history Archives - Page 4 of 7

Tag Archive for: history

The Education of Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Often, critical scholars make Jesus of Nazareth out to be a country bumpkin, one who was uneducated and unsophisticated. However, when one evaluates his life and teaching style, it appears that Jesus of Nazareth was a well-polished individual who spoke and taught with great authority and wisdom. The Jewish leaders marveled at Jesus, saying, “How is this man so learned, since he hasn’t been trained” (Jn. 7:14, CSB)? While this writer holds that Jesus was the divine Son of God, the human aspect of Jesus does not indicate that Jesus was an uneducated hillbilly, but rather one who had at least some formal education. The following are five reasons to believe that Jesus was a well-educated man.

Jesus could read. The Synoptic Gospels indicate that Jesus stood in the synagogue of Nazareth. Luke notes that Jesus “entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read” (Lk. 4:16, CSB). The text indicates that he read from the prophet Isaiah. In Jewish culture, Hebrew boys were expected to be able to read from the Scriptures. In Jesus’s case, it is clear that he had the ability to read, which was better than 90% of the society at the time. The reading level for Jews was higher than the those of the Greco-Roman world due to the emphasis of schools in the synagogues, at least for boys.
Jesus could write on some level. While John 7:53-8:11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts of John, it is generally accepted to be historically genuine since it has all the earmarks of the historical stories told of Jesus. What makes the passage of Scripture so fascinating is that on two occasions, Jesus is said to have written something in the sand (Jn. 8:6, 8). The term used for Jesus’s writing does not indicate some abstract doodling, but the writing of words. Graphō is used for writing that is found in books and scrolls. According to Louw and Nida, “Since the knowledge of writing is almost universal, there is usually no difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory term for writing” (Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, 395).
Jesus taught according to rabbinic styles. Jesus also used rabbinic styles of teaching. Jesus often answered questions by asking them. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life while calling Jesus good, Jesus responded by asking, “Why do you call me good” (Lk. 18:19, CSB)? In another case, Jesus is asked whether people should pay taxes. Jesus responds with the question after taking a denarius, “Whose image and inscriptions does it have” (Lk. 20:24)? Jesus also uses a rabbinical style of teaching called Remez, which alludes to a passage of Scripture. Remez is a Haggadic method of interpretation. Since many people memorized the Scripture, it wasn’t necessary to quote the entire passage of Scripture. Rather, one could recall part of the Scripture or allude to the Scripture. When the allusion to the Scripture is given, the entire passage is referenced. When Jesus answers the disciples of John the Baptist as to whether he is the Messiah, Jesus replies by saying, “The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those with leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor are told the good news, and blessed is the one who isn’t offended by me” (Mt. 11:5). In this one statement, Jesus references Isaiah 29:18; 35:5-6; 42:7; and 61:1. John the Baptist would have understood Jesus’s citation (Blizzard and Bivin, org, 2013). Not only does Jesus use extensive rabbinic techniques, Jesus uses tremendous methodologies of logic in his teaching as well as various picturesque expressions in his teaching, including similes (Mt. 7:24, 26), metaphors (Mt. 13:19-22), hypocatastates (comparison of two unlike things in naming, Lk. 13:32), metonymies (word or phrase is substituted for another word or phrase associated with it, Mt. 10:34; 11:21, 23), synecdoche (like metonymies but that this substitutes a part for a whole or vice versa, Lk. 23:29), hyperboles (exaggerations to prove a point, Mt. 5:29-30), personification (Mt. 6:3, 6:34, 11:2), apostrophes (addresses an object as if it were a person, Mt. 11:21, 23; Lk. 10:13), euphemisms (substitution of an inoffensive expression with a bold one, Mt. 9:24; Jn. 11:11), ironies (Mk. 2:17; Mk. 7:9), paradoxes (Mt. 5:2-5; Mt. 19:29; Mt. 23:11), puns (Lk. 21:11; Jn. 3:3), humor (Mt. 6:2; 7:3; 19:24), enigmas (Mt. 8:22; Mt. 10:34), aphorisms (Mt. 5:13-14; 6:34; Lk. 12:34), repetitions (“Blessed” in the Beatitudes; “I tell you” in Mt. 18:3, 10, 18-19, 22; 26:21, 29, 34), a fortiori (Mt. 6:26; 10:29-30), reductio ad absurdium (Mt. 5:46-47; 12:24-26), excluded middle (Mt. 12:30; 21:25-27), noncontradiction (Lk. 6:39) analogies (Mt. 12:40), contrasts (Mt. 23:23-24), and Hebrew forms of poetry (Mt. 10:24, 26) (Zuck, Teaching as Jesus Taught, 183-234). The high level of logic and reasoning in addition to his rabbinical style of teaching seems to preclude that Jesus of Nazareth was well educated.
Jesus knew the Hebrew Bible well. This point does not need a lot of exposition. It is evident even upon a casual reading of the Gospels that Jesus knew the Scriptures well. He even segments the Scriptures into the classical way of segmenting them as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Lk. 24:44). Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy, Isaiah, the Psalms, and other prophets frequently indicating that he had memorized large segments of Scripture.
Jesus lived in a region that had schools. Finally, it should be noted that according to Professor Shmuel Safrai, the number of Galilean rabbis eclipsed those of Judean rabbis in the first century (Safrai, Jewish People of the First Century). Archaeologists have uncovered synagogues in the Galilean area as found within the first century. Jesus would have received his education at the synagogues by the rabbis of the area in addition to his earthly father, Joseph of Nazareth. While not much is known about Joseph, if James, the half-brother of Jesus, is any indication, it would seem that Joseph would have been quite knowledgeable of the Scriptures himself as he would have passed along an education to Jesus and James.

When Jesus was called unlearned, it is most likely that the Jewish leaders noted that Jesus had not been trained in the approved schools in Judea. He had, however, been educated in Galilee. Each synagogue had its own bet-sefer, that is, a school of learning. While Jesus may not have received the training that a scribe would have received in Jerusalem, Jesus would most certainly been educated during his early years as was evidenced by Jesus’s reading, writing, and teaching skills. Many people ask, “What was Jesus doing in his early years?” I think the answer is quite simple. Jesus was memorizing and learning the Scriptures in preparation for his ministry, which was to come. If Jesus, the Son of God, needed to study the Scriptures, what does that say of our need to study them?

Sources

Blizzard, Roy B., and David Bivin. “Study Shows Jesus as Rabbi.” Bible Scholars.org (May 2013). Accessed on April 29, 2019. https://www.biblescholars.org/2013/05/study-shows-jesus-as-rabbi.html.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Safrai, Shmuel. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and Institutions. Volume 2. Boston: Brill, 1988.

Zuck, Roy B. Teaching as Jesus Taught. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1995.

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 and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source:http://bit.ly/2w51gbs

May 19, 2019/by Guest

Why was the Head Cloth of Jesus Wrapped to the Side?

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

A friend asked me about a supposed Jewish tradition concerning the head wrapping of Jesus in the tomb. The Gospel of John notes that Peter and John (if the beloved disciple is the writer of the Fourth Gospel which this writer accepts) run to the tomb of Jesus. They investigate the tomb and saw the “napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself” (Jn. 20:7, KJV).

According to a story circulating online which has been passed along in many churches, an ancient Jewish tradition held that when a person had finished their meal, the person would toss their napkin aside if he or she was finished. However, if the person had to leave and was not finished, the person would neatly fold their napkin and place it to the side of their plate indicating that he or she would return. Advocates of this story contend that the folding of the napkin in John 20:7 was Jesus’s way of saying that he was going to leave but would soon return. While the story is heartwarming, one must ask if there any merit to the claim. After investigating the story, unfortunately, I must report that there seems to be no evidence that the story is true. But there is a more remarkable twist that is greater than the supposed tradition. First, here are the reasons why the story seems to be nothing more than an urban legend.

The headcloth was not a napkin. With all due respect to the King James Version, “napkin” may not be the best translation of the term Sudarion indicates a small piece of cloth which could be a towel, a napkin, handkerchief, or a face cloth. Given the context, no one was eating a meal inside the tomb which would exclude the term “napkin.” Sudarion best fits with the idea of a cloth that covered the head of the corpse. The Christian Standard Bible provides a better translation as it says, “the wrapping that had been on his head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself” (Jn. 20:7, CSB).
The headcloth was rolled and not folded. While the CSB uses the term “folded,” the term entulissō seems to fit better with the notion of being rolled. According to Louw and Nida, entulissō indicates the action “to cause something to be in the shape of a roll.”[1] The term is also used in Revelation 6:14 where the sky is entulissō (i.e., rolled up) like a scroll. The neat folding of the headcloth as implied by the mealtime tradition does not seem to fit the tomb scene even if the tradition did exist as it seems more likely that the head cloth was rolled up like a scroll.
There is no evidence of the Jewish mealtime tradition. The death knell to the mealtime legend (no pun intended) is that there seems to be no evidence that such a Jewish mealtime tradition exists. Granted, there are numerous Jewish traditions in both the written and oral law and it is possible that one could have been overlooked. Nonetheless, this writer could not find anything pertaining to a tradition surrounding a folded napkin.

