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 5:7
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 16:9-20
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 7:53-8:11
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.
5 acontecimientos que sacudieron la Tierra y que están relacionados con la Biblia
EspañolPor Sean Mcdowell
En la reciente actualización del clásico libro de mi padre Evidencia que demanda un veredicto, comenzamos con un capítulo sobre la singularidad de la Biblia. Sin duda, en comparación con todos los libros que se han escrito, la Biblia es única en varios aspectos, como la autoría, los géneros literarios, la traducción, la producción geográfica, la circulación, la supervivencia y el impacto. La Biblia es realmente una categoría propia.
Sin embargo, hace poco leí un nuevo libro (que forma parte de una serie más amplia de libros que se publicarán este otoño con motivo de la inauguración del Museo de la Biblia en Washington D.C.) sobre la influencia de la Biblia en acontecimientos históricos claves. El libro se titula 99 Earth-Shattering Events Linked to the Bible, y es fascinante.
Los autores muestran cómo la Biblia desempeñó un papel fundamental en los descubrimientos científicos, en los viajes de la antigüedad, en la fundación de las universidades y en otros aspectos. Aquí están cinco de mis ejemplos favoritos:
1. Los puritanos fundan Harvard.
El 8 de septiembre de 1636, los puritanos fundaron la primera institución de enseñanza superior en las colonias americanas, la Universidad de Harvard. El propósito era entrenar a los pastores para que sirvieran a sus iglesias recién fundadas. Según los fundadores, “una de las siguientes cosas que anhelábamos y buscábamos era hacer avanzar el aprendizaje y perpetuarlo a la posteridad; temiendo dejar un ministerio analfabeto a las iglesias cuando nuestros actuales ministros yacieran en el polvo”.
2. Un monje cristiano ayuda a abolir los juegos de gladiadores.
En el siglo V d.C., un monje cristiano llamado Telémaco viajó a Roma y asistió a los juegos de gladiadores. Se sintió horrorizado y profundamente perturbado por el derramamiento de sangre y la falta de valor de la vida humana, que contradecía el mandato bíblico de no matar (Éxodo 20:13). Se precipitó a la arena, pidiendo que los juegos se detuvieran, pero en un alboroto por la perturbación, la multitud lo apedreó hasta la muerte. Debido a su valiente postura, el emperador romano Honorio abolió los juegos tres días después.
3. La Carta Magna inspira los derechos humanos universales.
A principios de los años 1200, el rey Juan firmó la Carta Magna en Inglaterra, que declaraba por primera vez que los reyes estarían sujetos a la ley, y no por encima de ella. Aunque en un principio no tuvo éxito, “…fue revisada en años posteriores y acabó estableciendo una norma, basada en la Biblia, que estableció los cimientos del sistema inglés de derecho común”. Hoy, nuestra moderna sociedad democrática sigue cosechando sus beneficios”.
4. Copérnico revela el orden en el universo.
Copérnico estaba convencido de que el mundo natural fue diseñado por un creador (Salmos 19:1-2). Dijo: “El universo ha sido forjado para nosotros por un Creador supremamente bueno y ordenado”. Con la publicación de su libro Sobre las revoluciones, Copérnico desafió la creencia de que el sol gira alrededor de la tierra. No lo hizo para perjudicar a la iglesia o a la universidad, sino para proclamar la verdad que había descubierto a través de su trabajo científico. Muchos consideran a Copérnico el fundador de la astronomía moderna.
5. Johann Sebastian Bach compone música impresionante.
Bach es uno de los compositores más influyentes de la historia del mundo. Matthew Passionis está considerada como uno de los mayores logros de la civilización occidental. Bach se dedicó e inspiró por la Biblia. En los márgenes de su Biblia, junto a 1 Crónicas 25, escribió: “Este capítulo es el verdadero fundamento de toda la música que agrada a Dios”.
Estos cinco son sólo una pequeña muestra de la influencia que la Biblia ha tenido en la historia del mundo. También dio forma al desarrollo de la Cruz Roja, motivó la firma de la Proclamación de Emancipación, inspiró el movimiento de los derechos civiles y mucho más.
Estos ejemplos no demuestran que la Biblia sea verdadera, por supuesto. Pero sí demuestran que el libro ha moldeado más vidas y culturas que cualquier otro libro en la historia del mundo. Si no la has leído, ¿no crees que es hora de ver personalmente por qué este libro ha sido tan influyente?
