How Do We Know that the Bible Is True?

Apologetics

by Dr. Jason Lisle on March 22, 2011
Audio Version

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/how-do-we-know-that-the-bible-is-true/

A number of Christians have tried to answer this question. Unfortunately, not all of those answers have been as cogent as we might hope. Some answers make very little sense at all.


The Bible is an extraordinary work of literature, and it makes some astonishing claims. It records the details of the creation of the universe, the origin of life, the moral law of God, the history of man’s rebellion against God, and the historical details of God’s work of redemption for all who trust in His Son. Moreover, the Bible claims to be God’s revelation to mankind. If true, this has implications for all aspects of life: how we should live, why we exist, what happens when we die, and what our meaning and purpose is. But how do we know if the claims of the Bible are true?

Some Typical Answers

A number of Christians have tried to answer this question. Unfortunately, not all of those answers have been as cogent as we might hope. Some answers make very little sense at all. Others have some merit but fall short of proving the truth of the Bible with certainty. Let’s consider some of the arguments that have been put forth by Christians.
A Subjective Standard

Some Christians have argued for the truth of the Scriptures by pointing to the changes in their own lives that belief in the God who inspired the Bible has induced. Receiving Jesus as Lord is a life-changing experience that brings great joy. A believer is a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). However, this change does not in and of itself prove the Bible is true. People might experience positive feelings and changes by believing in a position that happens to be false.

At best, a changed life shows consistency with the Scriptures. We would expect a difference in attitudes and actions given that the Bible is true. Although giving a testimony is certainly acceptable, a changed life does not (by itself) demonstrate the truth of the Scriptures. Even an atheist might argue that his belief in atheism produces feelings of inner peace or satisfaction. This does not mean that his position is true.

By Faith

BUT THE “BY FAITH” RESPONSE DOES NOT ACTUALLY ANSWER THE OBJECTION THAT HAS BEEN POSED—NAMELY, HOW WE KNOW THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE.

When asked how they know that the Bible is true, some Christians have answered, “We know the Bible is true by faith.” While that answer may sound pious, it is not very logical, nor is it a correct application of Scripture. Faith is the confident belief in something that you cannot perceive with your senses (Hebrews 11:1). So when I believe without observation that the earth’s core is molten, I am acting on a type of faith. Likewise, when I believe in God whom I cannot directly see, I am acting on faith. Don’t misunderstand. We should indeed have faith in God and His Word. But the “by faith” response does not actually answer the objection that has been posed—namely, how we know that the Bible is true.

Since faith is a belief in something unseen, the above response is not a good argument. “We know by faith” is the equivalent of saying, “We know by believing.” But clearly, the act of believing in something doesn’t necessarily make it true. A person doesn’t really know something just by believing it. He simply believes it. So the response is essentially, “We believe because we believe.” While it is true that we believe, this answer is totally irrelevant to the question being asked. It is a non-answer. Such a response is not acceptable for a person who is a follower of Christ. The Bible teaches that we are to be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks a reason of the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). Saying that we have faith is not the same as giving a reason for that faith.

Begging the Question

Some have cited 2 Timothy 3:16 as proof that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. This text indicates that all Scripture is inspired by God (or “God-breathed”) and useful for teaching. That is, every writing in the Bible is a revelation from God that can be trusted as factually true. Clearly, if the Bible is given by revelation of the God of truth, then it can be trusted at every point as an accurate depiction. The problem with answering the question this way is that it presupposes that the verse itself is truthful—which is the very claim at issue.

In other words, how do we know that 2 Timothy 3:16 is true? “Well it’s in the Bible,” some might say. But how do we know the Bible is true? “2 Timothy 3:16 assures us that it is.” This is a vicious circular argument. It must first arbitrarily assume the very thing it is trying to prove. Circular reasoning of this type (while technically valid) is not useful in a debate because it does not prove anything beyond what it merely assumes. After all, this type of argument would be equally valid for any other book that claims to be inspired by God. How do we know that book X is inspired by God? “Because it says it is.” But how do we know that what it’s saying is true? “Well, God wouldn’t lie!”

On the other hand, some Christians might go too far the other way—thinking that what the Bible says about itself is utterly irrelevant to the question of its truthfulness or its inspiration from God. This, too, is a mistake. After all, how would we know that a book is inspired by God unless it claimed to be? Think about it: how do you know who wrote a particular book? The book itself usually states who the author is. Most people are willing to accept what a book says about itself unless they have good evidence to the contrary.

So it is quite relevant that the Bible itself claims to be inspired by God. It does claim that all of its assertions are true and useful for teaching. Such statements do prove at least that the writers of the Bible considered it to be not merely their own opinion, but in fact the inerrant Word of God. However, arguing that the Bible must be true solely on the basis that it says so is not a powerful argument. Yes, it is a relevant claim. But we need some additional information if we are to escape a vicious circle.

Textual Consistency and Uniqueness

Another argument for the truthfulness of the Bible concerns its uniqueness and internal consistency. The Bible is remarkably self-consistent, despite having been written by more than 40 different writers over a timespan of about 2,000 years. God’s moral law, man’s rebellion against God’s law, and God’s plan of salvation are the continuing themes throughout the pages of Scripture. This internal consistency is what we would expect if the Bible really is what it claims to be—God’s revelation.

Moreover, the Bible is uniquely authentic among ancient literary works in terms of the number of ancient manuscripts found and the smallness of the timescale between when the work was first written and the oldest extant manuscript (thereby minimizing any possibility of alteration from the original).1 This indicates that the Bible has been accurately transmitted throughout the ages, far more so than other ancient documents. Few people would doubt that Plato really wrote the works ascribed to him, and yet the Bible is far more authenticated. Such textual criticism shows at least that the Bible (1) is unique in ancient literature and (2) has been accurately transmitted throughout the ages. What we have today is a good representation of the original. No one could consistently argue that the Bible’s authenticity is in doubt unless he is willing to doubt all other works of antiquity (because they are far less substantiated).2

To be sure, this is what we would expect given the premise that the Bible is true. And yet, uniqueness and authenticity to the original do not necessarily prove that the source is true. They simply mean that the Bible is unique and has been accurately transmitted. This is consistent with the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, but it does not decisively prove the claim.

