UFOS, Aliens, And Christianity

By J. Brian Huffling

many people throughout history and across the world have claimed to have seen UFOs and even have experiences with what are normally described as aliens. I’ve always had a casual interest in UFOs, but with the release of three Navy videos and the Unidentified documentary, I became more interested.

It is probably safe to say that most people think that talk of UFOs and aliens is crazy; however, the evidence for such phenomena has been mounting to the point that the existence of UFOs is beyond question. This article will look at a brief history of UFOs, focusing mostly on the U.S., some of the claims people have made, an examination of prominent theories of what is going on, and an overall assessment.

A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF UFOLOGY (MAINLY IN THE U.S.)

It is popular to begin modern ufology (the study of all things UFOs) with Kenneth Arnold’s sighting of 9 objects flying, according to him, around 1700mph at Mt. Ranier, WA in June of 1947. Such was not actually the beginning of UFO sightings, even in the U.S. There was a massive wave of sightings (a wave of sightings is called a flap) around the country in the late 1890s of “airships.” Further, reported UFO activity (to include abductions) has gone on for millennia. (See Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times by Jacques Vallée and Chris Aubeck for a good history of ufology. Also, see Vallée’s Passport to Magonia: From Folklore to Flying Saucers for an explanation of how the modern UFO phenomena is very similar to religion and folklore of the past.)

About a month after Arnold’s sighting was the famous Roswell incident where at least one UFO supposedly crashed around Roswell, NM. The Air Force first said it was a “disk” but just hours later said it was a weather balloon. In 1994, the Air Force published The Roswell Report: Case Closed where they reported that what actually fell was a balloon related to the secret project called Project Mogul, which was a way of spying on the USSR’s use of atomic weapons. (The Roswell Legacy: The Untold Story of the First Military Officer at the 1947 Crash Site argues that what fell at Roswell was an actual UFO with aliens and is told by the son of the intelligence officer who was there and allegedly brought some wreckage home to show his family. UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth is an appraisal from a non-believer.)

Numerous UFO sightings that year led to the newly formed Air Force (formed in September of 1947) to begin a series of special projects to study the issue. The first was Project Sign in 1947, followed by Project Grudge in 1949, and then the famous Project Blue Book in 1952 that lasted until early 1970 (it was announced closed in December of ’69). The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Captain Edward Ruppelt, who led Project Grudge and Blue Book from 1951-1953, is required reading for anyone interested in the history of UFOs, especially as it relates to the Air Force, as is The UFO Experience by Air Force astronomy consultant J. Allen Hynek.

There was a flap in 1952 over Washington D.C. that led to the CIA becoming interested. In January of 1953 it held a panel in conjunction with the Air Force, informally called the Robertson panel. It officially concluded that UFOs were not an issue of national security, but it is disputed as to whether the Air Force really gave them the good files to examine. Many other sightings occurred in the 50s and 60s, including the well-known Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) incident where UFOs were seen over the nuclear ICBM missile sites when 20 ICBMs went offline. For that account from an eyewitness who served as an officer in the missile silo, see Faded Giant.

In the late 1960s the government gave The University of Colorado a grant to independently investigate UFOs. It was headed by Edward Condon and is informally known as the Condon Committee. It is well-known to have been biased against UFOs from the beginning, at least by the leader, and it recommended Blue Book be shut down, which it was.

Sightings continued through the 70s and 80s worldwide. Pilots in Iran chased a UFO and one in Peru shot at one. All to no avail. (It is reported by Ruppelt that in 1952 a U.S. Air Force pilot shot at one.) One of the most notable cases was the event that happened at RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge in the U.K. in December of 1980. Several security police and others, including then the Deputy Base Commander, Lt Col Halt, saw UFOs. One claims to have actually touched it. This has been one of the most interesting and controversial cases ever. For a good source on this that was written by eyewitnesses, see Encounter in Rendlesham Forest: The Inside Story of the World’s Best-Documented UFO Incident.

2004 ushered in a new era with the now famous, and aforementioned, Navy videos. In August of 2020, the military started an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF). In June of 2021, the Office of the Director of National Security provided a “Preliminary Assessment” to Congress. It stated that UFOs (or as the military now calls them, UAPs) are real and in 144 cases, unexplained. In July of 2022, top members of the intelligence community testified before Congress for the first time in over 50 years, also confirming the existence of UFOs and confirming that what the Navy videos show are still unexplained. The government has never claimed they are of extraterrestrial origin. It is well-known that the government is taking UFOs seriously, even if they (reportedly) don’t believe they are aliens.

For an excellent, but very detailed history of UFOs in the U.S. (from one who holds to the extraterrestrial view) see Richard Dolan’s 2 volume UFOs and the National Security State. For a less-detailed but good account from a skeptic’s viewpoint, see Curtis Peebles’ Watch the Skies! For an intriguing and important overview of UFOs as they relate to the military, see Leslie Kean’s UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record. For an excellent historical source in general, see Jerome Clark’s The UFO Encyclopedia.

THE NATURE OF UFO SIGHTINGS

While most of the above are sightings of objects flying around, hovering, or landed, there are many kinds of sightings or UFO events. Hynek provided the original classification for UFO sightings and that classification was updated to the following:

  1. Daylight Disks: UFOs seen during the day
  2. Nocturnal Lights: UFOs seen at night
  3. Radar Visual: Objects seen on radar
  4. Close Encounters of the First Kind (CE-1): Encounters of around 500 feet
  5. Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE-2): Encounters that leave some kind of physical effects, such as marks in the ground, trees, or affects on vehicles
  6. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE-3): Inhabitants of UFOs are seen
  7. Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (CE-4): Contact such as abduction
  8. Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind (CE-5): The individual suffers some kind of harm or even death

Certainly one of the most intriguing aspects about UFOs are the reported “alien abductions.” While many, if not most, believe that such abductions (and even sightings in general) are only experienced by “crazy” people, it does not take much research to discover that very sane and respectable people experience. not only sightings of UFOs but also what is usually categorized as “alien abductions.” Such phenomena have been occurring for hundreds of years (again, see Wonders in the Sky and Passport to Magonia).

THEORIES OF UFOS AND ALIENS

THE SKEPTICAL OR TERRESTRIAL VIEW

I’m going to lump the skeptical view together with the terrestrial view since they can both be held simultaneously. That is, some can be skeptical of UFOs in the sense of them being extraterrestrial while arguing for a terrestrial explanation. Indeed, about 95% or so of alleged sightings are explainable via natural means, such as astronomical phenomena, weather, simple misidentifications, and the like. Many are simply skeptical of UFO claims in general for this reason.

Some have tried to explain UFOs as simply being secret technology either had by the U.S. or other nations. It is indeed the case that there are advanced technological systems that causes UFO reports, and the Air Force has actually capitalized on people thinking they are UFOs in order to provide a cover for their own technology. Richard Doty is a famous (infamous?) example of one who has admitted to this happening.

However, it is a difficult pill to swallow that there were aircraft in the 1940s that could travel at speeds and perform aerial maneuvers that even today cannot be duplicated. The intelligence specialists who testified before Congress noted that we do not have any evidence that such technology is possessed either by the U.S. or other nations. Such has led some to another theory.

THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS (ETH)

Undoubtedly the most popular view (other than the skeptical view, which cannot be accepted any longer) is the one that purports that aliens are behind the “flying saucers.” For proponents of that view, see Dolan’s works above, as well as Kean’s. The argument behind this view is that if UFOs are not explained by earthly means, and since they are evidently intelligently operated and even seemingly interact with people, they must be alien in nature. This appears to be a rational position but there are problems with it.

One problem is interstellar travel. Since I am not an astronomer or qualified to navigate this debate, I will defer to Hugh Ross, a former astronomer from Cal Tech, who argues this in his Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men (co-authored with Ken Samples and Mark Clark). I realize there are astronomers who argue that such travel is possible, but Ross makes some pretty convincing arguments to the contrary. In short, Ross argues that the distance is too great and would require multigenerational travel, even from some of the nearest systems. It would also take an incredible amount of energy to travel that far and fast. Further, as Ross notes, space is not empty. Going the required speeds would destroy a space ship if they so much as hit some of the smallest space debris.

