During a recent debate on Nightline, Bishop Carlton Pearson attacked the historical reliability of the Bible, saying people are free to pick and choose what they want to believe from it. His argument was based on the Bible’s separation from us by language, culture and time. He claimed it had gone from Hebrew, to Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to German, and finally to English, over more than a thousand years.
But thanks to a science called textual criticism, we can be sure that our Bible is reliable, factual, and is perhaps one of the best-preserved historical documents – ever.
First, it is not true English translations of the Bible passed through all those languages to get what we have now, (as if it were some sort of text-based rumor). As a rule, modern translators go back to the earliest extant manuscripts to make up modern English translations. And since there are thousands of extant manuscripts in the original language, (Hebrew and some Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament) our English translations are pulled right from the ancient text.
There are currently more than 3,000 extant Hebrew manuscripts from the OT, about 8,000 in the Latin Vulgate and more than 1,500 from the Septuagint (Greek OT translated around 200 B.C.). More than 200 of the extant Hebrew manuscripts date as far back as 250 B.C. [ESV 2586]. Out of all these manuscripts, all agree with each other, in that the meaning of the texts don’t change or contradict. Areas where wording differs is very minimal, (less than one percent), “and even among that 1 percent there are no variants that would change any part of the doctrine” (2587). The sheer quantity of these texts alone is a remarkable testimony that the Word has been accurately passed down.
Since the NT was written later, those manuscripts are even more prevalent. There are more than 5,700 extant Greek NT manuscripts, some of them are fragments dating so far back the authors who wrote them were possibly still alive when they were copied (second century A.D.). Also, there are nearly 25,000 NT manuscripts available in other ancient languages. The ESV Study Bible notes that “if all these were destroyed, the NT text could be reproduced almost in its entirety by quotations of it in sermons, tracts and commentaries written by ancient teachers” (2587). This not only shows that it was well preserved, but that it was considered holy writ by the contemporaries of the authors.
In fact, the high view of scripture is one of the reasons it is so well preserved. Those who copied the OT (scribes) made a whole career just out of meticulously copying and preserving the OT. When scrolls wore out, they expressed reverence by having a ritual burial for them (2585). The exactness of the scriptures was taken very seriously, and not treated as some sort of bedtime tale.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is good evidence for the near perfection of scripture preservation. Before they were discovered in 1947, the Masoretic texts were the oldest extant OT Manuscripts, dating back to 1008 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent more than a thousand-year gap, and when compared to Dead Sea Scrolls scholars found Masoretic texts to be “very accurate” (2586).
Compared to classical ancient manuscripts, the Bible far exceeds them in number and proximity to original manuscripts. The average number of manuscripts from ancient Greek or Latin authors is less than twenty! (2587). Also, the average extant classical manuscripts are more than 500 years separated from the original writing. But there are extant NT manuscripts only seventy years separated from original writings (this is a conservative estimate) [2588].
On top of all this, if you speak English, you are more likely to have a better understanding of the original manuscripts based on the large diversity of words in this language. Author Bill Bryson calls English “The Mother Tongue” because there are more than 200,000 words in common use, (excluding scientific and technical terms). By comparison Bryson points out German has 184,000 words in common use and French has only about 100,000. English is also the only language big enough that it needs and has books devoted to synonyms. Therefore English “is able to capture nuances better and more often because there are more words to describe subtle differences” (Ragan).
The Bible has been carefully preserved, mainly because its stewards always considered it inspired by God. No other book in the world is translated into more languages. Therefore, we know it to be God’s Words – and we would expect that a God who loves people and wants to reach them, would have provided a way for all the world to know him. He has done this through the Bible.
References:
English Standard Version of the Holy Bible. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.
Ragan Communications Inc. “First Draft” newsletter, March 2009 issue
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Temptation of Adam?
