Crash the Future

So I've been out of the blogosphere for quite some time. I think it's been about two and a half months now. That has makes it difficult to get going again (the law of intertia and all), but alas...

.

The last couple of months have been extremely full and difficult ones with things going on in the church and in life in general. However, because of all the goings on I have had a large number of thoughts triggered as my mind has been going 100 mph consistently for the last few months. In fact, there was a bit of a stretch at the end where I was falling asleep around 1am and waking up by 5am each day with my mind going full speed and my prayer flying wild. It was not until this past Monday, the 8th, that it really hit me that I was now passed the crux of the past two months. This actually sunk in when I realized that for the first time in a few months I was excited to begin the week ahead of me. Thank you, Lord!

.

I know that I won't be able to recapture all the various thoughts that have tumbled over and over in my mind, but there was one that God continually brought back to my mind for several weeks time after time again. It's something that lodged in my mind and heart when I was reading through Matthew 6 back in March. It's a verse likely familiar to you.

.

"Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

.

I read that and it honestly makes me laugh. Each day has enough trouble of its own... including tomorrow! That's exactly why I DO worry! But Jesus indicates that God provides for my needs today. He already sees tomorrow and will provide for me as that trouble arises as well. He is the God of past, present, and future. His provision remains sufficient for today, and He will still be God tomorrow. There are things that will remain uneffected no matter how hard I wish for them to change or attempt to force them to. I waste my time and energy when I vainly struggle in body, mind, or spirit to change that over which I have no power . And in the mean time there are things God places before me to accomplish today... people to talk to... service to perform... truth to share... grace to extend... gifts to use with good stewardship. And if I waste my time worrying about the trouble tomorrow will bring, I will not be focused on that which God has given me the strength to accomplish for His kingdom today. This is a difficult lesson for me to learn, and I am definitely not convinced that I practiced it as well as I would have liked over the last couple of months. However, I can say with more confidence than before that God continues to provide exactly what is needed at the appropriate time, not a minute sooner or later. And for that I give Him the glory. And so...

.

"Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

I was just thinking about a project that our church is headed into and a certain set of verses came to mind. We have been working through the book of Acts in the sermon series this year and a certain verse in Acts 20 stuck out to me. It's one that has often grabbed my attention and I was reminded of it once again. In verses 26 and 27 Paul tells the Ephesians, "Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of every one's blood, for I did not shrink back from declaring to you the whole plan of God." For two reasons this is a powerful proclamation when I stop to think about it.

First, Paul seems to indicate that he is accountable for everyone. He will either be declared guilty of or innocent of their blood... of the judgement or deliverance that falls on them. Why?! Isn't it unfair?! Doesn't God judge people for their own actions?! Why would Paul, or I for that matter, be responsible for the judgement or deliverance people experience at God's hand?!

The first indication of why Paul is held accountable is found in Romans 1:14-15a "I am obligated both to Greeks and barbarians, both to the wise and the foolish. So I am eager to preach the good news..." Apparently he is under some sort of obligation to everyone that he meets. And this obligation prompts his eagerness to be a witness to the reality of Jesus' resurrection. He eagerly tells people of Jesus, because he is compelled to do so by an urgency I often forget about. This is the same obligation that God explained to the prophet Ezekiel in chapter 33. He compares Ezekiel to a watchman on a city wall with an approaching army of destruction. He says, "When you hear a word from My mouth, give them a warning from Me. If I say to the wicked: Wicked one, you will surely die, but you do not speak out to warn him about his way, that wicked person will die for his iniquity, yet I will hold you responsible for his blood. But if you warn a wicked person to turn from his way and he doesn't turn from it, he will die for his iniquity, but you will have saved your life." The striking parallel in terminology leads me to believe that Paul understood he was under the same sort of obligation that God placed on Ezekiel... the watchman.

Here's the thing... God explains that He will hold people accountable for the truth He has given them. If we truly believe we have found the only one who can deliver us, we have an obligation to share that with others. If we keep silent and judgement befalls them, we are held responsible by God... in short, their blood is on our hands. That is why Paul is eager to share the gospel with people. He sees the judgement that awaits, and so he takes the responsibility of being a watchman very seriously. He eagerly warns everyone around him of pending judgement as well as the deliverance made possible through the reality of the resurrection of Christ. Paul apparently has a firm grasp on that fact, which is a major motivator for him.