Jacques Vallée is arguably today’s leading ufologist and has worked with Hynek in general and in his dealings with the Air Force in particular. Vallée is uniquely trained for his work given his background in astronomy as well as computer information systems. He has the unusual skill set to be able to organize UFO data and has researched them for decades. In the last book of his famous trilogy, Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception, he adds as an appendix a paper he delivered at an academic conference against the ETH. He offers 5 arguments against the view. Such arguments include the odd fact that there are thousands if not millions of UFO events where aliens are said to visit Earth and take samples of things like soil. This is strong evidence against the skeptical view, but he argues it is also evidence against the ETH as it doesn’t make sense why aliens would need to have so many visits and samples. Further, the reported means by which aliens supposedly experiment on people are even more rudimentary than our own technology. Another issue is the seeming impossibility of random evolution producing multiple species that have the same basic human anatomical structure with the ability to see and hear the way we do. He argues, as a naturalist, that to expect multiple species to arise from random chance with such similar structures is basically zero (of course, this changes if one holds to theism, as such would allow God to create as many similar species as he wanted). However, Vallée’s main argument against the ETH is that it just doesn’t take into account the history of ufology and the apparent connection to religion and folklore. According to him, the alien view is simply not strange enough.

Another problem with the ETH is the fact that UFOs do things that appear to violate the laws of physics. For example, they fly at extremely fast speeds that cannot be matched by earthly aircraft, perform right angle and 180 degree turns without slowing down, are transmedium, meaning they can fly through space, air, and water without being affected, appear from nowhere and vanish instantly, can change shape and size, and are seemingly impervious to being hit with bullets. (See Lights in the Sky for a good discussion of this.) Even the abduction phenomena exhibits problems with being physical since “aliens” reportedly walk through walls and take their abductees through walls and physical objects. Hynek actually argues for more of a physic (not exactly psychological) view in The Edge of Reality, where he has a fascinating discussion with Vallée on the topic of their physicality. For Hynek, UFOs are fundamentally non-physical but can cause physical effects, much like poltergeist phenomena. Further, there are reports of people being abducted while being watched by other people in the room, indicating that something non-physical is going on.

THE INTER-DIMENSIONAL HYPOTHESIS

Vallée’s preferred view is what he calls the inter-dimensional hypothesis. Vallée holds that UFOs are fundamentally physical, but can move through various space-time dimensions. While he does not use the interstellar argument against the ETH (that I know of), this view would alleviate that issue. The apparent violations of physics are supposedly explained this way, such as the objects appearing and disappearing from and into nothing and being able to change their form. This jibes more with the history of the phenomena, according to Vallée, and better explains the abduction issue. Rather than “aliens” trying to do experiments on humans, he maintains that these beings are ultimately trying to control our worldview. Another aspect explained is the way that UFOs seem to just outpace our own technology enough to be unexplainable. (Lights in the Sky also deals with this.) Before airplanes they were airships. Then flying saucers, etc.

The merits of Vallée’s view are the good points and arguments against the ETH, the historical points and connection to religion. However, it seems to be somewhat ad hoc since such dimensions are apparently debated. While Ross does admit to more than 10 dimensions being needed to explain reality, he notes that per Einstein’s theory of relativity, a person cannot simply jump between various dimensions. If this is true, then Vallée’s view would be, to use Ross’ word, “irrelevant” since it would be impossible.

THE SPIRITUAL OR EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL VIEW

A popular view among Christians is the view that while UFOs are real, they are not physical aliens from another planet. Rather, they are demonic spirits that are attempting to deceive people and draw them away from the truth of the Gospel. Ross calls this the extra-dimensional view. For a long time I wondered why demons would want to make people think they are aliens. Then I discovered two reasons. First, as Vallée argues, whatever these things are, they are evidently trying to control people’s belief system. Well, that’s a pretty good reason for enemies of God to want to appear as aliens. Another and related reason is that much of the UFO phenomena is directly and explicitly anti-Christian—not just anti-religious: anti-Christian. Much of the “teachings” of these beings are specifically against the deity of Jesus Christ and the teachings and truths of the Gospel. Some of their teachings claim that Jesus himself was an alien and was raised back to life by aliens. Indeed, there are many UFO cults.

Vallée himself has a book on this topic: Messengers of Deception. Lights in the Sky also deals with this aspect of the phenomena, as does Ron Rhodes’ The Truth about UFOs and Aliens: A Christian Assessment. A director for a well-known civilian UFO investigation group, Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), Joe Jordan and his co-author Jason Dezember deal with the demonic view in their Piercing the Cosmic Veil: You Shall Not Be Afraid of the Terror by Night. Their title is very apt, for “alien” encounters are reportedly very terrifying. Jordan, as well as other MUFON directors, have noted that “alien abduction” experiences are stopped when the experiencer calls on the name of Jesus. Jordan has hundreds of such examples. (See his website here.) Gary Bates has written about the demonic connection in his Alien Intrusion.

The door to the phenomena is reportedly opened by one dabbling in the occult or new age movement. Often, such a link can be found with the people directly involved in the experiences, and when that door to the occult is shut, the experiences stop. What about children? There are accounts of children having abduction experiences too. However, when people like Jordan do some investigating, it is often found that a parent or other family member have some connection to the occult. However, such is not always the case.

CONCLUSION AND IMPORTANCE

The investigation into what UFOs and aliens are is not a deductive one. In other words, it is not going to be proven beyond any doubt in this lifetime. Rather it is, no pun intended, an abductive one. That is, the truth about the phenomena will likely be what accounts for the data the best, namely, what has the most explanatory power (how well the data is explained) and explanatory scope (how much of the data is explained), and what less ad hoc (made up without evidence). I agree with Vallée that the  ETH does not possess the greatest explanatory power or scope. It does not really seem to account for the history, the physical problems, or the anti-Christian themes. The data is well-accounted for with the demonic view. Such a view answers the material problems since the UFOs/aliens are not really physical in nature, but can, as Hynek suggests, cause physical effects. This also accounts for the anti-Christian teachings that are ubiquitous in the phenomena.

Apart from the UFO phenomena being interesting, it is also important. More than just a possible national security threat, there is an existential threat. If the demonic view is correct, then there is, indeed, a cosmic and spiritual battle for our entire belief systems, and thus our souls. Statistically, given the number of sightings and experiences, many people who go to Christian churches have had an experience (although, it can be argued that if people in the church dabble in the occult and new age less, then they won’t have as many doors open).

Often, people turn to new age, occultic, or otherwise anti-Christian sources either for answers to their questions, being lured by their own curiosity of the paranormal, or simply being drawn in by our culture pushing it on us. (An excellent source on this, especially as it relates to children, is Marcia Montenegro’s Spellbound: The Paranormal Seduction of Today’s Kids.)  Churches and even apologetic ministries need to spend more time on the dangers of even dabbling in seemingly harmless actions that flirt with the paranormal and other dangerous areas, such as the new age movement. One excellent ministry that does just this is Montenegro’s “Christian Answers for the New Age.” Reasons to Believe (founded by Hugh Ross), Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries with Ron Rhodes, Southern Evangelical Seminary, and of course, Jordan’s ministry are also active in this area.

The UFO topic is an interesting one. I agree with Vallée, Hynek, and Ross that the alien view does not do the best job explaining the data. Given the spiritual nature of UFOs and especially “aliens,” there is a strong argument that such activity is really demonic in nature. If it is the case that the paranormal, occult, and new age are doors to such activity, it is imperative that Christians understand this and that it is clearly taught in our churches and homes. The Bible gives several commands to avoid involvement in such activity. Unfortunately, Christians and churches are easily caught up in the flow of our culture, rather than standing firm in the faith. This is indeed an important issue that deserves attention in the Church as well as in other ministries that teach the truth and importance of the faith.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

J. Brian Huffing has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. Brian serves a Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. Brian teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. Brias has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Dobbins Air Reserve Base.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3rswTsg

 

/by

Archaeology and Apologetics

By Deanna Huff

Upon entering the British Museum, the first display I encountered was the Assyrian section. The room was full of rocks voicing stories of the past. My breath was taken away as I realized I was standing in ancient history hearing the words of kings and their people.

The stones that surrounded me were the same stones that stood during the times of the kings of the Bible. Stones testify as memorials even in the ancient time period. Joshua was commanded,

Take twelve stones from here out of the midst of the Jordan, from the very place where the priests’ feet stood firmly and bring them over with you and lay them down in the place where you lodge tonight.…When your children ask in time to come, ‘What do those stones mean to you?’ Then you shall tell them that the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. When it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. So, these stones shall be to the people of Israel a memorial forever. (Josh 4:3-7 ESV)

Archaeology – The Black Obelisk

The Assyrian Black Obelisk memorial dates from 825 BC and it was discovered in 1846 in Turkey. The relief sculpture attests the military achievements of King Shalmaneser III and his chief minister. These monuments inspired people with patriotism and unity for their society. The obelisk reveals kings of surrounding nations paying tribute to King Shalmaneser III in five scenes on five rows. Foreign kings are bowing down to King Shalmaneser III to indicate he is the ultimate king of the land.

The significance of the discovery for the biblical world is located on the second row of the obelisk. It identifies King Jehu (2 Kings 10:34) paying homage and presenting gifts to King Shalmaneser. This is the only contemporary carving of an Israelite king mentioned in the kings.