Note: What if Adam had been tempted instead of Eve? How would Satan have approached Adam? What tactics would he have used? We may never know, but I’ve taken a crack at spinning the tale myself. The following is a re-telling of the temptation in the Garden, inspired by Milton’s epic, Paradise Lost. Please let me know what you think:So it was Eve who departed from Adam at her request. She first took a step backwards swaying her body, almost as if she were teasing him, playfully, as if inviting him to pursue her despite her request for temporary solitude (9.386). Adam resisted his urge to go after her. Could she want him to follow? This woman was so hard to understand. Would she ask for one thing and really want another? He decided to just give her the space she plainly asked for, instead of trying to decode or interpret what she wanted. Her company was his desire. But Adam loved Eve, and he refused to bully, or oppress her for the sake of his own desire. Eve’s happiness was a high priority. Thus, they separated for the day, each to their own tasks.
Eve’s absence made Adam feel a bit melancholy. He watched her lightly stepping away, and his heart raced thinking about the way she moved, the sound of her feet, her backward glances, and playful smirks. She pleased him even in her most casual expressions. God did and excellent job with her. The pink scar on his side burned.
On the day before this, pure evil waited in hiding among the untamed shrubs. It was targeting the man. The devil abandoned a previous scheme to tempt the woman for several reasons. From his careful study he found that the woman-creature lives on a cycle. “Not only does her emotions oscillate,” thought the devil, “but her body goes through a physical undulation. Now is not the time to approach the woman, for she is about to bleed. I’ve observed her emotions are strained just prior to this physical phenomenon, making her less tolerant of company. I wonder if this is why she wants temporary respite from the man. Anyway, my objective is to have her eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but during this apex in her cycle, she seems more interested in the cacao bean, and not fruit.
“Besides, am I not great enough to conquer the man? Only the cowardly and fearful go after the smaller game. Why should I, the great cherub, who rules a third of heaven’s army (Rev. 12:4) and a thousand demigods (Milton 1.796), seek out the weaker of the two? (Milton 9.382-83). Am I not up to the challenge of engaging the man? Yes. I AM. I will take man’s worship from his creator, and wear it like a garment before my Enemy.”
Hence, the devil abandoned his plan to tempt Eve. And because of that, he decided the serpent was not the best choice of form any longer. “The subtlest beast of the field might work well for the woman (Milton 9.86),” said Satan, “for her strength is in hair-splitting rhetoric. However, for the man, subtlety would pass over him.”
After careful contemplation, the devil made a new choice of animal. To serve his purpose for the man, he found the fox more cunning than any beast of the field. Now that his mind was made up, the devil made one last lament before possessing the fox:
“This sucks. Here I am, about to take on the form of a smelly dog-like beast to hide my dark intentions. I have sunk to the level of cheap shenanigans to entertain this man. I once sat with the gods of the highest heaven! But now, I am to mix with fur and drool and perform silly animal tricks (Milton 9.160-165). But I will do what it takes. My ambition and commitment to revenge are stronger than my desire to stay separate from dust. How spiteful to me is the man’s Maker! How could he make such a spirit-animal hybrid – and call it his favorite? Disgusting.” (Lewis 37).
Therefore, during the night the devil entered the fox through its nose, and took on all its animal-like instincts – but the fox slept on until morning, and arose with prey on his mind (Milton 9.187-191).
Upon first sight of the man, Satan was still. How could something made from dust so resemble the strength of the Enemy? Obviously, the man was an animal. But an animal that seemed to burst and overflow with the supernatural. The man’s spirit spilled forth from his eyes. The fox fixed his stare on the god-like face of the man. That wonderful, bushy beard was like a mane! The man’s mere presence commanded respect. Every twitch of his face; every ripple of muscle stirred up awe in the fox’s heart. The deeply grooved frown of the man’s mouth combined with his hulking body brought back a chilling memory of the devil’s last civil moments with God. Satan had to repress a reflex of fear. Was he not, after all occupying a body subordinate to the man? Déjàvu flooded his heart. With one stomp of a foot, this muscle-bound man could break every bone in the fox. But Satan’s pride redoubled its strength and his hate rekindled in a burning flame and he strengthened his resolve.
