Posted on 07/02/2006 1:14:28 AM PDT by Dawnsblood
Would you all please feel free to add to the discussion?
Dean says:
Understanding the Bible Dean In the first few centuries of Christianity, no one had any idea that there was anything called a "Bible." Indeed, at that time, there was no Bible. That didn't happen until the 3rd or 4th century, depending on how you look at it.
Most early Christians were probably illiterate. Indeed, it is very likely that many of the original Apostles were illiterate. There is even evidence in the New Testament that Peter, Paul, and the other apostles were illiterate. Peter and Paul and the other New Testament writers often seem to be dictating to someone rather than writing for themsleves. All you have to do is read the beginnings of most of the New Testament books to see that.
Yet they all had a host of ideas and assumptions that they obviously drew from.
Until Martin Luther in the 1500s said that the Bible was the wellspring of Christianity, no Christian ever believed such a thing about the Bible.
So where do modern American Evangelicals get this idea, do you think?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. --John 1:1
Project MUSE
Project Zero's Project MUSE was supported by The Bauman Foundation. Project MUSE (Museums Uniting with Schools in Education) was formed in 1994 and ...
>>>Love your enemies<<<
Of course, if you love someone you will attempt to correct them from their evil ways to save them from eternal damnation, much as a good father uses a rod on the behind of a spoiled child to save him from a life of sin.
If that doesn't work, there is this one: "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." -- James 4:7
MUSE
Project MUSE was established by Johns Hopkins University Press to provide digital access to its journals. The project now includes selected journals of many ...
libnet.ac.il/~libnet/muse.htm - 3k - Cached - Similar pages
What does it mean when they say Jesus decended from David?
Can somebody explain?
It means Jesus as a man can trace his lineage to David. What is your real reason for asking?
Agreed
ping
Just wanted to point out to you that in your comment you assume that the Ethiopian Eunuch read the Old Testament in Hebrew and Steven explained in to him in Hebrew also. This could be true, but since the Greek Septuagint did exist, it is possible that they both could of used the Septuagint. I think this is more plausible being that Ethiopia was quiet a ways away, and probably more reasonable that the Ethiopian knew and used Greek the common language of the area and most of the know World at that time.
Yes, but the first criteria for understanding the answer requires that one hasn't first rejected the law of non-contradiction.
Someone please correct me if I'm repeating something that was made up, but during the Pres. campaign, it seems to me that someone asked Dean what his favorite New Testament story was and he replied "the one about Job getting swallowed by the whale".
Just realized; wrong Dean. In the Immortal words of Emily Latella, "NEVER MIND".
I am curious about the Howard Dean thing, though, if anyone happens to know.
It also means that no other person could be confirmed as the Messiah as prophesied. The genealogies of the house of David were destroyed with the Temple in 70AD. That means it would be impossible to prove whether a latter day "messiah" came from the house of David.
In short, the destruction of the Temple and the departure of the Shekinah proves Yeshua to be the only possible candidate.
"BTW... I have alot of respect for Mr Esmay.." ~ Dawnsblood
You would no doubt also have a lot of respect for others like him who write things based on hay-seed scholarship. They're being dealt with here:
Brains and Eggs Or, A Quick Look at Some Insults to Our Intelligence James Patrick Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/smithg01.html
A recent skeptical inquirer (actually, Brooks Trubee) asked me if I had ever read a book by one George Smith entitled Atheism: The Case Against God, ..."
[huge snip]
Scroll almost 1/2 way down the page ---- these are excerpts under this heading::
Addendum by "Nick P."
As a Christian apologist, I decided to read and review some more arguments from the other side. I've encountered many atheists in my years, but I'd never read a direct book by an atheist. I ordered George Smith's book which I am critiquing here, and Michael Martin's book "The Case Against Christianity." As Smith arrived first, I read it first.
One might be surprised, but I agreed with a number of things he said throughout the book. Why would I say that? Because Smith seemed to delight in presenting straw men of Christian beliefs. Most noted is his attack on faith where he destroyed the idea of faith. I was glad he did, because I don't like that kind of faith either.
The book starts though with what seems to be really an appeal to pity. Implying that atheists have been so misjudged, and couldn't even hold office for awhile. After that, he discusses the differences between theism and atheism and agnosticism. I will try to avoid adding anything to what my friend J.P. has said. He has his own article on this book where he goes from the historical and textual basis. I could touch on that some, but I mainly want to hit the philosophical basis.
