Audio Treasure has made multiple translations of the Bible available for free download. There are also links to free songs and hymns for legal download and the files can also be purchased on CD or DVD.

The Greek word where we get the word canon means a “measuring rod.” We use the word to describe the collection of books within the Bible. This collection is divided into two sections, called the Old Testament and the New Testament. The word that is the basis for “testament” is a Latin word derived from a Greek word that means an agreement, or covenant.¹ So, it is perhaps better to call these the Old and New Covenants, rather than Testaments.

In practical terms, the Old Covenant is a description of the agreement made by God with the people of Israel at Mt. Sinai. The New Covenant is the agreement made by God through the incarnation and death of Jesus. The books that were selected to be in each of these groups of the canon had to accurately reflect these agreements and all of the teachings that went along with them.

Although there was about a thousand-year period in which the Old Covenant canon was being formed,² the best reason for the Christian to accept it in its received state is that it is the canon that Jesus used (Luke 24:44),³ but it was also finally agreed to be the received word of God at the Council of Jamnia in AD 90.

The agreement upon what was God’s Word for the New Testament did not take as long of a time (only about 350 years after the death of Jesus), but also was met by a lot of discussion as documented by F.F. Bruce. In all of the discussions, though, certain characteristics (or criteria) were established that were used to determine what was the true Word of God and what was not. These were:

• Apostolic Authority: Was it written by an apostle or someone with a clear tie to an apostle?
• Antiquity: Was it written during the apostolic age?
• Orthodoxy: Was it consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles?
• Catholicity: Was it widely-used?⁴

The final agreement for which books fit these criteria came at the Council of Carthage in AD 397, which was heavily influenced by the Council of Hippo in AD 393. Both of these were influenced by Athanasius’s original list⁵ (and the Holy Spirit).

1. F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1988), 17-20. [↩]
2. Ibid., 21. [↩]
3. Lecture given by Kenneth Samples in a course entitled Scripture, Authority, Canon, and Criticism, Biola University, 2005. [↩]
4. Bruce, 256-262. [↩]
5. Samples, 2005. [↩]

Many people refer to Enuma Elish as a creation story when the creation account is only a subplot to the major story – the elevation of the god Marduk as ruler over all other gods. The motive of this story is political, not moral as the account of the creation and fall of man as expressed in the OT. The God of Genesis is not the chief God of many trying to establish power, but the only God who already has power. Other surface similarities exist (creation by a supernatural entity, the order of creation, etc.), but these are only surface similarities. The major theological elements do not share any level of similarity.

The account of the flood is very similar in both of these accounts. I have often heard stories from non-Christians that the biblical accounts borrowed from other sources. I assume that this is an example of one of them. What I cannot understand, though, is why the Bible had to borrow from Gilgamesh and not the other way around. Although both accounts have supernatural elements, the Gilgamesh Epic seems far more legendary and legendary accounts are typically the ones that are said to have borrowed when another similar account exists that is not so legendary/mythological. Gilgamesh is on a quest to find immortality. On his quest he meets Utnaphistim who found immortality through surviving a flood that has some characteristics common with the flood Noah survived. This is a hero story, not a historical account. Noah, however, is presented not primarily heroically, but as a normal man (and a naked drunk on at least one occasion) called for a special time. In man’s sin nature he is quick to prefer anything to the Bible, but just because something seems to be similar to the Bible does not mean it came before the Bible. The existence of similar stories should actually act to strengthen, not diminish, the biblical account. Multiple sources point to the event as actually having happened.

Many similarities exist in the laws presented in both of these documents, but I am not really sure what that means. I would assume that some scholars in the liberal or critical camps might claim, as they would in number two above, that since there are similarities, the laws of Israel had to be borrowed from this and other documents, but I do not see how that has to follow. Granted, I am not a historian nor have I had sufficient training in this area to give an expert opinion, but I can give a logical one. If God created men, then all men are instilled with God’s moral code; a common ethic. If this is true, then one would expect that man would produce common laws in common situations. Many of the laws of this time look odd to us, but we must remember their context. I am sure that many of our laws would look odd to people who lived during the time these ancient documents were written. If two nations have similar laws, that does not mean they borrowed from each other, but that something specific in that time period required a specific law which was based upon the God-given morality that exists within the hearts of each nation.