I was born and raised in Naples, Italy, within a mildly cultural Catholic context. Growing up, I developed a deep appreciation for mathematics and science, which naturally led me to study computer science at university. My scientific background was never a significant obstacle to faith; rather, I recall being strongly convinced of seeing clear evidence of design within creation itself.
My journey towards faith took a decisive turn during my years in the UK, where I eventually came to trust in Christ. Although apologetics became central to my faith immediately after conversion, it wasn’t apologetics that initially drew me to Christianity. Rather, the preaching of the gospel intersected with a broader historical exploration I had been undertaking. This historical journey had exposed numerous falsehoods about my home country’s history and revealed disturbing patterns of dark spirituality underpinning many of humanity’s darkest episodes. It was within this context that the clarity and hope of the gospel message became profoundly impactful.
Still, reconciling intellectual inquiry with Christian faith always appeared important and plausible to me. If God indeed created everything, it was sensible to expect that reason and logic would not only make sense within a biblical worldview but would also illuminate it further.
Resisting False Intellectuality
In recent decades, many Christians have become increasingly wary of intellectual engagement, and not without cause. The rise of rationalism, logical positivism, and secular humanism presented a version of intellectualism that was cold, reductionistic, and hostile to the supernatural. These philosophies often dismissed the spiritual realm altogether and elevated human reason above divine revelation. Understandably, Christians responded—but in many cases, they did so by retreating altogether from the life of the mind.
Rather than countering false intellectuality with true, biblically grounded reasoning, many instead abandoned intellectual pursuit in favour of experience and emotion. Theology and doctrine became suspect, even divisive. In some circles, emotional fervour replaced careful exposition, and subjective impressions were elevated above objective truth. Conviction came to be measured more by intensity of feeling than by alignment with Scripture.
This retreat from intellectual engagement has left the Church vulnerable to shallow teaching and spiritual confusion. Many believers now lack the tools to evaluate what they hear, accepting nearly anything as long as it is delivered passionately. We have, in effect, answered the coldness of godless rationalism with the warmth of mindless mysticism.
But the Bible offers no support for this false choice. It calls us to love the Lord with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind, and all our strength (Mark 12:30). To exclude the mind from our discipleship is to reject part of what God commands. True faith seeks understanding; true worship includes thought. Intellectual integrity is not a threat to Christian spirituality—it is an essential part of it.
The Most Important Question
The most pressing question Christians must confidently answer today is: “Why do you choose to believe the Bible?” Scripture exhorts believers to always be prepared to give a reasoned defence for the hope that is in them (1 Peter 3:15). Yet many Christians, when asked, resort to weak and subjective responses. “I was raised that way” or “I tried it and it works for me” are inadequate in a world that prizes consistency, evidence, and reason.
Relying solely on personal experience to validate the truth of the Bible is a precarious approach. While subjective experiences can be meaningful and edifying for believers when they align with Scripture, they are not unique to Christianity. The spiritual realm encompasses both good and evil influences, and individuals across various faiths report profound experiences that reinforce their diverse beliefs.
Consider the transformation of Malcolm X. Born Malcolm Little in 1925, he led a life marked by criminal activity and was imprisoned for larceny and burglary in 1946. During his incarceration, Malcolm encountered the teachings of the Nation of Islam (NOI), a religious movement that preached Black self-reliance and identified white people as devils. Embracing these doctrines, he adopted the name Malcolm X and experienced a radical moral and personal transformation, turning away from his past criminal behaviors and becoming a disciplined, articulate advocate for Black empowerment.
Malcolm X’s profound personal experiences and the positive changes in his life were deeply tied to his faith in the NOI’s teachings. However, these teachings diverged significantly from Christian doctrine. This example illustrates that transformative spiritual experiences are not exclusive to Christianity; individuals in other religions can and do experience life-altering shifts that they attribute to their respective faiths.
This underscores the fallacy of relying solely on subjective experiences to validate the truth of the Bible. Personal experiences, while impactful, are inherently subjective and can be influenced by various spiritual forces. The Bible warns that not all spiritual experiences originate from God. For instance, in Acts 16:16-18, Paul encounters a slave girl possessed by a spirit of divination, who correctly identifies him and Silas as servants of the Most High God. Paul casts out the spirit, demonstrating that even accurate spiritual revelations can stem from deceptive sources.
