Students of Theology - FREE DOWNLOAD

---

Dear Students of Theology,

When I began my theological training as a Lay Reader / Minister in the Church of England 25 years ago. I was shocked to discover that not everyone on my course believed in what I considered to be the basics of the Christian faith. I was even more shocked to discover some priests who didn’t believe in the Virgin Birth, Hell, or prophecies of God, who cast doubts about the various authors of some books of the Bible, didn’t believe in miracles of healing, or that God could intervene and answer prayers! 

As a result of my 25 years of experience as a minister, I decided to write a book that would not only prove that God does exist but also prove through the prophecies of God. that the history of humankind has been unfolding according to the predetermined plan and purpose of God.

I wanted it to be of value to those who want evidence for God, and for students of theology, who like me years ago wanted evidence to defend the Gospel of Christ against false teaching.

Before I started my training I searched for books that might be of value in my ministry, and discovered a series of books by Dr E.K. Victor Pearce. I have (below) included information from a couple of Victor’s books that warn against false teaching. False teaching from theological colleges and from priests and ministers, and the damage false teaching brings upon a nation.

BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHING

The late Dr E.K. Victor Pearce was an eminent scientist, archaeologist and theologian. He read theology at the London College of Divinity, was a Prebendary of Lichfield Cathedral, was Rector of one of the largest Anglican parishes in England, has had 25 curates, and built two churches and several halls. He was a member of the diocesan Council for a new religious syllabus, and a visiting lecturer in two Bible colleges. 

In his book Volume 2. Evidence for Truth. Archaeology. Pages 64-68. Victor writes about false teaching.

Do you see how everything fits neatly into place if we follow the dates and facts given to us in the Bible?

Isn't it exciting to see how the Bible’s story of Israel in Egypt, Moses and the Exodus all fit in with the chronology of the Egyptian pharaohs, as revealed by archaeology? 

Don’t falter and lose your way by ignoring the clear statements of the Bible! Take heart – God’s word is faithful and true!

Evidence for The Writings of Moses.

There is now strong evidence that Moses did write the first five books of the Bible as was originally believed. These books are called the Pentateuch or Torah.

Leading scholars with expertise in the literary methods of ancient Near East bring evidence which was unknown by those who call themselves the Higher Critics.

The Higher Critics commenced their theories against Moses nearly 250 years ago, before Assyriologists and Egyptologists discovered how the ancients actually did record history. 

The Higher Critics, who lacked scientific information, formed their theories subjectively on wrong assumptions. Their theory assumed the books of Moses were not finally compiled until 400 BC instead of a thousand years earlier by Moses himself. 

At first, archaeology was not available to correct these assumptions.

Course Material in Error.

The theory was founded by a Frenchman named Astruc. Sadly, most theological courses still teach it, ignoring the findings of archaeology.

Experts have since found that the literary methods evident in the Pentateuch are those of the time of Moses and not of a later date when methods changed. Experts in this practical field are Professor Kenneth Kitchen, Professor of Archaeology and Oriental Studies; Dr D. Wiseman, Professor of Assyriology and a Semitist; Professor Alan Millard. All have international standing.

Professor Kitchen himself has translated tablets and scripts from treaties in Hittite, Elamite, Sumerian and Aramaic languages as well as Egyptian, Ugaritic, Akkadian, etc.

In a typical course for Lay Readers in one diocese there was no mention of their scholarly findings, so I have been asked to supply this lack. Neither was any mention made of up-to-date scholars who have taught in theological colleges such as J.A. Motyer; Sr John Wenham; Dr W.J. Martin; Donald Robinson: Professor F.F. Bruce: A. Gibson; Bishop John Robinson; R.T. France and others.

Even the revised book list of the course, for the Old and New Testament units, only added a book by R.K. Harrison, yet none of his material affects the course or is even mentioned.

Without any knowledge of the literary methods of ancient times, the Higher Critics divided us Scripture passages according to the names given to god – names such as Lord (Yah) or God (El) – which gave rise to an incorrect structure to the events recorded by Moses.

Concerning the Old Testament, the course gives detailed examples of text separated into Yah and El segments, in order to make them contradict one another; but no information is given that in the Elba tablets, of 500 years before Abraham and 1,000 years before Moses, the use of Yah and El appear together on each tablet in a harmonious account, according to Professor A Gibson.

Professor D. Wiseman, a former Professor of Assyriology in the University of London, says the ‘JEDP theory’ was formed before any of the literary methods of the ancient Near East were known. Also it ignores the Hittite Gattung structure of the different styles current in one legal covenant of Moses’ day and which is characteristic of the Pentateuch.

These experts found that ancient tablets and scripts used both divine names in their accounts, sometimes together and sometimes singly according to the subject material. They did not indicate different authorship or sources.

The old-fashioned Higher Critics did not know this, so they divided up the bible stories according to the name used for God. by doing this, they made the one version into two or three versions, and thus they artificially created contradictory versions.