Apologetics – The Stones Provide Evidence

Archaeology like the Black Obelisk provides support for the reliability of the Old Testament. It offers a historical confirmation to the stories of the Scriptures. Dr. Price states, “archaeology aids in bringing the theological message of the Bible into a real world context where real faith is possible.”[1] Historical affirmations of the Bible can strengthen and enrich a person’s faith. Archaeology should not be overstated, at the same time it should not be understated.

The ancients left behind stones that speak truths of the past to the hearers of today. Discovering historical details of the ancients promotes accuracy of the biblical text. For example, “Excavations at Te Miqne uncovered an inscription that conclusively identified the site as biblical Ekron, a Philistine city mentioned in the Old Testament from the time of the conquest through the postexilic period.”[2] Other beneficial finds such as, the Merneptah Stele, the Rosetta Stone and the Sheba inscription confirm the world that interacted with the Bible.

Stones unearthed in archaeology today are sharing stories of the past and they are complimenting the historical accuracy of the Bible. Therefore, let us be awestruck when encountering the voices of the past as we walk through the halls of museums and use that knowledge to season our discussions with others to share the stories that matter for life.

Footnotes

[1] Randall Price, Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 27.

[2] Ibid.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Deanna Huff is a wife and mother. She has been teaching and training for the last twenty years equipping people to know their Christian faith and share it with others. She has led many seminars for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Ladies Retreat, and the State Evangelism Conference. She taught high school students for ten years at Christian Heritage Academy, in Bible, Universal History, Apologetics and Philosophy. Deanna is a Ph.D. candidate in Apologetics and Theology at Liberty University. She holds a Master of Theology in Apologetics and Worldview from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a Master of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Oklahoma.

Original Blog: https://bit.ly/3CtW307

 

/by

How We Got Our Bible: The KJV Only Movement

By Ryan Leasure

This final post will consider the short-comings of the King James (KJV) Only Movement.

Nothing New Under The Sun

In many respects, the KJV Only Movement is hardly novel. People have been propping up certain Bible translations since the time of Jesus.

One early translation that received this exalted status was the Septuagint (LXX). After the Jewish people went into exile, many remained outside of Israel, even after they were granted permission to return and rebuild. Over the course of centuries, the Jewish people no longer had a grasp on the Hebrew language. Therefore, to make the Old Testament accessible to more people, Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew text into Greek. This translation happened sometime between the third and second centuries BC.

Legend has it that seventy-two scholars all translated the text independently. Yet when they convened to compare their translations, they discovered that they all created the exact same translation! It’s the stuff of legends. But the story stuck, and people revered it.

Therefore, when it came time for Jerome to create the Latin Vulgate, his friend St. Augustine scolded him for using the original Hebrew text and not the inspired LXX. Augustine complained that people had become so accustomed to the readings of the LXX, that Jerome’s text was causing too much controversy in places where the Hebrew did not agree with the Greek translation. In other words, tradition trumped accuracy.

Fast forward a thousand years, and Jerome’s Vulgate was now on the receiving end of being pushed out by a modern translation. The Greek scholar Erasmus created the first critical New Testament in 1516 and raised more than a few eye brows in the process. Fortunately for Erasmus, the Pope didn’t order his execution. Erasmus, after all, dedicated his new translation to Pope Leo X with the hopes of gaining his approval.

That said, many disliked Erasmus’ work because he “tampered” with God’s Word. Not only did he create a critical Greek New Testament, he used that Greek to update the Latin Bible! Erasmus’ desire to be as accurate to the original text as possible frustrated the churchmen because the original text differed from their beloved Latin Vulgate.

Now five hundred years later, those within the KJV Only Movement condemn others who prefer modern English translations for the same reasons that the church condemned Erasmus. Ironically, it was Erasmus’ text that was the base text for the King James Bible in 1611.

Not an Attack on the KJV Bible

Let me be clear. I am not attacking the King James Bible. I grew up using the KJV. The translation, as far as it goes, was a fine translation for a few hundred years. I believe that when people read the KJV, they are reading the Word of God.

Nor am I attacking those who prefer the KJV to other translations (though I think modern translations are superior).

Instead, this article critiques the position that the KJV translators were inspired, and that all other translations are corruptions of God’s Word.

The KJV Translators

It is my strong opinion, that if the KJV translators were alive today, they would reject the KJV Only Movement. None of the forty-seven Anglican scholars ever thought they were inspired by God as they created the translation. In the preface to the 1611 KJV, the translators defended their use of marginal notes when they wrote:

Doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? . . . Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. So diversity of signification  and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yeah, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

Of course, none of the modern KJV Bibles retain the over 8,000 marginal notes from the original KJV 1611. But the translators felt it necessary to include these marginal notes because they were less than certain of their translation in several places. In fact, they explicitly state that they weren’t perfect translators! Read carefully their own words in the preface:

To those who point out the defects in [the translators’ works], they answer that perfection is never attainable by man.

And if anyone needs proof that the KJV translators weren’t inspired, the original 1611 version underwent about 100,000 updates and changes before the 1769 edition—the edition people use today.

The KJV translators also wanted to give the people a Bible that was both faithful to the text but also readable at the same time. They say elsewhere in the preface:

Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; . . . that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; . . . Indeed, without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well without a bucket or something to draw with; . . . Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God’s book unto god’s people in a tongue which they can understand?

It was the goal of the KJV translators to give the people an understandable translation. Therefore, if they were alive today, they most certainly would encourage people to read a translation that doesn’t use words like “churl” (Isa 32:7), “cockatrice” (Isa 11:8), “sackbut” (Dan 3:5), or “crookbackt” (Lev 21:20). Those words made sense in 1611. In 2021, they’re gibberish.

The Greek Text

As previously mentioned, the KJV translators used Erasmus’ various editions of the Greek NT for their translation. Although, more technically, they relied heavily on William Tyndale’s English translation which they copied about 90% of the time.

That said, Erasmus’ Greek text was based on a handful (less than ten) of medieval texts. And none of these texts had the final section of Revelation. So Erasmus created his own Greek text for the ending of Revelation using the Latin text! Erasmus’ text has come to be known as the Textus Receptus (TR) and became the basis for the KJV.

Modern translations, however, make use of over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts—many of which date to the second-fourth centuries. Modern scholars have access to P66 (2nd-3rd century text of John), P75 (2nd-3rd century text of Luke and John), P46 (2nd-3rd century text of Paul’s letters), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century complete NT), and Codex Vaticunus (4th century almost complete NT).

And Biblical scholars have discovered that while Erasmus’ text was quite good, his NT reflects later readings in several places that were not present in the earliest manuscripts.

Different Texts

Most modern Bibles are based off of the Nestle-Aland (NA) and the United Bible Societies (UBS). As mentioned previously, these critical texts are based off of thousands of Greek manuscripts—many of which date to the earliest centuries of the Christian Church. While there is strong uniformity between these texts and the TR, they diverge in several places. Allow me to share a few of them.

1 John 5:71

The KJV reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The ESV reads, “For there are three that testify.” KJV Only proponents believe the absence of this clear Trinitarian reference in modern translations is a weakness. The problem is that the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” are most certainly not original to John.

When Erasmus made his Greek text in 1516, he left out this phrase which is now dubbed the “Johannine comma.” This omission upset many because the Latin Vulgate contained it. Again, people get upset when changes are made to their precious Bible translations. Erasmus left out the phrase because he couldn’t find it in a single Greek manuscript. Erasmus took heat for trying to be as accurate as possible. He even promised that if he found it in a single Greek manuscript, he would include it in a later edition.

It just so “happened” that a Greek manuscript was produced that contained the phrase. Hardly anyone disputes that this manuscript was created by one of Erasmus’ contemporaries. And being true to his word, Erasmus included the phrase in his third edition in 1522. That said, no manuscript before the sixteenth century contains this phrase. For this reason, modern translations leave it out.

Mark 16:9-202

Another significant change between the TR and the NA and UBS is the ending of Mark. Modern translations bracket this text and indicate that earliest manuscripts do not include this section.

Why do modern translations bracket the text? First, both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit it. These are the earliest manuscripts we have on Mark. Furthermore, the long ending is missing from other early Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian translations.

Additionally, several manuscripts which do include the long ending place an asterisk beside it, indicating its suspect nature. It’s also worth noting that some manuscripts contain a different ending altogether. And this condensed ending is sometimes added to the longer ending, creating an even longer ending than verses 9-20.

And if that’s not enough, some manuscripts only include verses 9-11 as an ending, leaving off verses 12-20. And one manuscript adds an entire paragraph to the long ending between verses 14 and 15.

Why do the manuscripts have so many different endings to Mark?

