I recently reconnected with a childhood friend on Facebook. Our conversation eventually turned to spiritual matters. He told me he was a member of a United Methodist Church and he was concerned the denomination would splinter over LGBTQ issues.

I think he mentioned it to me thinking I might not be aware of what has made national news repeatedly regarding the UMC. For several years now the UMC has been wrestling with the conflicting views among its membership about what to do about LGBTQ issues.

My friend’s concerns are being confirmed; a megachurch north of Houston, Woodlands Methodist Church had a vote of whether or not to disaffiliate with the denomination over the issues of “same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ people.” Of those that voted, more than 96% voted to disaffiliate. Woodlands is the fourth largest church in the UMC constellation and second in reported Sunday attendance.

This signals what many churches within the denomination are considering, weary with the ongoing debate over LGBTQ issues. Conservative congregations and members of liberal congregations are beginning what will prove to be a mass exodus reminiscent of what occurred in the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the early 2000s.

The PC (USA) had been experiencing decline in membership for decades when it appointed The Theological Taskforce on Peace, Unity and Purity in 2001. The liberals within the denomination wanted peace, the moderates wanted unity, and the conservatives wanted purity.

The Taskforce admitted that a special focus would be on the “controversies over sexuality and ordination.” When the final report was published in 2006. The final report said, “sexual orientation is, in itself, no barrier to ordination,” while admitting the debate over sexuality and ordination “may continue for many years.”

The Taskforce failed to achieve its goal; it did not bring peace, unity or purity to the denomination. Dwindling membership which had been trickling for decades opened up the floodgates in the early 2000s for conservative congregations and members to leave weary with the incessant debate over matters of biblical certitude.

This scenario is being repeated in the United Methodist Church today. Congregations and members become fatigued debating issues clearly addressed in the Scriptures. Like Elijah addressing the nation of Israel over serving the true and living God or Baal, he asked, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions?  If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” 1 Kings 18: 21.

Like the Presbyterian Church (USA), liberals in the United Methodist Church want peace moderates want unity, and conservatives want purity. Though the UMC has maintained the biblical teachings on sexuality and ordination, those who question the Scriptures teaching on those issues persist in challenging them. Denominational leaders were hesitant to enforce biblical mandates, so conservatives and liberals alike are deserting the denomination.

Two truths seem apparent; the United Methodist Church, as a denomination, is united no longer, and the majority of the churches disaffiliating with the denomination are uniting with conservative coalitions. While the LGBTQ crowd claim many within the culture support them and their lifestyle, the majority of Bible-believing churches do not find their practices scripturally acceptable.

There are other denominations and communions facing the same issues. While the LGBTQ crowd has been instrumental in dismantling denominations, they have not been able to dissuade Bible believing Christians to desert scriptural truth regarding human sexuality.

The real issue is whether or not we believe there is a God who has revealed His divine will and holy nature through the Bible. If they do, then to those wrestling with these same issues I would echo the words of Elijah, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions?  If the Lord is God, follow Him.”

This is a reprint of an old article from February 2019 that shows how scientists, in this case archeologists, interpret archeological data based on their presopposed biases.

A past article entitled Domesticated Camels Came to Israel in 930 B.C., Centuries Later Than Bible Says was published by National Geographic. Two Israeli archaeologists, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, using radiocarbon dating claim domesticated camels did not appear in the Levant until around 930 to 900 B.C. The Levant is the coastal region of the eastern Mediterranean Sea, or the land of the Bible. The specific area is the Aravah Valley were extensive copper mining occurred and camels were the principal means of transporting the ore.

The first time camels appear in the biblical text is in the Genesis account of Abram, who is later named Abraham. Pharaoh gave Abraham “sheep and oxen and donkeys and male and female servants and female donkeys and camels” Genesis 12:16. Historians agree the biblical story of Abraham is dated between 2000 and 1500 B.C.

The article says this calls the historicity of the Bible into question. If domesticated camels were not discovered before 930 B.C., the scriptural record must be wrong when it claims Abraham had camels 500 to 1000 years before. The author of the article, Mairav Zonszein, writes, “While there are conflicting stories about when the Bible was composed, the recent research suggests it was written much later than the events it describes. This supports earlier studies that have challenged the Bible’s veracity as a historic document.”