A classic example of this is their treatment of the story of the Flood. As it stands in Genesis chapters 6 to 9, it is a remarkable record of a flood lasting 371 days. The date it started is given, the date it reached its peak is given and the date it ended is given. Between these dates, various happenings are logged by periods of 7 days, 40 days, 150 days, etc. the whole is a remarkable harmonious record.

By dividing this up into segments, the Higher Critics turned them into conflicting accounts, from supposed literature sources.

A Diocesan Certificate course swallows the theory whole without question and plunges the students into confusion right near the beginning of the Old Testament studies by asking them, ‘How many different sorts of literature can you identify? Make a List’, and ‘How would you explain the apparent contradictions?’

The course goes on to suggest that ‘Genesis comes from various different sources’. Later in the Certificate course, segments are allocated to ‘J’, other segments to ‘E’ and others to ‘P’. The latter stands for priestly writers who, it is supposed, wrote as late as 400 BC. This theory was to give time for the evolution of the priestly religion. The supposed ‘P’ sources in the Flood account were allocated to the sacrifices and to other precise details.

Notice the questions about trying to detect different literature sources on the assumption that they did not come from Moses. But instead of these sources being 1,000 years after Moses, it is now found that the different styles were the legal way of compiling a covenant in the time of Moses. This method was called the Hittite treaty and was established by the Hittites throughout the ancient Near East of Moses’ time. Then it dropped out of use soon after, and was unknown by the time the Higher Critics thought the documents were being pieced together. 

Critical Fashion Moves On.

Moses himself may have used his own sources. Professor K. Kitchen says:

It never seems to have crossed Astruc’s mind, as a Frenchman and European of the 18th century AD, that the literary peculiarities of the OT text might be due to its origin in a distant antiquity and an alien (Near Eastern) culture.  Failure to allow for the non-European, non-modern origin of the OT text was a cardinal error of the first magnitude, fatally repeated by practically all his successors an conventional criticism.

The effect of the discovery of Middle East laws and literary methods has been to change the fashion of criticism. Attention now is concentrated on reading the established text in the light of its contemporary environment and culture, rather than fragmenting the text according to subjective Western imagination.

Who Is Telling the Truth?

You will have noticed that the legal system of Moses’ day included two items which are contained only in Deuteronomy, one being that the covenant had to be deposited in the sanctuary.

Near the end of Deuteronomy (31:24) we read the statement that Moses, who wrote this scroll, commanded that it should be put in the sanctuary ark:

When Moses had finished writing the words of this Torah in a scroll to the very end…he said ‘Take this scroll of the Torah and put it in the side of the ark’. This also gives the clear statement that Moses wrote this Torah scroll of the covenant.

Deuteronomy was written after the defeat of Og recorded in Numbers 21 and Deuteronomy 1:1,4. But documentary theorists are prepared to deny that Moses wrote it then. They contend that Deuteronomy was not written until 632 BC and then found in the temple sanctuary by Hilkiah, the high priest.

All this is part of the JEDP theory, the letter ‘D’ standing for Deuteronomy. The other letters stand for supposed anonymous authors. ‘J’ stands for Jehovah because it was thought that passages containing Jehovah (or Yahweh) as the divine name were contributed by scribes living about 500 years after Moses.

‘E’ is for passages using El or Elohim as the divine name. It is supposed that scribes using this name for God wrote about 600 years after Moses. ‘P’ stands for priestly code. This was thought to be an advanced brand of religion and, as they thought religion had evolved, they deduced these could not have been written until 400 BC.

As Deuteronomy was the last of Moses’ five books, this is treated as a separate book. This the Higher Critics dated to King Josiah’s reign, also on the theory that religion had evolved. The evolution in this case was that every individual was responsible for his own sin. ‘A son should not be punished for the sins of his father.’ They ignore the same quotation 200 years earlier in the reign of Amaziah, 2 Kings14:6. The same book is referred to, namely ‘The Torah’ or the book of the Law. This always refers to the Pentateuch, not Deuteronomy alone.

The theory that religion evolved has long been abandoned by anthropologists. (See my article in Origin of the Bible and in Volume 1. Of this series.) the theory was formed on the assumption that God did not reveal himself. However, the Bible claims, in many places, that God clearly revealed his truth to the prophets. Concerning Moses, for example, Numbers 12:6,7 states

The Lord said ‘Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I will speak mouth to mouth clearly, and not in a dark speech; and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?’

So, to sum up, archaeology rejects the JEDP theory, and supports that Moses did write Genesis to Deuteronomy. That this one book or scroll originally before it was divided into five books by the Greek translators in 285 BC. That the statement near the end of Deuteronomy that Moses finished writing this book refers not only to Deuteronomy, but to all his works from Genesis to Deuteronomy.

