Why I’m a Skeptical Biblicist

In a world of competing claims and theories, I find myself in a position that might seem paradoxical: I’m a Biblicist who’s deeply skeptical. Specifically, I’m skeptical of views that would undermine the Bible—especially without extraordinary evidence to back them up. This stance isn’t about clinging to tradition for tradition’s sake. It’s about weighing claims, knowing that when it comes to truth, not all ideas carry the same weight.

The Bible stands out for its unmatched consistency and reliability. Over the centuries, this text has maintained a coherent message on matters of morality, purpose, and God’s relationship with humanity. Forty authors, writing across different eras and cultural contexts, contributed to a single, unified narrative. It isn’t a random collection of stories; it’s a cohesive worldview that resonates on the deepest levels. And time and again, archaeology and historical research affirm the Bible’s details—names, places, and events once doubted have gained credibility through discovery. In contrast, many of the ideas that aim to contradict Scripture can feel like patches, lacking historical roots or failing to carry a unified narrative. That lack of coherence signals caution for me as a skeptical Biblicist.

Beyond that, there’s a curious irony in many secular claims: they often lean on principles rooted in the Biblical framework. When naturalistic worldviews try to explain human rights, moral accountability, or even logic, they frequently end up borrowing Biblical concepts. The Bible states that humans are made in God’s image, which grounds our dignity and intrinsic worth. Without that foundation, alternative explanations struggle to offer more than subjective preferences for why life should be valued or why moral standards should apply universally. To borrow these ideas but reject the foundation that supports them seems like building a house without securing the frame. So when secular perspectives challenge the Bible, my response is to ask, “What’s grounding this claim?” If it’s borrowed or superficial, I have every reason to be skeptical.

Then there’s a principle often touted by skeptics themselves—one I take seriously: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s not uncommon for skeptics to invoke this when questioning the supernatural, and it’s a valid approach. But the principle works both ways. Claims that seek to undercut the Bible also carry a burden of proof. For example, if someone argues that Biblical miracles are fabrications or that prophecy is mere coincidence, that’s an extraordinary claim. Given the weight of evidence supporting the Bible’s reliability, a claim that contradicts it needs to be compelling, not merely speculative. And yet, when you examine these skeptical assertions, they often fall short of the extraordinary proof required to make such dismissals reasonable.

What’s at stake here is more than intellectual curiosity; it’s about ultimate truth. The Bible doesn’t present itself as just one more religious text; it claims to be the Word of God, answering fundamental questions about existence, morality, and purpose. If that’s true, then views undermining the Bible don’t just challenge a belief system—they obscure reality itself. If I were to embrace a worldview that contradicts Scripture, I’d be setting aside a proven, reliable guide to life. Why trade that for a system of thought that often reduces human existence to chance or downplays moral accountability? The stakes are high because, if the Bible truly holds divine truth, dismissing it risks losing sight of the very essence of reality.

My skepticism also acknowledges that many secular views come with their own biases. Secular perspectives typically rest on naturalistic assumptions, automatically discounting any supernatural possibility. This bias can result in interpretations that feel forced, speculative, or stretched—especially when naturalistic theories try to account for miracles, prophecy, or divine intervention. This doesn’t mean secular claims are all invalid, but it does underscore the importance of applying the same rigor to these views as one would to Scripture. When a claim’s foundation is a philosophical commitment to rule out God from the start, it’s reasonable to question whether that claim rests on evidence or merely on a pre-set bias.

To be clear, this confidence in the Bible isn’t rooted in unexamined tradition. The reasons go beyond cultural loyalty or sentiment. The Bible has proven itself through historical validation, fulfilled prophecy, philosophical coherence, and life-changing impact. It’s a record that doesn’t just hold up—it invites examination and has withstood the scrutiny of centuries. This doesn’t mean new ideas can’t be considered, but it does mean the Bible’s authority isn’t easily overturned by theories with weaker evidentiary support.

And there’s the transformational power of Scripture. For many believers, myself included, the Bible isn’t just intellectually convincing; it resonates on a lived, experiential level. It speaks to the human condition, aligns with the moral intuitions written into our consciences, and offers a view of reality that matches both reason and experience. Its moral insights, its answers to life’s ultimate questions, and the lives it has transformed over millennia set it apart from purely human philosophies.

For me, this stance of Biblical skepticism isn’t about avoiding inquiry or clinging to tradition. It’s about integrity—holding claims to a high standard, especially when they seek to undermine a source that has proven so foundational to human understanding. Being a skeptical Biblicist means I remain open to evidence and exploration but am wary of claims that seek to displace the Bible without a comparable level of credibility.

Ultimately, my approach to skepticism involves a careful weighing of ideas. Not all views hold the same value, and when it comes to questioning the Bible, the burden of proof lies on those who would discredit it. In a world where ideas compete, my faith in Scripture isn’t a mere belief; it’s a reasoned trust in a source that has consistently proven reliable. So when extraordinary claims arise, I expect extraordinary evidence, and if that isn’t forthcoming, my skepticism remains firmly in place.