By Ryan Leasure
In this post, we will consider the history of the English Bible. The Bible, after all, wasn’t written in English but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In fact, English didn’t even exist when the Bible was written! So how did the Bible end up in our language? That’s what I hope to explain in this article
The Latin Bible
Since the start of the fifth century, the Latin Vulgate was the official Bible translation for the church in the West. The problem was that by the Middle Ages, almost nobody knew Latin, including much of the clergy! Large chunks of Scripture, therefore, had never been read nor heard. While some desired to translate the Bible into native languages, the church forbade this activity. Translating a Bible into a language other than the approved Latin version could land you in prison or the chopping block.
Keeping the laity away from Scripture was one of the problems which led to the Reformation. The Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of the believer would never stand for only clergy having access to Scripture. But even though the Reformation was still 150 years away, the Morningstar of the Reformation began to shine bright in the fourteenth century.
John Wycliffe
Wycliffe was a Reformer before there were Reformers. He believed that ultimate authority resided in the Bible, not the Pope. As one of the most brilliant scholars in England during his time, Wycliffe gathered quite a following. His followers were derogatorily known as “Lollards.” Wycliffe sent these lower-class preachers out to villages around England where they preached in English. Wycliffe noted, “Christ and his apostles taught the people in the language best known to them. . . . Therefore, the doctrine should be not only in Latin but also in the [common] tongue.” [1].
Following the influence of their leader, the Lollards translated the Bible from the Latin into English in 1382. Each Wycliffe Bible was copied by hand since the printing press would not be invented by Gutenberg for another seventy years. As you can imagine, the ecclesiastical powers frowned upon the Lollard’s work. The archbishop of Canterbury remarked, “That pestilent and most wretched John Wycliffe, of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Antichrist . . . crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue.” [2].
One detractor even complained, “Christ gave his Gospel to the clergy and the learned doctors of the Church so that they might give it to the laypeople. . . . But this Master John Wycliffe translated the Gospel from Latin into the English. . . . And Wycliffe, by thus translating the bible, made it . . . common to all, . . . even to women!”[3].
Lollards were repeatedly burned at the stake with their Bibles tied around their necks. Wycliffe, however, was able to escape the death penalty because of friends in high places. In 1384, however, he suffered a stroke while taking the Lord’s Supper. He died a few days later.
Thirty years later, in 1415, the Council of Constance condemned Wycliffe and his Bible. So they dug up his corpse, burned his remains, and threw his ashes in the River Swift.
Erasmus and the Greek New Testament
The Lollards translated from the Latin into English because hardly anybody knew Greek in the Western world at the time. All of that changed, however, in the fifteenth century when the Muslim Ottomans conquered the Eastern Roman Empire. As a result, Greek scholars migrated west and brought their Greek with them. This led to a renaissance of interest in the ancient languages. Within just a few short years, universities started offering Greek.
One person who was especially interested in learning Greek was a young Dutch scholar named Desiderius Erasmus. He is famously quoted as saying, “I have turned my entire attention to Greek. The first thing I shall do, as soon as money arrives, is to buy some Greek authors; after that, I shall buy clothes.”[4].
In 1516, he became the first person to publish a critical edition of the Greek New Testament. Erasmus used about ten Greek manuscripts, all which dated to the medieval period. Until this time, the Greek New Testament only survived in hand-copied manuscripts that were often incomplete. Since Gutenburg had previously invented the printing press sixty years earlier, Erasmus was able to produce an entire Greek New Testament and distribute thousands of copies.
Biblical scholars refer to Erasmus’ critical New Testament as the Textus Receptus (“the received text”). His multiple editions became the basis for the King James Bible.
William Tyndale
Shortly after Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was published, a young scholar named William Tyndale requested a reversal to the policy against English Bible translations. His request was denied. Certainly, if someone was ever going to translate the Bible into English from the original languages, Tyndale was the guy. He trained at both Oxford and Cambridge and was fluent in 6-7 languages. Yet, his peers did not share his same passion. One such priest chided Tyndale’s desire to get God’s word to the people. He went so far as to say that it was more important for the people to know the Pope’s decrees than God’s. Tyndale responded, “If God spares my life, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scripture than you do.” [5]. Tyndale would eventually succeed.
Yet, Tyndale had to flee England for Reformation-friendly Germany where he could translate in safety. In 1526, Tyndale finished translating the Greek New Testament into English. This was the first English Bible based off the original languages. A German printer produced 6,000 copies. These Bibles were smuggled into England inside boxes of wine and sacks of flour and sold on the black market. English bishops bought as many copies as they could, often at inflated prices, just so they could burn them. Tyndale wasn’t bothered by their actions. He used the added proceeds to update and improve his New Testament.
Tyndale’s Bible underwent several updates. His third edition of 1534 is the most significant. He is also responsible for shaping much of the English language. Linguists argue that Tyndale and William Shakespeare shaped the English language more than anyone else. Tyndale introduced new words such as “fisherman, seashore, scapegoat, beautiful, and peacemaker.”
Henry VIII
Even though Henry VIII led England out of the Roman Catholic Church, he still did not approve of Tyndale’s Bible. The reason? Because Tyndale wrote a tract condemning Henry’s unlawful divorce of his wife Catherine so he could marry Anne Boleyn. The year after this tract, Henry issued an edict, “the translation of Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale . . . should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away.”[6].
In 1535, the English bribed Henry Philips to betray Tyndale over to the authorities. Philips succeeded and Tyndale was thrown into prison for over a year. While in prison, he determined to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew. He never finished. In 1536, he was tied to a post, strangled to death, and burned. His final words that he cried out for all the bystanders to hear were, “Lord! Open the king of England’s eyes!”[7].
Tyndale’s prayer was answered. Around that time, Henry VIII approved the Matthew’s Version of the Bible. “Matthew” was a pseudonym for Tyndale’s friend John Rogers. In fact, the letters “WT” were printed between the Old and New Testaments as a covert tribute to William Tyndale.
English Bibles Before KJV
After the first English translation was approved, several immediately followed:
The Coverdale Bible
In 1535, Miles Coverdale (Tyndale’s assistant) produced a complete Bible. This became the first complete Bible printed in English. That said, he didn’t translate directly from the original languages. He used Tyndale’s text, the Latin, and even Luther’s German Bible.
The Matthew’s Bible
In 1537, John Rogers—whose pen name was Thomas Matthew—brought together Tyndale’s published and unpublished translations along with Coverdale’s translation of the prophets and apocrypha. Rogers added over 2,000 notes to his translation. His Bible is sometimes called the “Wife-Beater’s Bible” because a marginal note at 1 Peter 3:7 reads, “If the wife be not obedient and helpful to her husband, he should endeavor to beat the fear of God into her.” Ironically, Rogers became the first martyr to be burned at the stake during Bloody Mary’s reign in 1555. I guess she read the footnote.
The Great Bible
In 1538, the king ordered that an English Bible be placed in every church. And not just any Bible, but the biggest Bible available. Therefore, the Church commissioned Coverdale to publish a new Bible that was even larger than the Matthew’s Bible. Thus, it was called the “Great Bible,” not because of its quality but because of its size. This Bible was based largely on Matthew’s Bible. It was different in two ways though. First, it was larger. And second, it left out all the marginal notes.