On page 14, Smith makes the statement that babies are not born with the idea of God. Now that's a well and good assertion, but I'm the type who needs some evidence to believe an assertion. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has made a strong case that belief in God can be properly basic. The same way we believe the external world exists, we can believe God exists. It's built into us. A reader can read Plantinga himself or Ronald Nash's review of what Plantinga says in his book "Faith and Reason." Some Japanese research strongly suggests that knowledge of the Creator God is innate. See the item here.
I suspect this comes largely from Locke's theory of Tabula Rosa, where it is stated that babies are born with a clean slate and no knowledge. When I heard this in a class at college, the first question I asked was "Is a baby born knowing how to learn?" If not, how can you learn how to learn? It's because of such questions I do hinder some on accepting Smith's claim. He uses it nicely to buttress a later point, but with my suspicion on this first start, I was hesitant to go for the rest.
Now when Smith goes on to describe the idea of god (little g for generalities and big G for the Christian God), he uses again a straw man idea. His belief is that if something is incomprehensible, it is not true. I will agree that I cannot comprehend the Christian God but that doesn't make him false.
The difference is between comprehension and apprehension. Smith makes it sound like if we don't have comprehension, then we have no idea. Personally, I don't even have a full comprehension of myself. How, then, can I have one of God? However, I can apprehend God. There are some basic concepts about God that I can understand. I can understand that God exists for instance. I can't comprehend eternal existence but who can comprehend eternity?
Furthermore, let us think about other fields. Quantam Physics is something new, and there are many things we don't understand. By Smith's wording, we should throw out Quantam Physics then. Also, you will not find a single physicist who claims to fully understand E = MC squared. However, if you go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you will find definite proof this theory actually works.
So, with that, let's move on to the Christian God. I personally think Smith's book should have been called "The Case Against Christianity", because this seems to be the only kind of theism he wants to defeat. I do not recall mention of Hinduism or Islam. I will not mention Buddhism since it is non-theistic and I wonder how Smith would accept it.
Smith poisons the wells at the beginning of his third chapter by referring to God as a creature. God is never referred to as a creature in Christian literature. He is separate and distinct from his creation. Then he pulls out the comprehension book. Please Mr. Smith, we believe in apprehension, not comprehension.
Smith also makes the case that God-behaving attributes would rule out negative attributes. I agree! So what's the problem? We know if God is all-powerful he can't be non-powerful at the same time. Smith makes it seem that if God is to exist he must be perfect and impefect at the same time and in the same sense. This from one who claims to value the Law of Noncontradiction?
I find it interesting how he says on page 52, that God cannot be described and neither can non-existence. I find this odd since he just described God as a being who cannot be described and non-existence as something that cannot be described. In fact, if you can't describe them, then what is he doing telling us all these characteristics he sees?
He then goes on to attack the attributes. He attacks ominpotence with the straw man that God can do anything. This is not Christian teaching. The Bible makes it clear that God cannot lie for instance. (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18.) So what can God not do? God cannot do anything that goes against his nature. His nature is also logical. He cannot contradict the laws of logic.
The next one he deals with is omniscience. Smith attacks this on the basis of free-will. (Note he never gives the atheistic basis of free-will). William Provine has made the case that if evolution is true, which Smith would grant, man has no free-will. I was waiting for Smith to give the argument for free-will from the atheistic perspective, but it never came.
"..Smith speaks a lot of sensory detection which just makes me wonder about something. Has Smith ever had sensory perception of his own thoughts? Has he ever had sensory perception of the laws of logic? In fact, in the debate between Stein and Bahnsen, this was the point that Bahnsen got Stein on. Stein wanted some other nonmaterial thing that existed and Bahnsen said "Laws of logic."
Now by Smith's argument, if the only things that exist are those we have sensory perception of, then we must conclude that the laws of logic do not exist and that Smith's own thoughts do not exist.
...So I called on my cell phone and made my question. I will have to paraphrase but I simply said, "I've got one question about evolution. We know from science that matter is irrational. That means that it does not possess rationality and cannot think and reason. Now when we look at the world around us, it seems that so many species like humans can think and reason and possess rationality. Now if Hume is right and water doesn't rise higher than its source and an effect can't be greater than its cause, how do you get rationality from irrationality?"
I have never heard such shuffling. The host immediately said that the guest would have to answer that question. The professor told me it was the $64,000 question and that we really didn't know, but we know God didn't do it because we'd just have to ask who created him. (A point I will answer later.) ...
Smith then moves on to miracles. While he has earlier condemned theists for interpreting everything to support a theistic outlook, he says on page 212 that "Explanations, by their very nature, must fall within the realm of natural causality." Ah! When theists do it, it's wrong, but if an atheist wants to stack the deck in advance, that's perfectly acceptable.