¿Y no sólo la has leído, sino que has considerado la evidencia de que la Biblia es realmente cierta? El impacto de la Biblia es sorprendente para las personas que no son conscientes de su impacto. Del mismo modo, si usted no está familiarizado con las pruebas, creo que también se sorprenderá gratamente.
Notas de pie de página:
1. Christopher Hudson, editor, 99 Earth-Shattering Events Linked to the Bible(Washington D.C., Museo de la Biblia, publicado por Worthy Publishing Group, 2017), 20.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sean McDowell, Ph.D., es profesor de Apologética Cristiana en la Universidad de Biola, autor de best-sellers, conferenciante popular, profesor de secundaria a tiempo parcial y becario residente de Summit Ministries, California. Síguelo en Twitter: @sean_mcdowell y su blog: seanmcdowell.org.
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
Archaeology and Apologetics
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy 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,
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
10 Days in the Holy Land – Plus Q&A
PodcastWhat’s one way to know we can trust the Bible? Take a trip to Israel! Frank just returned from his first trip to the Holy Land since 2018 and shares the amazing sites his group visited with famous archaeologist, Eli Shukron. These incredible historical sites that confirm the Bible is true include the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, Nazareth, Shechem, Jerusalem, and many others!
Frank also answers several questions from listeners, including those on obeying the Ten Commandments in modern times, the history of America as a Christian nation, the Bible vs. the Qur’an, the test of Adam and Eve, and why Christianity is always true regardless of your life circumstances.
Take a listen, and then check out some of Frank and Eli’s presentations from the trip on our YouTube playlist!
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
16 argumentos malos de los ateos y cómo responder a ellos
EspañolPor Jeremy Linn
Con la llegada del Final Four de la NCAA a las ciudades gemelas este fin de semana, parece apropiado tener nuestro propio Torneo de la Locura de Marzo. En lugar de equipos universitarios, construimos un ranking con algunos de los “principales” malos argumentos ateos.
A continuación enumeramos 16 de estos malos argumentos y enumeramos al menos un problema con el argumento de cada uno. Se podría decir mucho más sobre cada uno de estos argumentos, por lo que presentamos este artículo con el riesgo de parecer superficiales. Sin embargo, el objetivo de este artículo no es dar una respuesta exhaustiva a cada uno de los argumentos, sino dar ideas para una respuesta inicial a los mismos.
Para cada uno de los argumentos, damos un ejemplo de pregunta que puedes hacer para entender mejor de dónde viene la persona que dio el argumento. El objetivo es escuchar y comprender, en lugar de dominar y derribar.
Ahora que tenemos esos precursores, aquí están los 16 malos argumentos ateos y cómo responder a ellos.
Argumento #1: ¿Quién creó a Dios?
Esta pregunta se formula bajo el supuesto de que Dios necesita un creador. Esta suposición tergiversa la concepción cristiana de Dios, en la que Dios es la causa necesaria de toda la creación.
Pregunta: ¿Por qué crees que un cristiano diría que nadie creó a Dios?
Argumento #2: Jesús nunca existió
Esta objeción va en contra de las conclusiones de casi todos los eruditos dedicados a la historia bíblica y romana, junto con la evidencia de los libros del Nuevo Testamento y las fuentes extrabíblicas.
Pregunta: ¿Cómo llegaste a la conclusión de que Jesús nunca existió?
Argumento #3: Los ateos creen solo en un dios menos que los cristianos
Algunos ateos intentan utilizar este argumento para demostrar que no hay mucha diferencia entre ellos y los cristianos. Después de todo, los cristianos son “ateos” para miles de dioses de otras religiones ya que no creen en esos dioses.
El problema es que hay una gran diferencia entre un teísta (como un cristiano) y un ateo. Los teístas creen en un creador supremo y personal del Universo. Los ateos no. Esta diferencia tiene enormes implicaciones en la forma en que cada uno lleva su vida.
Pregunta: ¿Crees que hay alguna diferencia importante entre los cristianos y los ateos?
Argumento #4: Creer en Dios es como creer en Santa Claus o en los duendes.