The Geneva Bible
During the reign of Bloody Mary, many Protestants fled for the mainland. One landing spot was the Reformation hub Geneva—home of John Calvin. Here, Reformers produced a new translation of the Bible in 1560. This Bible quickly became the most popular English Bible among Protestants—Puritans in particular because of the Calvinistic marginal notes. This was the first Bible translated entirely from the Greek and Hebrew and by a committee. That said, its New Testament relied heavily on Tyndale. It was also the first Bible with verse divisions.
The Bishop’s Bible
Based on the success of the Geneva Bible, the English clergy needed to create a new Bible devoid of Calvin’s influence that could be used in the churches. In 1568, the Church created the Bishop’s Bible. Even though it was used in the pulpits, it was wildly unpopular. It never caught on due to its wooden translation.
The King James Bible
In 1603, King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. Shortly after his installment, a petition signed by a thousand Puritan pastors led to a conference at Hampton Court in 1604. The king summoned church leaders from all across England to discuss crucial ecclesiastical matters. The most important issue discussed was the desire for a single English translation to be used in the churches—and one without any marginal notes. At the time, the Bishop’s Bible was unpopular, while the unofficial Geneva Bible was used by the masses.
King James was uncomfortable with the Geneva Bible for a couple of reasons. First, he disliked the Calvinistic notes. And second, he disliked that some notes called into question the absolute power of his kingdom. One marginal note justified the Hebrew midwives’ disobedience of Pharaoh’s decree.
In 1611, James commissioned forty-seven scholars to translate a new English Bible. The KJV translators relied heavily on Erasmus’ third edition of the Greek New Testament. After several revisions, the KJV translators ended up copying about 90% of Tyndale’s English New Testament. They also drew heavily from the Geneva Bible’s Old Testament. They even follow the Rheims-Douai translation which was taken from the Latin Vulgate in a hundred places! In other words, the KJV was not brand new translation, but a revision of earlier works.
The KJV endured several revisions and alterations. In fact, about 100,000 changes were made from the original 1611 text to the current version which was completed in 1769—most of which were spelling changes.
Notable KJV Flubs
After the publication of the KJV, it went through several printings. On occasion, printer’s errors occurred, many of which are quite comical. Here are a few:
The Party Bible
A 1716 version has Jesus say in John 5:14 “sin on more” instead of “sin no more.”
The Vinegar Bible
A 1717 version includes the heading “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of “The Parable of the Vineyard.”
The Murderer’s Bible
A 1795 version has Jesus saying “Let the children first be killed” instead of “Let the children first be filled.”
The Fashion Bible
A 1964 version has Paul saying that “women should adorn themselves with modern apparel” instead of “women should adorn themselves with modest apparel.”
The Unrighteous Bible
A 1653 version has Paul saying that “the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of God” instead of “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
The Wicked Bible
This Bible is the most notorious of them all. A 1631 version has the seventh commandment saying “thou shalt commit adultery” instead of “thou shalt not commit adultery.” After this printing went out, the archbishop ordered that all copies be burned and he fined the printer three hundred pounds. The printer died in debtors’ prison.
Footnotes
[1] Dyson Hague, The Life and Work of John Wycliffe, 94
[2] Dove, The First English Bible, 6; Matthew Spinka, John Hus’ Concept of the Church, 296-297.
[3] Timothy Paul Jones, How We Got the Bible, 130
[4] Desiderius Erasmus, The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 1 to 141, 1484-1500, 252.
[5] John Foxe, The Book of Martyrs, 1857, 258-259.
[6] Andrew Edgar, The Bibles of London, 59-60.
[7] John Foxe, The Book of Martyrs, 264.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
Fertility Matters
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bob Perry
Nicholas Eberstadt, the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute, is a demographic expert. He has identified some sobering trends that are cause for concern for the future of America. In his article, “Can America Cope with Demographic Decline?”, Eberstadt points out that the traditional attempts to address those worries through government policy and financial incentives “vastly underestimate the challenge they wish to address.”
Going Lower
The birth rate required to support a society’s population stability is 2.1 births per woman. Eberstadt’s research found that in 2019, the birth rate in the U.S. was 1.71, the lowest rate ever recorded up to that point. Then, COVID-19 hit. In 2020, the rate fell to 1.64. Projected estimates for the as-yet-unreported first quarter of 2021 point toward another 5% decrease. These trends portend some challenging socioeconomic times ahead.
Fertility rates below 1.3 will halve a population in less than 45 years. And there is no documented case of a society surviving a rate that low at any time in history prior to 1990. Depopulation trends have already started in Russia and Japan. Projections for the European Union show that theirs will begin in 2027. China could commence even sooner.
Financing Fertility
Typically, governments attempt to boost birth rates using financial incentives. But this has proven to be a faulty solution. Russia, China, Singapore, and Japan’s efforts to stimulate fertility using financial carrots paid small dividends in the short term. In each case, financial inducements had some impact on the timing of their citizenry’s birth decisions – they are most attractive to those at the lowest income and education levels. But, ultimately, they didn’t have much impact on the total number of births, which usually return to at or below their pre-stimulus levels once the incentive runs its course.
Cultural Headwinds
The prognosis for reversing these trends is not good. Several factors lead to that conclusion. As John Stonestreet has pointed out, radical feminism demanded that women be “liberated from their own creative potential” and can be directly connected to the inclination to postpone or forgo childbirth altogether.
But the Millennials who occupy that age category …
Religiosity, which has historically encouraged the pursuit of the traditional family, has also been a casualty of the cultural milieu. A Gallup poll earlier this year revealed that just 36 percent of Millennials report any religious affiliation. They likewise express pessimism about the country’s future, they lack pride in it, and they are increasingly unwilling to defend it. As Eberstadt puts it, young Americans have become “demoralized and de-moralized.”
Resurrecting Marriage
There is a way out of this. And it depends on the same thing it always has – God’s design for marriage and the command to “go forth and multiply.” Mark Regnerus addresses these issues in his book, The Future of Marriage, wherein he acknowledges all of the above. His research points out that “young Christians are significantly influenced by the culture around them … [and] have a sense of swimming upstream in their efforts to marry and form families.” But, despite all this, he argues that:
These kinds of motivations don’t come from the government. That’s Nicholas Eberstadt’s point. He is cautiously optimistic that a “spontaneous, intellectually and spiritually disruptive ferment from within civil society might offer a homegrown American answer” to our demographic decline.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4) by Dr. Frank Turek
Sex and Your Commanding Officer (DVD) (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3T5KBhA
What You Might’ve Missed About the Mount of Transfiguration
Theology and Christian Apologeticsby Erik Manning
Does John’s Gospel give us a much higher view of Jesus than what we find in Matthew, Mark and Luke? Bart Ehrman certainly thinks so. He says:
In other places, Ehrman admits that the Synoptic Gospels don’t depict Jesus as a mere man. But he isn’t pre-existent and he isn’t the same as the God of Israel. Ehrman instead argues that Jesus’ ‘divinity’ was something that came into being after his resurrection. Only then did his disciples begin giving Jesus honors he never claimed for himself.
