Por que confiar na Bíblia? (Why Trust the Bible?)

by Greg Gilbert

The Bible stands at the heart of the Christian faith. But this leads to an inescapable question: why should we trust the Bible? Written to help non-Christians, longtime Christians, and everyone in between better understand why God's Word is reliable, this short book explores the historical and theological arguments that have helped lead millions of believers through the centuries to trust the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Written by pastor Greg Gilbert, author of the popular books What Is the Gospel? and Who Is Jesus?, this volume will help Christians articulate why they trust the Bible when it comes to who God is, who we are, and how we're supposed to live.

Genres: Christian, Theology, Faith, Christian Living, Scripture, Nonfiction, Evangelism

192 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2015

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Greg Gilbert (MDiv, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is senior pastor at Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. He is the author of What Is the Gospel?, James: A 12-Week Study, and Who Is Jesus?, and is the co-author (with Kevin DeYoung) of What Is the Mission of the Church?.

Reviews

[Ben Omer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Greg is so good at taking you through the logical progression on why we should hold to the truth of the Bible. Every question I would have after finishing a chapter would be answered in the following chapter.

Really good intro to the historical reliability of the Bible, highly recommend.

Biggest takeaway: the Bible has more historical manuscripts than any other ancient document (I forgot which chapter this was but that chapter alone is worth the read)

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent primer on the reliability of the Bible. Covers five major questions:

1. Can we be confident that the translation of the Bible from its original language into our language accurately reflects the original, or is it saying things the original never did?

2. Can we be confident that copyists accurately transmitted the original writing to us, or did they (deliberately or not) add, subtract, or change things so much that what we have is no longer what was originally written?

3. Can we be confident that we’re looking at the right set of books and that we haven’t missed or lost a set of books out there that gives a different, buy equally reliable and plausible, perspective on Jesus? That is, can we be confident that we’re right to be looking at these books as opposed to those?

4. Can we be confident that the original authors were themselves trustworthy? That is, were they really intending to give us an accurate account of events, or did they have some other aim—for example to write fiction or even to deceive?

5. And finally, if we can be confident that the authors did, in fact intend to give an accurate account of what happened, can we be confident that what they described really took place? In a word, can we be confident that what they wrote is actually true? Or are there better reasons to think that they were somehow mistaken?”

I appreciated the clear, concise explanations of the arguments and the credit given to those scholars who have spent their careers researching these things in much greater depth (Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce, Peter Gurry, N. T. Wright, etc.).

[C.H. Cobb · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great little book. It's very accessible, bringing some complex topics (such as textual criticism) down to very understandable principles. I like Gilbert's writing style--it is not at all pretentious, but very much in the style of one discussing a topic with a skeptical friend over a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Gilbert makes the resurrection of Christ the center point of his apologetic. This is brilliant, since Paul reveals faith in the resurrection as the sine qua non of salvation in Romans 9:10-11. He argues for the reliability of the Bible, by exploring the issues of the translation and transmission of Scripture, the establishment of the canon, the intent of the writers of Scripture, and whether or not the events recorded in the New Testament really happened.

Gilbert punctures the swollen balloon of skepticism respectfully and gently, but definitively. This is a great book to give someone who is wrestling with doubt regarding the veracity of the Bible. An added bonus: the book is short. Gilbert provides an appendix for those who want to explore the issues in greater depth.

Five stars: highly recommended.

[Anete Ābola · Rating 5 out of 5]

I liked "Who is Jesus?" better from both of these Gilberts' books. But this is still very good, small book for beginners especially and those who have not thought these things through. He goes through many of the important evidences of Bible and resurrection.

[Kevin Halloran]

A fantastic introduction to why we believe the Bible is the Word of God.

[Thaddeus · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was really wanting this book to be a 5 star one, but it isn't quite there for me... not that it is a bad book per-se, I just don't think it was an utterly compelling one, nor did I fully agree with the methodology of apologetic employed. However, as an entry-level apologetics book, it is definitely a decent one and worth looking at.