This so-called Jewish mealtime tradition is one that I have heard but have never investigated until now. The story has no root in any apparent oral or written tradition (at least as far as I could find) and possesses all the earmarks of being nothing more than an urban legend. While this news may be disappointing for some, the genuine story of the rolled head cloth provides greater and deeper meaning to the resurrection of Jesus. Consider the following three truths.

The body was clearly resurrected and not merely resuscitated. Something amazing must have taken place for the rolled head cloth to have been placed in a separate location than the other linens. For Jesus to have been able to escape the grave cloths without disturbing their form while at the same time rolling the cloth that had wrapped his head illustrates that Jesus experienced a greater and far different return to life than what Lazarus or anyone else ever had. Lazarus had to be unbound from the cloths that enclosed his body (Jn. 11:43-44). Jesus was able to return to life and leave behind the cloths without any assistance. Remarkable!
The body would have had to come through the cloths with the head wrapping. The other cloths were lying in the same place and the same form they had when they wrapped the body of Jesus. Yet, here was this head cloth rolled up to the side away from the other cloths. This seems to suggest that the body of Jesus came through the cloths with the head cloth attached. Thus, if a person were to witness the resurrection, it is likely that the eyewitness would see the body arising out from the cloths. Or, it could be that a person would see the body vanish with the cloths sinking in where the body had been with the visible Jesus standing beside them with headcloth in hand. After the resurrection, Jesus rolled up the cloth like a scroll and laid it to the side before exiting the tomb. The resurrection of Jesus was an otherworldly event, unlike anything anyone had before perceived. When Jesus resurrected from the dead, God used a new system of physics for this event—one that linked the spiritual and physical in an amazing new union.
The body of Jesus was wrapped in more than one cloth. While the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity is not necessary to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, some have used the cloths mentioned in John’s Gospel to refute the Shroud. This is not a good practice primarily because John notes the existence of more than one kind of cloth. Since the women were not able to fully embalm the body of Jesus, it is possible that a Shroud covered the body of Jesus along with other wrappings in the tomb. The head cloth and the other linens indicate the plurality of cloths used to bury Jesus’s body. The absence of evidence pertaining to the Shroud is not evidence of absence.

So, while the story of an ancient Jewish tradition linking the folded head cloth with Jesus’s return is most likely an urban legend, the actual story of the wrapped head cloth tells a greater story. Jesus’s resurrection was a spectacular and ethereal event. The power exhibited by the resurrection is greater than any power known to humankind. Paul notes that just as Jesus has risen from the dead, so shall all of those who have trusted Christ (1 Co. 15:23). This indicates that this kind of resurrection will one day be coming to a tomb near you.

Note

[1] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 704.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Ixzqw3

April 14, 2019/by Guest

Seven Aspects of Jesus’s Life that are Historically Certain

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

When I had struggled with my faith, it was not in the area of science. I believed that science and faith can coexist, and I still do. The God who gave the special revelation of the Bible is also the same God who created the heavens and the earth from no materially existent thing. My struggles were in the area of history. In 1997, I came across a work by a group called the Jesus Seminar (composed of individuals such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, and Marcus Borg) which claimed that the majority of the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels could not be historically verified. I later came to find that the Jesus Seminar had no evidence to support their claims, just their own presuppositions.

However, as I began studying the areas of history, philosophy, and theology, I came to realize that the core details of Jesus of Nazareth’s life can be known with great certainty. One of my professors at Liberty, Gary Habermas, developed what he calls the minimal facts approach. This approach lists out six areas of Jesus’s life that are universally accepted by all historians. He also adds a seventh which holds strong support, albeit less than the other six. So, what are these seven historical aspects of Jesus’s life that can be held with great certainty? They are as follows.

Jesus died on a Roman cross. It is universally accepted that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion. Even agnostic leaning atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that “The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.”[1] The Romans were efficient killers. They would ensure that the individuals whom they were instructed to kill died. Otherwise, their lives would have been taken in the victim’s place.
The disciples had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. It may surprise you to discover that nearly all historians accept that the disciples had experiences that led them to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Nearly all scholars agree that something happened on the first Easter Sunday. But what happened is where they differ.
The disciples were transformed by their experiences to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true. People die for what is false all the time. Many individuals have fallen in a war for nations that did not have noble causes. However, it is far different when the person dies for something they know to be true or false. The early disciples were willing to lay their lives on the line, and the lives of those they loved, for what they knew to be true or false. They literally believed that Jesus had risen from the dead.
The resurrection message was promoted early in the church’s history. This is one of the points that excites me. I hope to write my dissertation on this very topic. Throughout the New Testament are early creeds that predate the New Testament documents. One of the earliest is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which tells of Jesus’s resurrection appearances to the disciples, James, and 500 witnesses at one time. The creedal formulation is extremely early. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, holds that the material goes back “to the early 30s of the Common Era.”[2] James D. G. Dunn holds that the material dates to “within a year or two of the events themselves.”[3] More likely, the creed dates to the very year of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. This along with Galatians 1:18-19 and the early creeds are among the earliest material in all of the New Testament record.
Paul of Tarsus, the former opponent of Christianity, became a Christian after encountering the risen Jesus. No one denies that Paul of Tarsus had some experience on the road to Damascus which radically transformed his life. What could have transformed this Pharisee of Pharisee who was either a member of the Sanhedrin or one who was on his way to becoming a member (a position that paid extremely well)? Having an encounter with the risen Jesus would have brought such a transformation.
James the brother of Jesus, a former skeptic, became a Christian after encountering the risen Jesus. The same holds true for James the brother of Jesus who was not a follower of Jesus until after the resurrection. James disproved of Jesus’s ministry (see Jn. 7:5) perhaps in part because it was expected that the oldest sibling would take over the family business. Jesus didn’t. Instead, he went on a preaching campaign. James probably felt great resentment towards Jesus during Jesus’s earthly ministry. However, his experience with the risen Jesus changed all that.
The tomb was found empty. While this fact is not held as strongly as the other six, 75% of historical scholars accept that the tomb of Jesus was found empty on the first Easter Sunday. It is also interesting to note that the preaching of the resurrection happened early in Jerusalem. This is compelling because the skeptic would have known where the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was located. The tomb could easily be checked. Jesus was not there.

More likely than not, as we approach the Easter season, you will encounter shows, books, and booklets that will try to dissuade you from believing that Jesus rose from the dead. The reality is, the best evidence supports not only that Jesus lived and that he died, but that he also rose again from the dead. As James and Paul were transformed by the resurrection of Jesus, so can you! Let us shout in triumph with the angels standing by the empty tomb of Jesus, “He is not here, but has risen” (Lk. 24:6).

Notes

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Why Was Jesus Killed?, Kindle ed.

[2] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? This Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 141.

[3] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2003), 864.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2HI5Bte

March 31, 2019/by Guest

Civilization & Its Malcontents

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Terrell Clemmons

How Soviet Disinformation Infected the West & What the West Can Do About It

On Tuesday, July 25, 1978, Romanian-born Ion Mihai Pacepa (‘e-YOHN MEE-hai pa-CHEP-a’) crossed the small outer lobby of the United States Embassy in Bonn, West Germany, and made his way toward the Marine officer standing guard, arms across his chest, at the door to the entrance. The son of a devout Christian mother, the intelligence veteran had sworn to himself upon being drafted into the Securitate (Romanian secret police) that he would never take part in a political killing. For 27 years he had lived with the running nightmare that, at some point, assassination orders would land on his plate. The previous Saturday, the dreaded moment had arrived.

Now was the time to break with the evil system that had controlled his entire adult life. In spite of his resolve, though, the physical steps were proving harder than the mental ones. Keeping his voice as low as possible, he spoke directly to the Marine. “I am a Soviet bloc two-star intelligence general, and I want to defect to the United States.”

Three days later, in the pre-dawn darkness of Friday, July 28, General Pacepa boarded a military plane at U.S. Rhein-Main Air Base, bound for Washington, D.C. Aside from the clothes he was wearing, his worldly possessions consisted of the paperwork confirming President Jimmy Carter’s approval of his request for political asylum, his passport, some personal notes, and a camera containing a few snapshots of his daughter. That night, after a very long first day in his newly adopted homeland, he fell to his knees and prayed aloud for the first time in more than 25 years. Exactly three months shy of his fiftieth birthday, he was a free man.