And this brings me to the second observation that I'm hit with by Paul's words in Acts 20. Paul is able to say that he is innocent of every one's blood. The indication here is not that he told every single person about the gospel, but that he did not shy away from any opportunity God opened up. Whenever the Holy Spirit provided Paul with an opportunity to witness to the reality of Christ and the deliverance He brings, Paul took full advantage of it. And I have to examine my life and ask, could I make the same declaration? Am I innocent of the blood of all people? Am I taking advantage of every opportunity God provides to point people to the reality of Jesus?

I'll just wrap this up with a video posted on Youtube by atheist comedian Penn Jillette. It's one that I first saw on J.D.'s blog a few weeks back. And it totally applies to what I've been mulling over today...

After the three instances we just discussed, the remaining 37 or so variations in the New Testament consist primarily of single words in a given verse. “Did the original text read 'this' or 'that'?” They are definitely not as shocking as the three variations just addressed, which is why Ehrman does not spend much time on these additional variants. They will not really get him any additional conspiracy mileage upon which to sell his book.

He does hint at this fact when he indicates that a typical example of other variants is found in “...Rev. 1:5, where the author prays to 'the one who released us from our sins.' The word for 'released' (LUSANTI) sounds exactly like the word for 'washed' (LOUSANTI), and so it is no surprise that in a number of medieval manuscripts the author prays to the one 'who washed us from our sins.'” (p. 93) But, even in instances like Rev. 1:5 the meaning of the original text is not lost. The ideas of being washed from our sin and being released from our sin are both common biblical concepts that mirror one another. Neither variant shakes the foundations of Christian theology nor provides a different theological meaning of the passage, contrary to what Ehrman would like to imply. Yet this sort of variant, which is slight but has no effect on the message of a text, typifies the 37 remaining variations debated by scholars today. For some reason that just doesn't seem as flashy and scandalous as the “400,000 or more!” with which Ehrman started.

In my mind, this prompts a responding question, “If this is the best that a highly biased skeptic with a publicly admitted agenda and a substantial financial interest in making the Bible seem unreliable can do, then why would I question its reliability?” To the contrary, I am actually encouraged by the arguments of Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. He brings the worst accusations available against the text of the Bible, and does so in a very misleading and sensational way, and still yet, once a few clarifications are pointed out, his argument is quickly diffused. And the entire New Testament stands unchallenged in its textual authenticity and reliability except for three non-essential passages, which coincidentally are clearly marked in the footnotes of almost any Bible you pick up.

This tells us something very important: anywhere there is not a footnote indicating otherwise, scholars are certain what is written is original. That means that at least 99.5% of the copy of the New Testament in your hands is recognized to be, without a doubt, the words that were originally written 2000 years ago. That is something people like Bart Ehrman definitely do not want the public to realize for two reasons. First, it would hurt their book sales upon which they have built their professional reputations and careers. Second, it means that people, including Ehrman himself, must deal with the words of the Bible as authentic and reliable records. A person is not required to believe the Bible is telling the truth, but its claims cannot be simply brushed aside, unfaced and unanswered, because of a supposed unreliable textual past. This means that any truly honest person must wrestle with the teachings of the New Testament on their own merit, rather than simply discounting them from the start as unreliable writings with all kinds of variations such that there is no way to tell what was originally written. I wonder if that is something Bart Ehrman and most others who level nebulous accusations against the reliability of the biblical text are willing to do.

Here’s the bottom line. It would be extremely difficult for anyone with a good knowledge of the manuscript evidence to argue that the text of the Bible was unreliably transmitted. We have what was originally written by the original authors 2000 years ago.

We've been looking at the particular passages Bart Ehrman attacks in his book, and I'll look at the third here briefly.

1John 5:7-8.
A few late Latin manuscripts, following verse 7, add the phrase, “...in heaven, the Father the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth...” When a 16th Century scholar named Erasmus was compiling Greek manuscripts and practicing textual criticism in the early 1500's he realized that this phrase was not in any Greek or early manuscript. So, he left the phrase out of his Greek compilation. Of course, that was scandalous to some powerful people who were used to reading the Latin copy they had. They felt Erasmus was removing a verse of Scripture, and so Erasmus promised to include it in his compilation if a single Greek manuscript could be found containing the phrase. Miracle of miracles, an “authentic” Greek manuscript was soon found, arguably with the ink still wet. True to his word, but under protest, Erasmus included the phrase in his compilation.

