"Don't They Know It's the End of the World?"
These words were sung by Skeeter Davis back in 1963, and her song went to number two on the pop charts. Harold Camping got everyone's attention about two months ago by asking essentially the same question hey know—"Don't they know it's the end of the world on May 21st?" However, he went down in flames. Again! And he has now issued his fourth prediction. It reminds one of Herman's Hermits who achieved number one status in 1965. After completing one stanza of "I'm Henry the VIII, I Am," the lead singer blithely stated, "Second verse, same as the first." Then they promptly sang it again. In fact, it was the song's only verse; it just kept repeating itself. So does Camping.
Camping first entered the sheepfold as a wolf in 1988 when he predicted the end of the world on May 21st of that year (he really likes May, for some reason). Then he selected September 7, 1994. Whoops! The second verse had the same ending as the first. Was he too embarrassed to try again so soon after two failures? He paused for seventeen years this time before blundering again. But now he has wasted no time in asserting that the end of the world will be here on October 21st. Wouldn't it be easier to just predict it every day? Eventually, he would get it right. One wonders if he will rent another 2,000 billboards across the country with his latest revelation.
What Happened?
As hard as it is to fathom, excuses have been offered for his malfunction. Usually, those who issue such predictions admit that they must have miscalculated. Really? What gave it away? Was it the fact that we are all still here? Since he had been wrong twice before, would he not make certain to get it right this time? He had seventeen years to go over all the facts and figures. The idea that he erred again is hard to imagine; even more difficult is that he issued the new date so quickly after the last prediction disintegrated.
There is no truth to the rumor that Camping will join Phil Collins on stage to sing, "I Missed Again" (a Genesis top twenty hit thirty years ago). Actually, it is pretty easy to miss the date of the end of the world since no one knows the day or the hour (Matt. 24:36). No one can take numbers from the Bible and come up with a legitimate date because it did not provide that information. All of the nonsense about "true believers" being able to figure it out is simply hogwash.
Camping would do better to just say he had a revelation from God. Maybe the Mormons would believe him; they could pray to see if it were true. Many people are claiming 21st-Century revelations. He could simply say that God is revealing to "true believers" the second coming of Christ so they can be prepared. It would contradict the Scriptures as much as the calculated date theory. But it might be more credible to some.
Another reason that a follower gave is that no one was being converted, but with this announcement so many were coming to Jesus that God decided to postpone the day. Really? And the only Omniscient Being in the universe could not foresee that? Besides, anyone who knows missionaries in various parts of the world knows that many thousands become Christians every year. The United States may not be as fertile as it once was, but many in other countries are embracing and obeying the gospel.
Jesus meant what He said about no one knowing, and God meant what He said when He gave the following words to Israel (the principle remains true though we live under a different covenant):
"When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22).
SCHOLARS CAN BE NUTS, TOO: FORGED
Another Bible "scholar" has come forth with a book in which he shares with the rest of us that 11 out of 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries. (Some information is taken from an article by John Blake of CNN; it is available on the Internet under the title, "Half of New Testament Forged, Bible Scholar Says." The rest is taken from a blog by James W. McGrath which he titled, "Exploring Our Matrix." The subtitle of the book is: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (McGrath). This book serves as an example of what has often been stated: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Actually, a great deal of knowledge can still be dangerous when it is in the hands of someone who cannot think straight.
The author of the book claims that eleven books of the Bible are not written by the name of the person whose name is attached to the book. They were written by others who simply put a Bible person's name on the letter or gospel. The sad fact is that some people did do so—after the New Testament was entirely written. But these were clearly forgeries, which no one had any trouble discerning. This new book claims that Matthew, Mark, and John are not authentic, along with 1 and 2 Peter, and six of Paul's letters (Eph., Col., 2 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., and Titus).