Disinformation: Deception as Strategic Policy

And an exceedingly grateful one. Coming to America to stay had been a lifelong dream of his. His hands may have been empty, but his head was crammed full of information of monumental importance to the West, and he was eager to share it. Hanging in his abandoned office back in Bucharest, there was a banner proclaiming, “CAPITALIST ESPIONAGE REPORTS HISTORY. WE MAKE IT.” To understand what the Soviets meant by that little epigram, one must understand the Russian “science” of dezinformatsiya, or disinformation—a foreign concept to well-meaning, free-world Westerners.

Lest we think that global warfare ended with World War II or that Western political liberty prevailed for good with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, General Pacepa would advise us to think again. The Soviet cancer of disinformation has metastasized across the globe, and recognizing and countering it is literally a matter of life and death, as the octogenarian—now an American citizen—shows in his latest book, Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism (WND Books, 2013), co-authored with law professor Ronald J. Rychlak.

Disinformation is not synonymous with misinformation. If Russian sources had fabricated a story and published it through their own outlets, that would be misinformation, and Westerners would rightly have read it through a skeptical filter. If, however, the same information appeared in Western media and was attributed to Western sources, that would be disinformation. In both cases, it reduces to flat-out lying, but in the latter case, the credibility of the lie—and therefore its power—is substantially greater.

Codified in highly classified training manuals, disinformation was, for the Soviet-bloc countries, a carefully planned and strategically executed “science.” By 1950, Joseph Stalin, Supreme Dictator of the USSR and de facto head of roughly a third of the world’s population, faced a strong post-war alliance between the U.S. and Western Europe. He knew he didn’t have the military or economic strength to break that bond, but he was also a bad loser, unable to coexist contentedly with the free West. So he reverted to the older, low-tech weaponry of lies and emotional manipulation.

He appointed Andrey Vishinsky as Minister of Foreign Affairs and charged him with turning European sentiments against America. (Vishinsky would accomplish this by accusing America of harboring Zionism—more on that in a moment.) Then he dispatched Aleksandr Panyushkin to Washington, D.C., as Soviet Ambassador to the U.S. Panyushkin’s main task was to foster the creation of peace movements in America (because, if you can seduce your enemy into laying down his arms, he and everything behind him will all be yours). The goals were to divide the West and to vilify and weaken America, the strongest of the Western nations.

This was the strategy with which the Cold War was prosecuted from Moscow. Stalin called it World War III. It was a war of ideas—an intelligence war in which more people worked in disinformation than in the Soviet army and defense industry combined.

But unlike Western intelligence services, Soviet-bloc espionage was not designed to obtain factual information or analyze the enemy. The purpose of foreign intelligence for the Soviets was to spread information—false information, usually aimed at accomplishing one of three objectives: (1) to polish a Communist leader’s image, (2) to hide Communist crimes, or (3) to frame and slander an enemy—usually America, the Church, or later, Israel. Very often, disinformation involved rewriting history, retrofitting what has beento make it accord with whatever best furthered the objectives of the current regime. Thus, there were “few things more difficult for Russian and Western historians,” Pacepa and Rychlak note wryly, “than to predict Russia’s past.”

Only in a world of deceit is the past unpredictable. But this is what was meant by the pithy assertion, WE MAKE HISTORY.

Truth as Counter-Strategy

Disinformation amounted to deception as national policy. Of course, this was never publicly announced by the Kremlin, and by and large, Western leaders were oblivious to the sheer cunning of it. President Truman did know, however, that Stalin intended to expand territorial control. Truman also believed that the “force of imperialistic communism” could only be stopped “through a concerted religious effort,” one that would place the superiority and strength of “truth and freedom” before the peoples of the world. In this way, Truman reasoned, Soviet falsehoods would be overcome by the “plain, simple, unvarnished truth.”

And so he launched his “Campaign of Truth” in 1950, which he rightly saw as “a struggle, above all else, for the minds of men.” He asked Pope Pius XII, who had proven himself a strong moral ally in the face of Nazism, for help, and a cooperative, free-world counteroffensive began, which gave birth to the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberation (later, Radio Liberty). The Vatican acquired a large tract of land north of Rome for a new broadcasting center, and in 1957 it went into operation. Soon after that, Vatican Radio, which had helped the resistance oppose the Nazis during World War II, became another high-powered voice of truth, countering the lies of Communism in 47 languages.

“Blow Up That Whole W-w-wasps N-n-nest”

Quantifying the full return on this kind of a political-global investment is humanly impossible, but the ramifications with respect to Pacepa alone would prove profound, as the broadcasting center would play a role in his defection. The target of the long-dreaded assassination order that prompted him to defect in 1978 was Noel Bernard, the director of Radio Free Europe’s Romanian program. “I w-w-want Noel k-k-killed,” Romanian “President” Nicolae Ceausescu had whispered in his ear on July 22, 1978. “And a few days later,” he had continued, “blow up that whole w-w-wasps n-n-nest.” The “wasp’s nest” was the Munich headquarters of Radio Free Europe, from which Bernard had been blackening Ceausescu’s carefully crafted image. So Bernard had to go, “Death to truth-tellers” being the primal instinct of a dictator.

But out of conscience, as we have seen, Pacepa sought asylum in the U.S. rather than complying with the order. Indeed, far wider consequences were yet to unfold. In 1987, with the encouragement of his American patriot wife Mary Lou, and after overcoming obstacles to publication erected by the Carter administration, Pacepa published his first book, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu’s Crimes, Lifestyle and Corruption. (At the time, America and the West were fawning over Ceausescu—the strategic result of a successful disinformation campaign out of Moscow.) In 1988, Red Horizonswas serialized over Radio Free Europe, and the following year, both Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were executed by the Romanian people after a trial in which the charges had come nearly word-for-word out of Red Horizons.

At the risk of sounding like an infomercial, (But wait!) there’s more. During this time also, two congressmen handed a copy of Red Horizons to President Reagan, to whom it became “my bible for dealing with dictators.” By 1990, the Berlin Wall had come down, and the entire Soviet edifice would soon follow.

The Empire Strikes Back

Of course, this was a cataclysmic collapse with far-reaching implications, prompting justifiable celebrations worldwide. But the evil designs on the West had gone to seed, and whole KGB-launched or KGB-commandeered organizations based on falsehood had put down roots and taken on pernicious lives of their own.

The most virulent strain to emerge thus far has come out of the Middle East. On April 16, 2004, Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris appeared on Palestinian TV and, pounding his fist in the air, cried out, “It is World Zionism that manipulates U.S. decision-making by remote control.” How did he know this? This “World Zionism” had been exposed, he said, by Roger Garoudy, a former French Communist convert to Islam, who had learned of it from reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This, too, is the fruit of a disinformation campaign—Operation “SIG,” which involved disseminating into the Islamic world hundreds of thousands of Arabic translations of the Protocols—a known Russian forgery saying that the Jews planned to take over the world. (Protocols had also, incidentally, been the basis for much of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.) Pacepa was personally involved in distributing it, along with “documentary” material “proving” the U.S. to be the Jews’ Zionist accomplice. Lest this sound too far-fetched to be believed by peaceable Westerners, Pacepa scrupulously details the machinations and chain reactions from Moscow to a plethora of leftist peace movements, liberation ideologues, and Islamic jihadists.

Plain Truth: Still the Best Defense

Disinformation can be tough reading. The darkness of the evil it exposes assaults the psyche, but the onslaught is mitigated by the unfolding revelation of how plain, unvarnished truth did illuminate the darkness and out-endure the lies. Pacepa’s own story of redemption, the collapse of the USSR, and the enduring light of the Catholic Church—these all bear witness that truth and virtue ultimately prevail and that the campaign of truth is still the best hope in the face of evil empires and their lies.

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2T1ClTz

February 24, 2019/by Guest

Why the Resurrection is the Best Argument for Christianity

Jesus Christ, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Robby Hall

Often, people may ask how to show that Buddhism is false or what’s a good argument against Hinduism or the New Age, etc. But in the end, one doesn’t necessarily have to argue against those worldviews as much as they need to give an argument for the Resurrection of Jesus.

The Resurrection is the central tenet of the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul stated that:

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

1 Cor 15:14-19

What this means is that the implications of the resurrection weigh greatly upon the Christian worldview. So what does it mean if Christ was resurrected?

1. God is real

Obviously, if one doesn’t believe in God, a man claiming to be God and rising from the dead would seem to indicate that God does exist. However, Jesus has stated that even this wouldn’t convince the hardest skeptic. But this does not diminish the strong evidential nature of the resurrection, it only describes the skeptic’s state of mind.

2. Christianity is True

If we can be sure from the evidence that Jesus is the son of God, he died on a Roman cross for our sins, and rose from the dead, Christianity follows.

3. All other worldviews are false

The law of non-contradiction states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and the same way. The statement “all religions are basically the same” or “all religions are equally true” are patently false. However, they could all be false, even Christianity. But, the resurrection would be evidence that the Christian worldview is true and all others would be false given the identity of Jesus being confirmed by the resurrection.

