OpenTheo

Could Inherently Sinful Humans Have Accurately Recorded the Word of God?

#STRask — Stand to Reason
00:00
00:00

Could Inherently Sinful Humans Have Accurately Recorded the Word of God?

July 7, 2025
#STRask
#STRaskStand to Reason

Questions about whether or not inherently sinful humans could have accurately recorded the Word of God, whether the words about Moses in Acts 7:22 and Exodus 4:10 contradict each other, and why we’re told to say, “If it is the Lord’s will,” in James 4 but not James 5.  

* How should I respond to the objection that humans, who are inherently sinful, could not have accurately recorded the Word of God?

* How do we reconcile the seeming contradiction between Acts 7:22, which says Moses was mighty in word and deed, and Exodus 4:10, where Moses says he is slow of speech and tongue?

* James 4:13–16 instructs us to qualify our plans by saying, “If it is the Lord’s will,” but his words in the next chapter about our prayers healing the sick include no qualifiers regarding God’s will. How does James 5 fit with James 4?

Share

Transcript

Well, it is that special time of the week that you look forward to, where there's a new episode of hashtag STRask today. I know I do. And this first question comes from Carly.
I recently heard the objection
that humans, who are inherently sinful, could not have accurately recorded the Word of God? How can one respond? Thanks. Well, I respond with a question. Since it is possible for humans to err, does that mean they always err? Well, the answer to that is no.
Even though it's possible,
doesn't mean they always do. Okay, so there's a logical flaw built into this, the presumption of error from someone who is prone to error. Now, I do think if the Bible is not the Word of God, and we have 66 books that are giving us claims about history that are actually tied to claims about the spiritual realm and theology, I think it is appropriate to, I don't know, if John just is a bit strong, but at least to take the writing with a grain of salt, knowing that, well, these are these guys opinions and they could be wrong.
That they could be wrong doesn't mean they are wrong. And this is
why, even if we can't succeed in making a case for biblical inerrancy, it doesn't mean that the things that are taught by human beings who are in, who might be in error, are in error as it describes the broader Christian worldview. And one question I ask so that I'm in tactical mode here is, do you have any books in your library? Sure.
This is of the skeptic. Are any of those books written by
God? No, of course not. So they're all written by men.
Yeah. Do you trust them to give you accurate
information about the world? Well, the answer is generally, yes, depending a little bit on the but generally, yes, so you don't have to have a book written by God in order to give accurate information about the world. So there's another thing to think about there, but there's a piece being left out of this equation.
If men are fallible, then men can't have written the word of God
or the Bible. How is it characterized there? Humans who are inherently sinful could not have accurately recorded the word of God. Okay.
So that's really interesting that I was
phrased that way, because there's a built-in contradiction. If it is the word of God, which is presumed by the way the question is worded, then human fallibility is not a factor. Okay.
And I
kind of jokingly sometimes would say, do you have a dog? Yeah, sure. Can you get your dog to sit? Yeah, sure. Well, if you can get your dumb dog to sit, why do you think God can't get fallible human beings to write down exactly what he wants them to write down? You see, it's a flaw of thinking.
If God's involved, it doesn't matter whether men or monkeys
wrote it, they'll still write what he wants, because God is bigger than any limited creature that's involved in the process. Now, of course, this hinges on whether or not God wrote it or was God ultimately responsible for it, was he the ultimate author? But the question is worded in such a way that it presumes it. So if it is the word of God, it does not matter the limitations of the human agents that God used.
God is certainly strong enough to accomplish that particular goal
through him. Now, there might be a question somebody asked, whether it in fact is the word of God or not, that's a different issue. But the way it's worded here, I could just appeal to that.
There is a
presumption that humans who are prone to error or possible error, then they have made an error. But that doesn't necessarily follow. Even if they have made errors, it doesn't mean we can't trust the bulk of the book.
And this way people have books in their library written by humans,
and they trust these books in principle. And with God involved, that closes the gap. If God's involved, like I said, doesn't matter if men or monkeys wrote it, they'll still do exactly as God intends.
Particularly in the way that inspiration is characterized as characterized as God breathing
out, mid moved along by the Holy Spirit. And it's not that they were hearing a voice and then trying to copy down what they heard. The Holy Spirit was working in them through their personalities, through who they were.
It's not like they, it wasn't automatic writing. But in God's providence and
specifically moving in them to to breathe out his revelation about himself, he was accomplishing what he wanted to have written. So if somebody's going to make this claim, generally, they're not Christians, they might even be an atheist.
So in that case, I think what you can do is say,
look, this is not one piece of evidence by itself. You have to look at this in light of the entire Christian worldview. If the Christian God exists, then there's no problem with him inspiring, that's right, a perfect Bible.
There's no problem with that. So we have to look at it in the whole,