It seems as if early Christian scribes thought that Mark ended rather abruptly, especially compared to the other Gospels. Over time, different endings were added on to Mark’s original work. Only if Mark originally ended at verse 8 can one explain the existence of all the different endings. In other words, if Mark truly did include verses 9-20, one has a difficult time explaining how the other shorter endings made their way into the manuscript tradition.

John 7:53-8:113

The woman caught in adultery was most likely not written by John. Early manuscripts such as P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Sinaiticus each omit this story. Moreover, several early translations in Latin and Syriac omit the story as well. Some manuscripts which include it do with an asterisk demonstrating its questionable nature.

Another indicator that this text was not original is that while most manuscripts include the story following John 7:52, some manuscripts includes it after 7:36, others have it after 7:44, some have it at the end of the book after 21:25, and some put it in Luke’s Gospel!

Moreover, if these verses were removed from John’s Gospel, one would see that John 7:52 and John 8:12 fit together neatly. In other words, the story of the woman caught in adultery actually interrupts a larger story of Jesus in Jerusalem.

So how did this pericope make its way into the text? Probably, a scribe somewhere down the line included this story in the margins of the text and a later scribe thought the original scribe believed the story was part of the original text. While the story is most likely a true story about Jesus that was part of the oral tradition, it most definitely was not part of John’s Gospel.

Concluding Thoughts

Space permits me from looking at several other textual and linguistic issues (like the KJV saying that Jesus, instead of Joshua, failed to give people rest in Hebrews 4:8). That said, I believe I’ve provided enough evidence to refute the notion that the KJV translation is an inspired translation. It’s a fine translation. It was a great translation for its time. Modern translation, however, like the NIV, NASB, ESV, CSB, and NLT are based on a better Greek text and present the text in a more readable way

Footnotes

1. James White, The King James Only Controversy, 99-104.

2. James White, The King James Only Controversy, 316-320.

3. James White, The King James Only Controversy, 328-329.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

 

/by

Five Signs of Spiritual Maturity

By Melissa Dougherty​

We all want to be wise in our spiritual walk. We want to grow and make good choices that are right in the long run. We want to exhibit wisdom in all areas of life and be able to be an example for others. But I find it isn’t always the easy road that gets us there. In my experience, I have witnessed what I would consider very mature Christians who exhibit these qualities. I have also seen others who lack them. I want to share what I believe to be five signs of spiritual maturity. These are areas that I see that are scriptural and can be shown by how some Christians respond to certain situations.

1.) They base their reactions on Scripture and God’s character instead of their feelings and emotions.

The most spiritually mature people I know are usually the most emotionally mature. They base their choices on the wisdom of Scripture, and logic and exhibit fruits of the Spirit in their life, especially the “self-control” part. They take time to assess and evaluate situations and treat others how they want to be treated. They don’t deflect onto others their own issues and are aware of this in their interactions and judgments. They stop and think first before they act. They also tend to have a smart sense of humor and wit without degrading or putting down others. They’re an example of James 1:19, which says to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry. They draw from and submit to Scriptural values. This takes over instead of emotions and helps prevent poor decision-making and emotional outbursts. Do you know how there’s an intelligence IQ? Well, there’s also something called “emotional IQ,” and I find that spiritually mature people have a high emotional IQ. Costi Hinn once said, “It is a mark of your maturity and self-control when you can manage your emotions enough to understand someone you differ with.”

2.) They listen more and talk less.

I mentioned James 1:19 before. People living out this scripture tend to be more interested in the person they’re speaking to and don’t get into unnecessary arguments. They’re not easily offended, either. I read a post on social media once that said, “An immature Christian is hard to please and easy to offend.” Luke 6:45 says that a good person brings up good or bad things depending on what’s in their heart. Out of the heart, his mouth speaks. Controlling your mouth has a lot to do with what’s in your heart, especially on social media. Everyone is a hammer looking for a nail. But these people are different. They are the people that are trying to understand before they’re understood. They try to respond to people out of love for others rooted in a love for God. They consider the other person’s perspective, even if they disagree. But they’re not doormats to lousy theology, either. They can navigate and discern what topics to avoid and which to engage in and can have thoughtful discussions without arguing all the time. Proverbs 15:1 says a harsh answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. These people also look to others for spiritual advice and accountability, allowing others to point out their flaws.

3.) They have a sense of humility to them.

They don’t put themselves above others. I’ve learned from watching these people that they’re here to serve, and that’s what ministry is about for them. Not being known or noticed. (Even if they are well known!) They have a healthy sense of confidence, but typically these people look to others. They’re not always doing this to teach them things but instinctively know to ask questions, get to know others, and respect people as being made in the image of God, especially if they disagree with them. They don’t demonize and rebuke everyone and everything they disagree with. They display love as outlined in 1 Corinthians 13. They’re kind, patient, not boastful, lovers of truth, and seek after God’s glory, not their own. In my experience, these Christians don’t just boast that they “have discernment” or “are humble.” They show it. They don’t need praise from people. They do what they do to please God and God alone. They’re just not jerks about it. This is typically displayed in how they treat, talk to, and love others. When they make a bad decision, they have enough wit and humility to know they need to make things right and admit they were wrong. They don’t get super defensive and take steps to change if needed.

4.) They have self-awareness.

A spiritually mature person can read the room and has the insight to know how they sound to other people. They display a careful social balance in their interactions with people. They can hold themselves accountable in conversations and know when they need to step back from any situation and reassess their feelings. They realize they’re representing Jesus and that their actions and words have consequences. More than that, they have enough insight to know how their actions and words affect others. James 3 has a lot to say about controlling our tongue. He compares the tongue to a rudder that controls an entire ship. Verse 5 says the tongue is a small thing that makes grand speeches. But a tiny spark can set a great forest on fire.” James 1:26 says, “If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless.”

5.) They have healthy boundaries and actual discernment.

Not every whim or feeling is seen as a sign from God or a move of the Holy Spirit, and don’t just take everything they think, feel or hear as the Holy Spirit speaking to them. They also don’t boast about how discerning they are. They just are. They model discernment instead of paranoia. They also don’t brag about how many spiritual experiences they’ve had, how intense they were, or how smart they are. They’re typically the people who enter a conversation thinking they can learn something from another person, even if they know a lot more than they do! That’s not the attitude they take. They also know when to say no and when to say yes. A spiritually mature person knows that “no” can be a very healthy word. They know how to honor God in their time and know their personal limits. They have enough sense to know when to engage in conversation, events, or activities and when they need to back off. In the same way, they also discern when they need to be where God wants them to be. They wait on God in prayer and Scripture reading instead of relying on feelings that change every day.

In short, they exemplify Galatians 5:22-23- “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things, there is no law.” And as well as Hebrews 3 in regards to holy living.

So by their fruit, you will recognize them.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

 

/by

The Historical Paul Vs. The Legendary Paul?

by Erik Manning

Skeptical critics argue that Luke wasn’t a traveling companion of Paul’s. Why do they say this? Let’s discuss one reason. NT scholar Uta Ranke-Heinemann asserts that in: “Acts and the epistles there are two Pauls. The historical Paul of the authentic epistles and the legendary Paul of Acts.” 1

In other words, don’t confuse the colorful Paul of Acts with the actual Paul we read about in his letters. This indicates that Luke didn’t have firsthand knowledge of Paul. He must have lied about being his traveling companion and embellished a bunch of stories. But is the Paul of Acts that different from the Paul we read about in his letters? I’d say no. Not at all.

If anything, Acts showcases Luke’s talent as a reporter. When he portrays Paul’s personality, it’s clear that it’s the same as that in Paul’s epistles. Yet the similarities are subtle and indirect. They surface in an artless way. It’s doubtful this subtle consistency is the result of design or mere chance.

In her book Hidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrew points out a strong unity of personality in Paul’s character from Acts 20 and Paul’s letters.2 This is his farewell address to the church leaders in Ephesus. In this speech we see both his genuine love and warm-heartedness. We also see his tendency to be a bit dramatic and emotionally manipulative. I don’t mean that as a slam. Whenever Paul puts on the pressure, it’s always for a good cause.

PAUL THE ‘GUILT TRIPPER’

In saying goodbye to the elders at Miletus, Paul references his own trials and sorrows. He says he’ll never see the elders again, bringing them to tears. (Acts 20:25, 36–38) This is the same Paul who pressures Philemon to free the slave Onesimus by telling him that he “owes him his own life.” (Philemon 17–19). Paul also shows this tendency to guilt trip people in 1 Corinthians. There he goes on about his trials and afflictions. He reminds them that he’s their spiritual father. In other words, he gives them the disappointed dad treatment. (1 Cor 4:8–14).

PAUL’S TOUCHINESS

Another trait of Paul’s is his tendency to defend his blamelessness about money. (Acts 20:33–35.) He seems almost touchy about it. In the middle of his tearful goodbye with the elders at Miletus, he brings up how he worked to pay his own way. Paul’s harps on this theme a lot in his epistles.