External Evidence

Some Christians have argued for the truth of Scripture on the basis of various lines of external evidence. For example, archaeological discoveries have confirmed many events of the Bible. The excavation of Jericho reveals that the walls of this city did indeed fall as described in the book of Joshua.3 Indeed, some passages of the Bible, which critics once claimed were merely myth, have now been confirmed archeologically. For example, the five cities of the plain described in Genesis 14:2 were once thought by secular scholars to be mythical, but ancient documents have been found that list these cities as part of ancient trade routes.4

ARCHAEOLOGY IS AN UNCERTAIN SCIENCE; ITS FINDINGS ARE INEVITABLY SUBJECT TO THE INTERPRETATION AND BIAS OF THE OBSERVER AND ARE SOMETIMES OVERTURNED BY NEWER EVIDENCE.

Archaeology certainly confirms Scripture. Yet it does not prove that the Bible is entirely true. After all, not every claim in Scripture has been confirmed archeologically. The Garden of Eden has never been found, nor has the Tower of Babel or Noah’s Ark (as of the writing of this article). So at best, archaeology demonstrates that someof the Bible is true.

Such consistency is to be expected. Yet, using archaeology in an attempt to prove the Bible seems inappropriate. After all, archaeology is an uncertain science; its findings are inevitably subject to the interpretation and bias of the observer and are sometimes overturned by newer evidence. Archaeology is useful, but fallible. Is it appropriate to use afallible procedure to judge what claims to be the infallible Word of God? Using the less certain to judge the more certain seems logically flawed. Yes, archaeology can show consistency with Scripture but is not in a position to prove the Bible in any decisive way because archaeology itself is not decisive.

Predictive Prophecy and Divine Insight

A number of passages in the Bible predict future events in great detail—events that were future to the writers but are now in our past. For example, in Daniel 2 a prophecy predicted the next three world empires (up to and including the Roman Empire) and their falls. If the Bible were not inspired by God, how could its mere human writers possibly have known about events in the distant future?5

The Bible also touches on matters of science in ways that seem to go beyond what was known to humankind at the time. In Isaiah 40:22 we read about the spreading out (expansion) of the heavens (the universe). Yet secular scientists did not discover such expansion until the 1920s. The spherical nature of the earth and the fact that the earth hangs in space are suggested in Scriptures such as Job 26:10 and Job 26:7 respectively. The book of Job is thought to have been written around 2000 BC—long before the nature of our planet was generally known.

Such evidence is certainly consistent with the claim that the Bible is inspired by God. And some people find such evidence convincing. Yet, persons who tenaciously resist the idea that the Bible is the Word of God have offered their counterarguments to the above examples. They have suggested that the predictive prophetic passages were written after the fact, much later than the text itself would indicate. Examples of apparent scientific insight in the Bible are chalked up to coincidence.

Moreover, there is something inappropriate about using secular science to judge the claims of the Bible. As with archeological claims, what constitutes a scientific fact is often subject to the bias of the interpreter. Some people would claim that particles-to-people evolution is a scientific fact. Although creationists would disagree, we must concede that what some people think is good science does not always coincide with the Bible.

The Bible does show agreement with some of what is commonly accepted as scientific fact. But what is considered scientific fact today might not be tomorrow. We are once again in the embarrassing position of attempting to judge what claims to be infallible revelation from God by the questionable standards of men. Again, how can we judge what claims to be inerrant revelation by a standard that is itself uncertain and ever-changing? This would be like using something we merely suspect to be about three feet long to check whether a yardstick is accurate. Using the less-certain to judge the more-certain just doesn’t make sense. At best, such things merely show consistency.

The Standard of Standards

The above lines of evidence are certainly consistent with the premise that the Bible is true. Many people have no doubt found such evidence quite convincing. Yet, we must admit that none of the above lines of evidence quite proves that the Bible must be the inerrant Word of God. Critics have their counterarguments to all of the above. If we are to know for certain that the Bible is true, we will need a different kind of argument—one that is absolutely conclusive and irrefutable. In all the above cases, we took as an unstated premise that there are certain standards by which we judge how likely something is true. When we stop to consider what these standards are, we will see that the standards themselves are proof that the Bible is true.

Putting it another way, only the Bible can make sense of the standards by which we evaluate whether or not something is true. One such set of standards are the laws of logic. We all know that a true claim cannot contradict another true claim. That would violate a law of logic: the law of non-contradiction. The statements “The light is red” and “The light is not red” cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Laws of logic thus represent a standard by which we can judge certain truth claims. Moreover, all people seem to “know” laws like the law of non-contradiction. We all assume that such laws are the same everywhere and apply at all times without exception. But why is this? How do we know such things?

If we consider the biblical worldview, we find that we can make sense of the laws of logic. The Bible tells us that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Since God upholds the entire universe and since He is beyond time, we would expect that laws of logic apply everywhere in the universe and at all times. There can never be an exception to a law of logic because God’s mind is sovereign over all truth. We can know laws of logic because we are made in God’s image and are thus able to think in a way that is consistent with His nature (Genesis 1:27). So, when we take the Bible as our worldview, we find that laws of logic make sense.

But if we don’t accept the Bible as true, we are left without a foundation for laws of logic. How could we know (apart from God) that laws of logic work everywhere? After all, none of us have universal knowledge. We have not experienced the future nor have we travelled to distant regions of the universe. Yet we assume that laws of logic will work in the future as they have in the past and that they work in the distant cosmos as they work here. But how could we possibly know that apart from revelation from God?

Arguing that laws of logic have worked in our past experiences is pointless—because that’s not the question. The question is: how can we know that they will work in the future or in regions of space that we have never visited? Only the Christian worldview can make sense of the universal, exception-less, unchanging nature of laws of logic. Apart from the truth revealed in the Bible, we would have no reason to assume that laws of logic apply everywhere at all times, yet we all do assume this. Only the Christian has a good reason to presume the continued reliability of logic. The non-Christian does not have such a reason in his own professed worldview, and so he is being irrational: believing something without a good reason. The unbeliever has only “blind faith” but the Christian’s faith in the Bible makes knowledge possible.

The Foundation of Science

Another standard we use when evaluating certain kinds of claims is the standard of science. The tools of science allow us to describe the predictable, consistent way in which the universe normally behaves. Science allows us to make successful predictions about certain future states. For example, if I mix chemical A with chemical B, I expect to get result C because it has always been that way in the past. This happens the same way every time: if the conditions are the same, I will get the same result. Science is based on an underlying uniformity in nature. But why should there be such uniformity in nature? And how do we know about it?

We all presume that the future will be like the past in terms of the basic operation of nature. This does not mean that Friday will be exactly like Monday—conditions change. But it does mean that things like gravity will work the same on Friday as they have on Monday. With great precision astronomers are able to calculate years in advance the positions of planets, the timing of eclipses, and so on—only because the universe operates in such a consistent way. We all know that (in basic ways) the universe will behave in the future as it has in the past. Science would be impossible without this critical principle. But what is the foundation for this principle?


ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW, GOD HAS CHOSEN TO UPHOLD THE UNIVERSE IN A CONSISTENT WAY FOR OUR BENEFIT.

The Bible provides that foundation. According to the biblical worldview, God has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent way for our benefit. He has promised us in places such as Genesis 8:22 that the basic cycles of nature will continue to be in the future as they have been in the past. Although specific circumstances change, the basic laws of nature (such as gravity) will continue to work in the future as they have in the past. Interestingly, only God is in a position to tell us on His own authority that this will be true. According to the Bible, God is beyond time,6 and so only He knows what the future will be. But we are within time and have not experienced the future. The only way we could know the future will be (in certain ways) like the past is because God has told us in His Word that it will be.

Apart from the Bible, is there any way we could know that the future will be like the past? So far, no one has been able to show how such a belief would make sense apart from Scripture. The only nonbiblical explanations offered have turned out to be faulty. For example, consider the following.

Some people argue that they can know that the future will be like the past on the basis of past experience. That is, in the past, when they had assumed that the future would be like the past, they were right. They then argue that this past success is a good indicator of future success. However, in doing so, they arbitrarily assume the very thing they are supposed to be proving: that the future will be like the past. They commit the logical fallacy of begging the question. Any time we use past experience as an indicator of what will probably happen in the future, we are relying on the belief that the future will be (in basic ways) like the past. So we cannot merely use past experience as our reason for belief that in the future nature will be uniform, unless we already knew by some other way that nature is uniform. If nature were not uniform, then past success would be utterly irrelevant to the future! Only the biblical worldview can provide an escape from this vicious logical circle. And that is another very good reason to believe the Bible is true.

We Already Know the God of the Bible
Since only the Bible can make sense of the standards of knowledge, it may seem perplexing at first that people who deny the Bible are able to have knowledge. We must admit that non-Christians are able to use laws of logic and the methods of science with great success—despite the fact that such procedures only make sense in light of what the Bible teaches. How are we to explain this inconsistency? How is it that people deny the truth of the Bible and yet simultaneously rely upon the truth of the Bible?

The Bible itself gives us the resolution to this paradox. In Romans 1:18–21 the Scriptures teach that God has revealed Himself to everyone. God has “hardwired” knowledge of Himself into every human being, such that we all have inescapable knowledge of God. However, people have rebelled against God—they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). People go to great lengths to convince themselves and others that they do not know what, in fact, they must know. They are denying the existence of a God who is rightly angry at them for their rebellion against Him.

But, since all men are made in God’s image, we are able to use the knowledge of logic and uniformity that He has placed within us,7 even if we inconsistently deny the God that makes such knowledge possible. So the fact that even unbelievers are able to use logic and science is a proof that the Bible really is true. When we understand the Bible, we find that what it teaches can make sense of those things necessary for science and reasoning. God has designed us so that when believers read His Word, we recognize it as the voice of our Creator (John 10:27). The truth of the Bible is inescapably certain. For if the Bible were not true, we couldn’t know anything at all. It turns out that the worldview delineated by the Bible is the only worldview that can make sense of all those things necessary for knowledge.

Conclusion

The truth of the Bible is obvious to anyone willing to fairly investigate it. The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. It has changed the lives of millions of people who have placed their faith in Christ. It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences. It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy. When Christians read the Bible, they cannot help but recognize the voice of their Creator. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible. It is the standard of standards. The proof of the Bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldn’t prove anything at all.8
Previous ArticleIs the New Testament Reliable?Next ArticleIs Genesis 1–11 a Derivation from Ancient Myths?

BOOK CHAPTER
Wasn’t the Bible Written by Mere Men?
MAGAZINE ARTICLE
Can We Prove the Bible Is True?
MAGAZINE ARTICLE
7. Life-Changing Power

Footnotes

1.See chapters 5 and 12 of Brian Edwards, Nothing but the Truth (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 2006).
2.Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, A Ready Defense (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), pp. 42–55.
3.Bryant Wood, “The Walls of Jericho,” Creation 21 (2) March–May 1999, pp. 36–40,http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp.
4.Bryant Wood, “The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah,” Bible and Spade (Summer 1999),http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/16/The-Discovery-of-the-Sin-Cities-of-Sodom-and-Gomorrah.aspx.
5.Even this begs the question to some degree. A critic could (hypothetically) argue that some people have the ability to perceive distant future events through some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism (be it psychic powers or whatever). The Christian knows better; he knows that God alone declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9–10). But the Christian knows this because it is what the Bible says. So, only by presupposing the truth of the Bible could we cogently argue that only God can know the future.
6.E.g., 2 Peter 3:8; Isaiah 46:9–10.
7.Babies do not “learn” uniformity in nature. They are born already knowing it. When a baby burns his hand on a candle, he does not quickly do it again because he rightly believes that if he does it again it will hurt again. The baby already knows that the future reflects the past.
8.This fact has been recognized and elaborated upon by Christian scholars such as Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen.

Read More

Does Science Argue for or against God?

Read More

Where Do Good and Evil Come From?

Read More

The Benefits of Belief

By Peter Kreeft

In this Prager University course, I want to focus not on the evidence for God’s existence, but on the benefits of belief. 

If God exists, then the world didn’t just evolve by chance, but by deliberate design. There’s an Artist behind this incredible work of art—, this big , and beautiful world. If God exists, we’re living in a great story, an epic like “The Lord of the Rings,” with real heroes and heroic tasks. Ultimately, all the twists and turns of this epic narrative will be paid off, everything will make sense. It will even have a happy ending, not necessarily, or even likely, in our own lifetime— -- even Moses didn’t get into the Promised Land— -- but over the grand course of time in an afterlife, which exists as surely as God exists.

If God exists, the presence of evil, hard as it is to accept, makes sense. God allows it for a reason— -- namely, to preserve our free will. And God will reconcile all injustices in the end. If there is no God, life is one big crapshoot.

 If God does exist, morality is a real, objective feature of the world. If there is no God, morality is just the rules we make up for this little game of life we play. 

If God exists, love is the nature of an eternal reality. If there is no God, love is just a fleeting feeling, no more than a bunch of chemical and neurological interactions. 

If God exists, you are of infinite value. He knows you -- as a parent knows His child. He’s accessible to you. If there is no God, each of us is as insignificant as a rock on an unknown planet. 