If you can show good, historically reliable evidence for the resurrection (and there is), then you have done most of the work in showing all other worldviews are false and have shown the truth of Christianity as Paul stated so long ago:

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor 15 20-28.

Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2BwXFGf

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

February 17, 2019/by Guest

Why Should We Trust the Extra-Biblical References to Jesus?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jeremy Linn

We received a great question on our Instagram page this week:

“How do we know that the extra-biblical sources which mention Jesus are trustworthy? Josephus, Tacitus, and the rest weren’t eyewitnesses; they never knew Jesus.”

The questioner here is referring to ancient historical accounts – especially written by the historians Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus – which mention Jesus and give us some information about him. Josephus describes Jesus as the brother of James in his work Antiquities of the Jews and also provides the most well-known extra-biblical reference to Jesus. Tacitus makes reference to Jesus’ death under Pontius Pilate in his work Annals.

As the questioner stated, Josephus and Tacitus both were not eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus’ life. Josephus was born a few years after the events of Jesus’ life and was mostly involved in Jewish political matters (and not in the early Christian church). Tacitus also lived after Jesus – a few decades later – and focused on the politics and history of Rome (an area not heavily reached by the Christian church at the time).

Since these two historians were not eyewitnesses, how can we know to trust their references to Jesus? There are a few things we need to consider when answering this question:

Ancient accounts of historical events were often written by people who lived after the events happened

In other words, they were not eyewitnesses of the events. Still, in these cases, we can still learn basic facts about the events which took place. For example, the earliest source we have about the events of Alexander the Great was written by a historian who lived around 300 years after the life of Alexander. Even with this time gap, we can consider many facts about Alexander to be reliable and true.

Almost all ancient historical accounts were written within a culture focused on oral tradition

This focus means the details of the events were transmitted verbally within a community that could check the facts of the events with each other. This method of transmitting information becomes powerful when multiple people witness an event, as all the eyewitnesses can work together to reach a reliable account of the events that took place.

This oral focus gives us a primary reason why the writing of historical events tended to happen later – there was little need to immediately preserve events through writing when people were used to preserving events orally within their community. It also explains how a written account written years after a historical event can still be reliable – a reasonably accurate oral tradition could have already solidified by the time the events were written down.

The works of Josephus and Tacitus are generally reliable.

Tacitus is praised by historians for being a reliable source on the history of ancient Rome. Josephus’ reliability has been called into question because of his tendency to exaggerate and because of a strong bias towards Jews. However, he has provided us with valuable information about historical figures like Herod the Great, and information about the inner workings of Jewish ritual and culture. Overall, Josephus is reliable in providing basic historical facts about the lives of Jews.

Once we establish the general reliability of these authors, we can turn to the reliability of specific historical accounts they wrote, and specific passages within those accounts.

There is no reason to question Tacitus’ reference to Jesus being killed under Pontius Pilate.

The language used in passage 15.44 – saying that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate, is consistent with other works of Tacitus. There is nothing out of the ordinary noted in this passage which would make us think the text was tampered with. And we even have archaeological evidence for the existence of Pilate – through an inscription found 50 years ago, and a ring found this year.

We can find basic facts about Jesus in the works of Josephus.

The references to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities get a bit more complicated. There is one reference to Jesus as the brother of James, which appears in every copy we have of the Antiquities. The reference doesn’t seem to be out of the ordinary in terms of the flow and style of the writings of Josephus. It is reasonable to consider this passage reliable.

However, in the most well-known reference to Jesus called the Flavius Testimonium, there is some commentary we would not expect Josephus to make based on his other writings and based on the fact he is a Jew. For example, one copy of the Antiquities includes the comment that Jesus was “the Christ,” which would be highly unlikely for him to say (after all, that would make him more of a Christian than a Jew!).

The inclusion of this commentary makes us question the details given in the passage, and brings up the possibility of an error in copying the passage or an intentional change in the passage by readers who lived after Josephus. That doesn’t mean we need to throw out the entire passage – it just means certain details are in question. When we eliminate the questionable details, we can still pull basic facts about Jesus in the passage, such as he was someone who did “marvelous works.”

These references are not the only sources we have on Jesus.

Let’s say we do throw the references in Tacitus and Josephus out. We still have the letters of Paul, the synoptic gospels, the writings of early Church fathers, and a few other extra-biblical references that provide some information on Jesus. Even the Gnostic gospels from the 2nd Century point us to some very basic facts about Jesus (such as his existence!)

The references in Tacitus and Josephus give us a greater sense of confidence in Jesus’ existence, and some key facts about his life – especially his ability to do things that people considered to be miraculous or at least “wonderous.” The references also point us to his death, an event that most Muslims and some skeptics deny. And through other extra-biblical sources, we can see that early followers revered Jesus highly and elevated him to the status of God.

Again, I didn’t intend for this post to provide the definitive answer for the reliability of extra-biblical references to Jesus. But these six considerations will definitely give you something to think about. No matter how we view the references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus, one thing is for sure – we have a wealth of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and the basic claims that Christians make about his life.

Jeremy is the co-founder of the ministry Twin Cities Apologetics and is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FZeFc9

February 3, 2019/by Guest

Historical Bias, Objectivity, and the Truth of Christianity

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

“Historians are biased and choose what they report. As such, history can’t be known.” That’s a typical objection to the ability to know history. If such objections prove that we can’t know history, then we can’t know that Christianity is true since it is known through history and historical claims. In his prologue, Luke says,

“In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4; emphasis added).

The above passage demonstrates that Luke was writing as an historian. Words such as the ones underlined show his desire to write the truth of the events he wanted to convey. So, if history can’t be known, then we can’t know that Christianity is true. Let’s look at a typical objection.

Bias is probably the most popular objection to knowing history. It is claimed by some that historians are biased. It is not always clear what the objection is really getting at, but usually it is something like the historian holds certain views that in some way make his reporting subjective or unfair. For example, an historian may be writing about a religious issue and if he is part of that religion he is likely going to be accused of being biased. The disciples are often said to be biased regarding the events of the life of Jesus, particularly his resurrection. Since they knew him and had a vested interest they must have made up the claims of the resurrection.

Ironically, there are many assumptions (i.e., biases) about the nature of bias. It is more often than not used in a negative way and is equated with subjectivity and falsity. But why should this be the case? Why should the notion of either bias or subjectivity be equated with something being false? People could be biased because of evidence. If the disciples really did see Jesus alive after he was dead, then the reason they were biased was because of evidence and proof. But this bias would not be based on any subjectivity since their knowledge was based on objective and empirical evidence. Further, someone could have a subjective view of something and still be correct. There is nothing about being biased or subjective that guarantees that the belief is false. Such is an assumption in itself.

Consider this popular argument against objectivity:

To be objective one must be free from bias.
No one is free from bias.
Therefore, no one is objective.

This is a valid argument, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. But is it sound (i.e., is the argument valid and the premises and conclusion true)? Well, if no one is free from bias that means the one making this argument is not free from bias. But statements like “No one is . . .” is a universal statement that applies to everyone everywhere. But aren’t universal statements objective? What else would ‘objective’ means other than something that is universal and not simply limited to the subjective beliefs of an individual? This whole line of argument is self-defeating. In other words, when using the argument’s criteria, the very argument itself fails. The objector, in this case, is objective in trying to argue that no one is free from bias and that no one is objective. However, the only way to make such universal statements is for the objector to make objective statements. If they were subjective, then they wouldn’t necessarily be universal. If they weren’t universal, then maybe some people aren’t biased. But this contradicts the argument. Assuming the argument holds water because no one really denies that people are biased, it shows that one can be biased and objective. (Note, it is not guaranteed that one is going to be objective and biased, just that it’s logically possible. The objection is thus deflated.)

This raises another question that is rarely asked and usually assumed: What does it mean for something to be ‘objective’? By now it should be clear that it can’t mean free from bias since we’ve just seen that a person can be both biased and objective. So being free from bias is not necessary to be objective (in fact I would agree that everyone is biased in a general sense). So what does it mean? Most people think that it means being detached from a given circumstance so that one can see it as an objective outsider. In his fascinating work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, drawing on other work on this topic (such as Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History), Richard Bauckham makes the surprising and unfashionable statement:

“A very important point that . . . for Greek and Roman historians, the ideal eyewitness was not the dispassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and interpret the significance of what he had seen” (page 9).

He further notes that many historians wanted someone who was involved in the events in question because that person would have a vested interest. They wanted someone who was involved and really there.