The book's description: "Written to help non-Christians, longtime Christians, and everyone in between better understand why God's Word is reliable, this short book explores the historical and theological arguments that have helped lead millions of believers through the centuries to trust the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation."

This description is pretty accurate of what this little book attempts to do... and much credit has to be given to how much Gilbert manages to cover in a very short space! His writing style is clear and articulate. He covers a lot of the basic evidences for the reliability of the Bible, specifically making his case via the New Testament. He points out the nature of the transmission of the Biblical text, the reason for variants, and how we can know that the text we have today accurately reflects what was written at first. He then moves to make an argument of how knowing that the text we have today can be trusted to be accurate, then we should consider what claims the Bible makes - specifically with regards to Jesus Christ. His apologetic is roughly based off the premise that if we can see that the Bible has been reliably transmitted, and the authors seem to have reliably recorded real historical events, and from the evidence it seems that Jesus probably did rise from the grave, and Jesus held the view that scripture was trustworthy - then why not trust the Bible?

This method is all well and good, but lacks a bit of punch to me. It does well at giving a lot of facts and builds probability - but fails at giving certainty (which the author admits is impossible in the scientific sense since we're dealing with history not repeatable science) and a compelling argument which would leave the unbeliever 'without an excuse'. I think my main qualm is that the methodology is more evidentialist (building on facts to establish probability) rather than presuppositional (establishing the certainty of the God of the Bible and necessity of His revelation for life and knowledge itself - ie. an argument via the impossibility of the contrary). However, I'm very much a committed Van-Tillian presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetic methodology and probably a bit more nit-picky than the average reader.

All-in-all, this book is a great resource! I'd highly recommend it - perhaps in tandem with Barry Cooper's "Can I Really Trust the Bible?" (2015) which I thought was excellent! This book gives more of the evidentialist perspective and argument for the Bible, while Cooper's book builds a more presuppositional case with an ending exhortation to 'taste and see!' I could see this book being useful for churches, small groups, and Christian study - and even perhaps to use in tandem with other resources (like Cooper's book) to engage with a non-Christian friend.

[Jarrett Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was incredible. The book is truly for everyone.
For the believer- It will arm you with defenses so that you may actually know why you ought to believe what you do.
For the doubter- Greg will guess your thought before you can even think it through all the way and quickly put it to rest… maybe even make you laugh at yourself.
For the unbeliever- This will certainly challenge your presuppositions of why and what Christians believe.

Ultimately the book leaves you with two avenues. You can either craft together hundreds of flimsy arguments trying to explain away every bit of evidence and self authentication of the Bible… or you can see that the Bible is even truer than you thought possible.

[Keith Gandy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This helpful little volume refreshes the logical reasons for a well-founded trust in the ancient document delivered into our hands in order to meet the creator in a personal way. While I am creating documentation for those searching for answers as to beginning a spiritual journey, this book delivers a solid logical appeal in modern terminology. I found this book helpful and I plan to revisit as source material.

[strawberry jellie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I appreciated the way he laid out the response to the title question. I think it's an easy-to-digest response without leaving out any critical information.

[Syri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very helpful read! I enjoyed the writing structure of each chapter. Each chapter began with questions and Gilbert walked the reader through each question carefully. Highly recommend!

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent resource about the Bible's translation, transmission, canonicity, trustworthiness, and truth. Gilbert notes that the book isn't intended to be a comprehensive, academic work, but to be an overview. It focuses on the New Testament, especially the gospels. He explains that the principles involved in exploring the evidence for the gospels apply to the whole Bible.

Questions addressed
• Can we be confident that translation of Bible from original language accurately reflects original?
• Can we be confident that copyists accurately transmitted original writing to us?
• Can we be confident that have the books in the Bible?
• Can we be confident that the original authors were trustworthy?
• Can we be confident that what Bible says is true (historically accurate)?