If God exists, death is conquered because if there is a God there is a reality outside of space and time. If there is no God, there is nothing immortal, and all the good things in life are destroyed forever. You, and everyone you love, and everything you think matters are all consigned to oblivion. If there is no God, life is pointless. Everything we’ve done and lived for will ultimately be in vain.

Can I prove with an absolute certainly that God exists? I can make the case that overwhelming evidence suggests that he does. But no I can’t prove that He exists with absolute certainly. That’s likely part of His plan. God deliberately doesn’t give us absolute proof so that we’re free to choose or not to choose to believe in Him. 

So which way do you want to go? Be honest. Doesn’t your heart at least hope that there is a good God, a transcendent Validator of love and all the highest human values? Of course it does. Why would anyone not wish that life has some ultimate purpose; that good and evil are real; that there is ultimate justice; that our love for others means something? 

If you choose to live as if there is a God— -- even if you are not sure there is a God— -- you lose nothing and you gain everything. Religious Christians and Jews are happier, live longer, and are more charitable than their less observant or secular fellow citizens. These are not my opinions. -- these are the findings of a multitude of scientific studies. 

If you have been an atheist for a while, it may be difficult for you to change your thinking, even if you find some merit in the many rational arguments for God’s existence. But you can change your behavior. You can live as if God’s exists, even if you hold doubts. Why not? As I said, you lose nothing and you have everything to gain. 

This behavioral approach is far from new. The Jews have long had a saying, “We will do, and we will understand,” which acknowledges that action often precedes understanding. So why not begin with an action? Why not pray the prayer of the skeptic? “God, if you exist, you must know that I’m not a believer. So, please, God, give me the gift of faith, in your time and in your way. I want to believe whatever is true. Amen.” 

If you say that and mean it, and give it some time, be prepared, because He will not ignore that prayer. Go on, say it. Find a private place and say it. Your Creator is listening. I’m Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, for Prager University.

Read More

Fé Racional

Elsa Sichrovsky
[A Rational Faith]
http://anchor.tfionline.com/pt/post/fe-racional/

Como um típico deslumbrado calouro da faculdade sentado na minha primeira aula de literatura ocidental, ouvi a minha professora favorita, Sra. Chang, ler a história de Abraão e Isaque. A singularidade da história do Gênesis, com a sua narrativa judaica tipicamente seca que registra histórias profundas como aquela sobre o Deus que dá o primeiro filho a um casal e manda o pai assassinar seu filho alguns anos mais tarde — e na hora H muda de ideia, tudo isso confundiu os outros calouros. Não era exatamente o que a maioria de nós imaginava quando pensava na linda palavra mitologia, a definição da minha professora a essas histórias. Um mito.

Ela olhou para cima tirando os olhos do pesado volume, sorriu com empatia para os alunos perplexos e disse: “É por isso que eu não sou cristã. O Deus da Bíblia hebraica não faz sentido para mim. A fé é irracional.”

“E, por favor”, ela continuou, “se houver cristãos nesta sala, não tentem discutir comigo. Estamos estudando literatura, não religião.” Tive que me esforçar para ficar quieto.

Segundo ela, a fé, a pedra angular da minha vida desde que aprendi a cantar “Jesus me ama” com entusiasmo infantil, era uma noção ridícula e bizarra demais para se dar o trabalho de tentar compreender. A fé o colocava em situações estranhamente difíceis com um Deus falível e errático que apenas o faz passar por experiências torturantes para Sua própria satisfação. Certamente não era coisa para estudantes brilhantes como ela pensava.

Não foi a primeira vez que ouvi um comentário como esse. Desde pequeno, a experiência em atividades de evangelismo pessoal me deixou acostumado a olhares incrédulos e gargalhadas daqueles que eu tentava convencer a aceitar a mensagem da salvação. Mas quando a pessoa que eu tanto admirava disse a mesma coisa, isso desencadeou uma série de perguntas na minha cabeça: Por que a fé é tão difícil de entender? Se é tão importante para a vida eterna e a felicidade presente, por que haveria de ser um conceito tão estranho e até repulsivo? Por que Deus não fez a Bíblia um pouco menos crítica e mais como os artigos de autoajuda na Internet que explicam todos os valores importantes de viver bem em três pontos principais, com resumos claros e destaques?

Pior ainda, suas palavras soaram desconfortavelmente verdadeiras segundo minha própria experiência espiritual. Os caminhos de Deus tantas vezes me pareceram além da razão e levaram a caminhos de luta e dolorosos. Às vezes, o propósito por trás da incerteza ficava claro, mas muitas outras vezes eu passava por uma provação com perguntas não respondidas. Tinha valido a pena me agarrar à uma fé que muitas pessoas dizem não fazer sentido e que na verdade acrescentava incerteza à minha vida?

De repente, para minha surpresa, uma citação que eu tinha lido no ensino médio no livro de Biologia me ocorreu:

“Se o cérebro fosse tão simples a ponto de conseguirmos entendê-lo, seríamos tão simplórios que não conseguiríamos.”[1]

O cérebro estava além da nossa compreensão não por ser um projeto mal feito que não valia a pena a nossa atenção; era simplesmente mais maravilhoso, mais espantosamente complexo do que a mente humana é capaz de analisar e processar. O fato dos humanos não conseguirem compreender o cérebro não foi razão para Watson desistir de Biologia e declarar a Ciência um monte de mentiras; pelo contrário, os mistérios não resolvidos da mente humana se tornaram ainda mais fascinante para ele, algo ao qual valia a pena dedicar a vida para descobrir seus segredos.

A calma aceitação de Lyall Watson da complexidade insolúvel do cérebro humano me fez pensar sobre os prós de se ter uma fé que não nem sempre se consegue explicar para a satisfação dos que não têm fé. Abraão conseguia confiar que Deus cumpriria Sua promessa de multiplicar a semente de Abraão porque conhecia e amava o Deus que estava por trás daquele comando ultrajante. Quando enfrento problemas no meu relacionamento com Deus e simplesmente não consigo aceitar a maneira que Ele parece estar guiando, a única coisa que me dá força para seguir em frente com o que estou sendo solicitado é o amor que nos une— amor a Deus e pela humanidade. O amor triunfa no que a razão e a lógica não conseguem sustentar. A partir desta perspectiva, a obediência por amor é a coisa certa a fazer, e portanto, a coisa racional.