In both 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Thessalonians 3:8 Paul emphasizes that he worked night and day. He says that didn’t want to be a financial burden to the Thessalonians when he was with them. In 1 Corinthians 4:12 Paul stresses that up to the time of writing he is working with his own hands to support himself. And in 1 Corinthians 9:7-18, Paul goes over the top in showing that he’s above reproach in these matters. He teaches that ministers of the gospel have a right to receive offerings. But then he says “I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.” (1 Cor. 9:16) He’s pouring the drama on thick. Paul also comes across very touchy about his apostleship in 2 Corinthians 11–12.

PAUL’S CARE FOR THE CHURCHES

The Apostle Paul also tells the elders in Acts 20:29–32 that after his departure, false teachers will come. He tells them to resist them, remembering how he himself “admonished them with tears.”  This is the same Paul we see in his letters who says that the “care of all the churches” comes upon him daily (2 Cor 11:28). It’s the same Paul who rebukes the Galatians for yielding to the pressures of the Judaizers. (Gal 4:16–20) He says that he’s “in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in them.” And he firmly warns the Philippians to “beware of dogs” when referring to false teachers. (Phil 3:2)

PAUL’S RIGIDNESS

Furthermore, Paul is almost annoyingly uncompromising. In Acts 15:36-41 we see Paul getting into a heated discussion with Barnabas over Mark. Mark had deserted them in Pamphylia. Paul wasn’t about to bring him on another missionary journey. It didn’t matter how much Barnabas vouched for him. The two apostles ended up parting company because of Paul’s stubbornness. This is the same Paul who tells the Galatians that he had the cajones to publicly rebuke the Apostle Peter. He’s referring to the time when Peter would no longer eat with the Gentiles when the Jewish brethren from Jerusalem came to Antioch. Paul wasn’t putting up with Peter’s capitulation. (Galatians 2:11-15)

PAUL’S SARCASM

Paul was also one fiery and sarcastic guy. He can lay it on pretty thick at times. This snarkiness is worth quoting in some passages. Paul shows his exasperation over the Corinthians’ fixation with the so-called super apostles. He wrote: “You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!” (2 Corinthians 11:19-21)

Talk about getting punchy. But this is tame compared to what he writes to the Galatians. He wrote to tell them to not submit to the Judaizers who required circumcision for salvation. Paul was not happy that there were people perverting the Gospel and mixing the Law with grace. Paul writes: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Gal 5:4-12) Now that’s some razor sharp sarcasm. Lame pun intended.

We see this same mixture of anger and sarcasm from Paul in Acts, and it ties in to a striking external historical confirmation. In Acts 23:1-5, the Jews apprehend Paul and bring him before the Sanhedrin. Paul looks them in the eyes and says he’s served God and kept a good conscience. For this remark, he’s slapped on the mouth at the request of Ananias the high priest. Paul is furious. He says “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”

In response, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is a bit strange. He says: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul didn’t realize who the high priest was? Ananias was the son of Nebedinus.3 He was the high priest when Felix’s predecessor, Quadratus, was president of Syria. The historian Josephus reports that Quadratus bound Ananias and sent him to Rome. This was so that he could give an account to Claudius Caesar over some shady business4.

Agrippa interceded for Ananias, and so he was able to return to Jerusalem. But Ananias wasn’t restored to his former office of high priest. Jonathan succeeded Ananias. We know this because Josephus refers to Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during Felix’s reign. This implies an interruption in Ananias’ high priesthood.5 Josephus tells us that assassins killed Jonathan inside the temple.6

After Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest remained unoccupied for some time. Eventually, King Agrippa appointed Ismael, the high priest7. The events in Acts 23 took place during this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood remained vacant. So by his own authority, Ananias acted, assumed the role of the high priest. This explains Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” This is another difficult detail that Luke gets correct. He doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. These sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Some think that Paul is being sarcastic here when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest.” He is probably well aware that Ananias is not the high priest properly so-called. So when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest”, the subtext is because he’s not. He’s a usurper. Paul is likely being snide here.

ONLY ONE PAUL

There’s more that could be said here, but I’ll stop for now. The bottom line is that the Paul we find in his uncontested letters is the same Paul we find in the Book of Acts. He’s the same warm-hearted, touchy, guilt-tripping, hot-headed, sarcastic and indefatigable Paul that we find in his letters. These parallels between Acts and Paul’s letters are unlikely to be the result of mere chance. And these correspondences regarding Paul’s character seem so casual and subtle that it’s unlikely they were designed that way. Through such indications, we see the texture of reality, the portrait, and the reportage.

The best explanation is that Luke knew Paul all too well, because he traveled with him. The biblical critics who say there are two Pauls are being their usual myopic selves. There’s only one Paul.

Footnotes

1.  Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don’t Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith

2.  Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View, Kindle Page 156

3.  Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.3

4.  Antiquities 20.6.2

5.  Antiquities 20.8.5

6.  Antiquities 20.8.5

7.  Antiquities 20.8.8

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3QTfuTZ

 

 

/by

The Balance of Law and Love

by Tony Williams

Perhaps you, like me, have had the experience of being stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense such as speeding. I recall well the feeling of burning anger that the officer would dare to stop me, of all people, for barely going 17 miles per hour faster than the posted speed limit. How dare this officer not realize what a great person I am, not to mention how rotten everyone else is!

As he politely wrote me a ticket and told me that I needed to slow down, it was hard not to tell him to go find a real criminal and waste their time, instead of a good and handsome young man such as myself. Needless to say, I was naive to think I was sinless, and the handsome part was probably a stretch too. I was young, though.

Not too much later in life, I found myself in a police officer’s uniform, driving a police car, and stopping cars for doing the very same thing I did on that fateful day when I got a ticket. It wasn’t that my opinion of police in general was low, only police that would believe that I was doing something wrong.

While I immediately enjoyed the job, which included plenty of adventure and opportunities to see the world as it really is, I couldn’t help but feel guilty of hypocrisy when I stopped cars. On top of that, the State of Illinois instituted mandatory seatbelt laws when I was a very young officer. I had never, never worn a seatbelt unless I was on a roller coaster. Now I was supposed to enforce a law I didn’t obey. How could I do such a thing?

And then I handled a few crashes. Then, I handled some crashes with injuries and some crashes resulting in death. I handled more than a few crashes that ended in senseless deaths that were completely avoidable with seatbelts, and often with the combination of speed or other recklessness. It made me understand why we conduct enforcement of traffic laws. It made me understand why laws about speed and seatbelts exist; to save people from crashing, from injuries and from death itself.

When the theory became reality my understanding of law enforcement changed. I found that traffic laws, and all the other laws I swore to enforce, were eventually rooted in protecting people. No matter the law, if you traced it to its source, they all originated in protecting people.

For example, stores are good. When you need stuff you can go there and buy stuff. However, if there is nothing to stop people from stealing stuff from the store, or from robbing the owners of the stuff, how could an owner ever hope to establish a profit. You wouldn’t be able to provide stuff to people.

Without the stores, things get bad pretty quick. Jobs are lost. Deliveries of stuff from other places stop. We are back to foraging for our stuff, which is a pretty tricky thing in 2022. But with laws for retail theft and robbery in place, there is a negative consequence to stealing and robbing. Stores are able to provide stuff to people who need it thanks to the criminal laws that give us a mechanism to dissuade most people from stealing from, or robbing the stores.

As I became better acquainted with the relationship between laws and the relationship to protecting people, I found that my ability to interact with law breakers changed for the better. For example, when stopping a car for speeding or a seatbelt violation after some experiences with traffic crashes ending in serious injuries or death I could quickly explain to drivers not just what law they broke, but I could explain why the law existed in the first place. I could say that I had seen the crashes and injuries and death that come about when people are not obeying laws.

There was a particular street in my city where I would run radar that was a major foot traffic and crossing point for school children and people with disabilities. When I explained to angry or irritated drivers that we have people who aren’t as mentally or physically able to adjust to speeding cars, almost every driver I explained those issues to had a completely different reaction to the stop. Full disclosure, I almost never write tickets. I am a softy. But if I could explain the rationale of the law that led me to the traffic stop, people typically left the encounter less annoyed, and with at least the knowledge that this street is one they should slow down for. It didn’t always work, but I was always willing to write it down for people who had trouble understanding.

Looking back, and with the perspective of my Christian contemplation and study, I realize now that the laws of society need love and love needs the law. If we make traffic laws simply for the purpose of revenue generation by police, no citizen will be pleased. We should expect outrage over the way that these laws would negatively impact the very people who pay taxes for the enforcement of those laws. If there is no clear way that the law benefits society at the individual or corporate level, it is just a disguised tax.