This counters the usual desire or assumed need for detatchment, but it does not say what objectivity is. Objectivity is arriving at conclusions that are based on evidence and principles that have their foundation in external reality. Everyone can use and measure truth claims based on external (objective) reality. Put negatively; it is the opposite of one making conclusions that arise simply out of one’s subjective mind. Such evidence based on reality and the principles that follow is mind-independent. Since reality is objective, that is, everyone can know it (as long as their faculties are working properly), the conclusions based on reality can also be objective. When one uses universal (objective) principles to ascertain the truth of a conclusion, one can be objective. Such principles are the laws of logic (or being). One such law is the law of non-contradiction. It declares that if two statements are mutually exclusive one must be true and the other must be false. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus died. Islam counters that Jesus did not die. These statements are mutually exclusive—one must be true and the other false since there is no third option. Thus, they are contradictory. (This is contrasted with statements that can both logically be false, such as “Buddhism is true” and “Atheism is true.” Such statements that can both be false are called ‘contrary.’) Regarding this principle and its application to historical objectivity, Maurice Mandelbaum says,

“Our knowledge is objective if, and only if, it is the case that when two persons make contradictory statements concerning the same subject matter, at least one of them must be mistaken” (The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge, 150).

The law of non-contradiction is based in the nature of reality. It is not just a principle of thought, but of being. A tree cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. That would be a contradiction. Such first principles of thought and arising out of the nature of reality since something can’t simultaneously be and not be. It is not simply a made-up principle. In fact, it is undeniable since to deny it would require using it.

Thus, if one’s conclusions are based on external and objective reality and evidence, and the principles from such reality, those conclusions can be objective. There is, in a sense, an objective apparatus giving us the possibility of being objective. Again, this is contrasted with something arising only from one’s (subjective) mind rather than from external (objective) reality. There is, therefore, nothing about biases that preclude one from making objective historical statements. Biases do not guarantee subjectivity or falsity.

Back to Bauckham’s point regarding bias, it is often the case that people are indeed biased, but biased because of the evidence. They have seen so much evidence, that they are convinced that what they are saying is true. This, however, is not subjective bias or assumption, but rather the careful examination of objective reality and the evidence that all can investigate.

When looking at historical questions, such as the resurrection, one should not base his conclusions on notions such as the alleged bias of the ones making claims. Rather, one should examine the evidence for the claims to discover their veracity. We can recognize bias in every area and by all people. However, that alone is not enough to show that a person’s claim is false. To be good and responsible historians and investigators, we must follow the evidence.

(I would like to thank Norman L. Geisler for his direction regarding my MA thesis topic which was on this issue, as well as Thomas A. Howe to whom my thoughts and work are indebted greatly.)

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2HOROSC

February 3, 2019/by Guest

A Quick History Lesson

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Nick Peters

Objection:

The Bible is a compendium of fireside tales and fables recounted orally for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age until writing was invented, and then again many different sources, transliterations, and versions were written down.

There were no grand central universities to organize the many various versions of these origin stories. They were for entertainment, and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe since there was no science yet. This is the Old Testament.

The ‘new’ Testes is also hearsay since these letters, ‘gospels’ and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus. Thus, there is no verifiable evidence of a Jesus in real history.

Then many of these stories, but not all, were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognized that this was the perfect religion/mythology for domination of the populace. Half the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops, and none have been proven to be based on fact.

This ‘Bable’ is backed up by absolutely no facts and evidence.

– Brien

Nick Peters’ Response:

I have been asked by Tim Stratton to write a reply to Brien as he has been making these same objections in various groups on social media — including the FreeThinking Ministries Facebook page. Tim refers to it as a “softball objection.” I really think that’s inappropriate because when you play softball, there’s an actual target to swing at.

Let’s go through and consider Brien’s objections:

“The Bible is a compendium of fireside tales and fables recounted orally for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age until writing was invented, and then again many different sources, transliterations, and versions were written down.”

Let’s begin by noting that no evidence is given to support any of these assertions. It’s all a “just so” story. Somehow, Brien knows these stories go back to the Stone Age. How? What evidence has been brought forward? Nothing. There’s also this implication that people who are goat herders specifically — and all primitives — must be therefore stupid. It’s one of my favorite claims to see: “Ancient People Were Stupid!”

Then we are told writing was invented and many different sources, transliterations, and versions were written down. Well, a source is something that’s used when writing, so that part doesn’t make sense. Then transliteration supposedly, but that’s using another alphabet to write a message, so what message was being transliterated if the alphabet hadn’t been written? Then he claims there are many versions, but where are these versions? Can Brien show them? We could recommend that he read a book like this, but that’s likely too much work. (By the way, for those financially challenged libraries offer these books for free.)

“There were no grand central universities to organize the many various versions of these origin stories. They were for entertainment, and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe since there was no science yet.

This is the Old Testament.”

That’s true. There were no grand central universities. After all, there was no Christianity yet, and Christians started the majority of those universities, including the universities that were founded in America. In the medieval period, there were plenty of universities founded by Christians. As for why the stories were written, again, we have a “just so” story. It’s also assumed the accounts are meant to be read as scientific accounts. I disagree. I go with John Walton in saying the accounts are aimed at dealing with God declaring the function of creation in being a cosmos for Him to dwell in. Still, Brien has given zero evidences or sources for any of this.

“The ‘new’ Testes is also hearsay since these letters, ‘gospels’ and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus.”

Awwww. “The New Testes.” Isn’t that cute? I bet Brien sure feels like a big boy using terminology like that. Well, give him a cookie. So the first statement we have is that the Gospels are hearsay. On what grounds? First, they were written by the loyal faithful.

I was not aware that being loyal to a cause meant that your account was hearsay or even dare I say it, unreliable. They are also contrasted to objective historians. Keep in mind, Jews today have the best holocaust museums out there, and I’m quite sure they have a bias. As for objective historians, no historian is purely objective. If you write about something, it’s because you care about it.

Besides that, which historians should have written about Jesus? How many of them are going to take seriously the claims of a crucified criminal in the backwaters of Judea being a Messiah figure? No more than most elite will go and track down a Benny Hinn claim.

‘Finally, these were not by contemporary writers and were written many years after the events.’

Well, usually historical accounts are written after the events. That’s the way it works. Next, this is also common in the ancient world. Plutarch would write about events that took place centuries before he lived. The first biographies of Alexander the Great that we have come centuries later.

Next, there is still no evidence given. Perhaps Brien could someday learn to interact with a work like this one. Does Brien have any methodology whereby to date an ancient manuscript? Does he have a methodology to determine authorship?

Finally, this would only apply to the Gospels. Seven of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul are universally accepted in scholarship, and those seven are all we need to make a case for the resurrection of Jesus.

“Thus, there is no verifiable evidence of a Jesus in real history.”

At this point, we just put our heads back and roar in laughter! Jesus mythicism is to history what Intelligent Design (ID) is said to be to science. (I am not a supporter of ID anyway.) Wait. That’s not accurate. There are far more Ph.D.’s in science that will give some backing to it than there are Ph.D.’s in the New Testament or ancient history that will support mythicism. In other words, if you think ID and/or any denial of evolution is junk science, you have no grounds to be supporting mythicism.

Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey are both serious NT scholars who have written on this topic. They definitely represent the position of most skeptical scholars on this issue. It’s just not a serious claim. It leaves too many questions to explain and lacks much explanatory power itself.

“Then many of these stories, but not all, were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognized that this was the perfect religion/mythology for domination of the populace. Half the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops, and none have been proven to be based on fact.”

Poor Brien doesn’t know his history. The Holy Roman Empire started in 800 with Charlemagne. The Council of Nicea was under Constantine in 325. Constantine didn’t have much to do with it and Athanasius, the grand hero of the event, went into exile numerous times afterward as Arians took power. Brien tells us half the stories were ignored by the bishops. No evidence is given of this, and the Council of Nicea was about the Arian controversy. It was not about the canon of Scripture. The first listing we have that mirrors the Protestant Bible comes from Athanasius in 367.

Brien tells us this was the perfect mythology to control the populace. Why? No reason is given. All we have is assertions of faith.

“This ‘Bable’ is backed up by absolutely no facts and evidence.”

You might think this if you ignore all scholarship and archaeology and everything else. It seems as if Brien has never read any scholarship. In an irony, he is like many pastors in many pulpits that he would decry. Reading Brien’s writing reminds me of the joke about the fundamentalist pastor writing the sermon outline for Sunday and putting on the side, “Weak point. Pound pulpit harder.” It would remind me more if there were any points here at all. Brien is just a “fundamentalist pastor” for the other side giving statements of faith without evidence.

Irony is funny, isn’t it?

Nick Peters has a passion for apologetics. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in preaching and Bible from Johnson University and is currently working on a Master’s in the New Testament. He and his wife are both diagnosed with Aspergers and have a cat named Shiro. His other interests include reading, video games, and popular TV shows like The Big Bang Theory and The Flash. Nick says that he is extremely sarcastic, so you’ve been warned! Make sure to check out his Deeper Waters website here at www.deeperwatersapologetics.com

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2UGvMUe

January 1, 2019/by Guest

Is Genesis History?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A couple of years ago the documentary “Is Genesis History?” was released. This documentary aims to defend the truth of the Christian worldview by defending the historicity of the early chapters of the Bible from a scientific perspective. The documentary attempts to accomplish this by demonstrating evidence in support of intelligent design and a young (~6000 years old) creation. As those who follow this blog know, I do not hold to the view that the universe is 6000 years old, as Del Tackett and the other contributors to “Is Genesis History?” do, yet I affirm the historicity and scientific accuracy of the Genesis accounts of origins.

