Tag Archive for: apologetics

How We Got Our Bible: History of the English Bible

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.

/by

Salvation in Christianity Vs. Salvation in Buddhism

By 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.

/by

Truth, Power, and Human Nature | with J. Warner Wallace and Greg Koukl

Our 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

 

/by

Truth, Perception, and Reality

By 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.

/by

Why God Does Not Need Praise

By 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.

 

/by

Darkroom Faith | with Mary Jo Sharp

Many 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:

  • sin
  • science
  • suicide
  • deconstruction
  • the Bible
  • the problem of evil
  • the purpose of the church
  • sexuality and love
  • pain and suffering
  • and more to come!

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

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Undesigned Coincidences in the Scriptures: An Argument for Their Veracity (Part 1) — Old Testament Examples

By Jonathan McLatchie

The principle of undesignedness was first identified by the famed Christian philosopher William Paley (1743-1805), in his book Horae Paulinae. Therein, he highlighted example after example of undesigned integrations between the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The principle of undesignedness refers to cases where two or more sources dovetail with each other in a manner that cannot be attributed to the design of the author. In 1850, J.J. Blunt published his book Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, in which he took Paley’s argument further, documenting examples in the Old Testament, as well as between the gospels, and between the gospels, Acts, and Josephus. The principle of undesignedness is a forgotten but brilliant argument which can be used to corroborate Biblical history. In this article, I want to consider a few examples of undesigned coincidences in the Old Testament. In a subsequent article, I will discuss examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.

​Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?

2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,

And at the end of four years Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he arose and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent secret messengers throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then say, ‘Absalom is king at Hebron!’” With Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem who were invited guests, and they went in their innocence and knew nothing. And while Absalom was offering the sacrifices, he sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, from his city Giloh. And the conspiracy grew strong, and the people with Absalom kept increasing.

In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:

Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.

Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?

In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.

It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:

It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?

Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.

But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:

Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel. What shall we do?” Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.

Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.

This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.

Example #2: Hezekiah’s Treasury

For our second example, turn over to Isaiah 38, in which we read of King Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. In Isaiah 39, we have an account of envoys coming from Babylon to congratulate King Hezekiah on his recovery. There is a parallel account of those events in 2 Kings 20 which appear to be textually dependent on Isaiah (or vice versa). Here is the account in Isaiah 39:1-2:

At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. And Hezekiah welcomed them gladly. And he showed them his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his whole armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them.

Thus, we learn, King Hezekiah proudly showed the Babylonian envoys his great riches in his treasure house. Hezekiah’s pride brings upon him a prophecy of judgment. In verses 3-7, we read:

Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” Hezekiah said, “They have come to me from a far country, from Babylon.” He said, “What have they seen in your house?” Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing in my storehouses that I did not show them.” Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

King Hezekiah selfishly is relieved at the prophecy, thinking to himself that at least “There will be peace and security in my days” (verse 8).

Both the account of this event that we read in Isaiah and that in 2 Kings imply that Hezekiah fell ill at the time of the invasion by Sennacherib of Judah and before the outcome of that invasion. In both accounts, God promises Hezekiah that he will live and that God will deliver the city from the Assyrians (Isaiah 38:6; 2 Kings 20:6). Thus, the envoys arrived from Babylon after his recovery, and after the danger from Assyria had been averted.

Now let’s consider another text in 2 Kings 18:13-16:

In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me. Whatever you impose on me I will bear.” And the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king’s house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.

Wait a minute. So Hezekiah has just made this humiliating tribute to the king of Assyria, having had to offer him “all of the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house” and even being reduced to stripping the gold from the doors of the temple and from the doorposts. How then was he able not long after this humiliation to show all of his riches of his treasury to the Babylonian envoys? One could write it off as a contradiction, or we could dig deeper to find the solution – and in so-doing uncover another remarkable undesigned coincidence.

For the solution, let us now turn to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles contains the account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army by the miraculous intervention of the angel of the Lord (which is also found in Isaiah and 2 Kings albeit in different wording and terminology from the account in 2 Chronicles). After these events, 2 Chronicles throws in a unique detail in 32:23:

And many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from that time onward.

Therein lies our answer. This explains how Hezekiah came to have a full treasury to show off to the Babylonian envoys by the time the Babylonians learned of his recovery. No mention is made of the humiliating tribute to the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles. 2 Kings does mention the humiliating tribute and him showing off his treasury shortly thereafter to the Babylonian envoys, but makes no mention of the gifts that replenished the treasury. Isaiah makes no mention of the tribute or the gifts but mentions his display of his great wealth.

