A Response to Newsweek on the Bible

newsweek ^ | 1/15/15 | Michael Brown

[daniel1212]

Newsweek’s recent cover story on the Bible, as we expected, proved quite controversial, particularly among the evangelical community...

Is it true that prominent Christian leaders in America are misusing the Bible to suit their own purposes?...

Has the text of the Bible undergone such dramatic changes over the centuries that it bears little resemblance to the original teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Paul?..

..does Newsweek paint an accurate picture of conservative evangelicals? Certainly not.

More importantly, does Newsweek paint an accurate picture of the reliability of the Scriptures? Emphatically not...

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

If I say “ my father is greater than I” , I hope you would agree with me that I am talking about two distinct persons in that statement:
1. My father
2. Myself

When Jesus said that statement in John 14:28, how many persons was He talking about?

[cuban leaf]

We’re on the same page.

[daniel1212]

I will ask Newsweek for advice on the Bible about the same time I ask Hugh Hefner for advice on how to make it to the alter with your chastity intact. Just after I ask my local imam for a really great slow-roasted BBQ pork recipe.

But the liberal elite, like the devil who seeks to rule by proxy thru such, presume they should be as the Most High, and alone answer the question, "What is Truth?

[daniel1212]

(Do your children and grandchildren know more nasty rap lyrics than psalms.)

Yes, it is a grievous contrast to McGuffey's reader.

[daniel1212]

they may want to remember that the rooster crowed once before Peter denied Christ three times in Mark, but not until after he denied Christ three times in the others.

That is like many other duplicate accounts and there is no actually contradiction. Search my custom search engine or Google's own Apologetics search of approx 135 Christian apologetics websites and blogs.

Searching rooster crowed once before Peter denied Christ three times in Mark

Web (10)

powered by

Custom Search

22:34, Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter's third denial?

carm.org

carm.org/bible.../did-cock-crow-once-or-twice-peters-third-denial

22:34, Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter's third denial? If a cock crows a second time, then it has crowed once before. The problem is that in Mark, after Peter denies the Lord for the third time (Mark 14:71), immediately ... carm.org carm.org/bible.../did-cock-crow-once-or-twice-peters-third-denial

clipped from Google - 1/2015

Apologetics Press - How Many Times Did the Rooster Crow?

www.apologeticspress.org

www.apologeticspress.org/article/759

Apologetics Press - How Many Times Did the Rooster Crow? Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will ... the rooster crowed once after Peter's first denial and again after his third denial. .... must be noted; (3) the author's name must remain attached to the materials; ... www.apologeticspress.org www.apologeticspress.org/article/759

clipped from Google - 1/2015

Contradictions: Cock a Doodle, One or Two? | Answers in Genesis

answersingenesis.org

https://answersingenesis.org/...in-the.../cock-a-doodle-one-or-two/

Contradictions: Cock a Doodle, One or Two? | Answers in Genesis Aug 28, 2012 ... At Peter's denials of Christ, did the rooster crow once or twice, and how ... “the crowing of the rooster” continued from about 12:00 A.M. until 3:00 ...

[daniel1212]

Well, why are there more than six different copies of the Gettysburg Address?

It must mean it was all made up - Newsweek

[daniel1212]

Newsweek is attacking the foundational text of my faith, The Bible. I wonder if they will notice that I don’t try to kill them for it...

Newsweek is the one that ran the big infomercial for Islam after 911 by some women pseudo-scholar, basically blaming it one the Crusades of whom the Muslims were victims.

[daniel1212]

Newsweek is owned by two evangelical Christians, who are apparently too cowed to exercise editorial control.

You must be referring to this:

IBT Media says it has an ongoing "working relationship" with Olivet University which includes the school providing design assistance and computer resources, and IBT Media providing internships for students. It characterizes it as similar to the relationships Silicon Valley companies have with local universities.[11] However, publication Christianity Today alleges that IBT Media has a close relationship both with Olivet and with its founder, controversial[11][15] evangelical pastor David J. Jang. It claims that Jang is an investor in and has exercised control over IBT Media, that Davis was formerly director of journalism at Olivet, and that Uzac was its Treasurer, at least at one time.[11][16][17] Executives characterize the relationship as between the institutions and not the founders, and that it was purely operational.[10][11] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBT_Media

[captmar-vell]

I read this article a few weeks back,

Was written by an obvious sexually confused democrat using rabid atheist Bart Erhman as his supposed ‘bible scholar’ He always comes off to me in these articles as a jilted girlfriend,

Wheeled out once again like that Simcha Jacobovici ‘naked archeologist’ nut that appears like clockwork with some flamethrowing ‘new startling discovery DVD in stores now’ with the liberal pressitutes in tow,

I doubt Richard Dawkins would answer the phone for either,

[Cvengr]

bttt

[cuban leaf]

That is like many other duplicate accounts and there is no actually contradiction. Search my custom search engine or Google’s own Apologetics search of approx 135 Christian apologetics websites and blogs.

---

You’re preaching to the choir with me. I was bringing up that one because it makes the point I was trying to make. To wit, people take the actual words in their ENGLISH bibles too literally. An excellent example would be “In my fathers house are many mansions”. The original greek in no way translates “mansion”. It was subjective interpretation.