On walked Adam, alone in his contemplation after departing from his lover. But suddenly, an interesting sound distracted him from his thoughts. Up ahead, coming from the vineyard he planted, Adam heard a sound in which he would later call music. As the man moved closer, he saw a large, red, bushy-tailed fox walking in the vineyard on his hind quarters (S.O.S. 2:15). Out of the fox’s mouth flowed a deep, rich Gregorian chant, complete in four-part harmony. Adam’s jaw dropped in astonishment and his legs brought him to a halt. The fox advanced on his hind legs, each step moving in rhythm to the chant, and each syllable pronounced with pious enthusiasm. The sound was incredible. Although the fox sang in a language Adam could not understand, the music was moving, and the sound was heavy. Every time the fox hit a low series of notes, Adam felt the vibrations in his chest. The man pressed his lips together and squeezed his eyes shut, producing a single tear. The fox’s song rose in volume and pitch until finally it resolved with a reverent,
“Aaw-hawh-men!”
The fox then eyeballed Adam, and with a quick, jerky gesture, plucked a large red grape with his paw, popped it into his mouth, and smacked loudly. After licking his lips, he said to Adam, “You’re not who I’m looking for,” and turned around to walk away.
“Do my eyes deceive me?” gasped Adam. “How is it that I hear the voice of four men proceeding from the mouth of a single animal? Do not leave me fox. Please do me the favor of satisfying my curiosity. Tell me, how did you come to speak, to sing, and to do so with such charming appeal?”
“I will spare time from my search for love to tell my story, man,” said the fox. “For you are large and burly and carry an intimidating stare – that almost of a god. Your voice is like thunder, your arms hard as stones, your chest as broad as a boulder, and your legs like tree trunks. I will entertain you for a moment, for you are surely a vision of power. But alas, what I seek is a thing of delicacy and beauty, not strength and grit.
“As a dumb beast, I once roamed the fields without high thinking of any kind. There were no words in my mouth or songs on my tongue. As chance would have it, on one sunny afternoon a sweet fragrance lured my attention. The aroma was better than the smell of any egg and sweeter than honey, so I followed my nose to a towering tree with plentiful leaves and broad, bulb-like flowers. I rushed up into the branches and found these flowers, each one closed over a single fruit. They were unavailable to other beasts because of their height, and inaccessible to birds because of their thick rind. But I, with my clever paws and maw, opened the bulb and ate. Such a taste was intoxicating and full. One taste of this fruit awakened my mind and my appetite for higher things. My body grew larger, my limbs more dexterous. My tongue attained speech and my mind gained understanding. But most importantly, my heart swelled and I learned how to feel passion. A song welled up from my chest and burst out of me! I came to understand I was no longer fettered to the instincts of a lowly beast.
“With these new abilities came a desire to please another being. It is a creature of beauty that I now seek – not some lowly animal. I know there is such a being, because all desires are matched with something to fill them. And when I find this creature of beauty, my songs will enchant her and hold captive her attention for all our lives. She will love only me.”
Then Adam thought, “Who or what does this fox seek? I’ve seen every creature on earth. Indeed I have named them all. There is none of such beauty as he describes that I can think … save one, and that is Eve … oh no!”
A new feeling surged up in Adam’s chest. Something almost tart and electric – it was not a comfortable feeling, but tense and urgent. It beat against his chest and made his mouth dry. This new and unpleasant feeling squirmed inside and gave him cause for alarm. Must he compete for Eve’s love? He surely didn’t want to lose her – she was his own flesh.
Then Adam spoke. “Dear fox, I will trouble you a moment longer. Please show me this tree so that I may eat of its fruit and gain the skill of charm and chant like you.”
“It is not far from here,” replied the fox, “follow me.”
But upon arrival, Adam’s heart sank. “That is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,” said Adam, “and of it the LORD commanded me not to eat.”
“Really? No! Don’t misunderstand the LORD, friend!” said the fox. “He surely did not command you not to eat. He merely said if you ate from it you would die. But you surely have the option to eat.”
“Don’t be a fool, fox,” replied Adam. “I have no desire to die.”
“Listen to me, man. You know nothing of death because you have not tasted it. Death does not mean exactly what you think.”
“But,” said Adam, “I know it involves cessation of life, and that cannot be good.”
The fox sighed, shook his head, as if this was something he dealt with often. “Let me explain,” He said in a rather snobbish and pompous tone, as if speaking to a dull pupil. “You see that plush vineyard you planted? That is an example of death. It started out as an ugly brown seed. Had that seed not dried up, died and been buried, it would not have come back as a large, beautiful vine which bears delicious, red grapes. You see? Death is like graduating to something higher.” Then the fox burst forth in a brief song:
For when I took and ate of this fruit,
My life ceased and I died as a brute.