This undesigned coincidence corroborates the historical veracity of these events and also strongly suggests that one of our authors (i.e. either Isaiah or the author of 2 Kings) had access to the court of Hezekiah, and thus knew about the visit of the Babylonian envoys.

Example #3: The Uniformity of Expressive Silence

Another sort of undesignedness can sometimes arise when we examine cases where information is assumed by the author although not explicitly spelled out – this may be called the uniformity of expressive silence – repeated omissions that have a meaning. Here, I give an example of this from the book of Genesis.

Genesis 24 narrates the story of Abraham’s servant’s journey to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. He encounters “Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother,” who “came out with her water jar on her shoulder.” Abraham’s servant requests a drink of water from the jar. Rebekah gives him some water and also some for his camels to drink. In verses 22-28, we read what happened next:

When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel, and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels, and said, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” She said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.” She added, “We have plenty of both straw and fodder, and room to spend the night.” The man bowed his head and worshiped the Lord and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his steadfast love and his faithfulness toward my master. As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master’s kinsmen.” Then the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things.

The point to which I wish to draw attention is the consistent insignificance of Bethuel throughout the narrative. Bethuel was the father of Rebekah, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the terms of a marriage contract would be stipulated by him. Indeed, in the case of Laban in Genesis 29 in regards to his disposing of a daughter in marriage – a daughter who, like Rebecca, had brothers (see Genesis 31:1) – the active party throughout the account is the father, Laban.

Contrast this with the case of Bethuel in our current text in Genesis 24. Abraham’s servant had asked her, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” (verse 23). We are then told, however, that “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things,” (Genesis 24:28). Notice we are not told that she ran to her father’s household (as Rachel did in Genesis 29:12 after meeting Jacob), but rather she ran to her mother’s household. Verse 29 further informs us, “Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out toward the man, to the spring.”

After having been invited into the house by Laban, the servant explains the purpose of his visit (verses 34-49). In verse 50, we read, “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said…” The mention of Bethuel constitutes the only proof that he was alive at the time of this incident. It is agreed that the servant may “take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken” (verse 51).

The servant then gives gifts, we are told, “to Rebekah” and “to her brother and to her mother,” (verse 53). Curiously, no gifts are given to Bethuel, it would seem. In verse 55, we read, “Her brother and her mother said, ‘Let the young woman remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.’” It would seem expected that such a proposal would be made by her father. Instead, it is made by her mother and brother. After inquiring of Rebekah, it is decided that she would leave with the servant after all (verses 58-61).

Abraham’s son Isaac marries Rebekah, and together they have a son called Jacob (Genesis 25:26). After Jacob deceives his father Isaac into blessing him rather than Esau, the eldest (Genesis 27), Rebekah counsels Jacob to flee because Esau planned to kill him,  Along his journey, he encounters some shepherds and asks them “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” (Genesis 29:5). This is strange, because Laban was the son of Bethuel and only the grandson of Nahor. Yet, again, we see Bethuel passed over as an individual considered of no importance among his own family. Bethuel’s own son, therefore, is identified by the name of his grandfather rather than his father.

We cannot state the specific circumstances surrounding Bethuel or explain exactly why he was a man considered of no note. Who knows? Perhaps he was considered incapable of managing his own affairs due to age or imbecility. Whatever the reason, Scripture does not tell us. However, the lack of concurrence in a positive fact but silent presumption of that same fact suggests that the author knew something more than we do about the circumstances than he discloses in his account thereof. It is the sort of pattern we expect in real history, but not the sort of pattern we should expect from works of fiction.

Conclusion

Many further examples could be given in the Old Testament, but I hope that these three examples suffice to show how this argument can be wielded to corroborate Biblical history. In part 2, we will consider examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

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

/by

Why Believe? | with Dr. Neil Shenvi

Why believe in Christianity? Why believe that God exists? Aren’t there reasons NOT to believe in God? Reasons like:

  • Evolution
  • Evil
  • Divine hiddenness

For centuries, skeptics have disputed the claims of Christianity―such as the belief in an eternal God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ―arguing that they simply cannot be accepted by reasonable individuals. Furthermore, efforts to demonstrate the evidence and rational basis for Christianity through apologetics are often deemed too simplistic to be taken seriously in intellectual circles. And miracles? Ha! They’ll say anything is more probable than a miracle, even the idea that Jesus had an identical twin!