But to the point I was trying to make, many people use words to support their religious dogmas that are really a stretch. An example is “their worm does not die” and “fire is not quenched” being used to support the dogma that non-believers don’t “die, get destroyed or perish”, but instead suffer unimaginable torture for time unending. They don’t consider that the whole point being made is that their destruction is final and permanent, not that they “suffer destruction” permanently.

But even more to my point, there are places where there are back to back verses that say if a person does x, they are saved, but if they do y, they are not. Yet there are lots of people that do both. It means the “plain meaning” of words isn’t so plain.

I was listening to Jude for the third consecutive time on one of my commutes, trying to reconcile it to the words of Jesus as well as Paul and suddenly asked myself, “who the heck is this guy and why do I consider his words scripture? And guess what? Turns out that book is, in fact one of the disputed books of the Canon.

But my bottom line is actually very subtle. It states the obvious, but begs that the obvious be considered when reading the bible. And the obvious is this: Romans was simply a letter written by a man, inspired by God, to a church in Rome. And I should always remember that as I read the letter. And I need to apply that sort of thinking to every single “book” in the new testament.

The things I am saying may be a big “duh” to many here. But it took me longer to figure it out. The early church had no “bible”. And many of these “books” did not even exist for quite a while after the death of Jesus. Nobody needs this stuff to be saved. One is saved by accepting Christ as their savior and acknowledging him before men (though I always get nervous using the word “and” regarding salvation). The stuff in our modern bible is helpful, no doubt, but not necessary. Especially when there is something MORE valuable: Prayer.

[cuban leaf]

Typically those who claim errancy in scripture have been too lazy to research.

---

I agree. However, I do se “errancy” when comparing versions. My biggest pet peeve is “mansions”. It’s peppered throughout our hymnals and yet the original greek simply meant “dwelling place” or “room”. It’s like interpreting a word that translates “automobile” to “limosine”. Sure, it’s the Lord’s, and therefore its gotta be pretty cool, but a translator needs to ensure the translation matches what was actually said, not what was “probably” meant.

[cuban leaf]

For me it’s just a lesson in not hanging on every word in our bibles as “gospel”. One needs to remember that these books are VERY old, cobbled together, and put their by men. They are VERY helpful and instructive in living your life for Christ, but not to be worshiped. Christians don’t worship books. We worship our creator.

A bible is a bunch of books written by men. These men were all inspired by God. They are still written by men. In fact, that is one of the things that makes them “real”.

[cuban leaf]

The Bible actually has incredible textual verifiability. People can disagree with what it teaches if they choose— I don’t— but the text is incredibly good and is its own miracle in creation.

---

I completely agree with that assessment, but I will point out that many places we say the verifiability is in our own interpretation of its words. There are places where, in plain language, it absolutely contradicts itself. But we understand the greater point being made.

It comes down to this: In many places the bible is like the scene in My Cousin Vinny where the man says, “you got mud in your tires”. And vinny asks how can mud get IN the tires. The guy says, no, it’s a figure of speech, and then proceeds to explain what is meant by the phrase.

A LOT of the bible is “figures of speech” type stuff.

[cuban leaf]

The Bible actually has incredible textual verifiability. People can disagree with what it teaches if they choose— I don’t— but the text is incredibly good and is its own miracle in creation.

---

I completely agree with that assessment, but I will point out that many places we say the verifiability is in our own interpretation of its words. There are places where, in plain language, it absolutely contradicts itself. But we understand the greater point being made.

It comes down to this: In many places the bible is like the scene in My Cousin Vinny where the man says, “you got mud in your tires”. And vinny asks how can mud get IN the tires. The guy says, no, it’s a figure of speech, and then proceeds to explain what is meant by the phrase.

A LOT of the bible is “figures of speech” type stuff.

[cuban leaf]

Actually, such minor discrepancies in testimony - even eyewitness testimony - are common and, when taken together, establish the truth of critical events.

---

Yes. I believe it is in Th3 Case For Christ where there is a trial attorney that says the discrepancies in the gospels are what brought him to the belief that they are genuine. He said that when witnesses give the exact same testimony there is collusion. But REAL witnesses remember things differently and remember different details.

And if a human being was just making up the gospels, they would have matche up much better.

It is fascinating how God uses human flaws to prove His authenticity.

[Zuriel]

**If I say “ my father is greater than I” , I hope you would agree with me that I am talking about two distinct persons in that statement: 1. My father 2. Myself**

Poor comparison. You are talking about two people, neither of which are God, that in the eyes of God, are equally needful of God’s ability to save.

**When Jesus said that statement in John 14:28, how many persons was He talking about?**

‘God the Father’, and the ‘Son of God’. The Father is a Spirit (John 4:23,24), and is IN the Son, giving him all power. Is your earthly father in you, giving you all power?

[ravenwolf]

For me it’s just a lesson in not hanging on every word in our bibles as “gospel”.

---

I agree, I don`t don`t think knit picking is living ones life for Christ but doing the things Jesus said to do is.

But how do we know if we don`t read.

[cuban leaf]

But how do we know if we don`t read.

---

I think we should read - prayerfully. For one thing, it helps the individual rightly divide what they are reading.

It’s what keeps me from gouging my eye out.