Where Do We Find Truth? | Seeing Clearly

The Game Nobody Actually Plays

You’ve probably heard the objection. It surfaces whenever anyone claims the Bible is reliable: “But it’s been copied and translated so many times—like a giant game of telephone. Whatever the original said has been hopelessly corrupted.”

The telephone game analogy sounds devastating. We all know how it works: someone whispers a message to the next person, who whispers it to the next, and by the time it reaches the end of the line, “Send reinforcements, we’re going to advance” has become “Send three and fourpence, we’re going to a dance.” Surely the same distortion must apply to an ancient book that’s been copied by hand for two thousand years.

But here’s the thing: the telephone game analogy doesn’t describe how the Bible was transmitted at all. Not even close.

In the telephone game, there’s one chain of transmission—a single line from person to person, each hearing the message only once and passing it on. No one checks their version against anyone else’s. No one has access to the original message. The game is specifically designed to maximize error.

Biblical manuscript transmission worked nothing like this. Scribes didn’t hear the text whispered once and then copy what they thought they remembered. They sat with a physical document in front of them, often copying letter by letter, frequently checking their work. More importantly, the copying didn’t happen along a single chain. It branched out into thousands of independent copies spread across continents, made in different centuries, preserved in different traditions. We don’t have one whisper chain; we have an entire forest of manuscript evidence.

And here’s the crucial difference: we can compare these thousands of copies against each other. Where one scribe made an error, others didn’t make the same error. The variants stick out precisely because we have so many copies to compare. Far from making the original message unrecoverable, the abundance of manuscripts makes it more certain.

The telephone game objection sounds intuitive, but it reveals more about our assumptions than about the actual evidence. It assumes a process that didn’t happen while ignoring a process that did. Which raises a deeper question: when we evaluate claims about truth, are we examining the actual evidence, or are we just reaching for whatever dismissal sounds plausible?

The stakes couldn’t be higher. In the previous chapter, we saw how worldviews function as lenses, shaping what we perceive and what we dismiss. We recognized the need for an authoritative standard to calibrate those lenses—something outside ourselves, reliable enough to correct our distortions. Now we must ask: Where do we find such a standard? Where do we find truth?

All Worldviews Require Faith

Before we examine the case for biblical reliability, we need to clear away a common misconception: that faith-based worldviews are uniquely problematic while other worldviews rest on neutral, objective foundations.

This isn’t true. Every worldview relies on foundational assumptions that cannot be proven by the worldview’s own methods. The reasoning is unavoidably circular.

Consider secular humanism. Where does it ground its claim that human reason is the ultimate source of truth? In human reason. How does it know that science is the only reliable path to knowledge? It doesn’t know this through science—the claim itself isn’t scientifically testable. It’s a philosophical commitment, accepted by faith.

Or consider Marxism. What authority declares that oppression is wrong and justice is right? These moral claims don’t emerge from Marxist analysis; they’re presupposed by it. The entire system runs on borrowed moral capital it cannot generate from its own premises.

Even hardcore materialism faces the same problem. If human beings are nothing but physical matter governed by deterministic laws, on what basis can we trust our reasoning at all? Our thoughts would just be chemical reactions, no more “true” than any other chemical reaction. The naturalist who argues for naturalism uses the very faculties that naturalism undermines.

The point isn’t that these worldviews are wrong because they rely on circular reasoning. The point is that every worldview begins with foundational commitments accepted by faith. There’s no view from nowhere, no neutral platform from which to evaluate all options without presuppositions. We all start somewhere.

The question, then, isn’t whether we exercise faith but whether our faith is well-placed. The relevant comparison isn’t between faith and no-faith but between different objects of faith. Is it more reasonable to trust human reason, which can be deceived, or divine revelation, which claims transcendent authority? Is it more plausible that matter randomly generated the appearance of design, or that intelligence produced what looks intelligent?

The biblical worldview doesn’t ask you to abandon reason—it invites you to ask which foundation better accounts for the world we actually experience. And when we examine the evidence for biblical reliability, we find that faith in Scripture is not “blind” faith. It’s faith grounded in logic, reason, and historical evidence.

The Weight of the Evidence

The Apostle Peter, anticipating skeptics in his own day, made a striking claim: “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).

This is a remarkable statement. Peter doesn’t appeal to subjective experience or mystical intuition. He appeals to eyewitness testimony, the same category of evidence we use to establish any historical claim. The question is whether the evidence supports his assertion.

Manuscript Evidence

Let’s start with the physical documents themselves. How do the biblical manuscripts compare with other ancient texts?

The New Testament is preserved in over 6,000 Greek manuscripts, with another 10,000 manuscripts in Latin and other ancient languages. The earliest fragments date within decades of the original composition—far closer to the source than any comparable ancient document.