His argument against miracles is pretty much saying that the natural law cannot be violated and a miracle would violate it, so that is not possible. Smith hasn't proven his case though. Miracles are rare events. That's why we call them "Miracles"! In fact, look at some miracles. Water turning into wine? Sure. Happens all the time. That's how wine is made with water. Jesus just speeded up the process.
In fact, as soon as the miracle is done, the natural processes take over. Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, but she had the same 9 month period and probably the same pains and the same urges that sent Joseph to the market at night for pickles.
Now Smith goes on to the arguments against God. I have to admit that this was one of the funniest sections of his book to me. The main concept is dealing with the universe. He quotes Corliss Lamont on pages 230-231, who says that there is a time where we just have to stop asking why. We just accept it. Is this not the blind faith Smith earlier attacked? Smith himself says the universe needs no reason for its existence. It just exists. The existential problems are great and this will be covered more in the final section speaking about the sins of Christianity.
Smith again continues his "head in the sand" ostrich approach on page 233. Here he says that naturalism cannot be defeated by argumentation. Now, there is a problem with any theory if you have no way of falsifying it. I'll make it easy for Smith. If he wants to falsify Christianity, he just has to explain away the empty tomb. A person who gives no way of falsification simply is saying they don't believe in any evidence to the contrary. Their mind is like concrete. It's thoroughly mixed and permenantly set.
When Smith goes to the cosmological argument, we can't fault him for not knowing what would happen later, such as Brandon Carter shocking the world by speaking about the Anthropic Principle. However, Smith misrepresents the Cosmological argument on page 236 by saying "Every existing thing has a cause." This isn't the Cosmological argument. It's a straw man. The argument is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Smith fails to answer the question of the infinite regress. If time is a series of causes and effects, then how did we get to this effect? If there's an infinite past, then there was an infinite set of causes and effects completed. Now if we complete an infinite set, the Law of Noncontradiction has been violated because the set is no longer infinite.
Smith's answer is simply "Who created God?" The problem is that Smith doesn't realize that in the Christian view, time is a creation of God as well. The start of creation began with time. How can a being outside of time age, grow old, die or undergo change? The universe, on the other hand, is clearly within time so it is legitimate to ask it of the universe. Furthermore, if science is right with the Big Bang theory, then the universe is losing energy, and it has no place outside of itself to get it. (Unless Smith wants to posit the God he denies.) It's doubly interesting that Smith demands an explanation when on page 252 he says that not everything needs an explanation.
Smith again goes on to his ad annis argument on page 255 where he talks about primitive man. One wonders if Smith uses the geometry and philosophy of primitive man at all. Primitive man, in many ways, was quite brilliant in what he was capable of doing without modern technology.
Smith's argument against design is weak, and shoots itself in the foot when he asks "Who designed God?" First off, let's assume that God is complex. (Actually, if Smith wanted to know about God, he could have checked a tome on Systematic Theology and found that an attribute of God is simplicity, meaning he has no parts.) What if we say "God doesn't need a designer."
Smith could say "Complex things need designers." At that point, we have to ask who designed the complex universe. If he says "Okay, then complex things don't need designers", we can smile and say "Glad you agree. God doesn't need a designer either."
Smith uses the analogy of a man walking down the street, and a tile blows on him and kills him. Not enogh information is given about this scenario. What if this was New York City, and the street was busy, and people were always walking down it? Then, it's not unlikely that if a tile fell, it could hit someone and kill them.
Furthermore, Smith is talking about one improbablity. Suppose you were at an office that gave lottery tickets. A man came who had bought one ticket and hit the jackpot. An unlikely event, but it can happen. Suppose he comes the next week after buying one ticket and hits the jackpot. You're getting really suspicious. If this happens a third time, you'll definitely want an investigation. The more improbabilities you have, the more unlikely it is that all will happen. There are many things the anthropic principle has shown us. Each one makes it unlikely that it happened by chance.
As for the bad things he sees like earthquakes, if Smith would get a copy of a book such as "Rare Earth" or Lee Strobel's "The Case for the Creator," he'd actually see that there are reasons for plate tectonics, and one of the reasons there could be life here is that ours is the only planet we know of that has earthquakes.
Smith finally taks about the sins of Christianity including the doctrine of Hell. I must comment on this though I would recommend the writings of J.P. Moreland especially. (See question #6 of Lee Strobel's "Case for Faith" as well as the book Moreland co-authored with Gary Habermas "Immortality: The Other Side of Death.")
Smith paints the picture of a burning Hell. He neglects to mention that biblical conservatives like myself and Moreland and many others deny Hell as a fiery furnace. It's highly symbolic language. Furthermore, what would Smith have God do with wicked people? What can God do that will honor their humanity and choice and not treat them like objects? Quarantine. That's what Hell is. God leaves them alone.