Because many people (including those in this documentary) believe that the historicity of these early chapters and a young earth interpretation of them cannot be separated, a friend has asked me to offer some comments in the way of clarifying this common misunderstanding and some other concerns in the movie. There is much unnecessary confusion and heat in the Church concerning the debate over origins, so I am hoping to provide a charitable critique in the context of Christian unity and love.

Areas Of Agreement

Since this post will focus primarily on some points of disagreement, I do want to start with what I agree with that was presented in the documentary. First, obviously, we agree that the Christian worldview accurately describes reality (is true). That alone means that our agreements outnumber our disagreements dramatically; we are brothers and sisters in Christ, part of one Body, neither greater nor lesser in the Kingdom or more or less useful in the Kingdom (1 Corinthians 12).

Second, there are actually numerous areas specifically related to origins that we do agree upon. A couple of years ago I wrote a post that lists out 40 of these points of agreement on origins: What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists Agree Upon Regarding Origins? It is important to keep these points of agreement in mind so that as unbelievers view our behavior towards one another in the midst of disagreement, they will see love and reconciliation in Christ modeled. As Dr. Hugh Ross states in his latest book “Always Be Ready: A Call to Adventurous Faith“:

Third, we agree on the inerrancy of Scripture. It is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17); thus it is true in all that it affirms. We also agree upon the authority of Scripture. All disagreements are not regarding what Scripture is or its authority in our lives but rather on what it means in the particular areas of disagreement (disagreement on meaning in one area does not necessitate disagreement on meaning in another).

Fourth, there were many things explicitly said throughout the documentary that I also find strong agreement with. These agreements range from agreements about the failure of high criticism to the denial of common ancestry. As I was taking notes while watching, I kept a running list of these agreements, and here it is (with links to my reviews of books that dive deeper into a defense of the particular item):

Genesis is an accurate historical account (Navigating Genesis)
Literal days, narrative, historical (Navigating Genesis)
Genesis is one long historical narrative (The Bible Among The Myths)
The historical basis of Christianity, however, is not lost if Genesis is not history (we have the gospels). (The Historical Jesus)
Fossil record shows creation of organisms, stasis of that organism, and disappearance of the organism (no evolution). (More Than A Theory)
Deny blind faith- there is no conflict between science and faith (Forensic Faith)
Microevolution is valid, while macroevolution is not (More Than A Theory)
Animal similarity in genetics and patterns, but not in ancestry (More Than A Theory)
Designed/engineered ecosystem (Improbable Planet)
Earth/Moon system is sized for perfect eclipses (Improbable Planet)
Literal Adam and Eve (Who Was Adam)
Higher criticism is wrong (Navigating Genesis)

Finally, as a computer technologist, I was excited to hear that Del Tackett’s formal training was as a computer scientist. I really was hoping that he was going to bring our field into the documentary in support of God as the Intelligent Creator (there are many areas where computer science can be appealed to argue for a beginner, a designer, free agency, and the validity of cumulative cases, just to name a few). Unfortunately, he did not, but I do hope that he does in a future documentary. Check out “The Programming of Life” for an example of one of these arguments.

Now, as I mentioned in the introduction, there are several areas regarding origins which I believe “Is Genesis History” got wrong. I am going to attempt to keep my explanations short in this post because there are quite a few, so the case that I present for each inaccuracy is not meant to be comprehensive, but it is still meant to be sound. I will include links to articles and/or books throughout for further investigation. I have categorized the disagreements into three different categories for easy location later if you want to refer to this post in the future. Let’s begin with the philosophical issues.

Philosophical Issues

False Dichotomy

At the very beginning of the documentary, it is proposed that only two options exist regarding origins: either naturalism or a young-earth creationist view. Because of the fact that they intend to investigate an important historical event, it is important that they do not preclude any options before their investigation even begins. If an investigation reveals that neither option is viable, then what is the Christian to do? Because of this drastic philosophical mistake from the beginning of the film, if a Christian is ever convinced that the universe is ancient, then it is implied (if not explicit) that the creators of the film believe that the logically consistent person must reject Christ as well. However, other views do exist, so when a Christian sees the compelling evidence from God’s creation that it testifies to an ancient universe, there is no need to jettison Christ or even the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.

Old earth creationism as proposed by Reasons to Believe holds firmly to the historicity of the Gospels and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis and does not fall by the fatal critiques against either naturalism or young earth creationism. Contrary to what is implied at the beginning of “Is Genesis History,” rejection of young-earth creationism does not logically necessitate rejection of the historicity of the life, death, and bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ (see “Origin Science: A Proposal For The Creation/Evolution Controversy“), and a rejection of young-earth creationism is not a compromise of truth but a compromise of falsehood, which is precisely our goal- reject falsehood and follow the evidence from God’s creation exactly where it leads. If you are interested in the evidence for a historical reading of Genesis and the gospels, check out these awesome books:

Logical Fallacy- Hasty Generalization

In the documentary, Tackett and the contributors make the logical mistake of arguing that since quick processes created a few things (some geologic formations) that they created all things (all geologic formations). This is problematic for two reasons. First, it is a logical fallacy, so it invalidates their conclusion that the Flood of Noah is responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon (and all other geological features). Second, in this argument, they assume that old earth creation models allow for only slow processes, when in fact they allow both slow and quick processes. If the young earth creationist finds solid evidence for a quick process, that evidence is perfectly compatible with an ancient earth. The task before the young earth creationist is to provide solid evidence that the other formations also came about by a geographically global flood. In fact, when the evidence of these long processes is examined in the context of each other, we see powerful evidence of a grand orchestrated project culminating in a home for humanity (see “Improbable Planet; How Earth Became Humanity’s Home“).

Logical Fallacy- Conflation

Perhaps the first issue described above is the result of the fallacy of conflation. Naturalism and an ancient universe are not the same. Naturalism is a philosophical position that denies the existence of anything outside this universe. An ancient universe simply is a measurement of the amount of time that has passed since the creation event. Through the use of this conflation, the argument is made that since naturalism is false so must any view that holds that the universe is ancient. Because the argument employs the use of a fallacy, its conclusion is invalid. Naturalism can be false while the universe is ancient, and the same evidence that has forced scientists to concede a finite (but ancient) universe is the same evidence that argues powerfully for God as Creator and Designer. See these three books:

Philosophy of Science- Investigating the Past

It is quite common for young-earth creationists to claim that the past cannot be known with any level of certainty like the present can be. According to “Is Genesis History” present processes cannot be used to figure out what happened in the past. If they affirm Jeremiah 33:25-26, then they affirm that the laws of physics are as unchanging as God is. This is important because the past can be known by observing the present and using this “principle of uniformity” (not uniformitarianism- they are different), we can deductively conclude what has happened in the past. By working our way backward in time, using God’s actions (current observations) and God’s words (Jeremiah 33:25-26), we discover that the universe did not reach its point of creation 6000 or even 10,000 years ago. Rather it goes all the way back to roughly 13.8 billion years ago. God’s creation testifies powerfully of its creation out of nothing (affirming the historicity of Genesis 1:1, and the rest of Genesis along the way). See these articles and book for more on this philosophy of science:

Philosophy of Science- Changed Laws of Physics

In the above section, I mentioned that the incorrect philosophy of science may be corrected by simply affirming Jeremiah 33:25-26 (unchanging laws of physics). However, several times throughout the film, changing laws of physics were affirmed (specifically at the Fall of Adam and Eve). This is problematic for numerous theological and philosophical reasons, the least of which is the unknowability of the past (thus they cannot even critique alternative views based on evidence from the creation) and possibly the worst of which is denying God’s unchanging nature that He explicitly compared to the laws of physics (and in turn, denying the doctrine of biblical inerrancy). For more on the details of this issue see the book “Peril in Paradise.”

Since that last issue addresses both a philosophical and a theological issue, it provides a good segue into the second category of issues.