Além disso, se eu pudesse encontrar uma maneira de explicar cada incidente na Bíblia e anexar documentos para provar cada uma das reivindicações espirituais do Cristianismo, não haveria razão para confiar na força de Deus e investir em conhecê-lO profundamente e envolvê-lO em todos os aspectos da minha vida. Eu teria todas as respostas e não haveria lugar para Deus. Não se trata de me contentar em tatear no escuro para sempre. Jesus tem as respostas, por isso as perguntas me fazem recorrer a Jesus em cada etapa da minha caminhada com Ele, buscando-O e ansiando pelo Seu espírito. Sempre que me deparo com algo para o qual não tenho uma resposta fácil, lembro-me da imperfeição inerente à minha existência humana e minha necessidade de salvação.

Passei a entender que poderia me agarrar à minha fé com uma confiança proveniente de Cristo porque a dificuldade de ter fé na verdade atesta o seu valor. Não há necessidade de fé se todos os aspectos de um sistema de valores é mecânico, simétrico e demonstrável por método científico. Tal sistema de valores certamente seria racional, mas limitado à racionalidade da finita mente humana. O Cristianismo não pretende ser capaz de apresentar aos crentes valores sucintos e doutrinas que se encaixam perfeitamente em ideias preconcebidas. Em vez disso, oferece entrada para um mundo além do que eu atualmente considero racional. Como o teólogo Peter Kreeft diz: “A fé só pode existir em um mundo onde ela é difícil.” Se a fé em Deus fosse facilitada e alterada para apelar aos cinco sentidos, não seria capaz de nos levar Àquele cujos caminhos são mais altos que os nossos caminhos.[2]

[1] Atribuído a Lyall Watson.

[2] Isaias 55:8: “Pois os meus pensamentos não são os pensamentos de vocês, nem os seus caminhos são os meus caminhos”, declara o Senhor.

Read More

Why Does God Desire Our Praise?

A compilation

Audio length: 13:15
Download Audio (12.1MB)

Sing to God, sing in praise of his name, extol him who rides on the clouds; rejoice before him—his name is the LORD.—Psalm 68:41
Consummation of joy

C. S. Lewis saw that praising God is the consummation of joy in God. Therefore, when God is pursuing—even demanding—our praise, he is pursuing the consummation of our joy. This may feel at first counter-intuitive—that when we are small and feel insignificant, while God is great and central, at those very moments we reach our highest joy. But it’s not counter to our deepest sense of where joy comes from.

Joy is not in thinking highly of ourselves. Joy reaches its height in moments of self-forgetfulness in the presence of beauty and greatness.—John Piper

*

Think about the things you really love. Praise comes escaping from your lips before you can even think about it. As [C. S.] Lewis puts it, “the world rings with praise.”

Think about a book you recently read you just loved. The words fell off the page like brilliant jewels, and the story captured you from the first page to the last. You can’t wait to sing its praises. You can barely stand not to talk about it, and refer your friends to it.

“I think we delight to praise what we enjoy,” Lewis continues, “because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed.”—Amanda Hill
Joy in relationship

Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth! Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name!—Psalm 100:1, 42

*

The Lord honors your coming into His presence with praise and thanksgiving. The Lord loves praise: the High and the Holy One dwells in the praises of His people.3 The fragrance of the Lord is in the perfume of the praises of His children. He likes to smell our praises and our prayers like the fragrance of flowers.

He made all things to glorify Him, and all things were created to praise the Lord. Like a sea of sound, God’s wonderful creation just throbs and pulsates so beautifully in living sound. “All nature sings of Christ our King!” It’s like the very rocks crying out to the Lord, singing His praises. Even the meanest and ugliest little creatures can praise the Lord and sing praises to Jesus. Even the lowliest, most despised creatures can lift up their voice in song. His whole creation praises Him; they all sing His praises!

Even the frogs praise Him. When they all get together, they make a beautiful joyful noise! So even if you’re just a frog, you can do your best for the Lord. Even if you feel like you’re ugly and small and despised, you can still glorify God!

So even if you think you can’t sing, you can lift your voice and praise the Lord! If you can only croak for Jesus, you can at least make a joyful noise unto the Lord! “Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord! Praise ye the Lord!”4—D. B. Berg

*

Worship doesn’t have to be the static recitation of qualities and facts about God, but can be a deliberate and personal relationship with God—and a relationship is naturally more appealing than mandating formalities.

On a lesser scale, I can compare it to praising my wife. Talking about how great she is is nice, and it’s moderately pleasing for both of us. But, it is profoundly more satisfying to speak, even sing, my praises to her. Why talk about her when I can talk with her? Why settle for merely acknowledging the truth when I can live it interactively?

Worship is most naturally relational; it should be the personal and relational recognition of God’s unique glory. And it can be done in everything properly ordered to glorify the Creator. I testify to God’s generous provision by drinking my morning orange juice. I testify to His marvelous creative order when my body heals from a cut. I witness to His gracious love when I forgive other people as He has forgiven me.

Understanding worship like this, it only makes sense to worship God. Why worship God?! Why wouldn’t I!—John Ferrer
Who gets the credit?

It was not their own strong arm that gave them victory. It was your right hand and strong arm and the blinding light from your face that helped them, for you loved them.—Psalm 44:35

*

The challenge is that God is vain because He desires praise. The irony is, that if praise is rational at all, virtually all of it goes properly to God, even the things that we want to take credit for. Because He is the source, to quote James 1, “He is the source of every good and perfect gift.”

If praise is properly deserved, then … it is properly obligatory. In other words, it is not only proper for God to receive praise, we owe it to Him. And in fact, we owe praise to God for the things that we think we ought to be praised for. In fact, what we are doing is we are stealing His credit and taking it for our own…

It’s no wonder then when you reflect on this that the Psalmist writes in Psalm 150:2, “Praise Him for His mighty deeds, praise Him according to His excellent greatness.” We praise God for what He does. We praise Him for who He is. We ascribe worth to Him.—Greg Koukl

*

Is God a megalomaniac ... the transcendent Egotist? Of course not. In the truest sense, this is an arrogant and irresponsible question. How can God be other than he is in his perfection? But in another sense, the question is helpful, for it directs our thinking to the essence of God’s glory and resets our theological framework. God shows his love for us in the display of his glory and in his jealous concern for his own name and reputation. Our greatest joy is found in beholding his glory and in glorifying the triune God for all eternity.

Fallen creatures, blinded by sin, cannot see that to rob God of his glory is to rob ourselves of true joy. It takes the grace of God to make that known to us, and, incredibly enough, God glorifies himself in making himself known to sinners and in saving them through Christ’s perfect atonement for sin. For now, we see the glory of God most perfectly displayed in the cross of Christ.—R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

*

But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.—Psalm 22:3

*

This is God’s work, and if this thing be of God, no man can stand against it. It is not dependent on any man or even any group of us. Don’t for one moment give yourself the credit for one little thing you’ve done, or say, “Look how big we are, and look how we’regrowing!” God is the one who is doing all this, and all we have to do is follow Jesus. Amen? Praise the Lord.

