Is the Bible the word of God?

Liberal Christian theologian John Shelby Spong wrote a scathing opinion piece entitled "The 3 biggest biblical misconception" on why he believes the Bible is not the word of God. You can read his article here. The following is my response to that article. His words are in quoted in red.

First, people assume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it.

Archeology has repeatedly confirmed the validity of the bible from an historical perspective. For instance, there was a time when King David was thought to be a legend like King Arthur. Then in 1994 a fragment was excavated by the ancient city of Dan that gave the first reference to the "House of David" outside of biblical text. The higher critical thinkers also doubted the existence of the Hittites mentioned in the Old Testament, however in 1876 the ruins of the Hittite empire was discovered at Boghaz-Koy with more than 10,000 clay tablets chronicling their history. The list goes on and on.

The facts are that Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament.

The first five books of the Bible, also called the Torah, are widely believed to be written by Moses. The Jewish people were very meticulous about record keeping, as can be seen by the extensive genealogies in the bible. If a scribe made one mistake he would destroy the copy and ceremoniously wash himself, that's how serious they took it. And if there was any doubt, Mosses talked to God directly to get the facts straight.

Can a defining tribal narrative that is passed on orally for 45 generations ever be regarded as history, at least as history is understood today?

Do stories of heroic figures not grow, experience magnifying tendencies and become surrounded by interpretive mythology as the years roll by?

The fact that the scriptures have not changed for the last 2000+ years, as confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, show that scriptures has indeed been "divinely" persevered down though the ages.

Jesus of Nazareth, according to our best research, lived between the years 4 B.C. and A.D. 30. Yet all of the gospels were written between the years 70 to 100 A.D., or 40 to 70 years after his crucifixion, and they were written in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write.

Business transactions and governmental activities took place almost certainly in Greek. Being multi-lingual was a necessity and many Jews knew the Septuagint (The Greek translation of the OT). In any case it's a good thing the NT is written in Greek, Koine Greek was the common language spoken all over the known world which made it easier to spread the gospel. Also it's a precise language, having more verb tenses than English. Concerning the former does it matter when it was written? The important thing is that it was written by first and second hand accounts of people who knew Jesus.

Are the gospels then capable of being effective guides to history? If we line up the gospels in the time sequence in which they were written - that is, with Mark first, followed by Matthew, then by Luke and ending with John - we can see exactly how the story expanded between the years 70 and 100.

The four gospels are written from four different perspectives and accounts so it's expected there will be details in one book that wont be in another. It's not that the story is being expanded, it's that it's being expounded.

For example, miracles do not get attached to the memory of Jesus story until the eighth decade. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a ninth-decade addition; the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is a 10th-decade narrative.

In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one, but by the time we come to the last gospel, John, Thomas is invited to feel the nail prints in Christ’s hands and feet and the spear wound in his side.

Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark’s gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all.

The four gospels were written to different audiences so the focus is different in each book. Matthew was written for the Jews, so it's focus is on Messianic prophecies. Mark was written to a Roman audience. Luke was written to the Greeks\gentiles. And John is written for the doubting Thomas to prove the divinity of Jesus.

The Bible portrays God as hating the Egyptians, stopping the sun in the sky to allow more daylight to enable Joshua to kill more Amorites and ordering King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites.

 All nations that were hostile to the Israelites and did not heed Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you." Those nations were destroyed because of there many sins, among of which were child sacrifice. "[it is] because of the wickedness of these nations [that] the LORD is driving them out from before you. Deu 9:4". More on this topic

Can these acts of immorality ever be called “the word of God”? The book of Psalms promises happiness to the defeated and exiled Jews only when they can dash the heads of Babylonian children against the rocks! Is this “the word of God? What kind of God would that be?

 Babylon's siege of Jerusalem was so serve that the Jews had to resort to eating there own babies out of starvation, this can be found in the book of Lamentations. The Jews were wanting recompense to what happened to there own babies.

The Bible, when read literally, calls for the execution of children who are willfully disobedient to their parents

 A couple of points when read carefully:
*One of the charges is drunkenness so he's an adult, NOT a child
*Daughters seem to be excluded
*He's a repeat offender\trouble maker
*He's brought to the elders which suggests a trial first, only then would sentence be passed
*The law was intended as a deterrent to keep society in order
More on this topic

for those who worship false gods, for those who commit adultery, for homosexual persons and for any man who has sex with his mother-in-law, just to name a few.

God does not tolerate sin and for those living under the law there was no grace. Luckily today we don't live under the old law.

The Bible exhorts slaves to be obedient to their masters and wives to be obedient to their husbands.

 Slavery in the Bible was more like indentured servitude and some even became slaves willingly. The Bible specifically condemns the kind of slavery that happened to the African Americans. "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exd 21:16)" More on this topic:More on this topic

The third major misconception is that biblical truth is somehow static and thus unchanging. Instead, the Bible presents us with an evolutionary story, and in those evolving patterns, the permanent value of the Bible is ultimately revealed.

Truth is absolute and does not change. Once you try to make truth relative you are taking the place of God by deciding what is right and what is wrong.

That is why I treasure this book and why I struggle to reclaim its essential message for our increasingly non-religious world.

John Shelby Spong uses speculation and old tired arguments as his "proof" the Bible is not the word of God. Ultimately the bible validates itself historically and prophetically, but most of all because it works. Religion may change a man on the outside, but only the world of God can change him on the inside.