Only to come back again,
Strong, and red, in search of my hen.
If death of this brute produced a new fox,
What would death do to human stock?
Surely a god’s form you would step in,
Impress the LORD with a new life of sin.
My life ceased and I died as a brute.
Only to come back again,
Strong, and red, in search of my hen.
If death of this brute produced a new fox,
What would death do to human stock?
Surely a god’s form you would step in,
Impress the LORD with a new life of sin.
Then, when Adam saw the fruit’s result on the fox, that it would bring a “new” life and also make him more appealing to Eve, he took a bulb, ripped off the rind, and ate. The fox quickly ran off twitching his tail.
Then, Adam’s eyes were opened and his desire for Eve twisted out of its original shape, changing from a delightful feeling to a ravenous hunger. As chance would have it, Eve was approaching in the distance. He quickly snatched another fruit and sprinted away from the tree, adjacent to Eve’s approach, to conceal the fruit’s origin. He then uttered three simple words to his bride:
“Come ‘ere Rib!”
Works Cited
Lewis, C.S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.Milton, John. Paradise Lost. London: Penguin, 2000.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Why trash the Law?
Can anyone point out in the Bible a claim that it’s not possible for people to be able to keep the entire Old Testament Law? I often hear Christians say it is impossible to keep God’s Law, and that’s why Jesus came.
Okay, before some of you blow a vein and label me a heretic for implying salvation by works, let me first assure you I agree that no amount of work can earn salvation. Yes, we’re all unworthy of Jesus and only saved by his grace – we’re not better than anyone else. I just disagree God gave a law that can’t be followed (that would be cruel) – and there is scripture back this up.
For example, consider what God tells Moses to speak to the people after giving them the entire Law, (all 613 commandments). About these commandments God said, “‘For this commandment [to follow the whole Law] that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off … But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it” (Duet. 30:11 & 14, ESV emphasis mine).
Also, consider that Job was blameless, (Job 1:1) yet he admits to despising himself because of his sin (Job 42:6). Noah was “blameless” (Gen. 6:9). Of Zechariah and Elizabeth (parents of John the Baptizer) this is written: “And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. (Luke 1:6 emphasis mine).
Furthermore, how could Paul admit to being sinful yet audaciously claim he kept the law perfectly as a Pharisee? I’m referring to these words: “as righteousness under the law, [I am] blameless” (Phi. 3:6b). (Incidentally, he considered that righteousness as “rubbish” [3:8]).
Now, let me point out here there is a key difference between keeping the law and sinning, (otherwise, the Bible wouldn’t claim some people followed the Law blamelessly). Many people blur law-breaking and sin together. I’m saying this: It’s possible for a person to keep law and still sin. Even a cursory reading of the Pentateuch will reveal God’s Law to Israel made room for sin. That’s because he knew people were sinful and would sin. Imagine that! There is grace in the Old Testament! God provided ample opportunities for people who sinned to be keepers of the Law. That’s where the terms guilt- and sin-offerings come from. If you offer a sin offering, you’re admitting to sin while keeping the Law.
So the old form of the Law could be kept. (I say, “could” because the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and sin offerings using animal sacrifices are now superseded by Jesus’ sacrifice.) BUT Jesus didn’t come because it was inconvenient to make animal sacrifices. As a matter of fact, the upright Jew considered keeping the Law one of his purest joys (Psalm 119: 97-104) and a privilege. It was an outward way to express an inward love toward God. This is quite the contrast to what Martin Luther taught about the Law being there to terrorize sinners.
Jesus pointed out the difference between following the Law and not sinning when he said one must not only avoid adultery in action, but also in heart (Matt. 5:28). What Jesus is saying here is that in order to be without sin, one must do more than keep the Law. In other words, you can keep the law, and still be guilty of sin – as many people were and are.
This, I believe, is what Hebrews means where it seems to claim the old covenant had faults: “For if that first covenant had been found faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (Heb. 8:7). It wasn’t that God’s a Law had faults – the law was perfect (Psa. 19:7, Jam. 1:25). The imperfection is in our hearts and not the Law. That is where the law comes short of what we need – it can show us how to live, but it can’t change our hearts so that we want to live that way. It points in the right direction, but offers no inherit motivation to go there.
