apologetics Archives - Page 47 of 144

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Five Signs of Spiritual Maturity

By Melissa Dougherty

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

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

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

2.) They listen more and talk less.

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

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

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

4.) They have self-awareness.

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

5.) They have healthy boundaries and actual discernment.

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

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

So by their fruit, you will recognize them.

Is Christianity good? Isn’t it anti-women and pro-slavery? | with Abdu Murray

Podcast

Is Christianity GOOD? Many people in our culture today seem to care less about whether or not Christianity is true, and more about the morality of what it teaches. They say the Bible promotes racism, slavery, sexism, and other forms of social injustice. But are any of those statements true?

In his new book, More Than a White Man’s Religion, speaker and global apologist Abdu Murray challenges the pervasive myth that Christianity is an oppressive Western religion and shows believers (and skeptics!) that the gospel message is actually THE SOURCE for the cherished Western ideals of racial and gender equality.

Frank and Abdu discuss women in the church, slavery, racism, and how the Bible passages cited by skeptics can only be understood properly when examined in their context (not in memes). When they are, we see that the Bible champions that ALL people are made in God’s Image, and the skeptic’s charges are false. Abdu also shares how his experience working with RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries) impacted the content of his book and the importance of looking to Jesus as the (one and only) perfect example of how to treat others–especially when Christians fail to live up to our own ideals.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST and an EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with Abdu about his journey out of Islam and into Christianity, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

Get the book here: https://amzn.to/3x4eXHU

Abdu’s website: https://embracethetruth.org/

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

Download Transcript

September 23, 2022/by Frank Turek

The Historical Paul Vs. The Legendary Paul?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Erik Manning

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

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

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

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

PAUL THE ‘GUILT TRIPPER’

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

PAUL’S TOUCHINESS

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

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

PAUL’S CARE FOR THE CHURCHES

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

PAUL’S RIGIDNESS

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

PAUL’S SARCASM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONLY ONE PAUL

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

3. Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.3

4. Antiquities 20.6.2

5. Antiquities 20.8.5

6. Antiquities 20.8.5

7. Antiquities 20.8.8

The Balance of Law and Love

Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Tony Williams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are we here for? | with David Limbaugh and Christen Limbaugh Bloom

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Why do we study apologetics? To win arguments? No! The ultimate goal is to know God personally (not just with head knowledge) and to make Him known. After all, if we just believe that God exists, we’re no better than the demons in James 2:19!

On a lawyerly quest for truth, #1 nationally best-selling author David Limbaugh returns with his co-author and daughter Christen to discuss their new book, The Resurrected Jesus: The Church in the New Testament. In this fifth and final installment of the bestselling Jesus series, this book is part commentary and part devotional and digs into the New Testament epistles with passion and demonstrates to readers that even though Paul penned these writings thousands of years ago, they are still applicable to the Church today. We might ask ourselves: What’s always worth fighting for? The truth of the Gospel!

Frank, David, and Christen discuss our identity in Christ, spiritual warfare, how we are saved by grace, not works, and the greatest threats facing the American church today. They also discuss the late great Rush Limbaugh and how his faith gave him strength during his last days while fighting cancer.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST along with other exclusive content, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community and jump into some great discussions about this podcast and many other topics without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

David and Christen’s book: https://amzn.to/3DrTJaV
Christen’s website: https://www.haplousofficial.com/

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Download Transcript

September 16, 2022/by Frank Turek

How We Got Our Bible: Modern Translations

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This article will consider the differences among the modern translations.

Translation Theory

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

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

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

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

Linguistic Issues

Currency, Weights, and Measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example is Isaiah 5:10.

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

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

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

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

Euphemisms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grammar and Syntax

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender Pronouns

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

“Blessed is the man” (ESV).

“Blessed is the man” (NASB).

“Blessed is the one” (NIV).

“Oh, the joys of those” (NLT).

“How happy is the one” (CSB).

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

Different Translations

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

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

Letter to the American Church | with Eric Metaxas

Podcast

Would you have stood up against slavery in the 1860s? Or against Nazi Germany in the 1930s? What about your pastor? It seems the Church today is more interested in being politically correct than speaking out in defense of the truth. But can it really be God’s will that His children be silent at a time like this?