He cannot fail. He cannot deny Himself. Even though we are faithless, yet He remaineth faithful.6 He cannot break His word; He is going to see it through. God is going to carry us through. He has begun a good work in us, and He’s going to complete it to the end.7 … Don’t think you have to complete it. Don’t think, “Well, I know God started this thing, but now we’re going to have to finish it.”

God is the one who wants to get the glory and God is the only one who can do it. Then He wants you to praise and thank Him and glorify Him because He did it. Because if you could do it, you could pat yourself on the back for it and say, “Well, look what we’ve done. Look how great we are. Look how wonderful we’re doing.” Watch out when you talk like that; you’re headed for trouble. You’d better keep saying, “Wow, look what God has done! Look what the Lord is doing. Look how great He’s working.”

Give God all the credit all the time at every turn for every little thing, and He will never fail to continue to prosper you, empower you, protect you, keep you, multiply you, and do all things just like He did for the early church.—D. B. Berg

Published on Anchor October 2016. Read by Gabriel Garcia Valdivieso.
Music by John Listen. http://anchor.tfionline.com/post/why-does-god-desire-our-praise/

1 NIV.
2 ESV.
3 Psalm 22:3.
4 Psalm 150:6.
5 NLT.
6 2 Timothy 2:13.
7 Philippians 1:6.

Read More

USA Debt $19.6 Trillion up $1.4 Trillion in one year!

By Simon Black-Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

SovereignMan.com

It’s official.

The United States government closed out the 2016 fiscal year that ended a few days ago on Friday September 30th with a debt level of $19,573,444,713,936.79. 

That’s an increase of $1,422,827,047,452.46 over last year’s fiscal year close.

Incredible. By the way, that debt growth amounts to roughly 7.5% of the entire US economy. 

By comparison, the Marshall Plan, which completely rebuilt Western Europe after World World II, cost $12 billion back in 1948, or roughly 4.3% of US GDP at the time. 

The initial appropriation for the WPA, perhaps the largest of Roosevelt’s New Deal “make work” programs that employed millions of people, cost 6.7% of US GDP. 

And, more recently, the US $700 billion bank bailout at the beginning of the 2008 financial crisis was the equivalent of 4.8% of GDP. 

So basically these people managed to increase the national debt by a bigger percentage than the cost of the New Deal, Marshall Plan, and 2008 bank bailout. 

What exactly did you get for that money? 

Did they spend $1.4 trillion on achieving world peace, eradicating poverty, saving the planet, or some other pipedream? 

Did they finally fix America’s crumbling infrastructure that has been in desperate need of repair? 

Did they send a gigantic tax refund check to every man, woman, and child in the country? 

Actually the answer is (D), none of the above. They squandered it all. 

In fact, the 2016 fiscal year had the THIRD largest increase in government debt in US history. 

The only two previous times in which the debt increased more than the 2016 fiscal year were during the financial crisis. 

But there was no financial crisis in 2016. 

The government didn’t have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banks. 

All things considered, 2016 was a pretty normal fiscal year for the federal government. There were no major emergencies to drain taxpayer funds. 

Yet they still managed to blow $1.4 trillion because this level of waste and spending is now baked into the system. 

Even if they dramatically slashed spending and got rid of entire departments of the federal government, they would still be hemorrhaging cash at a rate far greater than the economy can now possibly grow. 

Social Security and Medicare are now the largest parts of that financial sinkhole, and according to their own projections, their drain on the budget is growing each year. 

All other government spending COMBINED pales in comparison to Social Security and Medicare. 

So if you add up military spending, homeland security, national parks, and President Obama’s jet, it’s just a fraction of what they spend on Social Security and Medicare. 

These programs consume the vast majority of US tax revenue, forcing the government to borrow mind-boggling amounts of money to fund its operations, even in good times. 

(Just imagine how much the debt will grow when times get tough again.) 

What’s even more crazy is that Social Security and Medicare aren’t even properly funded. Both are rapidly running out of money. 

The programs’ annual trustee reports show that their primary trust funds will become completely depleted starting in the next few years. 

In fact one of Social Security’s major trust funds for Disability Insurance was actually fully depleted last year. 

So even though these programs are already draining taxpayer resources and forcing the government to take on more and more debt, they are in need of a HUGE bailout. 

This leaves precisely ONE option: default… but on whom? 

It’s possible the government could try to borrow the $42 trillion that they calculate is necessary to make these programs solvent again. 

That seems extraordinarily unlikely. 

But even if it were possible to print and/or borrow that much money, it would either create a terminal currency crisis, or force the US government to default on unaffordable interest payments, throwing the financial system into chaos. 

The other option is to simply default on the future beneficiaries of these programs, telling people, “Hey sorry, we wasted all of your money and there’s nothing left.” 

So their choice comes down to either screwing the banks or screwing the taxpayer. 

Gee I wonder which option they’ll pick… 

Until tomorrow, 

Read More

Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker

By Robert Fisk, The Independent, Sept. 30, 2016

Not for the sensitive

When the world heard that Shimon Peres had died, it shouted “Peacemaker!” But when I heard that Peres was dead, I thought of blood and fire and slaughter.

I saw the results: babies torn apart, shrieking refugees, smouldering bodies. It was a place called Qana and most of the 106 bodies–half of them children–now lie beneath the UN camp where they were torn to pieces by Israeli shells in 1996. I had been on a UN aid convoy just outside the south Lebanese village. Those shells swished right over our heads and into the refugees packed below us. It lasted for 17 minutes.

Shimon Peres, standing for election as Israel’s prime minister–a post he inherited when his predecessor Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated–decided to increase his military credentials before polling day by assaulting Lebanon. The joint Nobel Peace Prize holder used as an excuse the firing of Katyusha rockets over the Lebanese border by the Hezbollah. In fact, their rockets were retaliation for the killing of a small Lebanese boy by a booby-trap bomb they suspected had been left by an Israeli patrol. It mattered not.

A few days later, Israeli troops inside Lebanon came under attack close to Qana and retaliated by opening fire into the village. Their first shells hit a cemetery used by Hezbollah; the rest flew directly into the UN Fijian army camp where hundreds of civilians were sheltering. Peres announced that “we did not know that several hundred people were concentrated in that camp. It came to us as a bitter surprise.”