Theological Issues

Nature Cannot Interpret Scripture

This issue can also be seen as both philosophical and theological. When it is restated, the theological implications become more apparent: “God’s actions cannot be used to interpret God’s words.” This is the result of denying Jeremiah 33:25-26 (affirming changed laws of physics). For changed laws of physics means that the creation does not reflect God’s actions. However, since God has told us that the current observations of the universe do reflect His original creation (Jeremiah 33:25-26, Psalm 19, and Romans 1), we cannot deny that God’s actions can be used to interpret His words. Affirming that God’s actions (the creation) can be used to interpret God’s words (Scripture) is not a matter of “man’s fallible ideas versus God’s infallible Word,” rather it is a matter of affirming that God’s infallible actions are necessarily consistent with God infallible Word. And when God’s actions unequivocally reveal an ancient universe, we need to change our interpretation of what God’s Word in Genesis means to reflect His actions and not our fallible ideas. See the following three articles that go deeper into the relationship between God’s Word and God’s actions:

Article: Man’s Fallible Ideas vs. God’s Infallible Word
Article: Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation
Article: Are Nature And Scripture Compatible?
Book: A Matter of Days: Resolved A Creation Controversy

Christians Who Disagree With Young-Earth Creationism Are Denying Genesis Is Historical

By using God’s creation to help us interpret His words (thus concluding an ancient universe), we are not denying the historicity of the Genesis account; we are affirming its historic and scientific accuracy and our own fallibility in interpreting the words and actions of an infallible God. In fact, when Genesis 1 is interpreted from the proper perspective (the surface of the planet, according to Genesis 1:2), we discover perfect alignment between the events described in Genesis 1 and what scientists have discovered about the history of our planet and life. This is far from denying historical accuracy; this is providing solid scientific evidence of the historical accuracy of the account. For more on this, see these books:

A Global Flood and the Judgment of Sin

In “Is Genesis History” the contributors asserted that the only way that God’s judgment (the whole purpose of Noah’s Flood) is that it be global in extent. The purpose was to judge humanity for its evil, so its geographical extent need only be to everywhere that humans had inhabited. The debate about the geographical extent of the flood comes down to the extent to which humans had migrated around the globe. If they had not migrated far from the place of Adam’s and Eve’s creation, then God could still accomplish His purpose 100% by merely flooding that geographical area. Given the strong evidence for the lack of migration of early humans (see Who Was Adam) and the fact that no geological evidence exists for a worldwide flood (see the Hasty Generalization above), the interpretation of the Flood as a universal event (affected all humanity but not the whole globe) affirms both the historicity of the Flood account (God’s words) and the accuracy of the record of nature (God’s actions). See “Navigating Genesis” for more on this.

Scientific Issues

Evolution Can Take Place in Billions of Years

The first scientific issue that I want to describe with is the idea that naturalistic evolution can produce the origin (and diversity) of life we see today in just billion years. As more and more research is conducted into the cosmic, galactic, planetary, geological, and chemical conditions required just for life to originate, 13.8 billion years is actually numerous orders of magnitude too young! This is one of the reasons why the big bang (establishes that the universe began merely 14 billion years ago) was so vociferously opposed. Since the evidence is so strong for the universe’s beginning (ex nihilo) in the finite past (see “Creator and the Cosmos“), naturalists have attempted to exponentially increase their chronological resources by positing a multiverse (which includes a near-infinite number of universes) to accommodate the necessity for amounts of time orders of magnitude more than 13.8 billion years.

Young earth creationists (including those in “Is Genesis History”) constantly accuse scientists and other Christians, who hold to an ancient universe, of needing 13.8 billion years to accommodate evolutionary processes. The reality is that that is simply not the reason. The evolutionary process is simply not that efficient by many orders of magnitude. It is not feasible by any stretch of the imagination! The only reason naturalists have accepted that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old is because the evidence from God’s creation (Romans 1) is so strong that they can no longer deny it logically or scientifically (again, see “Creator and the Cosmos“). If anyone tells you that the old earth creationist needs or is trying to force 13.8 billion years into the Bible to accommodate evolution, please understand that they really do not understand just how inefficient the evolutionary process is. See “A Matter of Days: Resolving A Creation Controversy” for more on this chronological impossibility for evolution.

Affirmation of Macro-Evolution

One of the major problems with the global flood hypothesis is Noah fitting all the different animals on the ark. The diversity we see today could not be represented if there was a one to one representation. Global flood proponents, including in “Is Genesis History” have posited that all animals descended from a collection of ancestral “kinds” that were on the ark. They believe this process was either fully naturalistic or could have been theistic (preloaded into the genes at original creation). Several problems exist.

First, “kind” can be roughly comparative to either “genus” or “family.” While creationists (old earth and young earth) believe that micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) does happen and speciation (evolution from one species to another) is possible, they believe that evolution beyond this level crosses into macro-evolution (evolution from genus to genus or family to family) and either does not happen or is impossible. Young earth creationists (including those in “Is Genesis History”) are quite critical of both naturalistic and theistic macro-evolutionary models for numerous reasons. These same reasons serve to falsify their own affirmation of macro-evolution.

Second, even naturalists and theistic evolutionists understand that the macro-evolutionary process would be slow and not as quick as the global flood proponent would need to explain today’s observed diversity. The global flood proponent would have to posit not just a mechanism that they already claim to have falsified but one that works at orders of magnitude more quickly. If a process is not possible, speeding it up does not make it more possible. It would also be akin to punctuated equilibrium- one of the evolutionary answers to sudden appearances of animals in the Cambrian and Avalon explosions. The proposed solution to the diversity problem will not work by any standard. See “Navigating Genesis” and “Peril in Paradise” for more on this issue with the necessity of global flood proponents to affirm macro-evolution.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Affirm A Young Earth

In “Is Genesis History” one of the proposed evidences to defeat an ancient universe and earth (and cause doubt about other dating methods) is the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue. This is a really cool discovery that has been in the news for a few years now and has spurred on much more scientific inquiry. The idea behind this evidence is that, by current understandings of soft tissue degradation, the dinosaur soft tissue should have decayed a long time ago, if they had been dead for 60+ million years. The discovery of dinosaur soft tissue adds a huge question mark behind two beliefs: the date of the dinosaurs’ death and the current understanding of soft tissue decay processes. In “Is Genesis History,” they posit that the current understanding of soft tissue decay processes is complete and that scientists should rather doubt the ancient date for the death of the dinosaurs (and affirm a young earth).

The problem is that this is only one piece of evidence that seems inconsistent with current dating (among many pieces of evidence that falsify a young creation), so scientists have opened up more research into decay processes for soft tissue. These have been quite fruitful in producing discoveries of multiple conditions that would result in longer decay times. As biochemist Fazale Rana describes in his book “Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth,” these newly discovered conditions defeat the claim that soft tissue is incompatible with an ancient date for the death of the dinosaurs. So, this evidence, contrary to what those in “Is Genesis History” claim, it does not provide evidence against an ancient universe or earth. But again, as described above, this does not mean that Genesis is not history; it just means that the young earth interpretation is not accurate.

Conclusion

So, is Genesis history? Yes! But the history recorded in Genesis does not teach that the universe is only 6000 years old. While the answer to the title question of the documentary is in the affirmative, one does not have to accept the scientific, biblical, theological, and philosophical inaccuracies in the “Is Genesis History” documentary to believe that Genesis is history. In fact, when investigated, we find that the historical record in Genesis is perfectly compatible with modern scientific discoveries of God’s creation. What secular scientists are discovering about God’s actions is revealing more details of the general events that Moses recorded thousands of years ago. Moses had no way to know such things (especially since he was in the middle of an ancient near eastern culture that held to the eternal past of the universe and its lack of design and purpose [see “The Bible Among The Myths“]). This provides powerful evidence that the Bible was inspired by the Creator of the universe, and consequently, such evidence points directly to the truth of biblical claims about our sinfulness and need for a Savior. The reality of the antiquity of the universe (and big bang cosmology, properly understood) does not undermine Christianity; it provides solid evidence, from God’s own actions (creation) for the truth of the Bible, that no Christian should fear or be reluctant to affirm.

If you are ready to explore God’s creation and see how, as Romans 1:20 proclaims, God’s attributes are so evident in His work that skeptical scientists cannot escape public acknowledgment of them, definitely pick up any of the many books linked to in this post or check out these excellent ministries:

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DTwnfz

December 7, 2018/by Guest

The Darwin Tales

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Terrell Clemmons

It’s Time to Remit Darwinian Storytelling to the Annals of History.

Stephen Meyer was a young geophysicist working in the oil industry in Dallas, Texas, in 1985 when he saw that an interesting science conference was coming to town and he decided to drop in. During a panel discussion on the origin of the first living things, Charles Thaxton, a highly credentialed chemist, noted that the information stored in DNA could not be explained by chemical evolutionary processes. This was generally known already and uncontroversial. But Thaxton ventured a step further by suggesting that the information could point to an intelligent cause. This was a reasonable inference, Thaxton said because, in our regular human experience, we know that information is typically attributable to intelligent causes.

This struck Meyer as both intuitive and plausible. But what really piqued his interest was the heated reaction of some of the other scientists at this suggestion. They got really personal. Some criticized Thaxton’s intellect; others, his motives, as if he’d broken some unwritten convention. What was with all this emotion? Meyer wondered. He’d always thought scientists were objective professionals who coolly looked at data and followed the evidence. This was an interesting problem.