The same article goes on to say, “Archaeological excavations in the Aravah Valley have turned up bones of camels from earlier periods, perhaps even before the start of the Neolithic (about 9,700 B.C.), but those were probably wild animals that ran free.” Probably? I think Zonszein is trying to pull the camel hair over our eyes.

Zonszein admits in his article camels existed in ancient Israel thousands of years before and during the life of Abraham, but they were “probably” wild camels. If Zonszein and his archaeological buddies expect to be taken seriously on this point, they are “probably” going to need to explain the exact difference between wild camel bones and domesticated camel bones that are over three thousand years old.

Have the “earlier studies that have challenged the Bible’s veracity as a historic document” been based on the same kinds of probabilities? Probably. Archaeology is not an exact science. But it has repeatedly corroborated the biblical account time again and again when it speaks of places and peoples that appear nowhere else but in the Bible.

I do not expect unbelievers to embrace a scriptural worldview, they are really unable to do so, but I do not expect them as scientists to offer self-contradictory interpretations of archaeological evidence based on their biases.

So, will skeptics and archaeologists like Zonszein need to give me something more to go on than probabilities, before I discount the Bible? Probably.

The trustworthiness of the Bible is under constant attack from its critics. Christians like myself believe the Bible to be a reliable guide for what we believe and how we should live, but those who hate our faith viciously malign it.

A criticism commonly levied against the Bible is, after several millennia of transcription and translation how do we know the Scriptures are accurately preserved? How do we know what God said then is what we read now? Among Bible scholars this is known as the issue of textual corruption over the long period of transmission.

At the outset, I want to make what I believe is a salient point. It is only natural to assume that any writing if copied repeatedly for 3500 years, the first 3000 by hand, and translated from one language to another should contain a multitude of mistakes. If, on the other hand, that same writing can be shown to be remarkably free of error and transcribed with uncommon exactitude, then one must consider God not only inspired such a work, but also played an active role in preserving it.

In the twenty-second chapter of Matthew beginning in verse twenty-three, the Sadducees confront Jesus. They do not believe in the resurrection and relate a story they think disproves it. Jesus explains their argument is not valid and then in verse thirty-two gives a simple argument for the afterlife.

Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6 where God speaks to Moses and declares, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” and offers the following interpretation, “He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Jesus’ point is this, when God spoke to Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead for over 400 years. Yet, God referred to them in the present tense, “I am.” If God is referring to them in the present tense, even if their bodies are dead, their spirits are alive in some real sense and in His care. This silenced the Sadducees.

Follow me carefully. Moses wrote Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch 1500 years before Christ in Hebrew. The rest of the Old Testament canon followed and was translated into Greek about 200 B.C. and became known as the Septuagint. Jesus’ life and ministry are recorded in the Gospels and are joined by the rest of New Testament during the first century A.D., which is also written in Greek.

In the fourth century Jerome translates the Bible into Latin. Many of the early English translations can find their origins in the Latin Vulgate. Since the first English Bible was printed, the English language has undergone at least five revisions.

Here is my point. After 3500 years of transcription and translation the tense of a verb has not changed. If it had Jesus’s reasoning regarding the resurrection would have been inscrutable.

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever,” Isaiah 40:8.

This past Thursday, July 28, 2022, at 9:27 pm, Joe Nathan James, Jr., an Alabama inmate was pronounced dead from a lethal injection at a south Alabama prison. James had been convicted in 1994 of stalking and killing a former girlfriend, Faith Hall.

Hall’s two daughters, ages 3 and 6 when their mother was murdered, had requested James’ death sentenced be commuted to life in prison. “We hoped the state wouldn’t take a life simply because a life was taken and we have forgiven Mr. Joe Nathan James Jr. for his atrocities toward our family.”

In response to the daughters’ plea, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey replied, while she always takes the family’s wishes into consideration, she “must always fulfill our responsibility to the law, to public safety and to justice.”

This case, and others before it, bring into specific relief the two biblical principles of forgiveness and justice. Within Christianity these two principles seem to be in conflict but that is because of a misunderstanding of the two.

Forgiveness is a Christian duty; it is intended to guard the one offended from being consumed by hatred and vengeance and to emulate the magnanimity of Christ. We are enjoined by Christ Himself, “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you,” Matthew 6:14.

If Faith Hall’s two daughters have truly forgiven James they have obeyed Christ, freed theselves from hatred and the need for revenge, and have peace within. These are the goals of forgiveness.