Therefore, while personal experiences can enrich a believer’s faith and provide personal affirmation, they should not serve as the foundational basis for believing in the Bible’s truth. Instead, Christians are called to ground their faith in the objective, historical, and theological truths of Scripture. As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
A Reasoned Defence of Scripture
Why do I believe the Bible? Well, since this article is inspired by a talk given by Voddie Bauchman several times over (here’s one such instance), it’s only fair to quote him verbatim on this particular point:
I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and they claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.
— Voddie Bauchman
This formulation is not merely a rhetorical flourish; it reflects the internal claims of the biblical texts themselves and stands up to rigorous historical analysis.
Fulfilled Prophecies and Supernatural Events
In 2 Peter 1:16–21, the Apostle Peter directly addresses this issue. He affirms that the apostles did not follow “cleverly devised myths” but were “eyewitnesses of [Christ’s] majesty.” He recounts the transfiguration of Jesus—an event he personally witnessed—during which God the Father publicly affirmed Jesus as His beloved Son. This moment was not experienced in private nor constructed from oral legend; it was heard and seen by multiple witnesses.
Peter then adds that Scripture is not the product of human speculation. Rather, “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” This assertion encapsulates both the ultimate authority and the origin of Scripture: it is not a human invention but divine communication.
Historical Reliability and Eyewitness Testimony
Peter’s passage aligns with the wider testimony of biblical authors. Luke begins his gospel by stating his intention to write an “orderly account” based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and his own careful investigation (Luke 1:1–4). John writes that what he proclaims is what he and others “have heard,” “seen with [their] eyes,” and “touched with [their] hands” (1 John 1:1). Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, reminds his readers that more than 500 people witnessed the resurrected Christ—many of whom were still alive when he wrote the letter, making their testimony publicly verifiable.
In short, the Bible does not ask us to believe without evidence. It invites examination and scrutiny. It roots its claims in history and appeals to the credibility of first-hand witnesses. And most remarkably, it openly presents the supernatural—not as myth or metaphor, but as fact. Thus, a reasoned defence of Scripture is not only possible—it is profoundly compelling.
Manuscript Evidence
Assertions that “overzealous monks” deliberately altered the Bible are implausible when considering the extensive and well-documented manuscript evidence supporting the New Testament’s textual integrity. With nearly 6,000 Greek manuscripts, some dating to within decades of the original writings, the New Testament’s manuscript evidence surpasses that of many other ancient texts. For instance, Julius Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” is preserved in approximately 75 manuscripts, with the oldest dating about 900 years after its composition. Similarly, Aristotle’s “Poetics” survives in 45 manuscripts, predominantly copied in the 15th and 16th centuries.
| Work | Approx. Date Written | Earliest Manuscript | Time Gap (Years) | Number of Manuscripts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Testament | AD 50–100 | c. AD 125 | 25–75 | ~5,800 (Greek alone) |
| Homer’s Iliad | c. 800 BC | c. 400 BC | ~400 | ~1,900 |
| Caesar’s Gallic Wars | 100–44 BC | c. AD 900 | ~900 | ~75 |
| Plato | 427–347 BC | c. AD 900 | ~1,200 | ~210 |
| Tacitus (Annals) | c. AD 100 | c. AD 1100 | ~1,000 | ~30 |
| Herodotus | 5th c. BC | c. AD 900 | ~1,300 | ~75 |
| Aristotle (Poetics) | 4th c. BC | c. AD 1100 | ~1,400 | ~49 |
| Thucydides | 460–400 BC | c. AD 900 | ~1,300 | ~96 |
To credibly suggest that scribes systematically altered the Bible, one would have to account for the simultaneous modification of thousands of Greek manuscripts, as well as numerous translations:
- Old Latin (c. AD 200)
- Syriac (Peshitta, c. AD 150–250)
- Coptic (Sahidic, Bohairic – c. AD 200–300)
- Gothic (c. AD 350)
- Armenian (c. AD 400)
- Georgian (c. AD 430)
- Ethiopic (c. AD 500)
Additionally, early church fathers extensively quoted the New Testament; their writings alone could reconstruct nearly the entire New Testament corpus. Coordinating such widespread alterations without leaving any trace is historically untenable. The sheer volume and early dating of these manuscripts provide compelling evidence for the New Testament’s reliable transmission over time.
Divine Authorship
No prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit — 2 Peter 1:20-21
The Bible’s own self-attestation to divine authorship is not a marginal feature of the text—it is a central and repeated theme. Expressions such as “Thus says the Lord,” “The word of the Lord came to me,” and “God spoke to Moses, saying” appear hundreds of times, especially throughout the prophetic and Mosaic books. The prophets did not claim to be delivering opinions or philosophies, but messages from the living God. The apostolic writings, too, are framed as authoritative communications from God through Christ’s commissioned messengers.