Esta afirmación llama a Dios “inventado”, al nivel de algo como Santa Claus. Pero el cristiano afirma tener pruebas de Dios, y casi nadie afirma tener pruebas de un verdadero Santa Claus. La supuesta evidencia de Dios no puede ser simplemente descartada con esta tonta afirmación.
Pregunta: ¿Crees que hay pruebas de la existencia de Dios?
Argumento #5: Los evangelios están llenos de mitos
Esta objeción ignora por completo la definición de mito en la literatura antigua. Un mito se remonta al pasado para entender cómo se produjo algo en el presente. Los evangelios se escribieron como una narración histórica, hablando de cosas que estaban sucediendo en ese momento.
Pregunta: ¿A qué te refieres cuando utilizas la palabra “mito”?
Argumento #6: La fe es una creencia sin evidencia
Esta definición de la fe es claramente una falacia de hombre de paja de la posición cristiana. La mayoría de los cristianos consideran que la fe implica algún tipo de confianza personal. El aspecto de la confianza en la fe es simplemente ignorado por la definición de “sin evidencia”.
Pregunta: ¿Cómo crees que los cristianos definirían típicamente la “fe”?
Argumento #7: No hay evidencia de Dios
Los cristianos afirman tener argumentos filosóficos para la existencia de Dios. Parece que esos argumentos podrían proporcionar al menos un poco de evidencia para Dios, incluso si un ateo no considera la evidencia cerca de satisfactoria. Los ateos que usan esta frase están exagerando su caso.
Pregunta: ¿Qué tipo de evidencia necesitarías ver para estar convencido de que hay al menos alguna evidencia de Dios?
Argumento #8: Dios es un maníaco esclavizador
La idea es que Dios es una especie de dictador que nos dice lo que tenemos que hacer y creer y nos amenaza con enviarnos al infierno si no le hacemos caso. Pero esta caracterización de Dios contrasta con la idea de que Dios ofrece una opción para que escapemos de la “esclavitud” del pecado y experimentemos la vida como debe ser vivida.
Pregunta: ¿Crees que Dios nos da la posibilidad de elegir cómo vivir nuestras vidas?
Argumento #9: La ciencia refuta a Dios
Este es uno de los argumentos más amplios de la lista. Hay muchos campos en la ciencia, y algunos conceptos sobre Dios no tienen ninguna relación con esos campos. ¿Qué se dice exactamente aquí? Es necesario dar más detalles antes de que pueda haber una discusión sustancial.
Pregunta: ¿Cuál es una forma en que la ciencia refuta a Dios?
Argumento #10: Las historias de Jesús cambiaron como en el juego del teléfono
La historia dice… ¿Conoces el juego del teléfono? ¿Empiezas con una frase y luego la cambias después de pasarla de persona a persona? Pues eso es lo que ocurrió cuando las historias de Jesús se transmitieron de persona a persona.
Esta objeción no tiene en cuenta el aspecto comunitario de la tradición oral: las personas podían contrastar sus relatos entre sí. La objeción también hace que se cuestione la fiabilidad de toda la historia antigua.
Pregunta: ¿En qué se diferencia la forma de difundir los relatos en la historia antigua del juego del teléfono?
Argumento #11: Si te hubieras criado en otro lugar creerías otra cosa
Esta es una de las objeciones más comunes al cristianismo: si creces en un país de Oriente Medio, serás musulmán, no cristiano. Aunque este concepto tiene algo de verdad, está lleno de suposiciones sin fundamento. Tampoco tiene mucho efecto en la cuestión de si Dios existe realmente o no.
Pregunta: ¿Cómo sabes que creo en lo que creo por el lugar donde crecí?
Argumento #12: Los ateos pueden ser buenos sin creer en Dios
Esta afirmación es cierta en el sentido de que las personas que no creen en Dios pueden tomar decisiones que sean morales. Pero la afirmación ignora el fundamento del bien: la cuestión de qué causó la existencia de los deberes morales objetivos.
Pregunta: Estoy de acuerdo en que los ateos pueden hacer cosas buenas sin creer en Dios. Pero, ¿qué causó la existencia del “bien” y del “mal” en primer lugar?
Argumento #13: La religión es tóxica
La idea aquí es que el pensamiento religioso siempre motiva acciones que son malas. Un problema de esta idea es que “religión” es un término muy amplio. Pone a las personas que siguen todo tipo de religiones bajo un mismo paraguas, aunque las diferencias entre esas religiones sean muy marcadas. También resta importancia a cualquier acción potencialmente “buena” realizada por motivos religiosos.
