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.
¿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.
Darkroom Faith | with Mary Jo Sharp
PodcastMany people take antidepressants because they have been led to believe their depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. But a recent study suggests that “there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.”
So, if a chemical imbalance isn’t the problem, why does it seem like our society is slowly spiraling into a perpetual state of doom? We keep seeing rising rates of suicide, drug use, depression, anxiety, and other indicators of unhappiness–especially in teenagers and young adults. Could it be that we have a WORLDVIEW imbalance? After all, if we’re going to believe that there is no God and life has no meaning, might that cause us to be a bit depressed?
To help turn the tide, Mary Jo Sharp, a former atheist who is now an assistant professor of apologetics at Houston Baptist University, has helped put together a 14-episode video series and curriculum called Darkroom to give teens (age 13-17) the OK for expressing their doubts and questions about the Christian worldview in a safe environment. This million-dollar curriculum is available for FREE online for church leaders, youth ministers, parents, and anyone seeking to lead and engage students in discussions on 14 key issues of faith using materials that are sure to hold their attention.
Some of the topics addressed in this Gen-Z narrative-driven curriculum include:
Mary Jo, author of ‘Why I Still Believe‘ and several other books, is a clear communicator with a heart for people. She talks with Frank about her fascinating journey from atheist to assistant professor of apologetics and the importance of being able to ask questions (especially at a young age) when experiencing doubt in the Christian faith. During the last part of the show, Frank also answers listener questions on the topics of animal suffering, inalienable rights, theocracy, God’s morality, and Hell.
Darkroom curriculum: DarkRoomFaith.com
Mary Jo’s website: MaryJoSharp.com
Contact Mary Jo: https://bit.ly/3b89CY7
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
¿Tienes fe?
EspañolBy Al Serrato
Sitting in traffic the other day, I once again saw the bumper sticker “Do you have faith?” It’s catchy, in a way, and in this day and age of catchphrases, I can guess why people find it useful. Maybe it’s a good discussion-generator, a way to invite a question or an answer. But Christians should be careful to understand the unintended effect that words like “faith” have on those whose worldview is intentionally secular.
When we borrow the famous milk ad for a slogan, we risk reducing faith to a commodity, like milk. Yes, we need it, and we can acquire it, and if we do, other things in life can be better, like the way cookies taste better with milk. But is faith a commodity we can acquire? Or is it something all of us already have? Something we already make use of?
I recently spoke to an atheist friend about these ideas. She told me that in her view, faith and reason are opposites. Faith, she said, means accepting things you can’t understand or explain, and reason, by contrast, is the opposite, accepting only things you can understand and explain. With this worldview, she will never be open to considering God, because, by her definition, attempting to do so would be unreasonable. Those who “have faith” can take comfort, but they have nothing to say to her. In fact, when she thinks about it, she feels a little sorry for the “faithful,” because they have stuck their heads in the sand. They may feel safe and warm, she accepts that, but the price of “not seeing things as they really are” is too high.
A more productive approach might be to point out to the secularist that she, too, is using “faith,” and to consider whose faith has a more rational basis. The first step, of course, is to clear up this misunderstanding about what “faith” really means. I would suggest a definition of “faith” as the act of trusting in something that cannot be known with complete certainty. It contains part action—trust—and part standard of proof, for lack of a better term—the degree of certainty you give to your conclusion. Contrary to my secular friend’s view, the opposite of faith is not reason, but disbelief. In other words, to lack faith in something is to believe that what is posited is not in fact true, that it does not fit with the way things really are. I have no “faith” that positive thinking will always enable me to achieve my goals. It doesn’t hurt to practice positive thinking, of course, but I don’t actively trust that things will actually work out that way. In some cases, lacking faith would mean going too far, believing that the opposite is probably true. I lack faith in my ability to jump over a tall building because I know the opposite is true.
Reason, by contrast, is not an act of trust; it is an act of thought, a process by which we arrive at conclusions based on the evaluation of the evidence we receive through our senses. It can be inductive or deductive; it can be sound or fallacious. But ultimately it is nothing more than a tool that we have access to through the use of our minds, just like the tool of sight, or hearing, or the acquisition of language. These things are simply available to any human being with a normally functioning mind. The opposite of reason is not faith, it is irrationality. If I conclude, for example, that a set of feathered wings will enable me to take flight, I am proceeding irrationally because the available evidence establishes that this simply cannot work, no matter how much “trust” I may wish to place in what I am attempting.
Far from being opposites, then, reason and faith coexist on a continuum, with knowledge moving from things that are definitively known through observable evidence (confidence with high certainty), to things that are not definitively known but are very likely to be true (confidence with less certainty), to matters that are entirely speculative and can only be taken “on faith” (confidence with little or no support). So faith in God, like any other conclusion a person comes to, is always a product of reason, because reason is simply the only way anyone can come to a conclusion. What distinguishes sound faith from foolish faith is the strength of the evidence supporting the conclusion and the validity of the reasoning process that was used.
Let’s apply this criterion to a real-world example – say a wife wonders if her husband is worthy of her trust. Since she can’t be with him all the time, she can’t know for sure if he’s cheating on her. But she’s not totally without evidence either. You wouldn’t tell her that she simply has “faith,” as if she had no reason for her beliefs. Rather, you’d look at that situation as a continuum of knowledge. In other words, her “faith” may be solidly based on the available evidence, as in the situation where, through long-term observation and knowledge of her husband’s character, belief system, and behavior, she can be confident in placing her trust. Or her “faith” may be foolish – as in the situation where the husband claims to be faithful but has shown through his past behavior and comments that he’s not likely to resist the temptation to stray. This example shows two things: one, that faith is something we all use, even without necessarily thinking about it, because as limited beings we can’t know everything for certain; and two, that the certainty of one’s faith depends on the facts and foundations that support it. In this example, one bases her faith on logic and reason, while the other maintains her faith in spite of logic and reason.