[End of Victor Pearce Volume 2. Evidence for Truth. Archaeology]

In his book Evidence for Truth. Volume 3. Prophecy. On pages 108 & 109 Victor reveals why there are so few people in England who have a real and living faith in God through Jesus Christ.

Corruption Started with the Priests

When salt has lost its effectiveness, corruption sets in. The Lord Jesus said this, and this is what God was saying to Hosea in chapters 4 and 5. 

Why is there no knowledge of God in the land? Why is swearing, lying, killing, stealing and committing adultery breaking all bounds and murder follows murder, God asks. It is because the salt has lost its effectiveness, its savour. You are the salt of the earth, Jesus said about the church. If you lose your saltiness, a nation goes corrupt. Is your nation corrupt? Is there swearing, lying, and killing and no knowledge of God? The fault is that of churches which only half believe the gospel.

And why is the Church unfaithful to God’s revealed truth? God makes a statement which many find unwelcome in these chapters 4 and 5 of Hosea. ‘My contention with you, O priest! And again God says, ‘Hear this, O priest! You have been a snare!’ Now, I hesitated to give this part of Hosea, but if I didn’t, I would not be giving you the whole word. Is the church full of unbelief? Then it is the priests who have swallowed and disgorged their unbelief. Now of course there are many wonderful, faithful, believing ministers of God’s Word, but God’s contention is with those who have swallowed unbelief and of course they get the press. Yes, God says He has a contention with them.

Do you know where this disbelief started? It was in many of the theological colleges which teach people who are training for the ministry. Instead of rejecting error, they latched on to theories of an immoral Paris doctor – a physician. His name was Astruc. He lived 250 years ago. He suggested Moses never wrote the Pentateuch. Then 100 years later, a German named Wellhausen developed this theory and added unbelieving criticism to the rest of the Bible. All this was founded on ignorance of the ancient literary methods of the ancients.

Did the theologians wipe their hands of it? Certainly not. Like the Athenians of Paul’s day, they welcomed anything new and scandalous. It was put into training courses of many colleges and universities.

All reply was stifled and actual evidence for truth was banned. This unbelief then spread to the nominal church and from the nominal church to the nations.

The sowing of unbelief gave germination to cynicism, agnosticism, indifference and then to all kinds of pagan practices. The salt had lost its savour. Hosea 4:4-6 says, ‘Like people, like priest…My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected the true knowledge, I reject you from being priest to me.’

‘My contention is with you, O priest! Said God to Hosea. He says it again in our time. For did not Peter say that in the last days sceptical ministers would come and pretend they don’t even see that Christ promised to return literally. They believe that God cannot intervene in His creation. ‘My coming will take that unfaithful servant unawares’, said Jesus.

But pray for your faithful pastors who believe God’s Word. They have a difficult time. You should support them, be loyal to them and encourage them to share their witness.

Evidence for Truth: Prophecy. Victor Pearce. Eagle Publishing. Guilford, Surrey. 1998.

In his book Evidence for Truth. Volume 2. Archaeology. On pages 250 & 251 Victor continues to inform us about critics of the Holy Bible.

So learn to criticise the critics. Their attitude is wrong, always looking for supposed faults, often manufacturing them by pulling them out of context. Unfortunately, they teach a wrong attitude to God’s word. In fact, there is more behind this. 

They assumed that the Gospels were not written until long after Christ’s death and resurrection. Some extreme critics put them in the second century. This theory was started by the critics associated with Tubingen in Germany in 1833. 

They thought that miracles, including the resurrection, could not happen, so they thought the Gospels were written long after, when romantic ideas had developed. They did not have all the archaeological evidence for Gospel accuracy that we have today, but their followers have been unwilling to change and yet call themselves ‘Modernists’!

For example, the diocesan Certificate Course I have quoted before (for Church of England lay Ministers), said: ‘It is probably not possible to know who wrote the Gospel which is headed by the name of Matthew. Critics date it variously between 70 AD and 110 AD.’

These critics assume that they know better 1,900 years after the event than the early Church writers who lived in the times immediately after the apostles. Several of them tell us that Matthew was the first Gospel to be written, not Mark, and Matthew took notes during Christ’s ministry.

Resistance to Evidence

Unwillingness to give Bible believers the opportunity to pass on information was shown by all book references given in that Certificate course. For example, 11 books were recommended for reading. Practically all propagated the extreme critical theory. Not one book by a Bible-believing scholar was mentioned, yet the course is compulsory for any church person wanting to become a lay preacher.

Because the critics assume that the gospels were not the products of eyewitnesses, they try to account for them in other ways. They actually disbelieve the statements by Luke and John. Luke says that his Gospel consisted of notes taken from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2). St. John said, ‘He saw it happen and bare record…and his record is true’ (John 19:35).

Evidence for Truth: Archaeology. Victor Pearce. Eagle Publishing. Guilford, Surrey. 1998.