Conclusions (answers to the questions above)
• We have accurate translations of the Biblical manuscripts.
• Those manuscripts are accurate copies of what was originally written (or allow us to reconstruct originals).
• The books in the Bible are the right and best books.
• The authors of the Biblical documents intended to accurately record history.
• There's good reason to believe the Bible's historical record, including miracles. No explanation of Jesus's resurrection makes sense other than its actual occurrence.
• If Jesus' resurrection really occurred, the Bible is God's Word.

Summary of the case
The gospels are reliable historical witnesses, so we can trust what they record about Jesus. Jesus was really raised from the dead, so He must be Who He claimed to be: the Son of God and King of Kings. Since that's true, we should listen to His teaching. He taught that the Old Testament (OT) is God's Word. The New Testament (NT) rests on Jesus' authority; the early church recognized NT books as those that 1) were authorized by one of Jesus' apostles, and 2) agreed with Jesus' teaching.

Notes
Don’t Believe Everything You Read
Regardless of what we choose as our ultimate authority for knowledge, we use circular reasoning. A rationalist trusts reason because it's reasonable, a logician trusts logical because it's logical, etc. We all start with presuppositions (reason is reasonable, logic is logical, our senses are trustworthy, the world and ourselves really exist, etc.).

Just because we can't know everything doesn't mean we can't know anything.

We can't have "mathematical" or "logical" certainty about history like we can with math (and sometimes science); instead, we seek historical confidence (trusting reports of events enough to live by and act on them). Historical confidence comes from establishing that the source is reliable, establishing that recorded event is plausible, and evaluating how well suggested explanations explain the phenomena. History is mostly the study of the unusual and unrepeatable; it almost never rules anything out absolutely. If you required absolute certainty to believe anything happened, you couldn't be confident about any past events.

Lost in Translation?
Translation differences
1. There are very few words and phrases that scholars disagree how to translate. They are a very small fraction of each book or even chapter.
2. Where there's disagreement or uncertainty, translations acknowledge that in a footnote. Nothing is being hidden.
3. The number of translations helps identify and avoid misleading translations.
4. No major doctrine of orthodox Christianity depends on a disputed or uncertain translation.

Copies of Copies of Copies of Copies?
Original gospels could have been used to make many copies for decades or centuries before being lost. Gospels were written in mid to late 1st century. Earliest copies we have are from ~AD 125, 150, 200, 45-75 years after originals. Originals could have easily survived that long; people regularly used books for 100-150 years before replacing them. Codex Vaticanus was used for 600 years. It's possible that 1st-generation copies of the originals are in museums today.

For other ancient works, there's a gap of 800-1300 years between originals and earliest extant copies.

Alleged 400,000 variants
• This number came not from only 5,000 extant Greek manuscripts, but also from 10,000 manuscripts in other languages, and another 10,000 manuscripts that quote NT in 1st 600 years of church history. This works out to ~16 variants/manuscript.
• "Variants" doesn't mean unique readings. If 1 manuscript says X, but 10 others say Y, this counts as 11 variants.
• Variants are clustered around a few places in text, so number of questionable places in NT is quite small.

By comparing surviving ancient manuscripts, and thinking about why copyists would've made certain changes or errors, scholars can reach highly confident conclusions about content of originals.

Vast majority of textual variants are minor and don't affect meaning (plural vs. singular pronouns, inverted word order, subjunctive vs. indicative mood, aorist vs. perfect tense, etc.).

Variants are documented and analyzed; there's no conspiracy to hide them.

No doctrine of orthodox Christianity depends solely on a disputed or uncertain portion of text. Disputed portions either don't contain doctrine, or the doctrine exists in undisputed portions.

Are These Really the Books You’re Looking For?
By time of Jesus, OT canon was nearly universally agreed-upon. Jesus and His early followers accepted that canon.

Early Christians didn't have vast diversity of beliefs. The only Christian writings that have been confidently dated to 1st century are those we have in NT. Next-oldest (1st half of 2nd century) were written by apostolic fathers who overwhelmingly agreed with NT. It was only in latter 2nd century that documents appear which significantly disagree with NT, and these books show awareness of NT books, showing that they're challengers to accepted tradition.