The big problem here is that Ehrman is making an argument from silence, as I discussed in a previous post. But the other problem is that the claim that Jesus isn’t depicted as Yahweh in the Synoptic Gospels simply isn’t true. Jesus speaks and acts very much like the God of the Jewish Scriptures. Let’s take a look at one of my favorite examples: The Mount of Transfiguration. This example was brought to my attention by Catholic NT scholar Brant Pitre. This miracle takes place in all three of the Synoptics, but I’ll be focusing on Mark’s version:
Something very weird is going on here. What’s up with Moses and Elijah appearing on the mountain with Jesus? Why is it specifically these two guys and not, say, Abraham, Noah or David? The answer I heard in Bible college was that Moses represented the Law, the first five books of the Bible, and Elijah represented the Prophets, the second major part of the Jewish Scriptures. The symbolism seems straightforward enough, I suppose. But it never felt very satisfying.
JESUS THE GLORY OF GOD
Pitre points out a better explanation for why Moses and Elijah appear, one more deeply rooted in the Old Testament. If you’ve read the Old Testament, you know that both Moses and Elijah experience theophanies—that is, appearances of God—in which God comes to them on a mountain and reveals his glory. However, neither Moses nor Elijah can see God’s face.
Let’s look at some passages: In Exodus 33:18-23 Moses said, “I beg you, show me your glory.” And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD’; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.” And the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand upon the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen.”
Now let’s look at 1 Kings 19:9-13: And there he [Elijah] came to a cave, and lodged there; and behold, the word of the LORD came to him…. And he said, “Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord.” And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave.
A couple of things stand out here. Both of these experiences happen on Mount Sinai, which is a mount of divine revelation. Notice also that neither Moses nor Elijah were allowed to look at God. Despite hearing him and seeing manifestations of his power, they cannot see his face.
What does all of this have to do with the Transfiguration? You see, on the mountain of the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah are finally allowed to see what they couldn’t see during their earthly lives: the unveiled face of God. What makes this possible? The God who appeared to them on Mount Sinai has now become a man. Jesus is God with a human face. Is your mind blown just a bit yet?
PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD
Also, notice that in the same way that God descends upon Mount Sinai in a cloud and speaks to Moses and the people (Exodus 19:16), so now “a cloud” covers Jesus on the mountain of the Transfiguration and a voice says: “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (Mark 9:7). The voice reveals Jesus’s true identity. Not only does Jesus speak and act as if he is God, but God speaks and acts as if Jesus is his divine Son. Here then we see a plurality of persons in the one God. On the Mount of Transfiguration, the apostles see that there is both God the Father and God the Son.
And this concept of the unseen Yahweh and the seen Yahweh isn’t merely a New Testament idea. It’s rooted in the Old Testament. You see, there’s a recurring paradox throughout the Jewish Scriptures. Remember that God says to Moses “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live,” (Exodus 33:20). But multiple people in the Old Testament do see God and live! Let’s look at a few examples.
These are all cases where individuals are scared to death because they’ve come face-to-face with God and yet their lives have been spared. Notice that these people saw the face of the angel of Yahweh. Ah, so it’s the Angel of the LORD who appears as the seen Yahweh. It is through the Angel of Yahweh that men can look on God’s face and still live.
And just as God speaks to Jesus on the Mountain, we see conversation apparently happening within the Godhead in the Old Testament. For example, Zechariah 1:11-13 says: Then they spoke to the angel of the LORD who was standing among the myrtle trees, “We have patrolled the earth, and lo, the whole earth remains at peace.” Then the angel of the LORD said, “O LORD of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you have been angry these seventy years?” Then the LORD replied with gracious and comforting words to the angel who talked with Me.
Here the Angel of the LORD plays the role of mediator, the same role Jesus fulfills in the NT. (Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25, 1 John 2:2) Also, note Jacob’s blessing of the sons of Joseph in Genesis 48:15-16: “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, may he bless the boys.” This case of Hebrew parallelism suggests that “the angel” and “God” are to be taken as the same person.
Moreover, check out Judges 2:1-2, where the angel of the Lord says, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers…” Jude 5 says that: “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Though a minority of manuscripts read κύριος instead of Ἰησοῦς, this is of little interpretive significance since the preceding verse identifies Jesus as “our only Master and Lord.”
The point here is that Ehrman is wrong. Jesus is portrayed as Yahweh in the Synoptic Gospels, but in a very Jewish way, and one that includes a plurality within the Godhead found in the Old Testament. And we have multiple lines of evidence that what is recorded in the Synoptics is based on eyewitness testimony. What happened on the Mount of Transfiguration isn’t a cunningly devised fable. See my playlist on the historical reliability of the Gospels for more.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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/3QOJLDJ
How would you answer this? (Live from CIA) | With Natasha Crain, Alisa Childers, Richard Howe, and Brett Kunkle
PodcastAccording to a recent Barna study, roughly 65% of Americans claim to be Christians, and yet only 6% of Americans hold a biblical worldview. This means that over 94% of Americans (many who identify as Christian) no longer view the Bible as their ultimate authority on how they navigate life. With so many rejecting the Bible (and thus the words of Christ) as their guide, they have nowhere to turn but themselves. In this special episode recorded at the CrossExamined Instructor Academy (CIA) 2022 in Cincinnati, OH, Frank teams up with guests (and CIA instructors) Natasha Crain, Alisa Childers, Richard Howe, and Brett Kunkle to discuss the real issues the remnant of Christians need to be addressing today. Hint – it’s not atheism.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Por qué la Iglesia necesita la apologética?
EspañolPor Mía Langford
La apologética está momento un retraso en su momento de protagonismo, gracias en parte a los desafíos que supone la influencia de los medios de comunicación en la cultura. El Dr. Ray Ciervo, apologista, pastor y ex alumno de SES, se une a nosotros esta semana para hablar de cómo alguien puede ayudar a iniciar la formación apologética en su iglesia local, qué temas deben ser de prioridad en tal iniciativa, así como algunos de los obstáculos a tener en cuenta.
Preguntas
Después de que los estudiantes universitarios de su congregación empezaron a plantearle preguntas, Ray Ciervo se propuso encontrar las respuestas. Esta decisión cambió por completo la trayectoria de su vida y el sentido de su misión como pastor y culmina con su graduación como Doctor en Ministerio por el Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Después de años como pastor y apologista, Ciervo subraya que la capacidad de predicar la Biblia es una habilidad vital, pero no puede hacer el esfuerzo particular de la apologética (la defensa intelectual de la verdad del cristianismo). La predicación por sí misma no puede hacer frente al postmodernismo, y no puede por sí misma responder a todas las preguntas que uno va a encontrar durante la evangelización. A pesar de ello, se lamenta,
Una llamada de atención
La teoría crítica ha sido una llamada de atención en este sentido, obligando a buscar respuestas y la capacidad de defenderse de lo que la gente reconoce intuitivamente como veneno ideológico. La cultura cristiana, que durante tanto tiempo parecía un amortiguador contra el pensamiento posmoderno, ha dado paso a una avalancha de dogmas seculares. Para combatir la teoría crítica y otras implicaciones del pensamiento posmoderno, uno debe entender los fundamentos filosóficos involucrados, especialmente la naturaleza de la verdad como objetivo.