it's not just that you're making this wild claim with no other, nothing else connected to it. So if you can just say in, in hypothetically, if the Christian God exists, can you see that this would be possible? And at least maybe they can get there and just start with that.
So that brings a focus on the main question, is there a God? That's the key question here. So incidentally, I would add this, this question of inspiration and attached to it, the idea of inerrancy, which is part of this question, men make mistakes, they error. And that is a not, it's not a good idea to engage that issue with an outsider.
And there's a very practical reason
for this. Inerrancy is an in-house debate based on the nature of scripture understood by Christians who already understand that God has involved in some fashion. If you try to engage the issue of the accuracy, let me back up, that's not the right word, the inerrancy of the Bible with a non-believer, you're going to invite a torrent, a cascade of alleged contradictions that you're going to have to deal with in order to get, move forward on that.
And most people can't do that. All right.
So I side-set the issue entirely.
And I say, I'm not arguing here for the inerrancy of the Bible
as the word of God. I am rather making the case that in the life of Jesus, we have an historically reliable accounting from four different sources, Matthew Mark Luke John, of people who were either eyewitnesses to the event or wrote based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. And we can, we can understand the essentials of what happened in Jesus' life and the things that he taught from those historically reliable documents.
Now we're not looking at the Bible as the word of God
just as a as a primary source historical document, which is the way historians deal with it. But from that document, we can make the case that Jesus died, was buried, the tomb was empty, and the disciples all say they saw Jesus and this radically transformed their lives. And we can infer from that evidence the resurrection of Christ, which makes our case.
And curiously, and Christians need to keep this in mind, there was no New Testament the early church had to appeal to us the word of God to make the inerrant word of God to make their case. Now they did have the Old Testament and Paul used that with Jews because they already accepted it as authoritative and inerrant. But when they went to Gentiles, that wasn't the case.
What they did is
proclaim Christ crucified and risen. And we were witnesses and believing in him has this consequence rejecting him has another consequence. And that was the essence of their message.
They didn't make
an appeal to inspired texts of the Gentiles that is. They made their appeal when talking to Gentiles to the history, the historical facts. And that was the gospel they communicated the word that in fact we've talked about this before when you look in the book of Acts and just isolate the places where it talks about preaching the word.
They are not preaching scripture. They are
communicating the message, the basic message about Jesus crucified and risen. The preaching the word in those contexts means something different than quoting verses.
Just look it up and you'll see what
I'm saying. Okay Greg, let's go to a question from Deborah. In Acts 722, Stephen says Moses was mighty in word and deed.
Yet when God commissioned Moses, Moses said he was slow speech and tongue in Exodus
410. Are they talking about the same thing or before and after perspectives? Could Acts view what God made of Moses as a leader in Exodus be how he started out when God called him? How do we reconcile this seeming contradiction? When there is no contradiction, there's no need to reconcile. And sometimes you can determine there's no contradiction.
Remember, a contradiction is to say
opposite, diction, speak, contra opposite to say the opposite, all right? So let's read the texts in question Acts 17. Acts 722. I'm sorry, 7. You're on the right page.
So this is Stephen making his defense before the Jews who were not happy with what he said, they executed him. But he refers to the history and he's talking about Moses as Deborah has pointed out. And there it says that Pharaoh's daughter took him away, nurtured him as her own son.
And he was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians and he was a man of power in words and deeds. Okay, he was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians and he was a man of power in words and deeds. Okay, now we go back to the Exodus passage.
And remember, this is 40 years later.
And the text says that Moses said to the Lord as God was commissioning to go back and tell Pharaoh to let my people go, please Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither recently nor in time pass, nor since you have spoken to your servant for I am slow speech and slow of tongue. Now the only difference here, what the passage in Acts says is that he was educated and a man of power in words and deeds.
Okay, now he was a prince of Egypt. All right, that means whatever words that he spoke
and things that he did had to be followed in virtue of his authority in that circumstance, he had significant impact. That's the way I would understand this passage.
All he's saying in this passage here in Exodus chapter four is he's not clever, he's not a clever speaker. And plus he's been hurting sheep for the last half of his lifetime. Remember, he left when he is 40, now he's 80.
All right. Now he says, I have never been clever of speech in this particular
one. And that seems like, oh, that sounds like it's contradicts Acts seven.
But I don't think so.
I think what Acts seven is referring to is his official role that gave him power in the words he spoke and the things that he did. It doesn't mean that he was eloquent.
Here he says, I was never
eloquent and I'm not now. So send someone else, not me. I don't think there's a contradiction here.