Today this phrase is universally recognized by scholars to be a later addition. The manuscript evidence would seem to indicate that it found its way into the Latin manuscript as a scribe jotted a note to himself in the margin of a text with which he was working. The original verses reminded him of the Trinity and he wrote a note to that effect, similar to the interactive notes people often write in the margins of books today. A few later scribes then thought the note was supposed to be included in the text, and mistakenly inserted it in their Latin texts between verses 7 and 8. (This understanding is so certain that many modern translations will only include this phrase in footnotes at the bottom of the page, not even in brackets within the context of the remaining passage.)

The fact that this phrase is not original does not undermine any major doctrine (e.g. the Trinity) in Scripture, however. For instance, the Trinity is seen in the Genesis creation narrative, where God the Father says, “Let Us create man in Our image.” The Spirit hovers over the deep. And God in the flesh comes to walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden during the cool of the day. The Trinity makes an appearance in the different narratives of Jesus' baptism, where the heavens open, the Father's voice is heard affirming the Son, and the Spirit is seen descending as a dove. Other instances like this make it apparent that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found from the Old Testament to the New. It could not be seriously argued to rest on this phrase alone.

These three instances are by far the most substantial and shocking of the 40 remaining variations at which we arrived above. But these passages are hardly the trade secrets Ehrman would like to make them out to be. To illustrate this fact, I would simply point out that most Bible translations today put these passages in brackets and include a footnote that says something to the effect of, “Early manuscripts do not contain this passage,” or, “It is uncertain that this passage is original.” So if a passage does not have that footnote, then scholars have no question about the words being what was originally written.

After the three instances we just discussed, the remaining 37 variations consist primarily of single words in a given verse. I'll give some examples of those next time.

My uber cool brother and sister-in-law just had their second child, Isabella Kate. Connie started going into labor on Monday and Isabella Kate was born in the wee hours of the A.M. on Tuesday. Congratulations Adam, Connie, and Josiah on the new daughter/sister! Wish I could be there and get to check her out in person. Me and the rest of the Alaska crew love you guys!

By the way, if you want to check out some pictures of my cute niece, just click here.

Let's take a moment to look at two of the three largest, most dramatic, most sensational instances of the 40 variations that actually exist. (I'll look at the third next time.) Conveniently Ehrman spends quite a bit of space and ink relishing in these three because they are the most sensational instances to which a person can possibly point in an attempt to undermine a person's confidence in the reliability of the text of Scripture. I'll briefly address them in their canonical order.

.

There is debate as to whether Mark 16:9-20 is part of the original Gospel of Mark. Here is a basic rundown of the facts. All but two Greek manuscripts have verses 9-20 in them. One of those two looks as though verses 9-20 were written down and then someone erased them at a later date. There are a few later manuscripts in other languages which do not have verses 9-20. There are also a few manuscripts which place a small two sentence summary of verses 9-20 after verse 8, in place of verses 9-20. Finally a few manuscripts record all of verses 9-20 before tacking on the two sentence summary of them.

.

Regardless of whether you decide Mark 16:9-20 is original or not, I will simply point out one fact: unless you are trying to prove that all Christians should drink poison and handle snakes as proof of their spiritual authenticity, there is no doctrine gained or lost in this passage. (And even if you were attempting to prove this belief, Mark 16:9-20 would far from make your case.) The same basic information in the last part of Mark 16 is recorded from slightly different perspectives in the other Gospels and in the first chapter of Acts. And chances are that this passage will be in brackets with a footnote in any Bible you pick up. This is not exactly the ancient, sensational Christian conspiracy Ehrman would like to make it out to be.

.

The woman caught in adultery is a favorite story among many believers. People love to quote the line, “He who has no sin throw the first stone.” We love to guess as to what Jesus started writing in the dirt as he knelt down. Somehow this story seems so similar to what we see elsewhere of Jesus, that it is hard to believe it may not be part of the original text. However, its position as original is highly in doubt. In summary, this story is missing in many manuscripts. In some manuscripts it is present, but with an asterisk in the margin before and after it, not too unlike the brackets and footnote you will likely find in your Bible translation if you turn to this passage. Other manuscripts place it at the very end of John, tacked on as an appendix that doesn't fit within but is too good to leave out. And to make matters more interesting this story even appears in a few manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke.

.

