Category Archives: Bible Thoughts
The Bible and History
Back in the day, when I used to follow the Rational Response Squad, user Badbark asked the Squad how they viewed the historicity of the Bible. A few answers, starting with Rook Hawkins:
Nothing in the Bible can be accepted as historical. We do not have evidence for very much, and what evidence we do have does not support the Biblical account. I suggest you read the introduction to my book for some bibliographical information, and skim through my blog for additional articles on this subject.
Hambydammit adds:
In a nutshell, the bible should be read like one of Homer’s epics. There are real names and places from time to time, but it is a work of fiction.
Even if some of the authors thought they were writing history, their accounts are not reliable unless they are backed up by corroborating evidence.
My favorite answer, from ronin-dog:
None of it. Even if a story is written in a historical setting, it is still fiction.
All this interests me. The Bible, contrary to what these atheists present, is at least attempting to present accurate history. It seems to stand up at least as well as other historical documents from the same eras, if not better. For example, the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have many details confirmed by archeology. We find parallels to Jacob purchasing Esau’s birthright, for example, in other period literature. The blessing of Jacob rendered by Isaac also has historic precedence: such a blessing by a patriarch would have been irrevocable, which is why Isaac is so horrified that Jacob deceived him and received the blessing intended for Esau. Many, including me, have asked, “Why not just take it back?” He couldn’t. We now know that.
The names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the names of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes, were all found to be in use in that time period. There are also some mentions of a person named Abraham external to the Bible that seem to correspond to the Abraham in the Bible, but no one is for certain. Read the rest of this entry
Jumping to Unwarranted Conclusions
The Big Bang
I’ve read enough atheistic material to make the (I hope) accurate generalization that atheists are impressed by evidence and that they refuse to leap to any unwarranted conclusions.
For example, Hemnant Mehta (the Friendly Atheist) asked, “If a miracle came, would it convince you [that God exists]?” In the comments section, the virtually unanimous answer was an emphatic NO. A commenter named Drew even said this:
So, as much as I feel like a humbug, it would take quite a bit. And, if something like this rearrangement of stars happened, without some personal contact with God, I’d be wary that it is an illusion– after all, how many people have said the same prayer as I and not been answered? God would have to show me why he preferred to answer my prayer to millions of others.
MorseCode, who comments on this blog as well, said this:
Moving stars is certainly impressive. Unfortunately, it only serves as evidence for something that can move stars.
So, for all practical purposes, most agree with this fellow:
At this point in my life, I honestly can’t think of anything that would make me believe in God, expecially the God of a particular religion. I don’t think I’m closed minded, but after 47 years of searching and exploring these issues, I think it’s fair to have come to a pretty solid conclusion.
So, based on this information, it is fair to say that atheists do not leap to unwarranted conclusions, nor would they be convinced by material that does.
Unless the unwarranted conclusions are in their favor. Read the rest of this entry
The Christian Quest for Relevancy
I’ve often heard that Christianity just isn’t relevant anymore. We’re part of an outdated, archaic institution that has no place in a modern, enlightened society.
I don’t believe that. I believe that the message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is every bit as relevant today as it was when Jesus first preached the message in the first century. We are all sinners in need of being saved, therefore we need to hear the message that we can be saved and we can attain righteousness before God.
Once upon a time, people believed that if we preached the Word faithfully, that God would work a miracle in the hearts and minds of the listeners and call his elect forward. The apostles believed it, and that’s why they preached the way they did:
Now when they heard this [Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:14-36] they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37-41)
And:
And when the Gentiles heard this [Paul’s sermon], they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. (Acts 13:48-49)
There are numerous other examples throughout the book of Acts, but those two will suffice for the time being. The apostles didn’t strive to be relevant to the times. In fact, if you look closer at the context of Acts 13, you’ll see that Paul was anything but relevant. “The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him” (Acts 13:44-45).
So, the apostles strived to teach the Word of God. They didn’t try to make friends, and even a cursory reading of Acts is sufficient to prove that they didn’t. And, if you don’t trust the Bible as historical, look at Tacitus:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. (Annals 15.44, emphasis added)
YouTube Skeptics: 6 Questions for All Christians, part II
In my last post, I answered three of the six questions posed by Carlos, a YouTube skeptic who goes by the alias “otherwisesaid.” We saw that the questions were nothing but rhetoric, designed to throw Christians off their game. And, sadly, it probably has worked in the past.
Now, I will answer the remaining three questions.
Are you in sync with Mark 16: 17-18? I’m not. Mark 16:9-18 isn’t found in the earliest MSS, which means that these verses are not inerrant because they are not meant to be in the Bible in the first place. Therefore, if you handle a poisonous snake, you’ll get bit and die. No surprise there.