Despite ongoing scepticism about human authorship, the Bible uniquely demonstrates remarkable internal consistency and corroboration across a sweeping array of variables. It was written in three distinct languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—by over 40 human authors, spread across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—over a span of roughly 1,500 years. These authors came from dramatically different walks of life: kings and shepherds, prophets and fishermen, scholars and tax collectors. And yet, from Genesis to Revelation, they present a cohesive narrative of divine creation, human fall, redemptive history, and ultimate restoration.
Such unity is unparalleled in the history of literature. It is not merely a literary feat, but strong evidence of a divine Author guiding the entire corpus. The consistency of theological themes, the continuity of messianic expectation and fulfilment, the intertextual harmony between books written centuries apart—all of this confirms the Bible’s internal coherence and its claim to be, not the invention of man, but a revelation of God.
Answering Scientific Objections
One of the most common objections raised against the credibility of the Bible, particularly in modern secular discourse, is that it cannot be proven scientifically. This challenge typically assumes that unless something can be verified by the scientific method, it must be viewed as unreliable or subjective.
The claim is, however, self-refuting. It is not itself a scientific statement—it cannot be tested, observed, or measured—yet it demands that all truths meet that standard. In other words, it fails its own test.
Moreover, the foundations of science—logic, reason, and the uniformity of nature—are not scientifically provable; they are philosophical presuppositions. And the most important aspects of human life—morality, love, purpose, and beauty—lie beyond the reach of scientific measurement, yet we rightly regard them as real.
To insist that science is the only path to truth is not scientific; it is a self-contradictory ideological position that narrows the scope of knowledge and ignores the profound truths revealed through history, reason, and divine revelation.
Therefore, the scientific method it is not equipped to evaluate singular, non-repeatable historical events—such as Caesar crossing the Rubicon, the fall of Jerusalem, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These are matters of history, not chemistry. Historical events, by their very nature, are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to empirical testing in the scientific sense.
To evaluate such events, we rely not on science but on the tools of historical inquiry: eyewitness testimony, written records, corroboration from independent sources, internal consistency, and the broader context in which claims are made. And in these categories, the Bible excels.
For example, the resurrection of Jesus is not a claim open to scientific experimentation—it is a historical claim. To assess it, we look at whether the documents reporting it are reliable, whether the witnesses were credible and numerous, whether alternative explanations fall short, and whether the resurrection fits within the broader theological and prophetic framework of the Bible.
Moreover, the demand for “scientific proof” is often applied inconsistently. We do not require laboratory verification for our trust in historical figures like Socrates or Alexander the Great, even though the manuscript evidence for their lives and words is sparse compared to that of the New Testament. Nor do we demand repeatability to affirm events like Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo or Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. We rely on reliable historical testimony, and rightly so.
What this reveals is that the objection isn’t truly about science, but about authority and worldview. The Bible does not contradict true science—indeed, many early scientists were Christians who believed the order and intelligibility of nature pointed to a rational Creator. As also recognised by secular scholars,
‘The philosophy of experimental science… began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… science… owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’
The Bible is often rejected because it speaks authoritatively about spiritual and moral truths that confront human autonomy.
Thus, the intelligent response to such objections is to clarify the categories: science answers the question “How does it work?” whereas Scripture answers “Who made it?” and “Why are we here?” The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but neither is it unscientific. It is historically anchored, intellectually coherent, and theologically robust. It speaks truthfully about the nature of the world and humanity’s place in it—not through laboratory methods, but through revelation, reason, and redemptive history.
The Call to Preach, Teach, and Equip
If we are to take seriously the Bible’s claims about itself, then pastors and teachers must recover and reaffirm its sufficiency—not just its inerrancy. Expository preaching, delivered verse by verse and precept upon precept, is not outdated; it is essential. It allows Scripture to speak for itself, answering the most relevant questions of our culture with divine authority and precision. From the Bible’s reliability to the nature of truth, it is through Scripture that we are thoroughly equipped for every good work.
But the responsibility does not lie only with those who preach; it belongs to the whole Church. Believers must be trained to give a confident, reasoned answer for why they trust the Bible. This is not an impossible task. Far from it.
If we believe the Bible is sufficient, then we must live and teach like it is. That means grounding our confidence in its truth, training others to do the same, and letting the word of Christ dwell in us richly—not just as comfort for the soul, but as truth for the mind.
Leave a Reply