El camino a seguir
Entonces, ¿hacia dónde vamos? La apologética debe ocupar su lugar, en palabras de Ciervo, como “una parte regular de la dieta del púlpito”. Ciervo añade que las iglesias están en “modo de supervivencia” o en “modo de misión”, y da ejemplos de formas de ayudar a que la apologética forme parte de la misión de la propia iglesia local, incluyendo: Ven con un espíritu de humildad
Es importante que estés al lado de tu pastor y servirle en lugar de llegar con la actitud de que estás aquí para “arreglar” las cosas. Primero debes ganarte su confianza averiguando genuinamente cómo puedes ayudarle en sus metas actuales.
Despierta el apetito
No ofrezcas el material para un año. En su lugar, ofrécete a hacer un taller de una tarde o a dar clases durante unas semanas sobre un tema concreto.
Comienza con la Resurrección
La apologética es un campo muy rico y puede resultar fácilmente en una sobrecarga de información, provocando que la gente piense que no son capaces de enfrentar el desafío . Para los principiantes, temas como la filosofía o la ciencia pueden intimidar o perder su atención, mientras que algo bíblico como la resurrección es familiar y suele llevar incorporado el interés.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3bsxSUw
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
How We Got Our Bible: History of the English Bible
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
In this post, we will consider the history of the English Bible. The Bible, after all, wasn’t written in English but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In fact, English didn’t even exist when the Bible was written! So how did the Bible end up in our language? That’s what I hope to explain in this article
The Latin Bible
Since the start of the fifth century, the Latin Vulgate was the official Bible translation for the church in the West. The problem was that by the Middle Ages, almost nobody knew Latin, including much of the clergy! Large chunks of Scripture, therefore, had never been read nor heard. While some desired to translate the Bible into native languages, the church forbade this activity. Translating a Bible into a language other than the approved Latin version could land you in prison or the chopping block.
Keeping the laity away from Scripture was one of the problems which led to the Reformation. The Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of the believer would never stand for only clergy having access to Scripture. But even though the Reformation was still 150 years away, the Morningstar of the Reformation began to shine bright in the fourteenth century.
John Wycliffe
Wycliffe was a Reformer before there were Reformers. He believed that ultimate authority resided in the Bible, not the Pope. As one of the most brilliant scholars in England during his time, Wycliffe gathered quite a following. His followers were derogatorily known as “Lollards.” Wycliffe sent these lower-class preachers out to villages around England where they preached in English. Wycliffe noted, “Christ and his apostles taught the people in the language best known to them. . . . Therefore, the doctrine should be not only in Latin but also in the [common] tongue.” [1].
Following the influence of their leader, the Lollards translated the Bible from the Latin into English in 1382. Each Wycliffe Bible was copied by hand since the printing press would not be invented by Gutenberg for another seventy years. As you can imagine, the ecclesiastical powers frowned upon the Lollard’s work. The archbishop of Canterbury remarked, “That pestilent and most wretched John Wycliffe, of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Antichrist . . . crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue.” [2].
One detractor even complained, “Christ gave his Gospel to the clergy and the learned doctors of the Church so that they might give it to the laypeople. . . . But this Master John Wycliffe translated the Gospel from Latin into the English. . . . And Wycliffe, by thus translating the bible, made it . . . common to all, . . . even to women!”[3].
Lollards were repeatedly burned at the stake with their Bibles tied around their necks. Wycliffe, however, was able to escape the death penalty because of friends in high places. In 1384, however, he suffered a stroke while taking the Lord’s Supper. He died a few days later.
Thirty years later, in 1415, the Council of Constance condemned Wycliffe and his Bible. So they dug up his corpse, burned his remains, and threw his ashes in the River Swift.
Erasmus and the Greek New Testament
The Lollards translated from the Latin into English because hardly anybody knew Greek in the Western world at the time. All of that changed, however, in the fifteenth century when the Muslim Ottomans conquered the Eastern Roman Empire. As a result, Greek scholars migrated west and brought their Greek with them. This led to a renaissance of interest in the ancient languages. Within just a few short years, universities started offering Greek.
One person who was especially interested in learning Greek was a young Dutch scholar named Desiderius Erasmus. He is famously quoted as saying, “I have turned my entire attention to Greek. The first thing I shall do, as soon as money arrives, is to buy some Greek authors; after that, I shall buy clothes.”[4].
In 1516, he became the first person to publish a critical edition of the Greek New Testament. Erasmus used about ten Greek manuscripts, all which dated to the medieval period. Until this time, the Greek New Testament only survived in hand-copied manuscripts that were often incomplete. Since Gutenburg had previously invented the printing press sixty years earlier, Erasmus was able to produce an entire Greek New Testament and distribute thousands of copies.
Biblical scholars refer to Erasmus’ critical New Testament as the Textus Receptus (“the received text”). His multiple editions became the basis for the King James Bible.
William Tyndale
Shortly after Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was published, a young scholar named William Tyndale requested a reversal to the policy against English Bible translations. His request was denied. Certainly, if someone was ever going to translate the Bible into English from the original languages, Tyndale was the guy. He trained at both Oxford and Cambridge and was fluent in 6-7 languages. Yet, his peers did not share his same passion. One such priest chided Tyndale’s desire to get God’s word to the people. He went so far as to say that it was more important for the people to know the Pope’s decrees than God’s. Tyndale responded, “If God spares my life, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scripture than you do.” [5]. Tyndale would eventually succeed.
Yet, Tyndale had to flee England for Reformation-friendly Germany where he could translate in safety. In 1526, Tyndale finished translating the Greek New Testament into English. This was the first English Bible based off the original languages. A German printer produced 6,000 copies. These Bibles were smuggled into England inside boxes of wine and sacks of flour and sold on the black market. English bishops bought as many copies as they could, often at inflated prices, just so they could burn them. Tyndale wasn’t bothered by their actions. He used the added proceeds to update and improve his New Testament.
Tyndale’s Bible underwent several updates. His third edition of 1534 is the most significant. He is also responsible for shaping much of the English language. Linguists argue that Tyndale and William Shakespeare shaped the English language more than anyone else. Tyndale introduced new words such as “fisherman, seashore, scapegoat, beautiful, and peacemaker.”
Henry VIII
Even though Henry VIII led England out of the Roman Catholic Church, he still did not approve of Tyndale’s Bible. The reason? Because Tyndale wrote a tract condemning Henry’s unlawful divorce of his wife Catherine so he could marry Anne Boleyn. The year after this tract, Henry issued an edict, “the translation of Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale . . . should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away.”[6].
In 1535, the English bribed Henry Philips to betray Tyndale over to the authorities. Philips succeeded and Tyndale was thrown into prison for over a year. While in prison, he determined to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew. He never finished. In 1536, he was tied to a post, strangled to death, and burned. His final words that he cried out for all the bystanders to hear were, “Lord! Open the king of England’s eyes!”[7].
Tyndale’s prayer was answered. Around that time, Henry VIII approved the Matthew’s Version of the Bible. “Matthew” was a pseudonym for Tyndale’s friend John Rogers. In fact, the letters “WT” were printed between the Old and New Testaments as a covert tribute to William Tyndale.
English Bibles Before KJV
After the first English translation was approved, several immediately followed:
The Coverdale Bible
In 1535, Miles Coverdale (Tyndale’s assistant) produced a complete Bible. This became the first complete Bible printed in English. That said, he didn’t translate directly from the original languages. He used Tyndale’s text, the Latin, and even Luther’s German Bible.