Pregunta: ¿Te refieres a una religión concreta o dices que todas las religiones son tóxicas?
Argumento #14: Jesús es solo una copia de los dioses paganos
Este argumento parece poderoso en la superficie ya que los ateos apilan rasgos similares entre Jesús y los dioses paganos – “nacido de una virgen”, “resucitado”, “nacido el 25 de diciembre”, etc. Pero cuando se profundiza en las fuentes primarias de los dioses paganos, se encuentra que los rasgos no se alinean con las historias reales de esos dioses.
Pregunta: ¿De qué dios es Jesús una copia, y cómo lo sabes?
Argumento #15: El Monstruo de Espagueti Volador
Los nuevos ateos pretenden hacer un comentario al mencionar esta criatura ficticia: que se pueden asignar los atributos de Dios a cualquier cosa al azar. Pero muchos ateos que mencionan a la criatura ahora parecen hacerlo para burlarse de las ideas religiosas en lugar de hacer un punto sustancial sobre ellas. En general, un ateo que menciona a la criatura hoy en día acaba pareciendo más ridículo que reflexivo.
Pregunta: ¿Qué relevancia tiene el Monstruo de Espagueti Volador para lo que tú dices sobre Dios?
Argumento #16: Los cristianos nunca se ponen de acuerdo
El argumento es el siguiente: Como los cristianos parecen estar siempre en desacuerdo sobre todo, está claro que Dios no está involucrado en todo el proceso. Este argumento es increíblemente amplio e incalculable: no se sabe qué grado de acuerdo tendría que haber para que el objetor dejara de ver un problema. También ignora que el “mero cristianismo” -la divinidad, la muerte y la resurrección de Jesucristo- está casi totalmente acordado entre los cristianos.
Pregunta: ¿Qué grado de acuerdo necesitarías ver entre los cristianos para dejar de considerar esta objeción como un problema?
Conclusion
Esperamos que esta lista le dé una mejor idea de cómo responder a estos malos argumentos cuando se presenten. Esperamos que el Final Four también venga a las ciudades gemelas el próximo año para que podamos hacer algo como esto de nuevo. Como mínimo, ha sido divertido.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeremy es el cofundador del ministerio Twin Cities Apologetics y es contable de un bufete de abogados en Minneapolis, Minnesota. También está estudiando en el Seminario Bethel para obtener un título de posgrado en un programa llamado Pensamiento Cristiano (¡básicamente Apologética!). Fuera de la Apologética, Jeremy disfruta de los deportes, tocar la guitarra y hacer videos.
Fuente Original del blog: http://bit.ly/2DaNPe5
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
How We Got Our Bible: The KJV Only Movement
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy 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:
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:
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:
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.
Five Signs of Spiritual Maturity
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy 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.
Is Christianity good? Isn’t it anti-women and pro-slavery? | with Abdu Murray
PodcastIs Christianity GOOD? Many people in our culture today seem to care less about whether or not Christianity is true, and more about the morality of what it teaches. They say the Bible promotes racism, slavery, sexism, and other forms of social injustice. But are any of those statements true?
In his new book, More Than a White Man’s Religion, speaker and global apologist Abdu Murray challenges the pervasive myth that Christianity is an oppressive Western religion and shows believers (and skeptics!) that the gospel message is actually THE SOURCE for the cherished Western ideals of racial and gender equality.
Frank and Abdu discuss women in the church, slavery, racism, and how the Bible passages cited by skeptics can only be understood properly when examined in their context (not in memes). When they are, we see that the Bible champions that ALL people are made in God’s Image, and the skeptic’s charges are false. Abdu also shares how his experience working with RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries) impacted the content of his book and the importance of looking to Jesus as the (one and only) perfect example of how to treat others–especially when Christians fail to live up to our own ideals.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST and an EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with Abdu about his journey out of Islam and into Christianity, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!