The encounter led to some follow-up discussions with Thaxton and a burning new question, which Meyer would take with him to Cambridge University a year later: Could this idea of intelligence—or intelligent design—be made into a rigorous scientific argument?

But during his first year there, an after-lecture social gathering brought home a sobering reality. Everyone at Cambridge was openly atheistic. In fact, atheism was so preemptively the assumed worldview that theism was not even on the table. Meyer not only believed in God; he was a Christian. Clearly, this could be a lonely work environment, and the widespread atheism around him could present obstacles to collaborations on this question. But he took heart in remembering the great scientists of history whose science had been specifically driven by their Christian worldview.

The Closed Darwinian Circle

Science writer Tom Bethell, who had arrived at sister university Oxford about twenty-five years prior, experienced a similarly disappointing revelation. He’d arrived at Oxford “naively imagining that philosophy taught us the meaning of life.” It didn’t.

But Bethell later came to see its usefulness. Many problems in philosophy had flourished, he discovered, because the words used to formulate theories weren’t clearly defined. Sometimes, he further realized, the vagaries seemed to be intentional. Bethell would go on to a long career as a philosophically astute journalist, brilliantly clarifying and parsing some of the most crucial enigmas of public life and history.

Case in point: Charles Darwin’s central postulate said that the diversity of biological life on earth could be explained by natural selection operating on random variations. Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Darwin, summarized this notion as “survival of the fittest.” The phrase stuck, and today, Darwin’s postulate reigns as the grand unifying theory of established science.

But was there an inherent problem with it, philosophically, from the very start? “Doubts about evolution first arose in my mind when I looked at the title page of The Origin of Species,” Bethell wrote.

I read, and then reread that page:

On the Origin of Species

by Means of Natural Selection

or the

preservation of favoured races

in the struggle for life

by Charles Darwin, M.A.

1859

The words ‘preservation’ and ‘favoured’ stood out. Was there any way of knowing what ‘races’ (meaning species, or individual variants) were favored other than by looking to see which ones were in fact preserved?

This was no pedantic quibble. For if there truly is no way of determining what is “fit” other than by seeing what survives, then Darwin was arguing in a self-confirming circle: the survival of the survivors. In rhetorical terms, this is what’s called a tautology—a statement that is true by definition, due to the construction of the language by which it is expressed. In effect, Darwin’s proposed mechanism—natural selection—rested on the observation that, “Survivors survive.” To which any clear-thinking middle-school student might say, “Well, duh.”

Curating History

Beginning with this observation, Bethell’s latest book examines the dialogue that has taken place among scientists since the publication of The Origin. But rather than giving us a chronological point-counterpoint synopsis of it, Bethell presents a kind of “tour” of the topics over which the debate has been hashed out—the “rooms,” if you will, of the 150-plus-year-old house of Darwin: common descent, natural selection, the fossil record, information theory, evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, the growing intelligent design movement, and more.

The upshot of it all is captured in his title: Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates. Darwinism is an idea past its prime, he concludes, one whose collapse is inevitable and is in fact already demonstrably underway.

Examining a Theory and Its Theorist

He states that forthrightly, but also backs it up with characteristically sound logic—examining, like a museum curator, Darwin’s various claims in light of both mounting new evidence against them and the ongoing lack of evidence supporting them. Room by room, he shows how evolutionary theory today is being propped up by logical fallacies, bogus claims, and outdated empirical evidence that has all but disintegrated under the weight of new discoveries.

In addition to covering the high points of the scientific discussion, Bethell also delves into the man Darwin as he revealed himself through his personal writings. While Darwin was in his own right a legitimate scientist, his theorizing was influenced, inordinately as it turns out, by three ideas of his day: Malthusian economics, Progress, and philosophical materialism.

Malthusian Math: Political economist Thomas Malthus had speculated that when population growth outstrips food supply, then death by starvation would result in some sectors of society but not others. Darwin had read Malthus, and he simply transferred the calculus of overpopulation to the plant and animal kingdom. “It at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of new species.” Darwin had no evidence of the formation of any new species, though. That was pure extrapolation.
Progress: Capitalized to denote the philosophy as it existed in his day, “Progress” was the reigning metanarrative in post-Enlightenment England, the all-encompassing, assumed a trajectory of reality. It was “as difficult for him to escape as the air he breathed,” wrote Bethell, and Darwin was a confirmed believer. The word “evolution” doesn’t actually appear in The Origin. He referred rather to improvement, progress, and perfection, in the end, writing that “all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection.”
Materialism: Darwin himself was a full-blown materialist, but he avoided outwardly confessing the extent of his belief. He’d worked out his theory by 1837, but didn’t go public with it for more than twenty years, partly because the 1830s climate of opinion was highly unfavorable to materialism. Even at publication in 1859, he still didn’t deploy it consistently in The Origin, but rather strategically and progressively invoked it over the course of six editions.

Darwin’s metaphysical outlook was not a deduction from his science, though, but was influenced by his theology. He raised theological issues in several of his writings, and Bethell devotes an entire chapter to his evolving religious views. Two points are worth mentioning here. In his autobiography, Darwin mentioned being “heartily laughed at” for quoting the Bible while on the H.M.S. Beagle. We can only speculate about the psychological effect of this incident, but it obviously affected him enough to write about it forty years later. Afterward, he reconsidered the Bible’s place in his view of the world and concluded it was “no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

In addition, like many in insulated societies, he took issue with God over the problem of evil and suffering, ultimately deciding that the concept of an all-loving and all-powerful God could not be reconciled with the reality of misery in the world. “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete.”

More a product of their theorist and the zeitgeist, then, than of science, Darwin’s postulates found easy acceptance among an elite intelligentsia predisposed to believe in materialism and Progress. Sadly, liberal clergy went along without objection or concern.

Straightening Out Bad Philosophy

Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells concurs with Bethell that Darwinian evolution is one long argument bolstering an a priori metaphysics. In Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution, he gives three common definitions of science: (1) empirical science is the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against evidence; (2) technological science comprises the advances that have enriched modern life; and (3) establishment science consists of professionals conducting research. These can all be legitimate uses of the word.

In addition, though, he notes, some people have come to define science as (4) the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything. But this would more accurately be called methodological naturalism. And while it is true that the methods of empirical science limit the causal explanations, it can confirm or disconfirm to the material realm, to go further and assume that only material causes exist is to assume an unstated claim about metaphysical reality. Furthermore, to do so and call it science constitutes fraud.

Metaphysical Storytelling & the Judgment of History

Fraud aside, it also compromises science. When priority is given to proposing and defending materialistic explanations over following the evidence, materialistic philosophy is running the show. Where this happens (and it does), Wells calls it zombie science. “Evolution is a materialistic story,” he writes, “and since the materialistic story trumps the evidence, it is zombie science.”

Listen to biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olsen’s explanation for why he knowingly passed off falsehood in his 2007 film Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus: “Scientists must realize that science is a narrative process, that narrative is story; therefore science needs story.” This is stunning! What Olson is saying here is that metaphysical storytelling should override accuracy in science reporting.

Returning to Meyer at Cambridge, during his first year, he was granted a second telling revelation when his supervisor offered some unsolicited advice. “Everyone here is bluffing,” the kindly old school don said. “And if you’re to succeed, you must learn to bluff too.”

Fortunately, Meyer opted for personal integrity and legitimate science over bluffing and storytelling and then left it to others to sort things out. Imagine the exhibit in some future Museum of Science and History: Everyone believed the Darwinists, boys, and girls until a few brave scientists concerned with data and following evidence came along and called their bluff.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a science story worth telling.

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2z72XqW

November 18, 2018/by Guest

Tag Archive for: history

How Soviet Disinformation Infected the West & What the West Can Do About It

Disinformation: Deception as Strategic Policy

Truth as Counter-Strategy

“Blow Up That Whole W-w-wasps N-n-nest”

The Empire Strikes Back

Plain Truth: Still the Best Defense

Ancient accounts of historical events were often written by people who lived after the events happened

Almost all ancient historical accounts were written within a culture focused on oral tradition

The works of Josephus and Tacitus are generally reliable.

There is no reason to question Tacitus’ reference to Jesus being killed under Pontius Pilate.

We can find basic facts about Jesus in the works of Josephus.

These references are not the only sources we have on Jesus.

Introduction

Areas Of Agreement

Philosophical Issues

False Dichotomy

Logical Fallacy- Hasty Generalization

Logical Fallacy- Conflation

Philosophy of Science- Investigating the Past

Theological Issues

Nature Cannot Interpret Scripture

A Global Flood and the Judgment of Sin

Scientific Issues

Evolution Can Take Place in Billions of Years

Affirmation of Macro-Evolution

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Affirm A Young Earth

Conclusion