It was a lie. The Israelis had occupied Qana for years after their 1982 invasion, they had video film of the camp, they were even flying a drone over the camp during the 1996 massacre–a fact they denied until a UN soldier gave me his video of the drone, frames from which we published in The Independent. The UN had repeatedly told Israel that the camp was packed with refugees.

This was Peres’s contribution to Lebanese peace. He lost the election and probably never thought much more about Qana. But I never forgot it.

When I reached the UN gates, blood was pouring through them in torrents. I could smell it. It washed over our shoes and stuck to them like glue. There were legs and arms, babies without heads, old men’s heads without bodies. A man’s body was hanging in two pieces in a burning tree. What was left of him was on fire.

On the steps of the barracks, a girl sat holding a man with grey hair, her arm round his shoulder, rocking the corpse back and forth in her arms. His eyes were staring at her. She was keening and weeping and crying, over and over: “My father, my father.” If she is still alive–and there was to be another Qana massacre in the years to come, this time from the Israeli air force–I doubt if the word “peacemaker” will be crossing her lips.

There was a UN enquiry which stated in its bland way that it did not believe the slaughter was an accident. The UN report was accused of being anti-Semitic. Much later, a brave Israeli magazine published an interview with the artillery soldiers who fired at Qana. An officer had referred to the villagers as “just a bunch of Arabs” (‘arabushim’ in Hebrew). “A few Arabushim die, there is no harm in that,” he was quoted as saying. Peres’s chief of staff was almost equally carefree: “I don’t know any other rules of the game, either for the [Israeli] army or for civilians…”

Peres called his Lebanese invasion “Operation Grapes of Wrath”, which–if it wasn’t inspired by John Steinbeck–must have come from the Book of Deuteronomy. “The sword without and terror within,” it says in Chapter 32, “shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of grey hairs.” Could there be a better description of those 17 minutes at Qana?

Yes, of course, Peres changed in later years. They claimed that Ariel Sharon–whose soldiers watched the massacre at Sabra and Chatila camps in 1982 by their Lebanese Christian allies–was also a “peacemaker” when he died. At least he didn’t receive the Nobel Prize.

Peres later became an advocate of a “two state solution”, even as the Jewish colonies on Palestinian land–which he once so fervently supported–continued to grow.

Now we must call him a “peacemaker”. And count, if you can, how often the word “peace” is used in the Peres obituaries over the next few days. Then count how many times the word Qana appears.

Read More

Russia: Christians Face Increasing Persecution

By Eric Metaxas, BreakPoint.org, Oct. 1, 2016

We all know about the dire circumstances faced by Christians in the Islamic world. Even the White House has finally called what’s happening to Christians in Iraq and Syria “genocide.”

But there’s another place where religious freedom is under assault: Russia.

This is a surprise to some. After all, post-Soviet Russia takes pride in its Christian heritage. Its president, Vladimir Putin, has positioned himself as a champion of Russian Orthodoxy. His stance on traditional marriage and opposition to homosexual activists has won him praise and admiration from many conservative Christians.

But just ask Donald Ossewaarde if he thinks that Putin and Putin’s Russia are champions of religious freedom. Ossewaarde, a Baptist missionary from the United States, was one of the first people to run afoul of the recently passed “Yarovaya Law.”

The Yarovaya Law, which purports to be a counter-terrorism and public safety measure, prohibits “religious gatherings in unregistered places,” restricts promoting religion on the internet, and makes it easier for Russian officials to deny entry into and departure from the country.

And since the Yarovaya Law places severe restrictions on evangelization (or “proselytizing” as the Russian government sees it), it’s not hard to see how a Baptist missionary might get into trouble.

The law defines “missionary work” as “the activity of a religious association, aimed at disseminating information about its beliefs among people who are not participants (members, followers) in that religious association, with the purpose of involving these people as participants (members, followers).”

Activity that falls under this definition may “only be performed ‘without hindrance’ at [designated] churches and other religious sites … [and it is] expressly forbidden to perform missionary activities in private residences.”

Ossewaarde was arrested for holding a Bible study in his home and for posting public notices announcing his Bible study. He was fined 40,000 rubles, roughly $625. And his Russian court-appointed lawyer warned him to accept the fine and leave Moscow. Ossewaarde, however, is appealing his conviction.

Other groups such as Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, and especially Pentecostals are rightly nervous about what happens next. A leader of Russia’s Pentecostal Union told Forum 18, a Christian Human Rights group based in Oslo, that “the local police officer came to a home where a group of Pentecostals meet each Sunday … [and] with a contented expression he told them: ‘Now they’re adopting the law, I’ll drive you all out of here.’”

Thus the law threatens to be yet another chapter in the century-old story of the persecution of Russian Pentecostals.

It should be clear that the law has little, if anything, to do with defending Christianity and everything to do with Russian nationalism. As author David Aikman told Christianity Today, “The Russian Orthodox church is part of a bulwark of Russian nationalism stirred up by Vladimir Putin … Everything that undermines that action is a real threat, whether that’s evangelical Protestant missionaries or anything else.”

Thing is, Islamists and Hindu nationalists also view uncooperative Christians as a threat to their idea of a “good society.” And while, thankfully, Russia isn’t using violence–at least not yet–the violation of religious freedom is just as real.

Read More

Her son killed Amish children 10 years ago. Their families helped her forgive.

By Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post, October 1, 2016

NICKEL MINES, Pa.–A single word in black cursive font hangs above a large double pane window in Terri Roberts’ sun room. It says, “Forgiven.”

The word–and the room itself, a gift built by her Amish neighbors just months after the unimaginable occurred–is a daily reminder of all that she’s lost and all that she’s gained these last 10 years.

The simple, quiet rural life she knew shattered on Oct. 2, 2006 when her oldest son, Charles Carl Roberts IV, walked into a one-room Amish schoolhouse on a clear, unseasonably warm Monday morning. The 32-year-old husband and father of three young children ordered the boys and adults to leave, tied up 10 little girls between the ages of 6 and 13, and shot them, killing five and injuring the others.

Terri Roberts’ husband thought they’d have to move far away. He knew what people thought of parents of mass murderers. He believed they would be ostracized in their community, blamed for not knowing the evil their child was capable of.

But in the hours after the massacre, as Amish parents still waited in a nearby barn for word about whether their daughters had survived, an Amish man named Henry arrived at the Roberts’ home with a message: The families did not see the couple as an enemy. Rather, they saw them as parents who were grieving the loss of their child, too. Henry put his hand on the shoulder of Terri Roberts’ husband, and called him a friend.