On the other hand, if we just hope everyone drives safely, and we have no laws and no consequences to ensure it, what motive would anyone have to drive safely, other than self -preservation? And the problem with self-preservation and traffic laws is that roads are used for multiple vehicles at one time. You may be the safest driver ever, but if Lenny Leadfoot is late for work and texting about how drunk he is as he eats a burrito in a construction zone, it won’t help you at the four-way intersection that he doesn’t see. And beyond the initial tragedy, there is no redress of grievances for those crashed into by unsafe drivers.

The law without love is simply an instrument of oppression. Love without the law may feel good for a while, but eventually a whole lot of people get hurt.

As we look at how Jesus interacted with the Pharisees, who were the legal scholars of the day, it seems clear He believed they were bound for hell, and leading others to hell. I only say that because He literally said that in Matthew 23:13. (ESV) In fact, the entire chapter is one “Woe to you” after another. The Pharisees were experts at what the law was, but were apparently not experts at why the law was. And I say that with fear and trembling, as I continue to discover the love in laws, especially Biblical laws.

As far as love without the law, in His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made it clear that He did not come to abolish the law:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-20 ESV)

It seems to me that, like the laws of science, the laws for man from God were devised to ensure his survival and his ability to thrive. Like the laws of physics and mass conspire to keep us from floating into space, or being squashed to the ground, good laws exist to protect man and allow for his survival and ability to thrive.

There must be some type of order because without order, disorder brings about only carnage and death. If I give you permission to do whatever you like to whoever you like because I say I love you, how does that work out for those you may choose to hurt? And if I say I love you so much that I allow you to injure yourself because you hate yourself, am I not agreeing with your inclination to hate yourself? This seems unloving to me.

The law, like gravity, seems inescapable. Love is not a certainty, but if laws are rooted in love, they will provide man the ability to survive and thrive. It seems to me the ministry of Christ was not to change the laws, but rather to bring the law and love back into balance. In dying for sin, on the cross, in our place, Jesus showed that the law must be accomplished, and yet He allowed our escape from the ultimate penalty of the law. We who recognize His motives no longer have the law as a master, but as a way to survive and thrive, not to mention glorify the One who created Heaven and Earth, and cares enough about us to provide a law, and a love that goes beyond our understanding.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)       

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tony Williams is currently serving in his 20th year as a police officer in a city in Southern Illinois. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3ScMRC5

 

 

/by
My Heavens – Not in the Stars

My Heavens – Not in the Stars

By Josh Klein

The Four Horsemen of atheism stormed the cultural, philosophical, and spiritual scene in the early 21st Century. Their dogmatic atheistic positions (or even anti-theist depending on who you talked to) were immediately popularized.

The late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris comprised the crew. They rode their vitriol for religious thought smack into the mainstream, seeking, for what felt like the first time, to proselytize religious folk into converting to atheism. These men were dubbed “The New Atheists” by popular culture and seemed to take the world by storm, often denigrating their opponents as stupid and backwards.

Myth believing simpletons.

Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, sent ripples throughout Christianity and the religious mainstream as his caricature of God as the “flying spaghetti monster” made the world laugh at and ridicule Christianity, and other faiths, as ignorant at best and malevolent at worst. Daniel Dennett’s take on consciousness sought to wrest away the epistemic belief that religion alone could explain consciousness as a reality going so far as to indicate consciousness is but an illusion, and the late Christopher Hitchens’ work, God is Not Great, sought to expose religion as a poison for the masses that results in horrific abuses of power and violence. But all of these men did not make the waves that seemingly even-handed Sam Harris did.

Sam Harris, with his quiet and unassuming persona, engaged in discussions differently than his cohorts. Hitchens would engage in sophistry and sarcasm, Dawkins with loathsome denigration, and Dennett with condescension. Sam Harris was different. I found the tone of the other three off-putting and their arguments either humorous but unconvincing or intellectual but dull.  However, Harris had a way about him that appealed to me. I believe it was his unwavering commitment to objective morality and the honest way he evaluated differing religions that drew me to him. Harris has been honest in his complimenting of what he believes to be Christianity’s positives while simultaneously holding Christians’ feet to the reasonable fire.[1]

I found his style winsome, even if his words were not, and his reasoning levelheaded and unemotive.  He was, in a word, convincing.  His seminal work, The Moral Landscape, sought to deal with a substantial problem in the atheistic realm. Without God as a moral standard bearer are we left with moral subjectivism?[2] And if so, who is to say that the Nazi’s were, indeed, evil?  Or that murder is unjust? The moral argument for the existence of God remains one of the more powerful arguments in favor of theism[3] but Sam rightly understood that embracing moral subjectivism was untenable for the reasonable man, and thus, an effort at advancing objective moral values based on atheism was born. For Sam, a moral landscape could be (he might say ought to be) laid using scientific reason, rationality, and, as he puts it, facts.

“Controversies about human values are controversies about which science officially has no opinion. I will argue, however, that questions about values – about meanings, morality, and life’s larger purpose – are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood: regarding positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of specific laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, etc.”[4]

Sam’s commitment to objective moral values based on scientific facts intrigued me, and his book laid out what seemed to be a plausible explanation of objective morality.  That is, until the reasoning was challenged. Upon further investigation one finds that Sam often smuggles in assumptions about human flourishing to make his argument palatable. While Sam addresses the what of morality he can never quite get to an honest why, as his discussion with Jordan Peterson revealed only a few years ago.[5] What are these objective moral values?  Well, they are whatever Sam says they are. Certainly, they could not be grounded in Nazism or Islam.  However, one could certainly argue (and both do) that both Nazis and Muslims believe they seek to contribute to the natural flourishing of humanity. Without realizing it, Sam has hitched his wagon to moral relativism by virtue of the fact that scientific facts do not adequately explain human flourishing.

It should come as no surprise that Harris, admittedly on the left end of the political spectrum and extremely vocal opponent of Donald Trump, said this concerning the 2020 Election cycle’s silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story:

“[It was] a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. Absolutely it was. Absolutely, But I think it was warranted.”[6]

When pressed by the hosts of the podcast on his statement, one of which had a problem with the idea that a conspiracy ought to be used to deny office to any political candidate, Sam Harris doubled down, likening the conspiracy to that of a room full of scientists getting together to knock an asteroid off a collision course with earth. Some might be stunned that Sam would say such a thing, considering his distaste for subjectivism. In full consideration of his work, however, it is perfectly clear that he feels it necessary to be the arbiter of what is and is not objectively moral.  To say it another way, Sam Harris, to himself, is a god.

Sam Harris is a coherent communicator, but his positions are often in conflict. His embrace of objective morality as an atheist is admirable but his assertion that free will is illusory is cumbersome to the argument and seems to stand diametrically opposed to it. If free will is illusory, then how are any agents morally culpable for their actions and how does objective morality fit in? Harris insists that the two are not at odds, but his insistence struggles to hold up to scrutiny.  Alone, his arguments seem consistent. Combined, they often run directly at odds with one another. One cannot live life according to the philosophy espoused by Harris in a consistent manner, which is why Sam often indicates that living within the illusion is necessary.

It is in this manner that Sam is both the most and least effective new atheist. Take, for instance, Sam’s openness to the multi-verse theory:

“This is my candidate for the strangest idea that is still scientifically plausible.”[7]

In fairness to Sam, he does not himself espouse the multi-verse there but he seems interestingly open to the idea from a metaphysical perspective. Which, to me, makes his statements concerning the idea of heaven even more perplexing:

As I said on twitter, I used to like Sam Harris. I thought his critiques of Christianity were necessary (even if flawed) and that he was willing to dialogue about faith instead of simply debating it, but Harris has a nasty habit of building theologically ridiculous straw men only to knock them down with a smirk as if he’s accomplished something.

Whether Sam believes it or not, heaven (God’s dwelling place), has never (in the mainstream of the Christian faith) been understood to be in outer space. This critique of the theology of Heaven is meant to denigrate his intellectual opponents as just as ignorant as Grecian theologians believing in a literal Mount Olympus.

This has not been the orthodox understanding of the heavenly realm for millennia, if ever. As Randy Alcorn states:

“The present, intermediate Heaven is in the angelic realm, distinctly separate from Earth.”

Randy is not making this up out of thin air. Though we do silly Sunday School depictions of heaven in the clouds or speak of heaven in human terms as “above” us, this is not reminiscent of the real theology. There is no biblical or theological position that indicates heaven is physically in outer space where telescopes can see. This is not Thor.