Faith and reason are not inherently in conflict, as many secularists seem to believe. Although faith requires a step beyond what can be known with complete certainty, it is not irrational to take that step, depending on the strength of the supporting evidence. Thinkers and intelligent people throughout the ages have found no conflict in accepting that God exists and placing their trust in him.
As believers, we need to prepare to show others today that this is still true.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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 continues to work. After being introduced to the works of C.S. Lewis, he became interested in apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He began writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.
Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/3zCRrTQ
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Monica Pirateque
How To ‘Stay Alert’ Until Christ Returns
Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Jason Jimenez
According to the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25; Mk.13; Lk. 21), Jesus prophesied that the world would grow darker before returning for his Bride, the church.
We see the escalation of deception and confusion consuming the world and the ensuing threats from adversarial countries.
Jesus warned, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (Matt. 24:7). Jesus predicted that his followers would experience intense persecutions and even death for some (Matt. 24:9). Peter prompted his readers that severe persecution would come and that in the “last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires” (2 Pet. 3:3). Paul vigorously wrote that there “will be terrible times in the last days” (2 Tim. 3:1), and in the “last times some will turn away from the true faith” and that they would even “follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons” (1 Tim. 4:1).
Thus, it should not surprise us when we see things progressively get darker and more unsettling in our culture.
But although things may seem grim, it doesn’t mean Christians should have a “gloom and doom” outlook on life or ignore the times we live in today.
Quite the reverse.
The Bible explicitly tells us to “be on guard and stay alert” (Mk. 13:33) until Christ returns. That doesn’t sound like someone who is paranoid or shirking their responsibility.
In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus shares a parable of a master giving a portion of his talents to illustrate the significance of working and waiting for his return. Upon his return, the master found that two of his servants brought profitability to his investment. Unfortunately, the other servant had buried his talent, producing nothing (25:24-25). The master responded, saying, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed” (25:26)?
The understanding of the parable is abundantly clear. Jesus has given you specific gifts and talents to invest in for a greater return. You are not to dilly dally or take what the Lord has given you for your selfish gain. You are called to be “salt and light” in the culture and take every opportunity to reinvest what God has given you for his glory and honor.
But perhaps your perspective on life is a bit jaded. Maybe you’re finding it hard to have a “work hard” and “stay ready” mentality as you live day-by-day.
Whatever is tripping you up or causing you to be ineffective in your faith, here are three self-reflective questions to reignite a preparedness in your spirit to live your Christian life with great anticipation.
Do you yearn to be holy like God?
God has not called you to conform to the world but be transformed by his perfect will for your life (Rom. 12:2). And what is God’s will for your life? To be holy as He is holy (see 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Pet. 1:15-16).
What about you? Are you too wrapped up in the comforts of life that you hardly yearn for the holiness of God?
In his classic book, Pursuit of Holiness, Jerry Bridges expressed this sensible truth, “As we become soft and lazy in our bodies, we tend to become soft and lazy spiritually.”
No doubt, upon reflection, you will uncover lazy streaks in your life, lots of excuses that you’ve made for all the selfish reasons, and “respectable” sins that you’ve justified but now might make you cringe.
But don’t let the weight of your sin drag you down. John wrote, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:1-2).
The more diligent you are in confessing sin and pursuing holiness, the more your life will be used for God.
How mature is your faith?
A dear friend once told me, “Salvation is the same for everybody, but Christian growth is different for everybody.”
That is so true.
So, allow me to ask you, how much time do you devote to reading, studying, and memorizing Scripture?
The Bible is like any other subject. You won’t know much about it if you don’t spend time learning from it.
To have a mature faith, you need to be in the Word of God.
Being in the Word of God daily will sharpen your faith and give you the wisdom needed to make wise choices. The Bible promises you that if you grow in your faith, you will not be “ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:8).
Paul gave this charge to Timothy, and the same applies to you and me: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
Are you living a faithful life?
Every Christian is to walk in faithful obedience to God and fulfill the Great Commission (Mk. 16:15).
A great example of someone in the Bible who lived a faithful life is Daniel. God called Daniel to resist a hostile environment in Babylon and lead a charge against its false idols and worship.
Daniel didn’t refuse the call of God just because he felt out of place or outnumbered. The Bible says that Daniel “resolved not to defile himself” (Dan. 1:8) but remained faithful to God’s law.
Daniel’s bold allegiance to God demonstrates an unrelenting desire not to compromise and give in to worldly pressure. His God-honoring response amid extreme pressure and hostility is the sort of example for you to emulate in the world today.
Those who desire to live faithful lives must be willing to give over their lives for the sake of the gospel.
Is that something you’re willing to do?
Remember, my friend, when you hit your limits and come to your wit’s end, it is God who is faithful and will love you no matter what.
So, as you pursue holiness, maturity, and faithfulness, ask the Holy Spirit to fill your life with more love, passion, conviction, and hunger for him.
The Holy Spirit will do just that if you ask in simple faith.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3cOA8GA