It also could just be fear. I mean, he's not necessarily evaluating himself correctly there. God's telling him you're going to be doing these things.
And he's like, I'm not good enough for this.
This is everybody's reaction. Who doesn't have that reaction when they're given a huge task, even if they're better, even if they're more equipped for it than they think they are.
I think that's a perfectly good option too. But I think what you said about power makes sense. Yeah.
Well, we just had our 32nd anniversary of Santa Risen. And when we had our 30th, they made
your wonderful team. They had a film about it.
And I was interviewed. And at the very beginning,
I just said candidly, I didn't want to do this. I didn't want to do this.
This sounded like too
much work. It's too hard. No, I never had any idea of what would eventually from the minor efforts, modest efforts in 1993, as Melinda and I kind of started laying a foundation there.
But even then, it seemed like too much work. And then as things developed,
when you're challenged, you rise to the challenge much of the time. And step by step, a little by little, that was the case here.
But it's not surprising then to see,
especially after 40 years of sending sheep for Moses to say, not me, Lord. I'm no thanks. I'm not very clever here, maybe in the past, but actually doesn't say maybe in the past.
Jesus says I never was. But I think that's the best way to take it. I don't think this is a significant, what's the right word here, difference in these two passages regarding Moses.
And I think another, I'm trying to think, I'm looking at it right now. I'm also wondering, is he just summarizing Moses whole life there? He was a man of power and words and deeds, ultimately, he was a man. He did show power in his deeds.
Like he did all those miracles.
He was a mouthpiece for God, all those sorts of things. But, and then he goes back and tells that that's a possibility to you.
I'm not sure about that. I'd have to look at that.
Well, I'm looking at the after it says he has found a power of words of deeds next versus, but when he was approaching the age of 40, enter his mind to visit his brother and etc.
So this seems to be a characterization of how he was before his 40.
Yeah, that could be. All right.
Let's go to a question from Carl. James 4, 13 through 16,
instructs us that it is evil to boast about tomorrow. We should qualify it with if it is the Lord's will.
Then in chapter 5, he says, absolutely, the prayer offered in faith will make the sick
person well. He includes no qualifiers regarding God's will. How does James 5 fit with James 4? Well, I think there is a little bit of a frustrated element in James 5, but not the one you pointed out.
What's his name? Carl. Carl, not the one you pointed out, Carl, because it's kind of an
apples and oranges comparison here. In James 4, people are just making plans.
And they're saying,
well, I'm going to do this. I'm going to do that, etc, etc, etc. And James says, making plans without keeping in mind the sovereign hand of God which may intervene and send you elsewhere or slam a door in your face or not allow you to accomplish your goal.
That's vain boasting.
Oh, I could just do this or that. That's why it's better to say, well, these are the plans that I have.
Maybe it'll happen if the Lord allows it. And that's the sense of God's will there,
his sovereign will, if God allows this to move forward, then that's what I plan to do at least. I don't know God's will in the sense of his sovereign purposes.
I don't know what God's going
to do, but I'm moving this direction and God is free to do as he likes. That's a very different circumstance that we encounter in chapter 5, where you have sick people going to the church and God is instructing them to perform in a certain way, anoint with oil, lay hands, and the one who is sick will be healed. Actually, that's the problematic one for me because it sounds like a guarantee when it doesn't work out that way.
But this is the appropriate thing to do, bring the sick
people. Now, keep in mind, this is before doctors of any significance. Luke was a doctor, but back then it was a lot less, they were a lot less capable than nowadays.
But you got sick,
this was bad. And so here was a way that God used to deal with it. Go to the elders, and then in the context of the local community, you will have the elders pray over you.
And I don't think there's anything magical about the oil. It's just a sign or a representation of the spirit maybe moving here. And so it says, this is the way you do it, and God's going to take care of it.
So I don't think they're even marginally similar. One's planning without reference to God.
The other one is obeying a command of God, trying to deal with a problem the way God has designed it to be dealt with.
And then you'll see as God will heal. I think he says the man who is sick
will be healed. Again, I don't think that's an airtight promise, but I think it's a generalization.
And saying this is the way to go about the healing and God's going to intervene in many cases in this way. Yeah, Greg, you put it almost exactly the way I have it here. The first one is a proclamation of what we will make happen, and it leaves God out.
But the other one is a request of God and
prayer by nature includes God because you're already acknowledging that he is the one doing the work, not you. So if you are, if you're saying, I'm going to make this happen, I'm going to do this and this and this and leaving God out of it, now you're leaving him out of it. But the other one by nature doesn't leave him out.
So it was almost a carbon copy and content that you said it so much
better. I'm I'm envious. Hey, Amy, nice job.
Well, thank you so much. Let's see. Who did we have
today? Carly and Deborah and Carl.
Carly and Carl. I didn't even notice that. How about that?
A liberation.
Well, we'd love to hear your question. So send it on X with the hashtag
coco for stand to reason.