Christians recognized canonicity of majority of NT books by end of 1st century, and of vast majority by end of 2nd century, though they debated a few books into 4th century.

4 gospels were recognized as canonical very early. Early church fathers wrote of them (Papias, ~AD 110; Justin Martyr, ~AD 150; Irenaeus, ~AD 180).

Early church describe themselves as accepting canonical books, not as determining canonicity.

Canonicity criteria
• Apostolicity (most important): written by apostle of Jesus or by close companion of apostle
• Antiquity: from 1st century (used to determine if book was apostolic)
• Orthodoxy: in agreement with doctrinal tradition from Jesus (first oral, then written)
• Universality: used and valued by Christians across the known world

All books in NT meet all 4 criteria. No books outside of NT meet all 4.

But Can I Trust You?
NT books include many references to historical people, places, circumstances, which were falsifiable as soon as those books were written.

For NT to be a massive conspiracy or hoax would've been nearly impossible. All NT books were written within decades of Jesus' life, so hundreds or thousands of eyewitnesses of Jesus were still alive when those books were published, yet we have no record of them objecting. NT authors wouldn't have made good conspiracy spokesmen, as they weren't prominent or authoritative leaders. There's no clear conspiracy motive, as disciples only gained persecution. Gospels include many embarrassing details about disciples, which would be counterproductive to a conspiracy.

NT writers stuck to their story in face of persecution, even to death. People don't willingly die for beliefs they know to be untrue.

There's no such thing as mass hallucination; hallucinations are internal and personal. Many different people in different places at different times saw the risen Jesus.

Matthew, John, Peter, James, Jude were eyewitness of Jesus. If oral tradition had been corrupted, they'd have known.

Early Christians were able and determined to recite Jesus' teachings word-for-word for a long time. Jesus taught that His teaching was as important as OT prophets', and much of His teaching was in pithy, easy-to-remember forms. Oral tradition only needed to last 27 years until gospels were written.

Every alleged Bible contradiction, inconsistency, error has at least 1 plausible resolution (often more). Look for books about them.

So Did It Happen?
It isn't true that Biblical authors recorded miracles because they were unscientific. Ancient people knew enough to recognize supernatural events. Modern science can't explain miracles (virgin birth, walking on water, healing on command, raising dead, etc.) better than ancient people could. Science hasn't provided natural explanations for the miracles in the Bible, and it can't. Science hasn't proven the impossibility of miracles (supernatural events), and it can't.

If God exists, there's no reason that miracles are impossible. Science can't prove whether God exists, so it can't prove whether miracles are possible.

Take It on the Word of a Resurrected Man
Jesus endorsed and confirmed that every word of the OT was God's Word, true from start to finish. Jesus treated as historically accurate many OT people and stories (Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, manna, bronze serpent, David and Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Jonah, etc.).

Jesus promised to send Holy Spirit to give additional teaching from God the Father (John 16:12-15).

Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15-16), putting them on same level of authority as OT.

We can be confident that we have the right books in the Bible not only due to historical evidence, but also understanding that the Holy Spirit guided the process of canonization.

[Hayden Benner · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books I have read in a long time. This book defends the position that the Bible is the historically accurate, reliable, inspired, true, without error, Word of God. The book defends Scripture against common arguments in an intellectual, but not extremely Accedemic way. It follows the New testament, specially the 4 Gospels, and ultimately the resurrection of Christ to draw its conclusion. It’s important for followers of Christ to understand the truth about the Bible because, “The whole of Christianity rises and falls on the question of whether Jesus historically— not religiously or spiritually but historically— was resurrected from the dead. The rest follows suite about the entire canonization of Scripture. Must read

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

Picked this up on the recommendation of a friend. It is 150 small pages with large font, written in a very casual style, so it is a quick little read.