For perspective, consider how this stacks up against texts that scholars accept without hesitation. Aristotle’s Poetics, a foundational work of Western literary criticism, survives in fewer than a dozen manuscripts, the earliest copied more than a thousand years after Aristotle wrote. Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, standard reading in classical education, exists in fewer than ten manuscripts with a similar thousand-year gap. Homer’s Iliad, the best-attested work of classical antiquity after the New Testament, survives in about 200 manuscripts dating roughly twelve centuries after composition.

The New Testament? Over 6,000 manuscripts, many from within a few hundred years of the originals. If we reject the reliability of New Testament transmission, we must, by the same standard, reject virtually everything we claim to know about the ancient world. The manuscript evidence for the Bible isn’t just adequate; it’s extraordinary.

What about variants—the differences between manuscripts that copyists introduced? Scholars have identified approximately 400,000 textual variants across New Testament manuscripts. That sounds alarming until you understand that the vast majority are insignificant: spelling variations, word order differences, easily identifiable scribal errors. The variants that affect meaning constitute a tiny fraction, and none of them touch any significant Christian doctrine. We can reconstruct the original text with a confidence level unmatched by any other ancient document.

The “overzealous monks” theory—the idea that medieval scribes deliberately corrupted the text—collapses under scrutiny. To pull off such a conspiracy, you’d need to alter thousands of manuscripts in multiple languages (Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Latin) spread across three continents, all without detection. You’d also need to change the hundreds of sermons and commentaries written by early church fathers, whose quotations alone could reconstruct nearly the entire New Testament. The theory requires a coordination and consistency that makes the actual explanation—faithful transmission—far more plausible.

Archaeological Confirmation

Manuscript evidence establishes the text; archaeology confirms the historical context. And here the evidence is overwhelming.

Over 25,000 archaeological digs have produced artifacts relevant to biblical history. The tally of items that contradict Scripture? Zero. The tally of items that confirm names, places, customs, and events recorded in the Bible? Hundreds. Critics once dismissed the Hittites as biblical fiction—until archaeologists unearthed their capital. Skeptics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate—until an inscription bearing his name was discovered. Time after time, the “myth” of Scripture has turned out to be history.

This doesn’t prove every biblical claim, of course. Archaeology can’t verify miracles or divine conversations. But it can—and does—confirm that the biblical writers got the checkable details right. They accurately described the political structures, cultural practices, geographical features, and historical figures of their time. This consistent accuracy in verifiable matters gives us good reason to take their testimony seriously in matters we cannot independently verify.

Eyewitness Testimony

Peter’s claim to eyewitness status finds support throughout the New Testament. John writes: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life… we proclaim also to you” (1 John 1:1, 3). This isn’t mystical language. It’s sensory description: hearing, seeing, touching. John is claiming direct, physical access to the events he reports.

The significance of eyewitness testimony increases when we note the circumstances of its composition. The New Testament documents were written during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses—both friendly and hostile. If the apostles had fabricated their accounts, plenty of people were still alive who could have contradicted them. Paul makes this point explicit when discussing the resurrection: “He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive” (1 Corinthians 15:5-6). Paul is essentially saying, “Don’t take my word for it—go ask them yourself.”

The early church grew in precisely the environment where its claims could most easily have been falsified. It emerged in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified and buried, among people who had every reason and ability to produce the body if the resurrection was a hoax. Yet no such refutation occurred. The movement spread not in spite of available evidence but in the face of people who could verify or falsify its central claims.

Prophetic Fulfillment

The Bible contains something found in no other religious text: specific, verifiable predictions made centuries in advance and fulfilled in documented history.

The Old Testament contains over 300 prophecies concerning the Messiah—his lineage, birthplace, manner of birth, ministry, betrayal, execution, and vindication. Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all of them.

Consider just a sampling: Micah 5:2 predicted the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, written 700 years before Jesus’s birth. Zechariah 11:12-13 specified that the Messiah would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, which would be thrown into the temple and used to buy a potter’s field—details fulfilled with remarkable precision in the events surrounding Judas’s betrayal. Isaiah 53 described a suffering servant who would be “pierced for our transgressions” and “with his wounds we are healed,” written centuries before crucifixion was invented.

What are the odds of one person fulfilling even a fraction of these prophecies by chance? Mathematician Peter Stoner calculated the probability of one person fulfilling just eight Messianic prophecies at 1 in 10^17—that’s 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. To visualize this, imagine covering the state of Texas two feet deep in silver dollars. Mark one of them. Now blindfold someone and have them walk across the state, reaching down at some random point to pick up a single coin. The probability of picking the marked coin on the first try equals the probability of one person accidentally fulfilling just eight prophecies.

Jesus fulfilled not eight but over three hundred. The prophetic evidence isn’t ambiguous or stretched. It’s mathematically overwhelming.