More on OpenTheo

What Evidence Can I Give for Objective Morality?
What Evidence Can I Give for Objective Morality?
#STRask
June 23, 2025
Questions about how to respond to someone who’s asking for evidence for objective morality, what to say to atheists who counter the moral argument for
Bible Study: Choices and Character in James, Part 2
Bible Study: Choices and Character in James, Part 2
Knight & Rose Show
July 12, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose study James chapters 3-5, emphasizing taming the tongue and pursuing godly wisdom. They discuss humility, patience, and
Licona and Martin Talk about the Physical Resurrection of Jesus
Licona and Martin Talk about the Physical Resurrection of Jesus
Risen Jesus
May 21, 2025
In today’s episode, we have a Religion Soup dialogue from Acadia Divinity College between Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Dale Martin on whether Jesus physica
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Two: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Two: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Risen Jesus
June 4, 2025
The following episode is part two of the debate between atheist philosopher Dr. Evan Fales and Dr. Mike Licona in 2014 at the University of St. Thoman
Do People with Dementia Have Free Will?
Do People with Dementia Have Free Will?
#STRask
June 16, 2025
Question about whether or not people with dementia have free will and are morally responsible for the sins they commit.   * Do people with dementia h
Did Matter and Energy Already Exist Before the Big Bang?
Did Matter and Energy Already Exist Before the Big Bang?
#STRask
July 24, 2025
Questions about whether matter and energy already existed before the Big Bang, how to respond to a Christian friend who believes Genesis 1 and Genesis
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Three: The Meaning of Miracle Stories
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Three: The Meaning of Miracle Stories
Risen Jesus
June 11, 2025
In this episode, we hear from Dr. Evan Fales as he presents his case against the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection and responds to Dr. Licona’s writi
Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead? Licona vs. Ehrman
Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead? Licona vs. Ehrman
Risen Jesus
May 7, 2025
In this episode, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Bart Ehrman face off for the second time on whether historians can prove the resurrection. Dr. Ehrman says no
What Should I Teach My Students About Worldviews?
What Should I Teach My Students About Worldviews?
#STRask
June 2, 2025
Question about how to go about teaching students about worldviews, what a worldview is, how to identify one, how to show that the Christian worldview
The Resurrection: A Matter of History or Faith? Licona and Pagels on the Ron Isana Show
The Resurrection: A Matter of History or Faith? Licona and Pagels on the Ron Isana Show
Risen Jesus
July 2, 2025
In this episode, we have a 2005 appearance of Dr. Mike Licona on the Ron Isana Show, where he defends the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Je
Bodily Resurrection vs Consensual Realities: A Licona Craffert Debate
Bodily Resurrection vs Consensual Realities: A Licona Craffert Debate
Risen Jesus
June 25, 2025
In today’s episode, Dr. Mike Licona debates Dr. Pieter Craffert at the University of Johannesburg. While Dr. Licona provides a positive case for the b
Sean McDowell: The Fate of the Apostles
Sean McDowell: The Fate of the Apostles
Knight & Rose Show
May 10, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose welcome Dr. Sean McDowell to discuss the fate of the twelve Apostles, as well as Paul and James the brother of Jesus. M
Bible Study: Choices and Character in James, Part 1
Bible Study: Choices and Character in James, Part 1
Knight & Rose Show
June 21, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose explore chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of James. They discuss the book's author, James, the brother of Jesus, and his mar
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 2
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 2
Risen Jesus
July 16, 2025
In this episode , we have Dr. Mike Licona's first-ever debate. In 2003, Licona sparred with Dan Barker at the University of Wisonsin-Madison. Once a C
Is It Wrong to Feel Satisfaction at the Thought of Some Atheists Being Humbled Before Christ?
Is It Wrong to Feel Satisfaction at the Thought of Some Atheists Being Humbled Before Christ?
#STRask
June 9, 2025
Questions about whether it’s wrong to feel a sense of satisfaction at the thought of some atheists being humbled before Christ when their time comes,