Why are you Christian, and not Muslim? Do you think you’d be a Muslim instead of a Christian if you were born in Pakistan? The Bible actually predicts this sort of thing. Proverbs 22:6 reads “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” The reason that few people “jump ship” into another religion or even atheism is because they have been taught to believe these things from a young age, and that means that they will not let it go easily.
Combine that with the fact that Islam is a theocracy that forbids evangelizing its adherents (and punishes infractions with death), and you have a near-impossible task in trying to convert the average Muslim to Christianity. The Great Commission commands us, however, to bring the gospel message to all nations, and the sad truth is we’re just not fulfilling Christ’s command very well in this case.
I am a Christian because I’ve studied the issues and have concluded that Christianity is truth. Objections to it melt when the Bible is properly understood. Most people are in the religion that they’re in because they’ve been taught not to look at it, to give it a pass on critical analysis (YES, I just agreed with the skeptics here). I believe if they critically analyzed their religion, comparing it to Christianity, there would be more Christians.
Can things be added or removed from the Bible? Considering how the Bible was compiled, Revelations 22:18 becomes irrelevant to this question. First off, dude, the book of the Bible is Revelation, not “Revelations.” That is one of my biggest pet peeves coming from critics of the Bible. Get the stinkin’ name of the book right, or you shoot your credibility with heavier firepower than favoriting the Mr. Deity videos!
Second, I agree with the interpretation that Revelation 22:18 is meant only to apply to the book of Revelation. Trying to apply it to the entire Bible is a real stretch.
That said, the canon of Scripture would be a fallible collection of infallible works. The canon was decided upon by the bishops of the universal church in council, and these men are fallible. I do believe that they have correctly recognized God speaking through the words of the New Testament writers. I don’t think there is reason to suppose that anything in the Bible is wrongly placed there. But, some of the other works not in the Bible, such as the Shepherd of Hermas or Paul’s letter to the Laodicians, may be inspired and should have been included.
I don’t see a reason why the church would need to add to Scripture. Scripture contains the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, the full and final revelation of God to mankind.
Rhetorical questions designed to challenge one’s faith. Typical skeptic. Surely he hasn’t sorted through the issues himself. He probably got inspired by Why Won’t God Heal Amputees and decided to make his own video. Nothing here is earth-shattering to a believer with a firm foundation of faith.
YouTube Skeptics: 6 Questions for All Christians
YouTube appears to be an untapped resource of materials that I can blog about. The whole site seems to be filled with critics of Christianity, and they aren’t shy about keeping vlogs about their doubts. I should have looked more seriously at YouTube months ago, when Caleb started deconverting due to materials that he saw via YouTube.
So I searched a bit and found some interesting materials. I thought that I’d answer a video every now and then. I’m going to try for ones that really make a person think, but I might take on a capitally stupid one just for amusement purposes every now and again.
This video caught my eye first, because I like to think deeply about my faith. Videos that ask questions, though usually rhetorical, make me think more deeply and I believe actually strengthen my faith in God, though they’re intended to do the opposite. Read the rest of this entry
Does God Hate the Non-Elect?
Over at his blog, Rey has posted that God hates the non-elect. Twice.
Rey thinks this because he denies that the default human condition is sinful and thus opposed to God by its very nature. It is not necessary for God to hate us first so that we may hate him; hating God and denying the Creator is only natural to the creation because of the Fall.
Natural man, in his natural state, is opposed to God. That is why he hates God. It is not the converse of 1 John 4:19.
But, when God enlightens us and makes us a new creation, we are then able to love God because he first loved us.
Rey is attacking the hyper-Calvinistic notion that God hates the non-elect. There is much Scriptural evidence that he does, in fact, love all of his creation (Jn 3:16–“For God so loved the world. . .”). The elect he loves more deeply (Rom 8:29–“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed . . .”). God commands us to love our enemies. Why would he command us to do something that he himself doesn’t already do? Do the wicked not receive blessings from God?
In order to substantiate his position, Rey must show us, either from Scripture or Reformed writings, that God loves only his elect. Scripture shows he takes care of his elect, but both Scripture and natural theology indicate that he loves both the elect and the non-elect.
Why does God elect some and not others? Well, that is a mystery, but it is not random (as Rey repeatedly suggests by comparing election to a lottery).
5 Unpopular Questions About God’s Love
Mark of Proud Atheists has a post entitled “5 Unpopular Questions About God’s Love,” which presents 5 questions that are designed to make theists squirm. Of course, they are misunderstanding things as per usual. Let me try to clear things up a bit.
