affirming the belief that the Scriptures were written under divine inspiration. On many occasions, when referring to the Old Testament, Jesus introduced His citations with the phrase “It is written…” (see Matthew 11:10; Mark 9:12; Luke 7:27), thus conferring unique authority on those texts. His references spanned the prophetic books, the Psalms, the legal texts, and the historical narratives.
In a debate with the Pharisees, Jesus cited Genesis: “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4–5). The quote comes from Genesis 2:24. Interestingly, in the Genesis account, the statement appears as a comment from the biblical author rather than a direct statement from God. Yet Jesus explicitly attributed these words to the Creator Himself—an unmistakable sign of the authority He ascribed to Scripture.
The story of the prophet Jonah, swallowed by a sea creature and returned to land after three days, might be dismissed as mere legend. But Jesus referred to this event as historical fact (Matthew 12:40). Similarly, if the story of the “legendary” Noah were simply myth, then Jesus’s reference to Noah in Matthew 24:37–39 would be a lie. Nowhere did Christ suggest that some parts of Scripture are of divine origin while others are merely human.
The Bible includes ideas that arose in the human mind, statements born from the dialogue between humanity and God, and direct declarations from the Creator. Yet taken together, these form the Word of God.
The authors of the New Testament consistently affirmed the authority of the Old Testament writings. This recognition is especially clear in the words of two foundational figures of the early Church—Peter and Paul. “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things,” wrote the apostle Peter. “For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20–21). Peter was referring specifically to the prophetic writings, but he made a strong and unambiguous case for their divine origin. The apostle Paul expanded on this when he wrote to his disciple Timothy: “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16).
The Bible doesn’t prove—it transforms
Various theories have been proposed about how the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical authors, and to what extent the divine and human elements intertwine in Scripture. But these remain speculative, impossible to prove with precision. “In many cases it would be hard to decide just where God stopped speaking and the human author took over.”[7] What is clear, however, is that the Bible has transformed the lives of those who have sought God through its pages. The enduring presence of such individuals—across every era, culture, and context, including within the framework of postmodernism—speaks powerfully to the supernatural origin of this Book.
Some prefer to view the Bible as merely an inspiring book rather than an inspired one. They admire its moral teachings but reject the truth of its supernatural events. There will always be voices that challenge the Bible’s authority and origin. Yet, history over the past two thousand years shows that the Bible has continually withstood such criticism.
Its origin and authority are not for us to define; we can only choose to recognise or reject them. And to truly grasp the depth of its message, reading the Sacred Library must go hand in hand with faith and a willingness to be guided by the Holy Spirit—the same Spirit who inspired its authors.