It seems highly unlikely that this story is a part of the original Gospel of John. Still yet, it rings so true to what else we see of Jesus in John that it is hard to let the story go. My personal opinion is that it is a true story of Jesus that was passed on by someone who was copying the Gospel of John. They included it as an appendix or an additional story, not unlike the bonus track on a modern CD. Some later scribes thought that it was a part of the Gospel that was unintentionally left out and added as an appendix. They then included it in the body of the Gospel and caused confusion for later scribes.

.

However, I must point out that whether this story is original or not, it does not add or take away from what we see of Jesus' character and teachings. Part of the reason it is so well loved by many is that it exemplifies the compassion, mercy, and teaching Jesus demonstrates elsewhere in John and in the other Gospels. Like the passage in Mark, this gains shock value for people who have not read their footnotes, but it does not actually build Ehrman's case that the validity of orthodox Christianity or the truth of Jesus' teachings are in doubt.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MOM!

Just in case you couldn't tell, the is the day on which my most awesome mother entered the world. On this day, some years ago, my Nana Jane gave birth to her little girl. And I am EXTREMELY thankful for that day. "Sure," you say, "if she hadn't been born, then neither would you." And this is true... BUT... I'm thankful for that day for more than just that reason. My mom has been an amazing role model to me. I inherited much of my faith in Christ because of her influence in my early life. Much of my understanding of the world is based upon how she sees things. She encouraged me and pushed me along to accomplish the things I've been able to accomplish in life. And the whole time she's been praying for me, for which I am extremely thankful. (A certain dreary day filled with freezing rain in the mountains of Georgia during Ranger School come to mind.) In short, I would not be the person I am today if not for my mother's part in my life. And so... I wish you a happy birthday, Mom! I love you. And I thank God for letting me be your son.

When we left off in the last blog, we were at 10,000 variants in biblical manuscripts. Read back over the variants I gave in the previous blog. These are typical variants. The first three variants simply reorder the words, “our Lord Jesus Christ.” I doubt that many people would argue that there is a difference in meaning between “our Lord Jesus Christ,” “Jesus Christ our Lord,” and, “our Lord Christ Jesus.” The fourth variant is simply a misspelling of the word “Christ,” which hardly amounts to an earth-shattering variation in the scriptural text. The overwhelming number of the 10,000 non-duplicate variants fall into this category. In fact, all but 40 of those 10,000 are variations of word order or misspelling just like the example above. So, in the literally thousands of existing manuscripts we have for the New Testament (the earliest of which dates all the way back to within 30-40 years of the Apostle John’s life), only 40 variants ever found are anything more substantial than the example I just gave.

Think about this! When we started off we had “400,000 or more!” variants according to Ehrman. After we simply remove the duplicates, the number of variants drops to under 10,000. If we then discount the obvious spelling errors and slight changes in word order, we are left with only 40 places in the New Testament where there is any debate or question about what the original text said. 40 debated variants are definitely not as spectacular, scandalous, and sensational as “400,000 or more!” So it comes as no surprise that Ehrman would conveniently leave out these clarifications which undermine the case he strives to make in his best-selling book.

Of course the next natural question is, “Well, what about those 40 remaining places? Don't they show the unreliability of the Bible? After all, even you admit that you aren't sure about the original reading in these instances.” My response to this question is simple. The remaining places where variations occur do not hurt the Christian faith, nor do they undermine my confidence in the meaning of the biblical text. I'll begin to explain this in the next blog.

From my perspective it seems as though the first question to be logically answered is that of variants. After all, why argue about contradictions in a text if we don't even know whether or not that text is originally what was written? And what would be the point of figuring out how a text was chosen to be “scripture” before we even know whether or not the version we have is the one that was really “chosen” to begin with? So, I'll start by looking at the issue of variants, which is an issue that gets a lot of play in our society.

Bart Ehrman, for example, has made a significant amount of money by selling books that play off the public's lack of knowledge about New Testament scholarship and textual criticism. In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why he writes with the tone of someone wishing to wow the uninitiated by letting them in on the deep dark secrets of New Testament scholars. It's almost as though he wishes to create a sense that he is sharing trade secrets with the public in an effort to blow the whistle on a vast conspiracy. While this definitely makes for sensational writing and sells over 100,000 books in its first three months at the low list-price of $24.95, it is not entirely honest and is perhaps even academically fraudulent. (Just in case you didn't stop to do the math, that's $2.5 million in sales in the first three months, with countless additional copies sold in the years following.)