Best-selling author (Bonhoeffer, Luther, Amazing Grace, Miracles) and radio host Eric Metaxas joins Frank to reveal highlights of his new book, Letter to the American Church, where he summons the Church to battle and calls for pastors (and other Christians) to be courageous enough to speak up against the massive anti-Christian forces that now threaten to permanently transform American society.

In this podcast episode, Frank and Eric bring to light four major errors we make in thinking that Christians should NOT be involved in politics or other controversial issues:

A misunderstanding of the word FAITH.
The idol of evangelism.
There is no command “Don’t be political!”
Avoiding sin is not the central purpose of the Christian life.

They also discuss the spiral of silence, religious liberty, and the haunting similarities between today’s American Church and the German Church of the 1930s. We hope you’ll share both this podcast episode and Eric’s book with your pastor and church congregation!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST with Frank and Eric, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community and join us for some great conversation about this podcast and many other topics without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, or co-workers!

Get the book here: https://amzn.to/3qeeRtp

Eric’s website: https://ericmetaxas.com/

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Download Transcript

September 9, 2022/by Frank Turek

Has the Big Bang Been Disproven? | with Stephen C. Meyer

Podcast

Do recent scientific discoveries make belief in God unnecessary or implausible? A recent survey, cited by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, shows that recent scientific theories about the alleged “unguided” evolution of life have led more people to reject belief in God than any other common objection, such as suffering, disease, or death. But who are the people claiming these “perceived messages of science,” and are they really telling us what the scientific evidence actually shows?

Dr. Meyer joins Frank to discuss his recent article that was (surprisingly!) published in Newsweek magazine and responds to atheist objections to the claim that the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century actually point to an intelligent creator.

Some of the questions they address include:

Do recent observations by the James Webb Space Telescope disprove the Big Bang theory?
How do we even know the Earth had a beginning?
What does the Bible teach us about the age of the universe?
What about a multiverse? Is that even a possibility?

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST with Frank and Dr. Meyer, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community and join us for some great conversation about this podcast and many other topics without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, or co-workers!

Dr. Meyer’s article: https://bit.ly/3Azes9G

Dr. Meyer’s book (Return of God Hypothesis): https://amzn.to/3wJJXwo

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Download Transcript

September 2, 2022/by Frank Turek

Why The Bible Depicts God As Jealous

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why relativists are dogmatic fundamentalists

Podcast

How do you reason with people who don’t want to reason? Is it even possible? How do you respond when those you love say that reason and evidence are just power plays to support your “oppressive” position? You know, the position they don’t agree with but can’t articulate WHY?

In this special podcast episode, Frank responds to a heartfelt message shared by a member of our private CrossExamined Community—a father struggling with the fact that his two children have exchanged the authority of Scripture for the authority of self. You’ll learn the best questions to ask when people say they don’t believe in objective truth and why no one can claim to be “progressive” if they’re going in the opposite direction of Jesus.

If you’d like to join this discussion in our private community, be sure to take advantage of the FREE 7-day trial by signing up here: https://community.crossexamined.org/signup

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

August 26, 2022/by Frank Turek

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Five Signs of Spiritual Maturity

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

2.) They listen more and talk less.

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

4.) They have self-awareness.

5.) They have healthy boundaries and actual discernment.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Christianity good? Isn’t it anti-women and pro-slavery? | with Abdu Murray

The Historical Paul Vs. The Legendary Paul?

PAUL THE ‘GUILT TRIPPER’

PAUL’S TOUCHINESS

PAUL’S CARE FOR THE CHURCHES

PAUL’S RIGIDNESS

PAUL’S SARCASM

ONLY ONE PAUL

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Balance of Law and Love

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What are we here for? | with David Limbaugh and Christen Limbaugh Bloom

How We Got Our Bible: Modern Translations

Translation Theory

Linguistic Issues

Currency, Weights, and Measures

Euphemisms

Grammar and Syntax

Gender Pronouns

Different Translations

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Letter to the American Church | with Eric Metaxas

Has the Big Bang Been Disproven? | with Stephen C. Meyer

Why The Bible Depicts God As Jealous

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why relativists are dogmatic fundamentalists

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED