Creation-Club.org

Can we trust the canon of the Bible? How do we truly know that the books that were meant to be there (like the sixty-six present today), are the right ones? It is a volume that has spanned over 1,500 years and 40 authors. It is a topic answered with clarity and completeness in Brian H. Edwards' "Why 66?".

Edwards proves the reliability of the Old Testament canon by first examining the Jewish history surrounding the Torah. The Torah was made up of the first five books of our modern Old Testament, and was known as "the Law". The Jews then considered the next set of books as The Prophets, which included Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophetic books like Lamentations. All else were gathered under The Writings. For the Jews, the canon was never seriously disputed, because each of the books were written very near to the time they cover. Edwards quotes the Jewish historian Josephus of A.D 90.: "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine."

In "Why 66?", Edwards also describes the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls, since they included all of the current Old Testament canon (excluding Esther), and none of the "Apocrypha", or other non-canonical books that critics attempt to charge were part of the original.

After examining other evidences for the authenticity of the Old Testament, Edwards then turns towards the New. According to Edwards, the Muratorian Canon of A.D. 150 represents the first known list of the New Testament canon. This canon included all four gospels, thirteen Pauline epistles, Jude, two of John's letters, and Revelation. The list claims that these books at the time were accepted by the "universal church". Omitted from this Canon, yet present in our modern bibles, was Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and James. Origen from Alexandria in A.D. 240 was using all the 27 books of our present-day canon - no others - and calling it the "New Testament". Considering how near these "lists" were compiled to the original dates of each book's composition, the reliability of our New Testament today is remarkable, particularly when one considers that the books were most likely considered "scripture" before being subject to a list.

Edwards then answers the natural objection: Even though the dates are close to the originals, why did it take so long to compile a list? He provides six reasons:

1. "The originals were scattered across the whole empire."
2. "No scroll could easily contain more than one or two books."
3. "The first-century Christians expected the immediate return of Christ."
4. "No one church or leader bossed all the others."
5. "The early leaders assumed the authority of the Gospels and the apostles."
6. "Only when the heretics attacked the truth was the importance of a canon appreciated."

Each reason is expressed and defended in detail by Edwards in "Why 66?"

Finally, Edwards examines the criteria which determined whether a writing would be considered "scripture" or not. These five test points were employed to decide whether the writing in question was: Apostolic, Authentic, Ancient, Accepted, and/or Accurate. Like his "six reasons", each is elaborated on in the article.

Brian H. Edwards' research provides compelling evidence for the authenticity and reliability of the Bible's canon. By examining the history of the volume, Edwards has shown that we can trust that the "right books" of the Bible are found in our modern texts, and their acceptance can be found right from the beginning.

Read Brian H. Edwards' full article "Why 66?" by clicking here.

The Scopes Trial is easily one of the most recognizable public exchanges between Creationists and Evolutionists in history. Since the trial in 1925, it has been popularized in a variety of plays and in film - most notably that of Inherit the Wind. The play, though now commonly considered an accurate portrayal of the historic event, grossly misrepresents the factual accounts and details of the trial. The Answers Research Journal has a new article titled "Inherit the Wind" by Jerry Bergman which examines such inaccuracies and compares them with the actual historical record of the now infamous Scopes Trial. Bergman has crafted a coherant, informative piece which enlightens the often narrow perception of the event and provides a humble examination of the danger of such biased, stereotypical depiction. You can read Bergman's article by clicking here.

The following was a book report for my Western Civilization college class:

Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow has a simple, yet powerfully ambitious premise: demonstrate that the fossil record is incompatible with evolutionary theory and is complimentary to the creation account depicted in the Bible. More specifically, those fossils that are commonly used as evidence for human to ape transition. The book is self-described as: “A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils.” At the time of publication, which was 1992, Lubenow is said to have “researched the fossil issue for 25 years and frequently speaks and writes to defend the creationist position. He is a professor of Bible and apologetics at Christian Heritage College, El Cajon, California.”1 Lubenow retired from his position at Christian Heritage College sometime in 1995.2 He also holds a Master of Science degree (M.S.) from Eastern Michigan University, along with his anthropology major.3 Lubenow has been hailed as “one of the boldest creation scientists active today.”4 After reading Bones of Contention, I certainly understand the praise, and applaud his objective approach in achieving his primary goal.