Let's look at an example of how this plays out. In a section where Ehrman is revealing the supposed scandal of New Testament variants he writes: “Scholars differ significantly in their estimates – some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more! We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” (p. 89-90)

Here is what he conveniently failed to leave out of his sensational explanation...

First of all, the reason that the number of variants is debated and uncounted is not due to the great number which baffles even the most sophisticated of computer programs. The reason is far more simple and petty. Scholars cannot agree on exactly how to count the number of variants. For instance, they debate whether two manuscripts saying “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus” count as one variant, two variants, or four variants. There is one variation between the two manuscripts, so most lay people would think it is one variant. But, it occurs in two manuscripts so by most scholars' estimation, that makes it two separate variants. But still other scholars would argue that the change involves and affects four different written words and their position and word order in the text as a whole, so obviously these should be considered as four different variants. Of course, this kind of academic debate tends to seem asinine to most lay people, and it definitely does not sell books, so Ehrman leaves it out.

It doesn't stop there, however. You see, most scholars will agree that a variant is counted any time a manuscript varies from any other manuscript in any way, and it is counted again in any manuscript where that same variation occurs. This means that most variants are actually just exact duplicates of other variants. For instance let's say one verse Paul wrote has four different versions in manuscripts we find, “I thank our Lord Jesus Christ for you,” “I thank Jesus Christ our Lord for you,” “I thank our Lord Christ Jesus for you,” and “I thank our Lord Jesus Crist for you.” Let's say we find the first version in 1500 different manuscripts. The second version is to be found in 1250 manuscripts. The third is seen in around 750 manuscripts, with the fourth in a measly 262 manuscripts. Most lay people I know would think this constitutes no more than four variants because there are only four variations, but no! In this case, for this one verse of eight words, we have roughly 3762 variants (unless you want to go the route of the scholar in the paragraph above who claims four variants for those four words, in which case it could easily be 12,000-15,000 variants for these eight words). So, the vast majority of Ehrman's “400,000 or more!” variants are disposed of if you simply discount the reduplication taking place. In fact, simply not counting the duplicate variants drops the total number to under 10,000 places where any form of variation occurs in any manuscript. This is still seemingly a high number, but we aren’t done yet, and I'll continue on that line in the next blog.

The Bible has been translated and copied so many times there’s no way we can actually know what it says. There are so many different variants we can’t know which is right. And then there are all the other books that didn’t make it into the Bible. What makes them any less right or true than the ones that made it in? The Bible wasn’t even formed until centuries after the fact. What about all the contradictions in the Bible? Why should I believe the Bible is reliable?

I have encountered these basic statements and questions in one form or another multiple times in the last few days, and even more times in the last couple of months. With all that is out there right now on other gospels, the conspiracies of the Bible, and the “scandalous” contradictions of the Bible, it is no surprise that many have these questions or ideas.

However, a point of interest I have noticed is that few people, when asked to elaborate further can give much detail or reason for these concerns. Ask a person to which contradictions he refers, and he typically has a very hard time coming up with a single one. Ask someone which variant readings are most troublesome, and she often can't give an answer. Most often it seems that people are simply throwing about a nebulous accusation which is currently en vogue while not actually having the slightest shred of evidence beyond the generic, “Everyone knows...” or “They say...” The funny thing is if you follow up with the natural question, “Who are 'They'?” You still are not likely to actually get any names beyond a catch-all “people who know” or “scholars who study those things”.

I have had some instances when a person who makes these claims can provide some basic response that shows more familiarity with the issues involved. They may be able to give an example of a seeming contradiction in Scripture or give a ballpark figure of the current number of manuscript variants. I will be the first to admit that there are some things in Scripture that are hard to figure out. And there are some issues that I am still working on. Interestingly, however, the contradictions people give or the manuscript variants don't fit anywhere in that picture for me. The vast majority of seeming contradictions can be quickly answered in a logical, plausible manner. The variants issue is not an issue when you actually spend time studying what is being found, rather than simply taking the word of certain popular professors who have a vested interest in selectively choosing and wording scholarly facts in order to create sensation and sell books to the public.

In an effort to lay some basic groundwork for people who want to know the truth of the situation, I'll address some of the most common issues or concerns raised about the reliability of the Bible in a series of blogs I'm starting here. Hopefully, this will help provide a basic foundation upon which those who wish to learn more can build. (What I will cover is not based upon my own smarts. I’m primarily standing on the shoulders of scholars much smarter and more educated than I. Two good starting points for a basic understanding of what I will hit on are Tim Keller’s Reason for God and Lee Stroebel’s The Case for the Real Jesus. For a much more scholarly and substantive book, that really is chewing on some academic meat, check out Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by Richard Bauckham.)

Today has been a flurry of activity. This week we moved out of our initial temporary offices and into our intermediate offices. This Sunday will be our first service back on-site since the fire, and we had to clear out of the classrooms where our temporary offices were set up and into recently cleaned offices nearer the damaged area. That happened Wednesday. Yesterday and today were spent preparing the building for Sunday. It's definitely still a construction zone, but it's much improved over the charred and sooty place it was a month and a half ago. (We've got about 75% of the building back.) With all the prep, I'm looking forward to having a day off tomorrow. But I'm looking forward, even more, to when our church comes together on Sunday for the worship service. It is going to be awesome to have us all together again at our building for communion. I expect it to be a glorious morning!

So, I've gone ahead and posted a new link in my sidebar. It's one that I've long enjoyed, but for some reason have never posted here. Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. His site includes some good basic introductory items on philosophy and the reason for belief, particularly in Christianity. He writes well, explaining philosophical arguments for God's existence in clear, everyday language. It's a fun thing to read through. Anyway, I highly recommend checking it out. I've enjoyed rereading various articles on his site, and I suspect some of you might as well.

So... I suppose I've had a bit of an unofficial hiatus. It's been a month's time since last I posted, and although I haven't kept up with the blog, it has definitely been a full month. With so much time passing since the last post, I'm a bit at a loss for what to write. My mind has been so focused on the various tasks and necessities of the ministry at the church, in this time of transition, that it's been hard to shift my mental gears.

I haven't done much reading thus far this year. I've only read a handful of books, and considering two or three of them were "scouting" potential books for premarital counseling, I won't go into those here. (I'm going to be performing my first wedding this summer, and so I'm taking a couple through premarital counseling. Fun stuff!) I've read almost the whole Book of Mormon this past month because Sarah and I have been repeatedly meeting with a few LDS missionaries. They know that I'm a pastor at the church, and we have some very honest, yet respectful conversations. And so far they keep coming back. It's been a good series of meetings, and I might take some time to reflect here on the LDS faith and how it differs from biblical Christianity (though Mormons consider themselves true Christians). But I'll leave that for a future post. For now another book comes to mind.

At the very end of the year, 2008, I read what I consider to be one of the best books ever written for the skeptic mind. Tim Keller's The Reason for God was excellent. He doesn't set out to prove the existence of God, which is a refreshing perspective for Christian apologetics. It may come as a surprise to some people that a Christian pastor may say this, but the existence of the biblical God cannot be philosophically proven. The existence of God can only be shown to be possible and, I would argue, probable. Tim Keller recognizes this and writes a book in light of that very fact. He starts out not by giving some categorical proof for the existence of God. Rather, he simply asks the skeptic to apply the same level of scrutiny to his own beliefs that he applies to religion, and Christianity in particular. If a skeptic applies the same level of skepticism to his own beliefs that he does to others, he will be forced to admit that his entire worldview is based as heavily on faith as the worldview of the "faithful" whom he mocks as unreasonable. When you "doubt your doubts" you come to the point that you realize that all "reason" is based on a decent amount of faith in something. So the question then becomes, which foundational faith is the most "reasonable". Although it cannot be absolutely proven, Christianity and the God of the Bible definitely becomes at least as "reasonable" as the other alternatives, though Keller (and I) would conclude they are actually the most probable option. Keller's book is a must-read for "believers" and "skeptics" alike. Believers who read this book may find some things which with they take issue. If you read this and encounter some things that you wonder how he could write that, consider what he says, you need not accept it. I still stand by this recommendation. On the other side, skeptics who wish to remain intellectually honest and consistent will be challenged to continue describing religion, particularly Christianity, as "unreasonable." This does not mean that they will be won over to Keller's position. It simply means that Keller makes a philosophically sound and coherent argument for the "reasonableness" of faith and the "faith" of skepticism. All in all, it's a solid book. In fact, I think it's definitely moved into one of the slots of my top ten favorites. It'll become a perrenial read, I'm sure. Anyway... check it out. I doubt you'll be disappointed.