One might say, “Sam Harris is a naturalist so he is presupposing that if a heaven exists then it must be in outer space where we could see it.” But this argument fails for two reasons. The first is that when engaging with a religion’s theology you must engage with their intended meaning to a have a meaningful debate. For instance, if I were to debate with a Muslim the nature of Allah, I cannot smuggle in my understanding of the Trinity to define Allah. If I apply my own view of the divine onto Allah then I have done a disservice to the conversation. Sam must interact, not with what he thinks heaven would be if it exists, he must interact with what Christians say that heaven is. He can deny its existence (just as I would with Allah) but he cannot do so based on false premises.

The second reason this defense fails is because of Sam’s already soft position on the multi-verse. If one can see the multi-verse as plausible then how can one so glibly dismiss a heavenly realm as impossible and ascribe the characteristics of this realm to that one? Sam would not do a believer in the multi-verse the disservice of this uncharitable presupposition concerning other universes and so, he does not need to do this disservice to the arguments for heaven either.

Scripture teaches that the current heaven is a place in the angelic realm. This is true in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 6, 2 Kings 6, Daniel 10:20 and John 18:36 all indicate such. More specifically, the martyrdom of Stephen indicates a linking of the realms as well.

In Acts. 7:56, as Stephen is being stoned, he says, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (NASB). In Daniel 10, Acts 7, and Acts 9 we notice a phenomenon about the current heavenly realm. It can be revealed to specific individuals and hidden from others. Which means, the realm, though physically and spiritually in existence, stands outside our concept of this physical plane.

When Jesus ascends in Acts 1:9 there are many that might say Jesus ascended into heaven. This might mean the physical sky! But it doesn’t. A careful reading of the passage at hand will notice that the writer says, “And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” This brings back imagery of Isaiah 6 and the glory of God.

In all these instances, the angelic/heavenly realm is not indicated to be in the stars themselves. Sam’s treatment of the matter was shallow and misrepresents, or misunderstands, the Christian doctrine of heaven. In scripture there are two heavens, one represents the sky and stars (the heavens) the other, the angelic realm. The delineations are clear and obvious to even the casual observer. Sam’s unevenness in handling this topic undermines his credibility as a good actor on the philosophical stage and highlights the arrogance of his atheistic belief. In this short interview Sam reveals why his objective morality without God is nonsense and why is objections to Christian theology, in particular, are often not in good faith. And thus, his credibility stands on shaky ground.

 

Footnotes

[1] https://www.samharris.org/blog/reply-to-a-christian

[2] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-moral-argument-a-short-dialectic/

[3] https://freethinkingministries.com/an-ignorant-objection-to-the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence/

[4] Harris, Sam. “Introduction.” The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Free Press, New York, 2010, pp. 2–2.

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE

[6] https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/sam-harris-defends-silencing-the-post-on-hunter-biden/

[7] https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-multiverse-you-you-you-you

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3BGu6lb

/by
How We Got Our Bible: Modern Translations

How We Got Our Bible: Modern Translations

By Ryan Leasure

This article will consider the differences among the modern translations.

Translation Theory

Have you ever wondered why Bible translations differ from one another? For example, some say “brothers” while others say “brothers and sisters.” Or some say “he knew her” while others say “he had sexual relations with her.” Why the differences? Two factors explain why.

The first factor is textual. Which Greek or Hebrew text is the base text for the English translation? The TR or the NA? And which textual variant most likely represents the original? Because I already dealt with textual criticism in article six of this series, I’ll simply refer you to that article.

The second factor which explains the differences among the translations is linguistic. Bible translators must ask themselves how they can best transfer the words and ideas from the original languages into English. Should they seek a translation that is more literal word-for-word? Or should they seek a translation that irons out the meaning in a more readable way? Or should they land somewhere in between?

Translations ultimately land somewhere on the spectrum between a more literal word-for-word translation (formal equivalence) and a meaning-for-meaning translation (dynamic equivalence). Formal equivalent translations will give a more literal rendering “Adam knew Eve” (ESV), while dynamic equivalent translations will give the meaning “Adam had sexual relations with his wife, Eve” (NLT). If you’re wondering where your favorite translation lands on the spectrum, I’ve listed some of the more popular translations below:

Linguistic Issues

Currency, Weights, and Measures

Translating currency, weights, and measures is a difficult task. Consider the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Matthew 18:24 reads:

“One was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents” (ESV).

“A man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him” (NIV).

“One of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of dollars” (NLT).

The difficulty in translating “talents” (which is the more literal translation) is immediately obvious. The word talent means something completely different in our modern vernacular. The ESV decided to stick with the literal rendering, but at what expense? (no pun intended) Even if someone were to realize talent refers to a currency, they still have no idea how much a talent was worth.

The NIV decided that a literal rendering would not be helpful. But they also decided that giving a literal amount was impossible. Therefore, they went with “ten thousand bags of gold.” How much is ten thousand bags of gold worth? A whole lot! Though no specific amount is given.

The NLT went in an even different direction. While they are similar to the NIV in that they don’t list a specific amount, they decided to translate the currency into American dollars. This decision, however, suggests that they are thinking primarily of an American audience. Why not the British pound?

Another example is Isaiah 5:10.

“For ten acres of vineyard shall yield but one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield but an ephah” (ESV).

“A ten acre vineyard will produce only a bath of wine; a homer of seed will yield only an ephah of grain
(NIV).

“Ten acres of vineyard will not produce even six gallons of wine. Ten baskets of seed will yield only one basket of grain” (NLT).

You can see that both the ESV and the NIV translated the measures in a literal way. In doing so, they tell us exactly what the Hebrew text says. But who knows what a “homer of seed” or an “ephah” is? The NLT, again, attempts to give the meaning by using understandable terms such as “gallons” and “baskets.”

Euphemisms

Every culture has its own euphemisms. “That one bit the dust” or “He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed” would confuse anyone trying to learn English for the first time. If someone were to translate those phrases into another language, should they translate them word-for-word like above, or give the meaning of the phrases?

We find scores of Hebrews and Greek euphemisms in the Bible. Consider Rachel’s words to her father Laban in Genesis 31:35.

“Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women is upon me” (KJV).

“Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise before you, for the manner of women is upon me” (NASB).

“Don’t be angry, my lord, that I cannot stand up in your presence; I’m having my period” (NIV).

The KJV and the NASB give a more literal rendering of the Hebrew text while the NIV gives the meaning of the euphemism.

Another word, though technically not a euphemism, that Bible translators wrestle over is the word “flesh.” Consider Paul’s words in Romans 7:18.

“For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh” (ESV).

“For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature” (NIV).

“For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh” (CSB).

I grew up in church, so I am familiar with the term “flesh.” That said, someone picking up a Bible for the first time might be confused by this term. In Romans 7:18, both the ESV and the CSB give the literal rendering of the Greek, while the NIV gives Paul’s meaning.

Grammar and Syntax

Every language has a unique structure. Greek and Hebrew have different structures from English. That said, a literal wooden word-for-word translation would be so unreadable and unhelpful, that even the most formal equivalent translations like the NASB smooth out the sentences into English.

One grammatical issue that Bible translators wrestle with revolves around the genitive case. The genitive is often thought of as the “possessive case” in cases such as “my dog” or “Billy’s house.” Yet, many times, the genitive does not convey possession but functions more like an adjective. The formal translations, however, still tend to translate these genitives as possessives by giving the literal rendering “of.” Speaking of God the Son, Hebrews 1:3 states:

“he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (ESV).

“upholds all things by the word of His power” (NASB).

“sustaining all things by his powerful word” (NIV).

Both the ESV and the NASB give the wooden genitive “of” reading while the NIV smooths out the meaning and shows that power is not a possessive but an adjective modifying “word.”

Gender Pronouns

The final issue we will consider deals with gender inclusion. Hebrew and Greek both used masculine pronouns to describe humans in general. The Greek word anthropos functions this way. And to an extent, we still do this today when we say things like “mankind.” That said, English translations wrestle through translating the masculine pronouns so as to not exclude the female gender. Some translations stay with the literal rendering, while others attempt to give the meaning. Consider Psalm 1:1.

“Blessed is the man” (ESV).

“Blessed is the man” (NASB).

“Blessed is the one” (NIV).

“Oh, the joys of those” (NLT).

“How happy is the one” (CSB).

The more literal reading is “man.” That said, the meaning is gender inclusive.

Different Translations

So, which Bible translation should you use? Well, it all depends on your goal. If you’re looking to give a Bible to a young child, you may consider a Bible on the dynamic equivalence end of the spectrum. If you’re wanting a Bible to read consistently throughout the year, I’d recommend multiple Bibles. The NIV and CSB are nice options as they strike a nice balance between formal and dynamic equivalencies. That said, it’s also nice to have a Bible that gives you a more literal rendering so that you can get a better idea of what the original languages say.

Personally, I consult at least three Bibles when I’m studying a text. I look at both a formal and dynamic translation, as well as one somewhere in-between.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3S36ZGY

/by

Are We All Born Children of God?

by Melissa Dougherty

Many believe that all humans are born children of God. Is this true? I want to examine the Bible’s words about this beautiful theological truth.