Why did God create evil? There are so many types of “evil.” I will assume that Mark is talking about moral evil. The verses that are cited (Is 45:7 and Jer 25:29) do not support the idea that God creates moral evil. This is an example of selective use of Bible translations, something that even Christians are guilty of doing (e.g. Rick Warren in The Purpose Driven Life). The word that the KJV renders “evil” in these verses actually means “disaster” or “calamity.” I can certainly agree that God creates calamities or disasters, but not moral evil. These verses do not have moral evil in mind.
Why did God cause bears to maul 42 children for poking fun at a man’s baldness? Read the text. Verse 24 says “forty two of them,” which means that there were more than 42. If a mob of over 42 youths were coming at me shouting epitaphs, I’m going to wildly assume that they don’t have my best interests at heart. This was likely the equivalent of a modern street gang, and they were certainly old enough to recognize a prophet of God for what he was–and that means old enough to know better.
Why would Jesus command his followers to hate their families? He doesn’t. This is an example of hyperbole. What Jesus means is that you should love him so much, that everything else looks like hatred in comparison. Look at the same verse rendered in The Message: “Anyone who comes to me but refuses to let go of father, mother, spouse, children, brothers, sisters—yes, even one’s own self!—can’t be my disciple.”
Why would Jesus bribe his followers to abandon their families? This is a nitpicky question coming from a skeptic who doesn’t believe in eternal life, which is essentially what Jesus is promising his followers in this verse. What he’s really doing here is preparing his followers to lose family over following him, which is a potential cost of discipleship. Look at Muslims who convert–they risk death at the hands of their own family for converting to Christianity. Those people who lose the most stand to gain quite a lot in the hereafter. It isn’t a case of bribery at all. It’s a reward for living a tougher life than others.
Why would a loving God command Moses and others to slaughter children and eviscerate pregnant women? Are skeptics still on this one? I thought I had answered this before. The assumption here is that these are innocent people, but the Bible teaches us the opposite. There are no innocent people. We have all sinned (Rom 3:23; 5:12), and all deserve death (Rom 6:23). Therefore, God, the just and fair judge, is not doing anything wrong by commanding the deaths of these people–they are not innocent!
Society Has Lost Its Fear of God
I truly believe that the society in which we live has lost its fear of God. We are no longer allowing God to define what sin is, and therefore have labeled verses in the Bible are politically incorrect as “embarassing.” The website Ship of Fools has a debate called “Chapter and Worse” going on right now where members get to debate the “worst” or “most embarrasing” verses of the Bible.
Why are they doing this? Because in a book as broad as the Bible, they reason that some parts must be better than others. They go on:
We want you to tell us: which sacred text makes you reach for the red pen? Which hallowed verse makes you laugh for all the wrong reasons? Which blessed passage leaves you groaning with embarrassment? Which piece of holy writ troubles you at night, but at least keeps you awake in sermons?
The underlying pretext is that we could have done the Bible better than its original authors. The Bible is passe, outdated, and outmoded. Not only does this smack of cultural imperialism, but it reeks of blasphemy against the Holy Word of God.
Examining the verses that are nominated for worst Bible verse, it is painfully obvious why this is happening. Mankind is glorying in his shame; believing that he is superior to God. Who is God that he gets to make the rules?
I can’t seem to find the entire list, released yesterday and discussed by a panel of theologians, but I can list a few verses from the Times Online news service. Here they are:
1 Timothy 2:12: Here Paul is telling Timothy not to allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man. I don’t think that this is the blanket prohibition over female teachers, as there are numerous listed in the letters of Paul, but I think that it means that man is the optimal choice. He appeals to the original created order–man first, then woman. In that plan, the man and the woman were equals, but woman is subjected to man’s rule under the Curse (Gen 3:16c). It was never God’s intention that woman be subjected to man in this way, but that was part of her punishment for disobedience.
1 Samuel 15:3: God is ordering the genocide of the Amalekites. I’ve already answered this charge here.
Exodus 22:18: I’ve expounded this verse at length here.
Judges 19:20-25: Forgetting that just because something is in the Bible, doesn’t mean that God approves of the action. See the story in context from Glenn Miller.
Romans 1:27: Again seeking to be politically correct. I’ve written on the topic of homosexuality here. In the Bible, homosexuality is quite clearly a sin; you have to ignore an awful lot of verses to conclude otherwise.
And the list goes on from there! When we lose sight of what a sin really is, then society is in a heap of trouble.