Of course, the first question that should always be asked is: "Would God allow the Holy Spirit to inspire men to write the words of eternal life but also allow forgeries into the canon?" The very idea reflects on God's omniscience and omnipotence. Is there an epistle somewhere containing vital information for Christians that is not included? This is just as unthinkable a notion as that God allowed several forgeries containing error in. The author of Forged is no different from the Jesus Seminar "scholars" who took it upon themselves to determine which of the teachings in the gospel accounts Jesus really said—and which ones someone else added. One may as well just ask all of these "scholars": "Is there anything in the New Testament that you like?" We respond: "Just tell us the parts you accept, and we'll go from there." These men are nothing more than modern-day Sadducees who refused to accept anything from the Old Testament other than the Pentateuch.
Before anyone with the latest theory can be taken seriously, he will need to explain how it is that Almighty God could not, with all His great power, safeguard His holy Book. Such an idea is preposterous on the face of it. Such critics often dash off here and there for explanations but never deal with this crucial issue—because they can't. They have no evidence for their theories—only conjecture! Clever speculation, however, is no substitute for facts. How sad that "scholars" have nothing better to do than to play these kinds of games. Surely, such time and effort could be spent doing something actually useful.
Rationale
So what are the reasons this author gives for rejecting the various books of the Bible he selected as unworthy? According to Blake's article, "The New Testament books attributed to Jesus' disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate." Peter and John, for example, were called in Acts 4:13 agrammatoi, meaning "unlettered." They are also described by the Greek term transliterated "idiots." Most Bible readers understand that these terms do not literally mean that the inspired apostles were idiots and uneducated, period—but rather by comparison to those interrogating them. As the Pulpit Commentary notes, these words refer to their being uneducated "with respect to Jewish culture" beyond the Scriptures and ignorant in the sense of "not having been to a rabbinic school." One would think that a "scholar" could have checked with a few standard commentaries before jumping to conclusions about the writers of the New Testament.
Just to show how far afield such critics are, however, let us say for the moment that the author was right and that none of the apostles could read or write. Exactly what difference would that have made? The book of Acts, which the author apparently accepts as valid, records the Holy Spirit coming on the apostles, after which they spoke in languages they did not know and had not learned. Some present even noted that they were all Galileans (Acts 2:7-8). Now if the Holy Spirit could cause them to speak in languages they had never studied, could He not also cause them to write in their own language? At the very least He could cause them to speak the inspired message, which could be written down by an amanuensis (scribe). If God could return Sarah's barren womb to one of fertility, would this feat be too hard for Him?
A second basis for determining who did or did not write books of the New Testament concerns stylistic features. One can always find Bible critics resorting to this ruse, but it never works very well. The author of Forged alleges that the book of Ephesians could not have been written by Paul because he usually writes in short, pointed sentences while Ephesians is full of long Greek sentences (Blake).
Paul did write several long sentences in Ephesians, but the reason is that the intricate nature of the subject lends itself to an inclusion of several aspects. It is also true that Ephesians contains several short sentences, as found in 4:25, 26-27, 28, 29, 30, 31-32; 5:1-2, 3-4, 5, 6, and 7-8. All of those are short sentences. The next theory will probably be that Paul did not write that portion of Ephesians. Philippians (apparently an authentic book) also has some long sentences, such as 1:3-7, 9-11; 2:1-4, 5-8; 3:4-7, 8-11). No one would confuse Paul's style with that of Hemingway or Mark Twain in any letter he wrote.
A third reason the author gave is that the New Testament is full of contradictions, although examples in reviews were rather slim. The Forged author writes: "If God created an error-free book, then the book should be without errors. If what we have is not an error-free book, then it is not a book that God delivered to us without errors" (p. 171) (McGrath). To write such sentences is a hallmark of educated men—they can convey a simple message with such wordiness as to just about lose the reader. The only contradiction that Blake cites from the book is from 1 Corinthians, concerning which we had the impression that it was one of the seven whose authenticity went unchallenged.