Spoiler alert- It’s true. According to the Bible, we’re not born children of God. The belief that we’re all children of God is never taught in the Bible and has caused a lot of bad theology. Scripture teaches that though we are all created by God, we become children of God through spiritual adoption. However, we are all born in the image of God. All humans have worth, are creations of God, and He loves us. It’s because He loves us that He became His own creation to save us and redeem us. This is precisely why Jesus had to come in the first place. If we’re all already children of God, Jesus didn’t have to die to redeem or adopt us. What is He redeeming or adopting us from? This is the verbiage that the Bible regularly uses when speaking about Jesus’ death: He “redeemed” us, we were “slaves” to sin, and we are “adopted” into His family.

I want to elaborate on this point. There’s an abundance of Scriptures about the new birth, being adopted into God’s family, being a New Creation in Christ that all are explicitly clear that what we once were — slaves to sin which we are no longer as a child of God. To be born again means to be spiritually remade, from being a child of wrath to being adopted as a child of God:

John 1:12 says, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

To be born of God means to be spiritually reborn.

Romans 8:14-17: For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs…

We become God’s children when we are saved because we are adopted into God’s family through our relationship with Jesus Christ. Galatians 4 also talks about this. In chapter 3, Paul had just explained we’re all sons of God through faith in Jesus. It’s our faith in Jesus that makes us His child. If we belong to Christ, then we’re Abrahams’s seed and, as children, are heirs. This is important because Paul emphasizes that only an heir, a son, can receive the inheritance.

He compares this to someone who’s a slave to the world vs. being a child of God.

There are two categories.

At the beginning of chapter 4, he says this:

Galatians 4:1-7- I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, 2  but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

This is amazing. God’s promise to Abraham is our inheritance. We were slaves to the “elementary principles” of the world. In vs. 5, Paul says that Jesus bought our freedom, as we were slaves to the law and the world! He adopts us.

This is explained further in John chapter 3, where Jesus says he doesn’t come to condemn the world but to save the world, but people loved the darkness instead of the light. Now everyone is familiar with John 3:16, so let’s start there:

John 3:16-“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” 

 Let’s keep reading, though, because everyone likes to just stop there.

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

This is important: people don’t understand that according to this, the world is already condemned. People typically have it backward. They believe God condemns us, but that’s not what John 3 says. Sin is what condemns us. Since we are born into condemnation, we must be saved from that.

If we’re adopted into God’s family through Jesus, you have to wonder who or what we’re adopted from if God isn’t already our Father. How would we be adopted into God’s family if we’re already a part of it? To whom does the world belong? Who’s our father?

In John 8 and 1 John, the Bible describes our father as the devil. This is why we must be “born again” because we’re born into condemnation as children of the devil.

We have the wrong Dad!

Galatians 3:22-25 says:

“but the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoner by the law, locked up and tell Faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.”

First John 3:10 explains this even more that there’s a dualistic view of this. If we’re not children of God, then we’re by default children of the devil:

1 John 3:10- 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Jesus calls the Pharisees children of the devil in John 8. Here the Pharisees are in a tongue-lashing match with Jesus, and they say that they are heirs of Abraham. Jesus puts them in their place when it comes to this claim:

John 8:39-45- 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did… 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them,“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. 

Just like we’re not literally “born” again, which is what Nicodemus was asking, we’re also not literally “born” as the children of the devil. It’s spiritual slavery and spiritual rebirth. If you’re a child of God, it means you’ve experienced the spiritual new birth, are born again, and are saved.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)     

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide) 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

 

/by

Why The Bible Depicts God As Jealous

By Al Serrato

In my last post, I tried to make the case that God neither “needs” nor “demands” our praise. I acknowledged that he does, however, expect it, because praise naturally flows to a perfect being. But, the skeptic may counter, doesn’t the Bible describe God as “jealous?” Don’t the Ten Commandments include prohibitions on having “other gods” as well as threats of punishment for those guilty of “iniquity?” Does this not, in fact, amount to God instructing us to worship him, and explaining how angry he will become if we don’t?

We come back to the question – why would a perfect being demand worship?”

These are good questions, and they deserve an answer. But as we embark upon an answer, it’s worth noting that the questions themselves reveal some presuppositions commonly held by nonbelievers. These preconceived notions must first be teased out and assessed, because they explain, in the final analysis, why such a person cannot make sense of the Biblical model for right relationship with God.

We need to fight the temptation to treat God as if he is our equal. He is not. As the creator of this universe and everything in it, including us, he has the absolute right to do what he wants with his creation. We have no more basis to complain than would a computer animation to the computer programmer, or to use a more ancient example, the pot to the potter. This may be an unpleasant thought, especially for Americans steeped in the traditions of liberty and equality. But equality refers to the relationship between people, not the relationship between God and his creation. A child does not dictate to his parent what fairness is. Nor does the robot tell its human supervisor to take his place on the assembly line. The skeptic’s persistence in thinking that a being capable of thinking this universe into existence somehow must provide a satisfactory answer to him, or justify the way he “did” creation, is leading him to erroneous conclusions.

We also need to bear in mind that God does not experience emotions like humans do. While he is “personal,” and while he inspired the Biblical writers who used emotional imagery, he is not a histrionic drama queen ready to throw tantrums. Selectively quoting Scripture to paint such a picture distorts what the Bible teaches about God’s true nature. Negative emotion, after all, is a characteristic of a limited being that has fears, wants and desires. It is a failing. More precisely, negative emotions like jealousy, lust and greed are perversions of the good. Like evil generally, base emotions are a departure from the standard of goodness that God embodies. A limitless, timeless God doesn’t “hope” for a good outcome, or “fear” that he will not “get the girl” or seethe with “envy” against a rival. He has no needs, lacks nothing, and has no rivals. He is all good. So, why then did God inspire the Biblical authors to make use of emotional language? Probably for the same reason that I would speak one way to adults in a courtroom setting and quite another way if I’m talking to children at a daycare center. The style and content of the conversation is tailored to the needs and capabilities of the audience. Using emotional language to human beings motivated by emotion conveys God’s message much more vibrantly than simply setting forth instructions.

Because God is not emotional in the way that human beings are, the Biblical references to jealousy, like all Biblical texts, must be taken in context. The usual connotation of “jealousy” is quite negative. It conjures up images of a jilted boyfriend stalking his girlfriend as he suspects her of infidelity. But the actual definition is more varied; under the subheading “biblical” the definition includes: “intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry.” As I argued in the previous post, God’s self-assessment is accurate. He has every right to expect worship from his creation, because praise and worship are what perfection merit. Equally, he knows the harm it does us when we worship a lie as opposed to the truth. It is, then, an expression of love for him to desire that we return to right relationship with him.

Consider an analogy. A town doctor spends years earning the trust of his patients. One day he learns that an untrained quack has begun tending to his patients, pretending to be him, and doing much harm with his medications and treatments. The doctor loves his patients and wants what is best for them. How, then, should the doctor react? I submit that anger and jealousy – an intolerance of the harmful “rivalry” – would be an appropriate response. So too with God. He loves us enough to warn us against the danger we face when we persist in our rebellion against him. He loves us enough to express anger when we turn away.

In sum, the skeptic wants to claim equality with God and expect God to view things the same way. He does not want to give God the love and respect to which he is entitled, by virtue of having created us and giving us the opportunity to live eternally with him. And he wants God to accept this disrespect as appropriate. But God, by his nature, will also demand the response to which he is entitled. Think of it this way. Why does a judge in an earthly courtroom demand respect? Why does he have a bailiff ready to establish order if a heckler decides to interfere? If a human judge can demand that to which the law entitles him, how much more can the ultimate judge, the creator of all that there is, demand respect from his creation? After all, just as we find on Earth, we are indeed subject to the law of the “governing authority” – the creator of all things – whether we like it or not. And what does proper respect look like? Well, for the judge it means being addressed with a proper tone of voice, proper language and proper behavior. But what about for the ultimate judge? What does a perfect being deserve? Simply this: to be recognized accurately for what he is. And when we do that, we see that worship and praise are the appropriate way of responding to Him.

The point of this excursion has been to show that there is a rational way to reconcile God’s goodness and perfection, on the one hand, with the Biblical references to God’s “jealousy,” anger and expectation of worship, on the other. While on the surface these things may seem inconsistent, on deeper reflection a fuller picture of God begins to emerge. For this, we are indebted not just to the Biblical writers but to the pillars of Christian philosophy, giants such as Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas.

Somehow, though, I doubt the skeptic will accept their views, or these. Until the skeptic begins to alter his assessment of the way things really are, he is likely to go on believing in nothing.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by