As the title suggests, the book makes an apologetics-style argument for the reliability of the Bible, focusing almost exclusively on the New Testament. This is an introductory-level book and accordingly presents a fairly simple overview of the material. It isn't a deep historical dive or a nitty-gritty response to various technical arguments, but that's completely fine for the intended scope and audience. People who have dug into this material in detail will see places that could use further elaboration, but I think the book achieves its goal.

The basic argument is as follows: (1) the translations we have of the Bible are reliable; (2) despite being copies of copies, the source documents from which it was translated are reliable; (3) there is a reliable historical basis for the selection of the books in the New Testament; (4) the authors of those books intended them to be reliable eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ; (5) the resurrection of Christ is a demonstrable historical fact; and (6) for those reasons, the Bible can reliably be trusted.

I agree with that gist. But the area of particular interest to me was point 3: the selection of books in the New Testament. The author is an evangelical and writes from that perspective, and as a Catholic, I've always felt that's an awkward spot for the hardcore sola position. Here, the author defends the canon of the New Testament on the "objective" historical criteria of apostolicity, antiquity, orthodoxy, and universality; he alleges that all books selected meet all four criteria, and that no book that met all four was excluded. The problem with that argument, it seems to me, is that the author needs to be open to periodic revisions to the canon as scholarship evolves. For example, most modern scholars dispute that Paul actually wrote all of the letters attributed to him, meaning that at least some of those may fail the test of apostolicity. Of course, Protestants dropped books from the *Old Testament* canon during the reformation, so that isn't unheard of, but as far as I know, nobody is considering ditching, e.g., Hebrews, whose authorship has been disputed for about 1900 years.

Anyway, I enjoyed the book, and I'd recommend it as a good intro, so giving it 3 out of 5 ("I liked it"). I subsequently read The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre, which covers much of the same material in greater depth. I'll do a separate write-up on that book, but short version is that I loved it and strongly recommend as a next-step beyond this introduction.

[Kevin Vigneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent quick read for a small group or study.

[Maree Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found his explanation of the criteria for the canon really helpful. Apostolicity: written by or a close companion of an apostle of Jesus. Antiquity: first century writing. Orthodoxy: harmonious with the rest of Christs teachings. Universality: Every christian group recognised it as authoritative. So instead of the idea that the canon was cherry picked to push a certain agenda, it's more that the canon was handed down through the generations and the writings that seemed shady weren't included. Simple.

"Here's what you really can't get around: If the resurrection happened, then the rest of the fundamental superstructure of Christianity comes together like clockwork including the authority of the Bible, both New Testament and Old."

"The whole of Christianity rises or falls on the question of whether Jesus historically-not religiously or spiritually but historically- was resurrected from the dead. The biblical writers thought he was. They weren't deluded, they weren't trying to pull off a hoax, and they weren't writing a legend. They were telling it like they saw it, heard it, touched it, and experienced it, and they genuinely wanted their readers to believe it too."

"From start to finish, Jesus the Messiah endorsed and confirmed that every word of the Old Testament was the Word of God and therefore true from start to finish."

[Annie Hogue · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quick and clear read (or listen) on why we can have a high degree of confidence that the New Testament is historically accurate and that Jesus really rose from the dead. The author clearly has faith and starts by saying so, but he walks you through his argument as explaining to someone who is questioning.

I read two similar books (on the old and new testaments) in college as I encountered other students who scoffed at the Bible. I wanted to know how the Bible came to us and not have my confidence shaken by the students’ cynicism. My kids are getting older and I want to be able to give them the same help. I can’t remember what two books I read before, but this one does the job well for the New Testament.

The first couple reviews listed under the book give more detail about the questions he answers as he goes through his explanation and argument.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

A concise-yet-thorough answer to one of the most pressing and pertinent questions related to the Christian faith: "Why trust the Bible?" The author does a fantastic job of keeping the reader's attention while laying out a clear and compelling case for why everyone - not just Christians! - can (and should) trust the Bible. This book is ideal for church members looking for an easy-to-follow yet substantive answer as to why the Bible is trustworthy. This resource will prove to be an invaluable aide (for both personal growth and evangelic/apologetic purposes) to anyone looking for how to winsomely communicate why they have confidence in God's Word.