Get the book here: https://amzn.to/3x4eXHU
Abdu’s website: https://embracethetruth.org/
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
5 razones por las que la Resurrección de Jesús no es una copia de antiguos mitos paganos
EspañolPor Alisa Childers
Nos acercamos a una época del año en la que se celebra la resurrección de un niño nacido de una virgen al que los seguidores llamaron “Buen Pastor” y “Mesías”. Tuvo doce discípulos, hizo milagros y se sacrificó por la paz del mundo. Fue enterrado en una tumba para resucitar de entre los muertos tres días después. Sus seguidores siguieron celebrando su resurrección cada año, y esta celebración acabó convirtiéndose en lo que llamamos “Pascua”.
¿Crees que estoy hablando de Jesús?
No. Estoy hablando de Mitra.
Esta es una afirmación común que hacen los escépticos en todos los medios de comunicación populares, en Internet e incluso en algunas universidades. El único problema es que no es cierto. Según la tradición Mitraica, Mitra nació de una roca sólida (¿supongo que cuenta si la roca era virgen?) Su nacimiento se celebraba el 25 de diciembre, pero los cristianos ya sabían que esa no era la fecha real del nacimiento de Cristo. No hay evidencia de que tuviera doce discípulos, de que se sacrificara por la paz mundial o de que se llamara “Buen Pastor” o “Mesías”.Muchos personajes mitológicos se consideraban milagrosos (así que tal vez pueda concederles eso), pero no hay pruebas de que haya muerto, lo que hace que su “resurrección” sea un pequeño dilema.
El padre de la Iglesia Tertuliano escribió sobre creyentes mitraicos que representaban historias de resurrección, pero esto sucedió mucho después de la época del Nuevo Testamento. Por lo tanto, si hay un par de similitudes entre Jesús y Mitra, podría ser que los creyentes mitraicos copiaran a los cristianos…. y no al revés.
Mitra no es el único mito pagano del que los cristianos son acusados de imitar. Aunque la mayoría de los eruditos están de acuerdo en que no existían tales “dioses que mueren y resucitan” antes de Cristo,[1] aquí hay 5 razones por las que la resurrección de Jesús NO pudo ser una copia. (Estos 5 puntos son mi resumen de esta serie de 5 videos del Dr. Michael Licona).
1. Los mitos antiguos sobre los dioses que mueren y resucitan suelen estar vinculados a los ciclos agrícolas.
Cuando era una niña, recuerdo haber preguntado a alguien por qué existen truenos y relámpagos. A manera de broma, me respondieron que los truenos significaban que Dios estaba aplaudiendo o que tal vez los ángeles estaban jugando boliche en el cielo. En el mundo antiguo, la gente describía a sus hijos, cosas como el cambio de estaciones, la sequía y la lluvia de forma similar.
Imagina a un niño del antiguo Egipto preguntando a su madre por qué no ha llovido desde hace tiempo. La madre podría contarle la historia del dios de la tormenta Ba’al, que fue tragado por su hermano Mot, el dios de la muerte y del inframundo. Cuando la madre de los dos dioses lograba convencer a Mot de que dejara marchar a su hermano, volvía a llover, lo que explicaba el ciclo de la lluvia.
A diferencia de los mitos paganos, que eran acontecimientos anuales que se remontaban a un pasado lejano, la resurrección de Jesús fue un acontecimiento único. Se relató como un acontecimiento reciente que ocurrió en el transcurso de la vida de las personas que decían haberla presenciado, y no estaba relacionado con los ciclos agrícolas.
2. Los primeros cristianos eran judíos devotos y muy sensibles a la ley y las tradiciones judías.
Los cristianos del primer siglo debatían constantemente sobre cosas relacionadas con la ley. ¿Deben los hombres judíos mantener los ritos de purificación del templo? ¿Deben los gentiles circuncidarse? ¿Deben los cristianos comer carne sacrificada a los ídolos? Estos son los tipos de problemas que se tomaban muy en serio y se esforzaban por resolver.
En resuen, es absurdo concluir que personas que eran judíos piadosos, que debatían cosas tan particulares como si los creyentes judíos y gentiles debían comer juntos, tomaran prestado de los mitos paganos para crear los suyos propios.
3. La correlación no es igual a la causalidad.
A lo largo de la historia de la humanidad, no es difícil encontrar similitudes en las historias y paralelismos en las experiencias. Por ejemplo, todos conocemos el caso de un avión que despegó una mañana de Massachusetts y se estrelló contra uno de los rascacielos más altos de Nueva York, entre los pisos 78 y 80, matando a todos los que iban en él.Probablemente estés pensando en el espantoso ataque terrorista del 911 que cambió para siempre nuestro país. Sin embargo, en realidad me refiero al B-52 que se estrelló contra el Empire State Building en 1945.