The world watched in amazement as, on the day of their son’s funeral, nearly 30 Amish men and women, some the parents of the victims, came to the cemetery and formed a wall to block out media cameras. Parents, whose daughters had died at the hand of their son, approached the couple after the burial and offered condolences for their loss.

Then, just four weeks after the shooting, the couple was invited to meet with all the families in a local fire hall. One mother held Roberts’ gaze as both women’s eyes blurred with tears, she said. They were all grieving; they were all struggling to make sense of the senseless.

But the Amish did more than forgive the couple. They embraced them as part of their community. When Roberts underwent treatment for Stage 4 breast cancer last December, one of the girls who survived the massacre helped clean her home before she returned from the hospital. A large yellow bus arrived at her home around Christmas, and Amish children piled inside to sing her Christmas carols.

“The forgiveness is there, there’s no doubt they forgive,” Roberts said.

Steven Holt, a professor of Amish studies at Elizabethtown College, said that for most people forgiveness and acceptance comes at the end of a long emotional process. But the Amish forgive first, and then every day work through the emotions of it. This “decisional forgiveness” opened a space for Roberts to offer her friendship, which normally in their situation would be uncomfortable, he said.

Ten years later, the Amish families are still consciously deciding to forgive every day. About six miles from the Roberts’ home, down narrow country roads lined with corn stalks and rolling crop fields, the small village of Nickel Mines is visually unchanged, except that where there was once a schoolhouse by the road, there is now just overgrown grass. Many of the school-age children were not yet born, or are too young to remember.

But it’s impossible to forget. In one home, a 16-year-old girl sits immobile in her wheelchair, unable to speak or feed herself. Nearby, a 23-year-old man sits at his kitchen table, also struggling to speak, though for him it’s not because he isn’t physically able. He just can’t find the words to express the emotional pain he’s felt every day for the last 10 years.

Rosanna King was among the youngest in her class that day, only 6 years old. Aaron Esh, Jr., then 13, was the oldest.

Roberts has developed bonds with both of them.

It started at a summer picnic in her sprawling backyard.

It was only nine months after her son’s attack on their children when Roberts invited all the Amish families to her home for a get-together. They all came, including Rosanna.

Roberts, a grandmother, held Rosanna in her arms, rocking her and singing her lullabies.

Several months later, Roberts had all the women back to her home for a tea–a gathering that’s now become an annual tradition. As she played again with Rosanna, she asked the girl’s mother if she might help care for her. In the intervening years, Roberts spent nearly every Thursday evening at the Kings’ farm, bathing and reading and attending to Rosanna until her bedtime. After the first couple of visits, Roberts said, she would cry uncontrollably the entire drive home, overwhelmed by the reality that this little girl was severely handicapped because of her son.

That’s not lost on Rosanna’s father either. There’s never an evening that Roberts is there visiting that Christ King doesn’t think of what her son did, but he said it never changes the goodwill he feels toward her.

Roberts has cut back on her visits because of her illness, and on this Thursday evening, it is King who adjusts the wide-rim black glasses on his daughter’s face and shifts the blanket over her lap. He unhooks her IV to replace the bag of fluids. Rosanna barely moves, staring straight ahead, her mouth agape, exposing a full set of braces, like any other teenage girl.

For King, forgiveness has not come easy. Some parents have mourned the death of their daughters. Others have seen their daughters fully heal. His daughter survived, but he also lost her. Every day he fights back his anger. Every day he has to forgive again.

Sitting in a folding chair, with Rosanna’s hospital bed in view behind him, King speaks slowly, methodically, measuring each word. There are joy-filled moments with their daughter, like when she seems to perk up when he comes in from work. But then there are days when she has seizures or she’s up in the night and can’t be comforted.

“I’ve always said and continue to say we have a lot of hard work to be what the people brag about us to be,” he said.

But, then, he says this of Roberts: “She’s strong enough, has enough of a backbone, to go out and become such a part of the life of a girl that her son tried to kill. She’s so much a part of our routine that there’s something missing when she’s not there. She’s welcome here any time.”

Aaron’s trauma is less visible. Since the morning of the shooting, when he and the other boys ran for help, he’s struggled with crippling anxiety over his guilt that as the oldest boy in the class he didn’t protect the girls. Even when a state trooper assured him there was nothing he could have done, it took a long time for him to forgive himself.

He started overeating, and when he gained weight rapidly, he stopped eating, eventually having to be hospitalized for anorexia.

At the picnic in 2007, Roberts knew Aaron was suffering, which made it all the more moving when at the end of the party he told her he’d had fun.

Since then she’s developed a special affection for Aaron, a quiet, contemplative boy. He traveled with her to Ohio where she gave a talk about her story. In her presence he found his voice, getting up with her to share his experience. But he hasn’t really been able to share since.

Aaron is now a man, tall and lean, yet still boyishly handsome with the same bowl cut hairstyle he had when he was young, his brown hair streaked blond from hours doing construction work in the sun. Sitting in his home one evening, he strains to find the words to articulate what he’s feeling.

“There are still times, especially around this time of year when you think, ‘Why did this have to happen,’ and you have to catch yourself or you can become bitter real quick,” he said. “I don’t know if I’ve had complete peace with it, I don’t know. I think I’m struggling more than I realize and I don’t want to admit it.”

Roberts worries about him, how he internalizes everything. He worries about her, too. He sends her messages letting her know when he’s going away with friends or checking to see how she’s feeling. But he hasn’t seen her in a few months.

“I don’t want her to see me struggling,” he said. “I want to be her friend, but I don’t want to hurt her. Over the past 10 years, she’s been the biggest inspiration to us all, for sure. We all had it tough but I can’t imagine being in her shoes, I just can’t imagine.”

It’s a grey, chilly morning when Roberts, now 65, sits in her sun room sipping tea days before the 10-year anniversary of her son’s massacre.

The walls and shelves in Roberts’s home are like any other proud mother’s, filled with photos of her children and grandchildren. Her oldest son’s engagement photo is still there, as are pictures of him as a boy.

But there’s one small picture frame she’s hidden in a drawer, the only photo she has of her oldest son alone. In it, he’s wearing glasses and a baseball hat, and not looking directly at the camera. She normally has it out on a table in her kitchen, but she hides it away when her Amish friends come over.

They’d just been there for tea Monday. They don’t need to have that in their face, Roberts says.

Nothing about her new reality, about coming to terms with her son’s demons, has been easy. But it would have been unthinkably harder without her Amish friends.

“No one could ever imagine on that day that something like this would be formed from it,” she said. “Because of the response of forgiveness we were able to heal.”

Read More