The Matthew’s Bible
In 1537, John Rogers—whose pen name was Thomas Matthew—brought together Tyndale’s published and unpublished translations along with Coverdale’s translation of the prophets and apocrypha. Rogers added over 2,000 notes to his translation. His Bible is sometimes called the “Wife-Beater’s Bible” because a marginal note at 1 Peter 3:7 reads, “If the wife be not obedient and helpful to her husband, he should endeavor to beat the fear of God into her.” Ironically, Rogers became the first martyr to be burned at the stake during Bloody Mary’s reign in 1555. I guess she read the footnote.
The Great Bible
In 1538, the king ordered that an English Bible be placed in every church. And not just any Bible, but the biggest Bible available. Therefore, the Church commissioned Coverdale to publish a new Bible that was even larger than the Matthew’s Bible. Thus, it was called the “Great Bible,” not because of its quality but because of its size. This Bible was based largely on Matthew’s Bible. It was different in two ways though. First, it was larger. And second, it left out all the marginal notes.
The Geneva Bible
During the reign of Bloody Mary, many Protestants fled for the mainland. One landing spot was the Reformation hub Geneva—home of John Calvin. Here, Reformers produced a new translation of the Bible in 1560. This Bible quickly became the most popular English Bible among Protestants—Puritans in particular because of the Calvinistic marginal notes. This was the first Bible translated entirely from the Greek and Hebrew and by a committee. That said, its New Testament relied heavily on Tyndale. It was also the first Bible with verse divisions.
The Bishop’s Bible
Based on the success of the Geneva Bible, the English clergy needed to create a new Bible devoid of Calvin’s influence that could be used in the churches. In 1568, the Church created the Bishop’s Bible. Even though it was used in the pulpits, it was wildly unpopular. It never caught on due to its wooden translation.
The King James Bible
In 1603, King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. Shortly after his installment, a petition signed by a thousand Puritan pastors led to a conference at Hampton Court in 1604. The king summoned church leaders from all across England to discuss crucial ecclesiastical matters. The most important issue discussed was the desire for a single English translation to be used in the churches—and one without any marginal notes. At the time, the Bishop’s Bible was unpopular, while the unofficial Geneva Bible was used by the masses.
King James was uncomfortable with the Geneva Bible for a couple of reasons. First, he disliked the Calvinistic notes. And second, he disliked that some notes called into question the absolute power of his kingdom. One marginal note justified the Hebrew midwives’ disobedience of Pharaoh’s decree.
In 1611, James commissioned forty-seven scholars to translate a new English Bible. The KJV translators relied heavily on Erasmus’ third edition of the Greek New Testament. After several revisions, the KJV translators ended up copying about 90% of Tyndale’s English New Testament. They also drew heavily from the Geneva Bible’s Old Testament. They even follow the Rheims-Douai translation which was taken from the Latin Vulgate in a hundred places! In other words, the KJV was not brand new translation, but a revision of earlier works.
The KJV endured several revisions and alterations. In fact, about 100,000 changes were made from the original 1611 text to the current version which was completed in 1769—most of which were spelling changes.
Notable KJV Flubs
After the publication of the KJV, it went through several printings. On occasion, printer’s errors occurred, many of which are quite comical. Here are a few:
The Party Bible
A 1716 version has Jesus say in John 5:14 “sin on more” instead of “sin no more.”
The Vinegar Bible
A 1717 version includes the heading “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of “The Parable of the Vineyard.”
The Murderer’s Bible
A 1795 version has Jesus saying “Let the children first be killed” instead of “Let the children first be filled.”
The Fashion Bible
A 1964 version has Paul saying that “women should adorn themselves with modern apparel” instead of “women should adorn themselves with modest apparel.”
The Unrighteous Bible
A 1653 version has Paul saying that “the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of God” instead of “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
The Wicked Bible
This Bible is the most notorious of them all. A 1631 version has the seventh commandment saying “thou shalt commit adultery” instead of “thou shalt not commit adultery.” After this printing went out, the archbishop ordered that all copies be burned and he fined the printer three hundred pounds. The printer died in debtors’ prison.
Footnotes
[1] Dyson Hague, The Life and Work of John Wycliffe, 94
[2] Dove, The First English Bible, 6; Matthew Spinka, John Hus’ Concept of the Church, 296-297.
[3] Timothy Paul Jones, How We Got the Bible, 130
[4] Desiderius Erasmus, The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 1 to 141, 1484-1500, 252.
[5] John Foxe, The Book of Martyrs, 1857, 258-259.
[6] Andrew Edgar, The Bibles of London, 59-60.
[7] John Foxe, The Book of Martyrs, 264.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
Salvation in Christianity Vs. Salvation in Buddhism
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Melissa Dougherty
“Buddhism has much more to offer than Christianity does!”
“How do you figure? What you’re suggesting is impossible. It’s unattainable. Isn’t that the point?”
I was listening to two of my friends have a lively conversation about their beliefs, and that last sentence stopped my first friend cold in his words. He hadn’t thought of it like that before. Like many religions in the world, Buddhism has a moral, ethical and philosophical system that allows for many good works, and some promise a sort of “salvation” at the end. In this case, Nirvana is the ultimate goal for those practicing Buddhism.
Before I go on, I want to concede that there are many different sects of Buddhism that people ascribe to. For this reason, I will cover the religion’s main points that would be applicable for someone to call themselves a “Buddhist.”
What is Buddhism?
When someone thinks of Buddhism, they might think of a statue of a man with a big belly. Others might think of the story of its founder, Siddhartha Guatama, and the lessons he taught. Born in 600 B.C in Nepal, he sought a more simple life and devoted his life for a time to self-deprivation. Following a strict lifestyle standard, he sought enlightenment by adhering to intense meditation and extreme humility. The story goes that after he had “indulged” by having a bowl of rice, he went to meditate under a fig tree. He said he would stay there meditating until the end of his life or until he reached enlightenment. When morning came, he claimed to have achieved this goal. This was when he became the “Buddha.”
Buddhism is diverse and can be atheistic, pantheistic, or even nihilistic. Some might mistake Buddhism and Hinduism as being the same, but they are very different if not opposed in many ways to one another. There are universal beliefs that unite it as being under the umbrella of “Buddhism.” Many people admit that Buddhism’s teaching about salvation is somewhat nonsensical. The average person has to do a lot of mental gymnastics to wrap their head around the teachings. Buddha taught that salvation is obtained by letting go of all attachments and the release of the cycle of reincarnation. The goal is Nirvana. What Nirvana specifically is depends on which teacher you ask. It’s neither existence nor nonexistence, uncaused, and is the ultimate goal after enlightenment. Obtaining Nirvana means ultimate detachment and an ending to all suffering.