Statement of Faith I: The Bible
Despite all of the liberal theologians that I’ve been reading as of late (John Shelby Spong and Oliver “Buzz” Thomas), I still hold to the premise that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I believe that it is fully authoritative in all matters of faith and morals, however I do not believe that it is the only source of faith and morals. I believe that the Bible is the only infallible source of faith and morals–there’s a difference.
Inspired
Inspiration is such a tricky subject. I don’t believe that God dictated the Bible to its human authors. I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write as they did, and what they did. But some things may have just gotten lost in translation or modified because of the understanding of the writer.
That isn’t to say that our copy of the Bible is untrustworthy. Far from. I believe that the Bible is fully trustworthy. What it does mean is that the Bible was written at a specific time for a specific people, and you have to take that into account when reading it. It was not written yesterday for you.
Inerrant
The Bible, in its original autographs, contained no error or contradictions. But we’re not dealing with the original autographs, we are dealing with copies of copies of copies. It appears that God, for his glory, has chosen not to superintend the process of copying the book. Preserving the Bible appears to be solely a human responsibility, and we haven’t always gotten it right.
Again, this doesn’t mean that we can’t trust the Bible that we have in front of us. There is a mountain of manuscript (MS) evidence that the Bible has been preserved as accurately as mistake-making humans can preserve a text. In fact, the New Testament alone has almost 6,000 MSS from different years and geographic locations that attest to the overall accuracy of the text.
But mistakes can and do happen, and are almost certainly present. However, none of the mistakes affect doctrine or practice of faith.
Authoritative
God has chosen to reveal himself in two ways: general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is nature itself–we can learn a lot about our Creator by studying his creation. Special revelation is the inspired, inerrant Bible that we hold in our hands.
I have established that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. That means that it is authoritatively binding on all Christians. The Bible contains, first and foremeost, the stories of man’s interactions with God. That means that the revelation is progressive; new details supercede old ones. For example, we are no longer bound to the laws in Deuteronomy; they exist solely for our instruction. They served their purpose in history, and now they have passed on. The new covenant is one of grace in Christ.
The Bible, though difficult, is still to be read and wrestled with by Christians today. This is God’s final and authoritative Word, and great care must be used in its interpretation and application.
Sins of Scripture VI: Anti-Semitism
The Christian faith has a long and convoluted history of anti-Semitism. This has always been strange to me, since our faith was born from Judaism. I have, in more recent months, tried to understand the Jewish approach to God (which has started to lead me out of Calvinist theology and into a more Arminian perspective). I think that Judaism has a lot to teach us about the roots of our faith, and we should shed the anti-Semitism that too often accompanies our faith.
As for Bishop John Shelby Spong, in his book The Sins of Scripture, he relates a very similar point of view. The biggest difference between us is that he doubts the historicity of Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Jesus. Spong’s point of contention is that the earliest Christian writings, Paul’s epistles, bear no reference to a betrayal. The gospels, in Spong’s view, came much later (a.d. 75 or later) and therefore are not accurate representations of history.
Paul alludes to the night that Jesus was betrayed in 1 Corinthians 11:23, but Spong says that the Greek is “handed over,” which carries no connotation of betrayal. This isn’t correct according to Strong’s Greek Dictionary. That aside, Spong apparently doesn’t think that people read carefully nowadays. Later, he refers to the story of Joseph and his brothers, and tells us that the exact same phrase is used when describing what Joseph’s brother Judah did to Joseph! That phrase has the connotation of betrayal.
Because of the connection between Judah and Judas, as well as numerous other connections to Old Testament stories, Spong has concluded that the Judas Iscariot story is not real history. The early Christians made it up based on several stories of Scripture. I suppose Spong has never heard of “fulfilled prophecy.”
Although based on the dates he gives for authorship of the New Testament, I would suppose not. Liberal dating of the New Testament is based on the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in a.d. 70. The assumption is that since Jesus accurately predicts things that take place in a.d. 70, the gospels must have been written after a.d. 70. This is nonsense; the gospels date from the a.d. 50s, with Mark perhaps even earlier than that. Conservative scholars, ones that I doubt Spong would consider consulting, put the dates of every NT document as prior to a.d. 70, although that might be stretching it. The gospel of John and Revelation almost certainly came in the a.d. 90s.
Spong and I, while we see eye-to-eye on the issue of anti-Semitism in Christianity, do not meet each other anywhere else in this issue. Anti-Semitism must surely be dealt with, and I believe the way to do that is to realize that the Jewish people did God’s will in putting Jesus to death. His death and subsequent resurrection means victory over death for all who believe in him. That was God’s will all along. Now the Jewish people have only to accept Jesus as their Messiah and they, too, can enjoy eternal life with the Father in heaven.
Back Rome Again 