In his new book, Why Believe: A Reasoned Approach to Christianity, apologist and theoretical chemist turned homeschool dad, Dr. Neil Shenvi, engages in some of the best contemporary arguments against Christianity. He presents compelling evidence for the identity of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels, his death and resurrection, the existence of God, and the unique message of the gospel. As you’ll discover in this podcast episode, Neil is no “uneducated Christian” and responds to some of the most common objections to Christianity with precision, clarity, and grace.

Neil also talks with Frank about his college days at UC Berkeley and Princeton, where he came to faith during a class nicknamed “The Faith Buster,” taught using Bart Ehrman’s textbook and other liberal religious scholarship. Talk about a miracle; you won’t believe his testimony!

Neil’s website: https://shenviapologetics.com/
Follow Neil on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NeilShenvi

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

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Is God Immoral when He Kills People? Plus Q&A | with Frank Turek

If God made humans in His image, does that also mean we have the right to “play God” whenever we want? Many atheists and pro-choice advocates criticize God’s morality when He (ironically) “plays” God by taking life prematurely in the Old Testament. But they don’t bat an eye when advocating for abortion and call it a “moral right.” It doesn’t make sense! However, what about capital punishment? It seems like pro-lifers who support the death penalty are also contradicting themselves. What’s the difference?

In this episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist’, Frank continues the discussion from last week on how to answer some of the most common abortion arguments, including a discussion on Numbers 5:27-28, which many people mistakenly cite as an example that God is not pro-life, and the important difference between vaccines and abortions when people declare “my body, my choice”!

Frank also answers listener questions, including those on Mormonism, near-death experiences (NDEs), and whether or not it’s a good idea to use fictional and unbiblical stories as a bridge to the Gospel.

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

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by
Is the Law of First Mention a Proper Biblical Hermeneutic?

Is the Law of First Mention a Proper Biblical Hermeneutic?

By Brian Chilton

Recently, Curtis Evelo (Bellator Christi Podcast co-host) told me about a conversation he had with an individual about biblical interpretation. Apparently, the individual held that the wine that Jesus miraculously brought forth out of water in John 4 was merely unfermented grape juice. When asked why he held this view, he contended that to hold that the wine held fermented content was to argue that Jesus was a sinner because wine is said to be a mocker in Proverbs 20:1. Curtis asked him what this had to do with Jesus’s miraculous transformation of water into wine. The unnamed individual then said that he used the law of first mention. According to the law of first mention, the interpreter first examines the initial place where the term or doctrine is taught in the Scripture. Then, the initial usage of the term and/or doctrine serves as a guideline for interpreting other subsequent passages that teach on the issue.

Let me first say that in all my biblical hermeneutics courses, I have never heard of the law of first mention. I have had some world-class instructors who can read the Bible in its original languages without a translation in hand. To my knowledge, they never mentioned such a law of biblical interpretation. There is simply no good reason to follow the law of first mention for the following reasons. As an aside, the issue concerning the Christian’s use of alcohol is a highly controversial topic. We simply do not have space to deal with the ethical ramifications of alcohol use. For the purposes of this article, we are merely examining the efficacy of the law of first mention, or the lack thereof.

The Law of First Mention Fails to Engage the Individual Text

The first problem with the law of first mention is that the tactic fails to consider the literal interpretation of each biblical text. Considering the topic at hand, earlier texts really do nothing to assist the interpreter with engaging whether a historical event occurred or not. Earlier teachings may assist with understanding the thought process behind a text in question. But it cannot overrule other factors such as social practice and norms, extra-biblical historical events, word studies, and other social matters that come into play. Furthermore, the historical context of the first mention must also be an issue of investigation, as one must remember that the modern interpreter is separated from the biblical times by at least 2,000 years—more like 4–6,000 years from the Old Testament eras. Additionally, the writings of Scripture are not necessarily in chronological order. So, determining when something was first uttered may be far more complex than originally held.