Aunque estas dos tragedias comparten algunas similitudes espeluznantes, no existe ninguna conexión causal entre ellas. Del mismo modo, no se ha demostrado ninguna conexión causal entre la resurrección de Jesús y los mitos paganos.
4. Las comparaciones no son tan impresionantes.
Al igual que el ejemplo de Mitra mencionado anteriormente, la mayoría de los paralelos paganos no son tan concluyentes, una vez que superamos la retórica y examinamos realmente las pruebas.El mito pagano más comparable que precedió a la vida de Jesús podría ser la historia de un semidiós llamado Asclepio. Aun así, lo único realmente parecido es que, al igual que Jesús, era conocido por ser un sanador y, según el mito, resucitó a alguien de entre los muertos.
La mayoría de las comparaciones paganas se basan en tomar pedazos de diferentes mitos y figuras antiguas anteriores a Jesús y combinarlos con algunas personas reales posteriores a él. El esfuerzo que hay que hacer para componer una figura de Jesús es un poco exagerado y, francamente, no es tan impresionante.
5. La abundancia de mitos no anula la evidencia de la verdadera resurrección de Jesús.
Si vas a Barnes & Noble y echas un vistazo a la sección de ficción romántica, encontrarás portada tras portada de mujeres desamparadas que intentan resolver el mayor problema de sus vidas: ¿a qué héroe apuesto y galante elegirán? Se trata de una fórmula muy trillada que raya en lo ridículo, pero el hecho de que haya toneladas de ficción romántica no invalida la idea de que el amor romántico real existe.
La verdad es que hay tantas novelas románticas tontas porque el romance parece ser un deseo insaciable de la condición humana.
La vida en el Imperio Romano era brutal, la mayoría de la gente vivía en la pobreza, y con una sociedad así, la gente buscaba naturalmente la esperanza. Querían saber que el mal sería castigado y la bondad recompensada, y que habría una vida después de la muerte en la que se haría justicia. Al igual que el ímpetu detrás de la ficción romántica moderna, este es un deseo común de la condición humana.
Debemos esperar que surjan historias que satisfagan esta esperanza de inmortalidad. Esto no significa que la resurrección de Jesús sea ficticia o imposible. Si tenemos buenas pruebas de la resurrección de Jesús (las cuales tenemos), no hay razón para rechazarla simplemente porque pueda haber algunas similitudes en las historias de ficción.
En esta Pascua, no celebramos a Mitra ni a ninguna otra figura impotente de un antiguo cuento de hadas. Celebramos al verdadero y vivo Salvador que conquistó la muerte y la tumba para salvarnos y reconciliarnos con Dios. Ruego que esta publicación te lleve a estar de acuerdo y de manera confiada con el ángel de la tumba de Jesús al decir: ¡Ha resucitado!
Notas de pie de página:
[1] El profesor de la Universidad de Lund y erudito bíblico T. N. D. Mettinger escribió: “El consenso entre los eruditos modernos -casi universal- es que no hubo dioses moribundos y nacientes que precedieron al cristianismo. Todos son posteriores al siglo I”. (Citado de Lee Strobel, El Caso del Jesús Verdadero (The Case for the Real Jesus) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, 160-61.)
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alisa Childers es una cantante y compositora estadounidense, más conocida por formar parte del grupo femenino de música cristiana ZOEgirl. Ha tenido una lista de los diez mejores sencillos de la radio, cuatro lanzamientos de estudio y recibió el premio Dove durante su tiempo con ZOEgirl. Años más tarde, Alisa experimentó un profundo desafío a su fe de toda la vida cuando empezó a asistir a lo que más tarde se identificaría como una iglesia cristiana progresista. Este desafío empujó a Alisa hacia la Apologética Cristiana. Actualmente se puede leer, escuchar y ver el trabajo de Alisa en línea, así como adquirir su libro recientemente publicado sobre el cristianismo progresista, titulado Another Gospel.
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3bsxSUw
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
The Historical Paul Vs. The Legendary Paul?
Theology and Christian Apologeticsby 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
The Balance of Law and Love
Theology and Christian Apologeticsby 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:
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