The Four Noble Truths
Siddhartha Guatama claimed to have discovered a “middle way,” a balance to live. According to him, enlightenment is not achieved by extremes. You cannot live in luxury or self-denial. He also discovered what’s called the Four Noble Truths. They are: 1- to live is to suffer. 2- Suffering is caused by attachment or desire. 3- You can eliminate suffering by eliminating all attachments. 4- This is achieved by following the Eightfold Path. According to the Buddha, the goal of ridding yourself of attachment can be attained only through a rigorous life of concentrated effort in following the Noble Eightfold Path, which is 1- the right view—understanding the truths of existence. 2- the right intention— being willing to achieve enlightenment. 3- the right speech. 4- the right action. 5- The right livelihood (being a monk.) 6- the right effort. 7- Proper meditation. 8- the right concentration— maintaining continuous focus.
This is a full-time effort. No pressure.
Buddhism Compared to Christianity
The basic formula in Buddhism is as follows: To live is to suffer. Suffering is caused by attachment. To eliminate suffering, eliminate attachment. Eliminate attachment by following the Eightfold Path. Sin is seen as ignorance, ultimately, and there’s a disconnect between the depravity of human beings. Jesus is seen as one of the Buddha’s, or an incarnation of “Christ Consciousness,” which the Buddha supposedly exhibited himself. They both were enlightened and taught us spiritual truth. It really comes down to that Buddhism is a philosophy that focuses on the way to live to become enlightened.
When people say that all religions in the world are the same, but we just worship God differently, it shows that they might not know a lot about religion, especially Buddhism. There is an uncompromising difference between these two belief systems, no matter how much people want to syncretize them. Christianity is opposed to Buddhism in almost every way, except perhaps the understanding that suffering is a problem. In Christianity, there are many beliefs that depart from Buddhism. Sin is part of human depravity. We need a Savior that was prophesied about in the Old Testament, trusting in Jesus for this salvation, evil is real, people are not “good,” God is personal, truth and reality exist, and there is an afterlife. Salvation in Christianity is exclusive, specifically in the atoning work on the cross. Jesus is not an Ascended Master, or “one of many Buddhas or Messiahs” as some New Age teachers would imply. The Bible, the historical document that records Jesus’ life, contradicts this idea.
There also seems to be a disconnect from ultimate reality within Buddhism that is in total disagreement with the teachings of Christianity. The teachings of Jesus are tethered to a tangible reality, whereas the teachings within Buddhism are contradictory. For example, the whole goal of Buddhism is to obtain Nirvana by letting go of all attachments. But isn’t the very thought and devotion to Nirvana an attachment in and of itself? Isn’t striving for enlightenment an attachment? Beyond that, there are many more self-defeating beliefs. It’s interesting to see how and why Buddhism holds silencing of the mind in such reverence: I would submit that critically thinking about these ideas defeats them
The Main Problem for Buddhism
Buddhism can offer many things to humanity, but one major flaw is that it cannot offer truth. If it cannot provide truth, it cannot offer you salvation. Truth is what corresponds to reality. If our beliefs do not correspond to reality, then they must be false. Suppose all suffering is caused by attachment, and to reach “salvation” is to release from all attachment by following the Eightfold Path. In that case, this is really no different than a works-based religion that leaves us empty and wondering why we’re not spiritual enough. Nirvana supposedly cannot be taught but only realized. If a Buddhist believes that Jesus obtained this, it would be interesting to see how it happened and compare it to what they have been taught about enlightenment. Gnostic teachings are closer to Buddhism than Christianity or anything that Jesus taught.
Ultimately, the practices of Buddism are unattainable. This is precisely why Jesus came.
If we’re to be looking at the world through the lens of suffering and why it’s here, then it would seem that Christianity, by far, has the best explanation for why this is the case. For the Buddhist seeking enlightenment, their life is devoted to seeking this out, and they are given impossible odds for it to be achieved. It’s only in trusting in Jesus’ work on the cross, knowing that it can never be obtained is when anyone will truly find the freedom that they have been seeking their whole life.
Footnotes
[1] Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2012), chap. 10, Kindle.
[2] Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment, (Vancouver CA: Namaste Publishing, 2004), pg 68.
[3] Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, 6th Ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2019), pg 511.
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.
Truth, Power, and Human Nature | with J. Warner Wallace and Greg Koukl
PodcastOur culture says, “you do you” and “follow your heart,” but the Bible paints a much different picture. However, it seems that even those who don’t have high regard for Christianity or God’s Word are beginning to point out that all we need is common sense to see that our culture’s view of issues like family, gender, and sexuality don’t line with up how the world and reality is structured.
In this special episode recorded at CrossExamined Instructors Academy (CIA) 2022 in Cincinnati, OH, Frank teams up with guests (and CIA instructors) J. Warner Wallace and Greg Koukl to discuss our fallen human nature, why defunding the police is a bad idea, the importance of fathers in our communities, and how people who don’t like to deal with truth are just going to use their power to overwhelm you. Greg Koukl also gives us a good reminder that “faithfulness is not theologically difficult,” and just because the culture is confused on many of these important issues doesn’t mean that we need to compromise on defending the truth.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Viviendo en la cultura de la Post Verdad
EspañolBy Bob Perry
I have shown that truth, goodness, and beauty are objective properties of the world we live in. I hope those three articles have been of interest to you. Please don’t go thinking that what you are about to read are unimportant doctrines or viewpoints. They are not. We are living in a post-truth culture. And yet it is a place where the nature and qualities of truth, goodness, and beauty are of the utmost importance. Our view of objective truth completely affects the way we live our lives. It is the antidote to moral relativism. Truth is important. And understanding the depth of this simple fact will radically change the way you interact with the world. Here is why.
But is faith belief without evidence? Is it something else? Here are the Top Five Reasons Why Faith Is Not What You Think It Is.
The assumptions of culture
Consider the three values I’ve been talking about. And remember the way others often talk about them: Truth — “That may be true for you, but not for me.” Goodness — “Don’t try to impose your moral standards on me!” Beauty — “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Despite thousands of years of human knowledge and experience, modern-day culture has made each of these values subjective. They have suddenly become things we decide for ourselves. In fact, if you were to say that the concepts for each of these values are not subjective, you would be treated as an arrogant, oppressive Neanderthal who wants to impose his personal values on the rest of the world. Who do you think you are to do that?!
The world is upside down
We live in cultural relativism. The place where we are expected to accept the idea that any individual’s opinion on any subject is equally valid. And remember that awkward definition of truth as “what corresponds to reality”? It’s a thing of the past. The new normal is that our highest aspiration is to “be true to ourselves .” But what exactly does that mean?
Follow your heart
When your standard for truth and virtue is the person you see in the bathroom mirror, you don’t need much imagination to know what’s next. Feelings rule. You’re encouraged to “follow your heart.” And following your heart means you evaluate reality by relying on emotions rather than using reason and logic. If it feels good, do it. “If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad…” Sherlyl Crow. Living according to reality has become passé. An archaic obstacle. But there’s a problem with that. And the problem is that “persistent belief in something that doesn’t fit reality” is called delusion. Our culture has embedded delusion into the arts. Our culture has elevated delusion to an art form.
Philosophy is about the real world
It turns out that all this discussion of truth, goodness, and beauty goes beyond a pastime of self-absorbed philosophers. These ideas have consequences in the real world. Ideas are always put into practice. Good or bad, we live in a world where those ideas will be put into practice. And so we see the consequences of erroneous beliefs about state policies and about the families and relationships of community members on which our politics depend. We hear about it on the news—and also in the false rumors that are generated on both sides of the political spectrum. We suffer the repercussions for denying the reality of the economic situation of the country. And our children and grandchildren will pay—in the broadest literal sense—the price for these deliberate delusions. Above all, we see it in the glorification of sexual autonomy that has infiltrated every corner of our culture. The denial of reality is at the core of issues such as abortion, sexual licentiousness, transsexualism, and homosexual behavior. Defending each of them can only be chronic madness.