[Ben Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Twas a good evangelistic book about defending the Bible. If your life is based around Jesus and the Scriptures then it’s good to know the Bible’s reliability as a historical document to help defend against people trying discredit the Bible. Good ole Greg Gilbert does it with a very logical flow which I find very useful. He doesn’t say “it’s a leap of faith” but talks about the evidence that is at hand.

Read this as a small group , good book for discussions

The breakdown
The translations are correct
The copies we have are faithful reproductions of the originals
The documents we are looking at are the best and the correct ones
The authors weren’t dupes or deceitful
Good reason to believe what they said happened actually happened.

If Jesus was in fact risen from the grave then we should trust what he says, and what he says is that we should repent of our sins and follow him and trust in him for the forgiveness of our sins

[Alex Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

I greatly appreciated Gilbert’s concise, well-researched (with citations) book on the reliability of the Bible. Written mostly for Christians to help them understand why the Bible can be trusted (hence the title), I think non-Christians would find it informative as well, to help better understand the Christian position. Given its length, it’s not exhaustive by any means, but Gilbert addresses a logical sequence of five main questions from a historical perspective, as well as addressing the role of faith. Would recommend to anyone.

[Trevor Coen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently re read this book looking for help making an argument against red letter Christianity, which I found primarily in the last chapter. This book is a great introduction for all the many reasons people don’t trust the Bible and why they should. This would be a great starting place for someone who doubts the Bible but can’t articulate why. Where there are whole books explaining the validity of the Biblical Canon, this book has 1 chapter. While brief, Gilbert makes a comprehensive and compelling case for the authority of Scripture.

[Jodi Howard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very academic and informative. I like the historical value this brings as well as logic, despite the common thought that the the Bible only rests on faith. My main conclusion: if you can historically prove that Jesus was resurrected then Jesus really is who He says He is. And if Jesus is, in fact, the Son of God and he endorses the Old Testament and authorizes the New Testament then I can also trust that the Bible is true.

[Michelle Raybourn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recommended by my pastor

This is a great quick, thorough, 100 pages, line of logic about why we can trust translations of the Bible, why we can trust the canon of scripture, and why the message is reliable. This is a helpful line of thought for myself and I hope for others when questions arise (as they often do).

An especially powerful thought for me was that if those who wanted to disprove Jesus’ resurrection at the time could have then why didn’t that happen? If there was a body, it would have been brought up. And also contemplating, would people die for a hoax? Just good questions to ask that I think I can return to when my own questions take me down rabbit holes.

[Josh Traylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great introduction to the historical arguments for Christian apologetics. I would reccomend it to anyone who is unable to answer any objections as to why the bible is a historically accurate, trustworthy, and divinely authoritative written work. I would also reccomend it with any skeptics of christianity who have had questions about the historical accuracy of the bible.

[Gracelyn S · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was so good!! It makes amazing points about why we should trust the Bible—most of which I hadn't thought of before. It's short, so it's not a huge commitment, but it packs a lot of truths and good points. Now I feel a lot more confident in my faith and in my ability to defend my faith. Definitely would recommend!

[Brennan Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

rad.

[Tristen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Concise and clear. Beneficial resource for the Church, but also beneficial for anyone wanting to learn more about the trustworthiness and reliability of the Scriptures.

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, concise, and very thoughtful arguments for the confidence we can have in the Bible as a historical document, but also as much more than that. Gilbert does a wonderful job at considering the question “Why Trust the Bible?” from the skeptic’s perspective and plays the devil’s advocate, so to speak, is a respectful and thorough way.

[Matt Beard · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this and was personally encouraged by it. Will definitely be using in the future for discipleship.

[Sloan French · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good starting point to apologetics.

[Andrea Surak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved the facts and evidence this book gave regarding the sanctity and reliability of the Bible!