Smith talks about the Christian hating pleasure. I have no idea what Bible he's reading. Did he neglect to read John 10:10 where Jesus said he came to give us abundant life.?Did he neglect to read 1 Tim. 6:17 where we are told God gives us all things richly for our enjoyment? Did he fail to see Song of Solomon where sexuality is written about in explicit terms? What of Psalm 104:15, where we are told how God blesses man and gives him wine to gladden him?
In fact, my greatest sermon I have preached, is a sermon I have on pleasure. I think pleasure is at the heart of Christian thinking. John Piper has said "The pursuit of pleasure is not optional. It is essential." One of my main problems with atheism and other non-Christian beliefs is, that they ultimately have a low view of pleasure.
In fact, G.K. Chesterton said he'd explain the problem of evil when he was explained the problem of pleasure. He can understand why we need food to survive, but why do we have to have taste buds that make food taste good? Why does water have to taste good. On the last point, I cannot speak from experience yet, but why does reproduction, a natural process, have to be so enjoyable, as Smith gladly notes?
And what of sex outside of marriage? How beautiful. Baby, I want you to take off all your clothes for me, and give me all you are. But, I don't want to make a commitment to you yet, because I'm not sure I can trust you. You think you can trust her? Then prove it and wait. Acting early would be saying you're not sure you can, so you're going to get what you can get now.
Smith also makes it seem that we obey God out of fear. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Naturally, if we have wronged God, there is something to fear. Would it be any other way? Would an all-good God allow evil to go unpunished? Smith cries against evil, but then complains when God punishes people. It makes no sense.
I obey God for the same reason I obey my parents. I love them. I don't want to do something that would hurt them. It's the same reason you don't cheat on your wife. It's not a divorce threat hanging over your head (or it shouldn't be), but it's just that you love her.
But what if Smith is wrong though and there is real guilt because a real command has been broken? The guilt I feel when I do something we all know is wrong does not seem make believe. Who will rid me of guilt? What can you do if you're guilty of guilt?
God has the answer and he can do it because he is a person. We can even speak analogically of him because of his personality. No, God is not a sadist wanting to cast people into Hell. 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim. 2:4 make this very clear. He wants all to come.
If God just left us with guilt, we would have a problem. We don't though. An escape has been made. God himself has provided. Examine the evidence. Use your reasoning. Find out if his claims are true. He invites you to. He says you will be rewarded if you seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
I would encourage it because frankly, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Proper public Jewish worship requires a minyan, which, strictly, is a group of 10 or more "adult" male Jews. (Adult, in this case, means having completed their bar mitzvah, or confirmation.) The worship ceremony always includes reading aloud from the Torah by one or more members of this group, observed directly by other members who are charged to immediately correct any error made by the reader.
Being able to read the Torah is a responsibility of an adult, observant Jew, and reading aloud from the Torah is a part of the bar mitzvah (confirmation) ceremony.
Furthermore, the Torah from which they read is, in most cases, a stroke by stroke hand copy of an ancient document, which, in turn, is a stroke by stroke hand copy of an even more ancient document, with antecedents that precede the time of Christ by many centuries.
To the best of my knowledge, no new discoveries of old documents have ever discovered any significant variances between those ancient sources and the Torah that can be found in almost any synagogue in the world today.
Even the founders of this nation understood Religion--
Morality (and then) Knowledge -(were) necessary for good
government and the happiness of mankind.(Article III Northwest Ordinance) Love of knowledge -lacking wisdom which comes from G-d alone. . . is a dangerous thing.
There is nothing wrong or lacking in a society where
the important stuff is transmitted orally. I dare suggest the oral tradition of Scripture cannot be divorced from
the written transcripts. For the whole of Scripture was indeed-inspired by G-d.
Born of the Vigin Mary... Immaculate conception,right?
David is not the biological father, so what does it mean when people say "trace his lineage to David"? I don't get that part.
You are correct - no printing press - all scrolls were handwritten.
And .. at that time in history, the ruling class did not believe the lower class were educated enough to be able to read the writings and properly interpret them [must have been liberals].
It was only King James who had the courage to gather together a group of scholars and translate the writings into a book - the Bible - so the masses could read it for themselves [must have been a conservative]. That's why the most commonly used translation is called, "The King James version".
However, as to the uneducated writing the Bible - Paul (who was converted to Christianity), was a very, very well educated person Paul said he considered it all "dung" compared to his relationship with Jesus. After his conversion, it was Paul who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.