Words Breathed by God

The evidence we’ve surveyed—manuscripts, archaeology, eyewitnesses, prophecy—establishes that the Bible is a reliable historical document. But the biblical claim goes further. Scripture presents itself not merely as accurate human reporting but as divinely inspired revelation.

Peter continues his argument: “No prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). The image is striking: human authors, yes, but moved by a power beyond themselves, like sailboats carried by wind. The words are genuinely theirs—reflecting their personalities, vocabularies, and perspectives—yet the message originates with God.

This claim appears throughout Scripture. “Thus says the Lord” occurs over 400 times in the Old Testament. Moses writes what God speaks. The prophets deliver messages explicitly attributed to divine origin. Paul reminds Timothy that “all Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16)—the words themselves carrying the breath of their divine author.

Someone might object: “But men wrote the Bible!” Of course they did. All books are written by people. The question isn’t whether human agents were involved but whether divine guidance was also involved. What’s more, why would we trust our own fallible human reasoning—prone to bias, distortion, and self-deception—over the testimony of people who claimed to speak God’s words and produced a document with extraordinary internal coherence, prophetic accuracy, historical verification, and transformative power?

The Bible presents itself as a unique convergence: human words that are simultaneously divine words, historical accounts that are simultaneously God’s revelation. We can investigate its historical reliability using standard evidentiary methods—and when we do, it stands up remarkably well. But its ultimate authority rests not on passing our tests but on its origin in the mind of God.

Why This Matters

Understanding the reliability of Scripture isn’t an academic exercise. It’s the foundation for everything else in this book—and everything else in your life.

If we need an external standard to calibrate our worldview lenses, as the previous chapter argued, then everything depends on whether that standard is trustworthy. A crooked ruler can’t straighten anything. A faulty compass will lead you further astray with every step. We need truth—real, reliable, revealed truth—or we’re simply exchanging one set of distortions for another.

The Bible claims to be that truth. “The sum of your word is truth,” the psalmist declares, “and every one of your righteous rules endures forever” (Psalm 119:160). “The grass withers, the flower fades,” Isaiah announces, “but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8). These aren’t modest claims. They assert divine authority—truth revealed from beyond our limited perspectives, stable enough to anchor our lives.

If this claim is true, then the Bible provides what we desperately need: answers to the fundamental questions that shape human existence. Where do we come from? What’s wrong with the world? Is there hope for repair? Who am I? Why am I here? What happens when I die? Every worldview must answer these questions. Scripture claims to answer them with divine authority.

The remaining chapters of this book will explore those answers. But they rest on the foundation we’ve established here: that the Bible is not cleverly devised myth but reliable revelation, not the telephone game’s distorted whisper but God’s authoritative Word, transmitted with extraordinary care and confirmed by extraordinary evidence.

The evidence doesn’t compel belief—nothing compels belief. We can always find reasons to dismiss what we don’t want to accept. But the evidence does invite serious consideration. The Bible stands up to scrutiny in ways no other ancient document approaches. It asks us to examine its claims, test its historical reliability, weigh its prophetic accuracy, and consider whether faith in Scripture is the most reasonable response to the evidence.

For those who investigate honestly, the search leads somewhere unexpected. It leads to a book that knows us better than we know ourselves, a story that makes sense of our longings and our brokenness, and ultimately to a Person who stepped into history and changed everything.

The Bible tells us there is a God who created everything. But is that believable? Can we really accept that something—or Someone—has always existed, that the universe has a cause beyond itself? Let’s examine that next.

Reflection Questions

Before reading this chapter, how would you have responded to the “telephone game” objection? What assumptions were behind your response?
Consider the worldview you grew up with or hold now. What are its foundational assumptions that must be accepted by faith? How does recognizing this change your perspective?
Which category of evidence for biblical reliability do you find most compelling—manuscripts, archaeology, eyewitnesses, or prophecy? Which do you find least compelling, and why?
How does understanding the Bible’s reliability affect how you approach reading it? Does it change anything about your engagement with Scripture?
If you were explaining to a skeptical friend why you trust the Bible, which one or two points from this chapter would you share first?

Key Takeaways

The “telephone game” objection misrepresents how biblical manuscripts were transmitted. Thousands of independent copies allow scholars to reconstruct the original text with extraordinary confidence.
All worldviews rely on foundational assumptions that cannot be proven by the worldview’s own methods. The question isn’t whether we exercise faith but whether our faith is well-placed.
The New Testament is supported by over 6,000 Greek manuscripts, far surpassing any other ancient document—and 25,000 archaeological digs have yielded nothing that contradicts Scripture.
The apostles wrote as eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, creating accountability for their claims in an environment where falsehood could easily have been exposed.
Over 300 Messianic prophecies, written centuries in advance, were fulfilled in Jesus with mathematical probability that defies chance explanation.