Read Jewish critique of Christian scriptures and see why.
There is no more a blatant fraud than Dawkins’ assertion that the existence of God is a matter for Science and that his answer is “no.”
Where does he say that? I don't remember him ever saying anything like that.
Being an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins must be aware that Science does not concern itself with matters philosophical or religious, yet he presumes to cite Science as an authority supporting his religious beliefs (or, rather, disbeliefs, it might be more accurate to say).
I disagree. I would like you to show me where he uses science to disprove God.
He makes it a point to report that the KJV is not Holy Scripture but is, instead, an English translation of Holy Scripture, and that all translations are, to some degree, “forced.”
While that is true, Bible scholars disagree on a variety of issues based on the readings in the original languages.
Simply put, I think he, and others like him, far more accurate (and honest) than Dawkins or you
For someone who admits being "a simple man, not sophisticated in matters of biblical scholarship" it is a mystery based on what (other than a whim) do you come to that conclusion. It certainly couldn't be a sophisticated or scholarly reason, right because you are "a simple man, not sophisticated in matters of biblical scholarship."
A woman of Canaan comes to Jesus, worshiping him and asking Him for help (Matthew 15:22-28), and all you get from the passage is Christ calling the woman a dog.
She could not possibly be worshipping him since the descendent (aka son) of David would not have been considered divine. She doesn't call him the Sin of God. The term kyrios (master) is a secular as well as a divine title, but since she is addressing a descendent of a human, the tile would have been secular. This is in line with the Jewish belief that the meshiyah (aka "messiah"), which means anointed (in Greek christos), would be a man, not a god.
But, let's look at the sequence of verses: she comes to him saying her daughter is sick, and the next verse says "But he answered her not a word." (15:23).
After his disciples try to intervene (send her away) Jesus reiterates "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (15:24)
Then comes verse (15:25) "Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me."
The word proskyneo means to kiss the hand of a superior, to prostrate yourself in submission to a master (secular or divine, angelic or even demon). But since we already know that she called him the Son of David and not a god, the term "worshipped" is not divine worship, as the Christians insist.
At which point he calls her a dog. (15:26)
And she replies (15:27) "Truly (or verily), master, dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table.
To which (15:28) Jesus responds "O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."
What faith? That he is someone who can heal her daughter? But he should have known that all along. Right? So, why all the drama and name calling?
Obviously, the story is skewed in such a way that leads one to believe she though he was divine, when there is nothing in the verses to indicate he is. You don't have to be a god to be able to heal someone.
Your profound analysis is little more than a diversion directing our attention away from Christ’s words, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” directly contradicting your assertion that Matthew records Jesus explicitly stating He was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel only."
What? It's the same thing. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (NIV 2011, 15:24). In the historical sense the Jewish messiah was to be sent to bring back the dispersed members of the failed kingdom (house) of Israel, the so-called Northern Kingdom, rather than the Southern Kingdom, aka the house of Judah. That's why Jeremiah 33 speaks of the new covenant for the house of Israel.
I think you better stop now, because I don't want to be accused later of "ruining" someone's faith.
Debate/Interview excerpt between Professor Dawkins and Dr Collins, conducted at the Time & Life Building in New York City on Sept. 30, 2006:
TIME: “Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?”
DAWKINS: “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
See, this forum; A Mission to Convert (Dawkin's "God Delusion").
David Quinn & Richard Dawkins in an interview with Ryan Tubridy on the Ryan Tubridy Show: The main subject of contention was Dawkins’ book The God Delusion.
From the transcript:
Tubridy: “. . . Let’s just talk about the word if you don’t mind, the word delusion, so put it into context. Why did you pick that word?”
Dawkins: “Well the word delusion means a falsehood which is widely believed, and I think that is true of religion. It is remarkably widely believed, it’s as though almost all of the population or a substantial proportion of the population believed that they had been abducted by aliens in flying saucers. You’d call that a delusion. I think God is a similar delusion.”
The very title of Dawkins’ latest book is as clear a demonstration as one would want that Dawkins deems religious people (most particularly Christians) to be delusional, or worse (misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent), and the book’s title likewise makes it manifest that the existence of a god is what he considers them to be delusional about.
And Professor Dawkins grounds his reasoning in Science.
Now, what is the expiration date on your memory? When will you again not remember that Dawkins has said, “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”?
Next week?
Tomorrow?
“Bible scholars disagree on a variety of issues based on the readings in the original languages.”
So what? All literature scholars disagree on a variety of issues based on the readings in the original languages. It’s superiority is the reason why the KJV came in time to be accepted over its many competitors. McGrath does also predict the demise of the KJV translation, saying that when a translation requires a translation (which the KJV is coming to), then it’s time for a new translation of the original.
“What? It's the same thing. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (NIV 2011, 15:24).”
If you (or the NIV) wish to substitute “only” for “but,” then you have to explain the deletion of “not.” It’s a translation thing.
“That’s why Jeremiah 33 speaks of the new covenant for the house of Israel”
So when you deny that the OT refers forward to the NT, you mean it doesn’t refer forward only when it fits your argument?
“I think you better stop now, because I don't want to be accused later of "ruining" someone's faith.
Again begging for the last word. Oh, the humanity of it all! Surely you can survive the stress and trauma of such a wicked accusation (not the accomplishment – simply the accusation). Very well. For the sake of all suffering humanity, you may have the last word.