The only one who can forgive an offender is the one who was offended. Neither the government nor society can forgive a murderer for murdering one of its citizen’s. The only one who can and is commanded to forgive, is the injured party, the victim or victims. No one can forgive the person who has wronged me, but me. That is why the individual is commanded to forgive

The function and role of government and society is to administer justice. As Governor Ivey said, we “must always fulfill our responsibility … to justice.” If a victim forgiving a criminal should be the basis for changing a legal sentence, why stop at commuting his sentence to life in prison, why not release him?

When Noah and his family disembarked from the ark, God gave them several instructions. Among those were, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man,” Genesis 9:6. Those who murder destroy God’s image in another person and by doing so forfeit the right to bear His image.

Prior to the flood anarchy prevailed. “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,” Genesis 6:5. Injustice reigned.

After the flood, the principle of justice needed to be reestablished. It was God who initiated capital punishment. The Father chose the most heinous human offense, murder, to establish a pattern of justice; punishment commensurate to the offense.

We need to know that God admonishes individuals to forgive for our own well-being, and he admonishes mankind to administer justice for the well-being of society.

We had a similar case in Florida over a decade ago. February 16, 2009, at 6:17 P.M., Martin Grossman was declared dead at Florida State Prison, Starke, Florida. Grossman was executed for killing state wildlife officer Margaret “Peggy” Park on December 13, 1984, more than twenty-five years before. Peggy’s mother, also named Margaret, said Grossman’s execution was “long overdue.”

Let the criminal flee to Christ, let him seek mercy from a compassionate God, but let society seek justice.  On July 28, 2022, at 9:27 pm, Joe Nathan James, Jr., was pronounced dead.  I hope he had asked for forgiveness, but I agree with Peggy Park’s mother; justice was long overdue.

I have been a committed and passionate student of the Scriptures since 1973, almost fifty years. My commitment and passion has been fueled by the sure belief that the Bible was inspired and has been preserved by Father God as a reliable guide to His holy nature and divine will intended by Him for us to read and understand.

My studies have served to reaffirm that conviction and my diligence has been rewarded with a greater understanding and insight of what the Scriptures teach.  So I was concerned when I read an article titled “Interpreting the Bible Just Got More Complicated” by Dr. Hugh Houghton writing for The Daily Beast.

The title of the article suggests interpreting the Scriptures is too complicated and is based on the relatively obscure commentary of a fourth century scholar, Fortunatianus of Aquileia. He believed the Bible should be interpreted allegorically, not literally, and Dr. Houghton said this agrees with what the third century theologian Origen of Alexandria taught.

Based on their views Dr. Houghton concludes “you don’t have to read the Bible literally,” and “for most of the Christian era nobody thought you should.” If the allegorical interpretation of Scripture was the widespread accepted method of understanding the Bible in early Christianity, why did it lapse into obscurity?

The answer is because the allegorical method was so questionable that the majority of believers deemed it unworthy of their continued attention. It fell into obscurity for a reason; it did not enjoy the widespread popularity in the Christian community that Dr. Houghton claims.

The allegorical method of interpretation is inherently flawed; it subjects the meaning of the Scriptures to the personal perspective of the interpreter. And the Scriptures themselves tell us they are not “a matter of one’s own interpretation,” 1 Peter 1:20. The allegorical method also suggests we cannot understand the Scriptures for what they plainly say.

The Scriptures are a straightforward claim to be a historical record of God’s interactions with men and understanding the historical context is important in understanding why God said what He did. He couched this revelation of Himself in human language so that understanding the interplay between semantics, what words mean, and syntax, the way words are put together to convey meaning, is important to interpreting His Word.

There are no hidden meanings, the Bible should be trusted to mean what it plainly says, although the mind darkened by sin and reluctant to accept the truth contained therein may find it incomprehensible. But every believer is promised “the Spirit of truth” who will guide us “into all truth,” John 16:13.

For these reasons the common and orthodox accepted method of interpreting the Scriptures is the historical, grammatical, plain meaning of the Text. If we believe the Scriptures are the Word of God, it is imperative that we interpret them in that way.

Jesus said, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free,” John 8:31-32. The Scriptures are a straightforward historical record not a collection of fables; that’s why its first words are “In the beginning” and not “Once upon a time.”