Faith communities are not immune
The Church is certainly not immune to the corrosive acid of bad reasoning. The Word of Faith Movement, Universalism, and so-called “progressive” Christianity are proof that you can find nonsensical nonsense. And each of these social ills has found ways to creep into the church. When we strip away the window dressing, we see that the problems in our culture are not new. In fact, they are as old as humanity itself. The rejection of truth, goodness, and beauty began soon after we arrived on the scene. The fall of man was the first moment where human beings used their free will to exchange God’s truth for a lie. Since then, we have only expanded the boundaries of that futile exercise. The good news is that the antidote to bad reasoning remains the same. Seek truth in all its forms. Then align your life with it. The Church should never be a safe space for bad ideas. It should be a place where people are treated with kindness and respect, but also a place where corrupt reasoning ceases to exist. Bob Perry is a Christian apologist who writes, teaches, and speaks on the subject of Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org . He is a senior writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also written articles for Touchstone , and Salvo . Bob is a professional pilot with 37 years of experience in military and commercial aviation. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the US Naval Academy , and a Master of Science degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University . He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. Their five children are grown.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org. He is a contributing writer to the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of experience in military and commercial flight. He holds a BS in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and an MS in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown children.
Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/3Q6FQSi
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Monica Pirateque
Truth, Perception, and Reality
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian G. Chilton
Is truth found in personal perceptions or is it grounded in an independent transcendent reality? Multiple businesses and even churches have used the phrase “perception is reality” when referencing the importance of meeting customer needs. If a customer feels that he or she is not getting the service they expect, then their perception of the received service will lead them away from the business in question. While it is not the intent of this author to endorse or condemn a business or church’s employment of such a phrase, as one who is theologically and philosophically inclined, every statement and concept must be tested. Thus, it must be asked, does a person’s views of a certain activity and/or thought make that belief real or even true?
The phrase found its origin in political strategist Lee Atwater who worked for the George Bush, Sr. political campaign in 1988. Atwater, who died from brain cancer three years after devising the phrase, helped Bush reclaim a 17-point deficit to win the 1988 Presidential election.[1] Atwater held that if one could lead the populace to believe something as true, then that person’s perception of the truth becomes reality to that group. Thus, it mattered less about what was true than what people thought was true.
Others have furthered Atwater’s assessment to claim that perception means more than reality.[2] That is, a person’s belief about what is true matters more than what is actually true. If the statement is understood correctly, then it seems to be a situation in which truth is altered to meet the needs of the one promoting a certain perception. But is this not the same as promoting a falsehood?
This article is not intended to be political. As such, it does not endorse any political party or candidate. The only reason political persons were mentioned is that the phrase found its origin in politics. As previously noted, the article does not intend to disparage anyone who has used the phrase. However, the seeker of truth must ask whether the logic of the phrase holds philosophically, as the philosopher questions everything.
Sure, wars have been fought and political agendas have been set because of the perception of a person or group of people. But do those perceptions automatically ensure that the promoted perception matches reality as it truly exists? Surely, the perceptions of Hitler and radical extremist groups do not match reality. Furthermore, does this not cause the nature of reality to become dependent on what one thinks rather than what actually is? There are quite a few logical problems with the phrase, many more than I assumed when I first started my investigation.
There are two camps in this debate: reality-over-perception (that is, reality holds greater importance than a person’s perception) versus perception-over-reality (that a person’s perception of truth matters more than what exists in space and time). The reality-over-perception theory is seemingly the preferable viewpoint. As we examine the debate, let us first define what reality and perception are. Then, we will need to draw distinctions between the two entities before showing why reality, in fact, matters more than perception rather than vice versa. Finally, we will issue a warning of what could come when perceptions are elevated over truth and reality.
The Nature of Reality and Perception
The core issue at hand is what makes something true. Is truth something that is external to a person? Or is truth relative and found within a person’s belief system? This is the crux that forms the primary distinction between the reality-over-perception theory and Atwater’s perception-over-reality theory. What is truth? The answer shapes how one responds to the debate.
Truth (i.e., reality) is best defined by Aristotle who wrote, “To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.”[3] In other words, truth is that which corresponds with external realities. Thus, truth is transcendent. It exists outside of a person’s opinion and desire. If a person claims that the sky is red when the wavelengths match the color that is identified as blue, then it cannot be said that the person is speaking the truth. Comparably, a student who claims that 5 + 5 = 15 is most assuredly wrong despite their convictions to the otherwise.
In contrast, perception is how a person perceives reality through the lens of their sense experience. Philosophically, this includes a concept known as the qualia, which is defined as “the aspects of your sensations—the way things look, feel, smell, taste, and sound.”[4] A person’s qualia may differ according to their experience of reality. For instance, some Protestants cheer the work of Martin Luther as he led the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s. In stark contrast, some Catholics abhor his work, believing that he unnecessarily split the church. The beliefs of each group impacted the perception of their qualia and vice versa.
Why the Transcendent Nature of Reality Trumps Perception
To recap, truth is a transcendent reality that exists beyond the scope of a person’s experience, while a person’s perception is how an individual or group interprets their qualia. However, reality, by necessity, supersedes individual perception because of the nature of truth.
Previously, the color of the sky was given as an example. Some may argue that a person with regular vision may see colors to one degree, whereas those who are color blind perceive the color in a different hue. Thus, it may appear that each person’s qualia is different. The argument is not as strong as taken at first glance, because even though the color is perceived differently, the wavelength of the color in question remains the same. So, even if one person’s qualia led the person to believe that a color is purple when in fact it is blue, the wavelength of the color in question is the same even though perceived differently.
Another example given concerned the Protestant Reformation. While some Protestants and Catholics view the work of Luther and the Reformation differently, the common transcendent reality was that Luther and other Reformers led the movement in the 16th century. A person’s perception of the event does not change the historical realities found in Luther’s work and other Reformers of the time.
Lastly, you have probably heard the philosophical puzzle of a tree in a forest. If a tree fell in the wilderness, would it make a sound even if no one was present to hear it? Because of the workings of physics, soundwaves are created when vibrations are passed through mediums such as air or water. Thus, the crashing of a felled tree would create the vibrations necessary to create a sound regardless of how few hearers are there to audibly receive the vibrations. Even if no one is present, the actualized vibrations would create the potential for hearing. As these exercises show, reality is not dependent on personal perception. Instead, a person’s perceptions are based upon the external reality experienced.
The Consequences of Elevating Perception Over Reality
If people begin elevating perception over reality, then the basis by which science and historical studies are conducted are demolished. No one could ever postulate what occurred prior to the present time and no scientific advancements could be made as everything would become personal preference. The healthcare industry would suffer as each person could claim that they do not have a disease even though the evidence suggests that he or she does. Then, the person would not receive the treatment that could cure the disease that he or she does not believe exists.