The author thinks that women keeping silence in the church (1 Cor. 14) contradicts what Paul wrote earlier when he gave instructions for women who were praying and prophesying. Had he studied the passages closely, he would have noticed that 1 Corinthians 14 clearly deals with what occurs in the assembly (where men and women are both gathered). Nothing in 1 Corinthians 11 indicates that the context involves the assembly so much as a gathering of Christian women. In fact, the assembly is only mentioned after this section of the text is completed. Thus, if one considers the context of each passage, there is no contradiction. Most alleged discrepancies can be resolved in this same way.
A fourth argument is that many phony letters (that actually did occur in the first few centuries after Christ) were written to uphold a particular doctrine. It may be the case that some of the 100 actual forgeries written had that as their purpose, but there is nothing in the letters of Paul that smack of this kind of pettiness. The fact is, however, that much of what was written did involve dealing with problems that had arisen in the church. The largest one of these relates to the Judaizing teachers, who tried to insist that the Law of Moses be kept and that the Gentiles had to be circumcised (Acts 15:1, 5). Several portions of Galatians and Romans deal with that problem. Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews all discuss the subject of the old law being done away.
Other problems also surfaced, but none of the New Testament books blatantly disagrees with any other passage—whether on morality or doctrine. Today, much of the writing that is done likewise focuses on certain errors so that truth may be presented. Not only are there atheistic and agnostic errors (such as the one being dealt with here), there are those of denominationalists who believe a multitude of false doctrines—everything from "When is a person saved?" to "When is the second coming of Christ?"
Although this fact may be discouraging, it is nevertheless reality. The reason for this problem's existence is that Satan does not want anyone to be saved. What better way to keep people from becoming Christians than to change the way of salvation so that people think they are saved when they are not! The devil has perverted every Bible doctrine God gave us.
Fifth, 2 Thessalonians was deemed inauthentic because of the warning against forged letters, as though they came from Paul (1 Thess. 2:2). What? Yes, apparently someone was circulating letters among brethren as if they had been written by Paul, and he warned the brethren against receiving them. Well, it is a characteristic of forgeries to contain warnings such as that one (consider Joseph Smith's and Muhammad's writings). Those trying to speak for God often think this way: if they decry forgeries, people will accept their works as true. Okay, but that does not mean that the problem did not actually exist or that Paul never needed to address it.
Elimination of God's Word
A real danger exists in listening to scholars (such as the author of Forged) who are convinced that parts of the Bible do not belong—especially when their entire body of evidence amounts to mere opinion accompanied by circumstantial guesswork. Do Christians really want to give up God's inspired Word based on their flimsy hypotheses? Imagine advocating that 2 Peter is not inspired of the Holy Spirit? There is scarcely a letter so brief that is so well organized and so powerful in its argumentation. Did a mere mortal compose it?
In this epistle Peter writes of the fact that we have been delivered from the corruption of sin to become partakers of the Divine nature. What we call "the Christian graces" help us form the proper Christian character. The writer speaks of his firsthand experience with Jesus on the mount. The second chapter is devoted to the warning about false teachers, in which their character and tactics are described. The third chapter closes with the promise that Jesus will return as He said. Then the earth and all that is in it will be burned up, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness. If this marvelous letter was a forgery, it is the best one in the history of mankind.
Who can envision Paul not writing the letters to Timothy and Titus? Nowhere else in the New Testament are the qualifications for elders (bishops) found. The reader sees Paul appointing them and has an idea of what their work is—but does the New Testament truly omit their qualifications? The role of men and women is nowhere as sharply defined as in 1 Timothy, although 1 Corinthians does speak to the topic. So much would be lost by the eradication of these books from the canon; hopefully, no one will be enticed away from the truth.
The author of Forged admits he once was a "fundamentalist" but has now become an agnostic. Really? Who would have guessed? He writes: "I'm saying that by realizing it contains so many forgeries, it shows that it's a very human book, down to the fact that some authors lied about who they were." If even one writer lied, then all are suspect, and it becomes a matter of: "Which teaching do I wish to get rid of?" If the premise of Forged is true, then the Bible is not only a human book but flawed, untrustworthy in every aspect, and primarily useless. Its author has not made a convincing case.