The Law of First Mention Fails to Accommodate Theological Complexities

Second, the law of first mention does not consider the theological complexities found in Scripture. Without considering various theological issues, one may adopt all kinds of absurdities. For instance, the first two instances where wine is mentioned in the Bible come in the book of Genesis. The first reference is in Genesis 9:21, where it is said of Noah that “He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside the tent” (Gen. 9:21) [1]. Does this then imply that each believer should drink wine, become drunk, and uncover oneself? Certainly not! Obviously, this is not what Curtis’s friend was trying to imply.

The second mention is no better for his cause, for it says, “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was a priest to God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). This is of no help when trying to understand whether Jesus’s wine was fermented or not. Thus, as one can tell, the law of first mention fails to account for the theological complexities of the text. The first instance serves as a warning of a life that strayed from God, whereas the second shows the gift that Melchizedek gave to Abraham, which may have included fermented wine.

Does this then indicate that everyone should drink wine? Of course not! Because other texts serve as warnings, exhorting individuals to avoid drunkenness (i.e., Prov. 23:20; Isa. 5:22; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 5:18). Yet this shows the ineptitude of the law of first mention when used alone. The law of first mention would seem to indicate that everyone should drink wine and get drunk if the case of Noah is used; but as the specified texts suggest, this is not the case.

Finally, the law of first mention fails to account for the gradual betterment of each subsequent covenant. If one accepts the law of first mention, then the old covenants are inherently better than the newer covenants. However, the new covenant in Christ is superior to all previous covenants. The writer of Hebrews states, “By saying a new covenant, he has declared that the first is obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old is about to pass away” (Heb. 8:13). Not only does the author note that the new covenant is better than the covenants of old, but he also proclaims that the new has made the old obsolete. Therefore, this poses a major difficulty for the law of first mention, as it shows that there may be times when the new supersedes the old. Yes, the new covenant is indeed built upon concepts found in previous covenants. However, the new covenant does not require animal sacrifices, rituals, or the keeping of certain holidays. Rather, it is built upon the sacrifice of Christ himself. The believer is no longer under the law of old. He or she is under the law of grace. The new covenant’s supersession of the old creates a cataclysmic problem for the law of first mention.

The Law of First Mention is Based on a Logical Fallacy

Finally, the law of first mention is seemingly built upon a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of antiquity or the fallacy of tradition. The fallacy of antiquity is a false belief that holds that something must be better if it is older. This is the opposite of what is known as the fallacy of novelty, which holds that something must be better if it is new.

Suppose a person argues that original video games are better than modern video games. If this were so in all cases, then the paddle game Pong would be better than recent sports games, since it is the very first video game developed. However, Pong can in no way match the complexities and graphics found in modern games. For instance, being a football fan, I love the Madden football series. There is no comparison between Pong and the Madden series, as Madden adds realistic graphics, color commentary, and the opportunity to call numerous plays. In contrast, Pong allows you to move a white bar on a black screen to toss a white ball to an opponent who repeats the process. It could be that some aspects of older games are better than newer games. [2] But it is a hard sale to claim that all older games are better than all newer ones.

Another misconception people hold is that times were always better in the 50s and 60s than in modern times. However, one often does not consider the racial tensions of the 50s. If a person was black and lived in some sectors of the South, then the 50s were exponentially worse than modern times. Thus, this view shows the difficulties associated with an appeal to antiquity. The reality is that such a claim is not always true. The law of first things appears to be guilty of the same fallacy. Accepting the first mention of an issue in the Bible as the linchpin for all future references is nothing more than adopting the fallacy of antiquity.

Conclusion

The law of first mention fails as a proper hermeneutic on several fronts. First, it does not adequately handle the hermeneutical complexities of each passage at hand. Second, it fails to examine the theological intricacies throughout the totality of Scripture, especially when concerned with the supremacy of the new covenant over the old. Finally, the law of first mention is built upon the logical fallacy known as the appeal to antiquity. With all this noted, one may still find some benefits in studying the first place where an idea or word is used in Scripture. Some have found it beneficial to examine the first time that the term “light” is used in Genesis. Nevertheless, such a practice should never be used in isolation. It should always accompany linguistic, historical, and theological depths to find authorial intent. The goal of biblical interpretation is to understand what the author is trying to communicate to his/her reader. As such, the law of first mention does not assist in this endeavor and can lead to absurdities if pressed too far.

Footnotes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

[2] One case being where old hockey games would allow you to shove a player into his team’s bench and allowed you to shatter the glass if you were to hit the puck just right. But does this indicate that the overall game is better? Probably not.

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

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set) 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3bo21og

 

/by