Theologically, faith matters would then become a matter of self-invention rather than encounters with the divine. Self-deluded cult leaders could then persuade countless individuals to do reprehensible things for the leader. The leader would argue that his perception is true even if reality does not support his claims. People could never be held accountable for crimes, and judges could never convict criminals. In literature, the author’s intent is replaced by the reader’s misconceptions, and so on. Diminishing the external reality of truth creates a slippery slope that leads to a host of problems.
Conclusion
Truth matters. Truth grounds and establishes us. Jesus noted the freeing nature of truth, stating that “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). [5] It is understood why businesses and churches gravitate toward the phrase. Because these institutions want to create the best experience for their customers, and rightfully so. The intention behind the phrase is justified and understandable. However, the philosophical connotations of the phrase are quite troubling. Therefore, I propose that we should replace the phrase perception is reality with the phrase perception is a personal view of reality. In this way, the nature of truth is not diminished and the importance of the person’s perception of reality is also emphasized. The provider of a service will want to afford the best experience possible for his or her customers. But there is too much at stake to eliminate the value of truth itself.
Footnotes
[1] Simon Kelner, “Perception is Reality: The Facts Won’t Matter in Next Year’s Election,” Independent.co.uk (Oct. 14, 2014),
[2] “Perception is more important than reality. If someone perceives something to be true, it is more important than if it is in fact true. This does not mean that you should be duplicitous or deceitful, but don’t go out of your way to correct a false assumption if it plays to your advantage.” Ivanka Trump, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Love and Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009), Kindle.
[3] Aristotle, Metaphysics 1011b25, in Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vols.17, 18, Translated by Hugh Tredennick. (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1933, 1989), Logos Bible Software.
[4] Edward Feser, Philosophy of Mind (London, UK: Oneworld, 2006), 15.
[5] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Why God Does Not Need Praise
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Al Serrato
Christians claim that God is a perfect Being. By perfect, of course, we mean that God has every possible attribute in an infinite and complete way. In other words, God possesses everything, lacks nothing and needs…nothing. Why then, the skeptic will often counter, does this Being that needs nothing need praise? Doesn’t God demand that we praise and worship Him? A perfect being shouldn’t want for anything, including the worship of its creation. Right?
The question can be restated in the form of an argument denying that the God of the Bible is perfect. It would go like this:
• A perfect being has no needs and no wants.
• The God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship.
• Therefore, the God of the Bible is not perfect.
Of course, a non-perfect “God” is a contradiction. This would lead to one of two conclusions: either God does not actually exist or the real God is not the God of the Bible. Either way, the Christian loses.
The value in restating the question lies in the clarification it brings to the skeptic’s assumptions. The syllogism set forth is logical. If in fact the God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship, he could not rightly be viewed as perfect. The problem with the challenge is not the implied logic; no, the problem is that the assumption about God – that he both needs and desires praise – is false. The God of the Bible has no such desire. Instead, because he is the perfect Being, God rightly expects praise and worship from us lesser, imperfect beings, his creation.
To see why, one must first spend a moment considering what “praise” and “worship” entail. To “praise” is to express approval or admiration. It derives from the verb “to prize,” or in other words, to highly value something. To “worship” derives from “worth” and means to revere or to adore. To “revere” means to regard with awe, an overwhelming feeling of fear or admiration produced by that which is grand, sublime or extremely powerful. These concepts all boil down to the same basic thought: praise and worship are a recognition and expression of awe in the presence of something great.
In considering praise and worship, two things become apparent:
1) To be meaningful, praise and worship must be freely given. They are the human mind’s natural response to witnessing or experiencing something marvelous or amazing. You simply cannot force someone to experience such feelings. As is true of love, such feelings cannot be the result of coercion, for to coerce someone by threat, or by promise of reward, to give praise or to worship would deprive those things of any value or of meaning. One cannot be forced to admire or to feel awe.
2) Praise flows naturally from a recognition of greatness. Millions of people tune into the Olympics to marvel at the great skill and ability on display by the athletes in the arena. While the viewers may not recognize it, while they watch they no doubt feel a sense of awe at what they are witnessing. We have a term for this natural human response: it’s call hero-worship and just about everyone experiences it. From early childhood, most people will gravitate to someone who embodies for them qualities, capacities, or abilities that they admire and esteem. This human response occurs even if the viewer refuses to convey praise to the person they are watching, or where they actually dislike what is on display. For example, a viewer may dislike the Blue Angels for being militaristic, but contemplating the great skill required to control high performance aircraft travelling inches apart at near supersonic speeds would still result in a feeling of awe; the performance of the pilots is no small feat. The mastery of self and jet and the ability to perform generate awe. Similarly, some fans may dislike overpaid baseball players yet still admire the ability required to hit a curving ball travelling toward the batter at 90 miles per hour. In both cases, the viewer can refuse to give praise but the recognition of “greatness” in the performance will evoke a feeling of admiration.
Recognizing what praise and worship involve, it is apparent that no person – certainly not a perfect one – would demand it. It simply does not work this way. Review the pages of the Bible, and you will see that God does not demand praise and worship to fulfill some need of His. Where those concepts are discussed, they are the words and exhortations of other people talking about God. But God does expect our worship and praise. Of course He does, for that is indeed what we should feel when we contemplate Him.
This point bears emphasis. God knows the way things really are. His self-assessment of his infinite perfection is accurate. Such perfection is worthy of praise and awe and reverence from those lesser, limited being which he created. For God to think otherwise would not be humility, but error. Having no limitations, God rightly expects that we view him in the correct way, the only way that conforms to reality. Consequently, whatever attributes a person finds worthy of praise, God possesses these in infinite measure. Getting one’s mind around the immensity of a perfect God – of the utter overwhelming greatness that he possesses – one would necessarily be overcome with awe, fear and reverence. Whether we “like” Him or rebel against Him, our urge to praise and worship Him flow naturally from a recognition of His infinite greatness. If we could see God clearly, without our innate urge to selfishness and rebellion, we would naturally feel infinite “hero worship” for the greatest of all possible beings.
Now add to this the fact that God created us from nothing. He offers us the opportunity for union with Him, the chance to partake in His eternal loving relationship. When we begin to think deeply about the notion of what living eternally in the presence of perfection will be like, we will naturally, as a recognition of the proper order of things, gush praise and worship, and love. This is what the Bible is capturing when it speaks of the need – our need – to give praise and worship to God.
For those looking in from the outside, this will make little sense. They will mock our rituals of prayer, worship and adoration as primitive things, forced upon us by a jealous and angry god. For they do not yet understand. They have closed their minds to Godly things. Think of it this way: a person encounters a scuba diver for the first time. Watching him ascend a set number of feet and then stop for a period may seem quaint. The observer might imagine that the diver is saying prayers to the gods or partaking in some other primitive ritual. But the diver knows better. Understanding the workings of nature – that rising too quickly will result in that dangerous condition known as the bends – he periodically stops his ascent to comply with the natural order of things. It may seem like silly ritual to the uninformed, but to one with actual knowledge of the way things really are, it is indispensable. It is something he must do to remain in sync with the natural order of things.
So too with eternal matters. While our prayers and beliefs and rituals may seem foolish to the secular world, they are in fact a proper recognition of the “worth”ship of God. We bend our knees voluntarily to His sublime excellence, for it too is the natural order of things.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.