That is part of the genius of Jesus’ intervention. Not only does it clear our past sins, his love for us gives us the desire to want to be perfect. His sacrifice changes our hearts’ desires to him and directs us away from things of the world – the law couldn’t do that because it is merely a standard to measure by, like a plumb line or a level.
The best thing I can compare it to is the mirror analogy in the epistle of James. He compared the Word of God to a mirror that accurately reflects and reveals to a person what he looks like – flaws and all. The man without a changed heart will look in the mirror, see his flaws, and walk away forgetting about it. But the person whose desires have been changed based on what Jesus did will look into that “perfect law” and “act” on what he sees to correct it.
That is why I submit that God’s Law (in its amended form according to the Hebrews epistle) can indeed be followed – I believe the opposite view will produce apathy in striving for purity and love among Christians.
For the people who have had their hearts changed by the sacrifice of Jesus – they will delight in following the Law of God, and it will be no burden.
(As an amendment added later, I want to emphasize that any good works completed as a result of the desire to be perfect, still fails to justify the Christian/sinner. Only Jesus can do that for us. The point I'm making is not that one must follow the law of Christ, but that the true believer will want to follow it. For this reason, a Christian is always in a state of repentance. Birds fly, fish swim, Christians repent.)
Okay, before some of you blow a vein and label me a heretic for implying salvation by works, let me first assure you I agree that no amount of work can earn salvation. Yes, we’re all unworthy of Jesus and only saved by his grace – we’re not better than anyone else. I just disagree God gave a law that can’t be followed (that would be cruel) – and there is scripture back this up.
For example, consider what God tells Moses to speak to the people after giving them the entire Law, (all 613 commandments). About these commandments God said, “‘For this commandment [to follow the whole Law] that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off … But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it” (Duet. 30:11 & 14, ESV emphasis mine).
Also, consider that Job was blameless, (Job 1:1) yet he admits to despising himself because of his sin (Job 42:6). Noah was “blameless” (Gen. 6:9). Of Zechariah and Elizabeth (parents of John the Baptizer) this is written: “And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. (Luke 1:6 emphasis mine).
Furthermore, how could Paul admit to being sinful yet audaciously claim he kept the law perfectly as a Pharisee? I’m referring to these words: “as righteousness under the law, [I am] blameless” (Phi. 3:6b). (Incidentally, he considered that righteousness as “rubbish” [3:8]).
Now, let me point out here there is a key difference between keeping the law and sinning, (otherwise, the Bible wouldn’t claim some people followed the Law blamelessly). Many people blur law-breaking and sin together. I’m saying this: It’s possible for a person to keep law and still sin. Even a cursory reading of the Pentateuch will reveal God’s Law to Israel made room for sin. That’s because he knew people were sinful and would sin. Imagine that! There is grace in the Old Testament! God provided ample opportunities for people who sinned to be keepers of the Law. That’s where the terms guilt- and sin-offerings come from. If you offer a sin offering, you’re admitting to sin while keeping the Law.
So the old form of the Law could be kept. (I say, “could” because the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and sin offerings using animal sacrifices are now superseded by Jesus’ sacrifice.) BUT Jesus didn’t come because it was inconvenient to make animal sacrifices. As a matter of fact, the upright Jew considered keeping the Law one of his purest joys (Psalm 119: 97-104) and a privilege. It was an outward way to express an inward love toward God. This is quite the contrast to what Martin Luther taught about the Law being there to terrorize sinners.
Jesus pointed out the difference between following the Law and not sinning when he said one must not only avoid adultery in action, but also in heart (Matt. 5:28). What Jesus is saying here is that in order to be without sin, one must do more than keep the Law. In other words, you can keep the law, and still be guilty of sin – as many people were and are.
This, I believe, is what Hebrews means where it seems to claim the old covenant had faults: “For if that first covenant had been found faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (Heb. 8:7). It wasn’t that God’s a Law had faults – the law was perfect (Psa. 19:7, Jam. 1:25). The imperfection is in our hearts and not the Law. That is where the law comes short of what we need – it can show us how to live, but it can’t change our hearts so that we want to live that way. It points in the right direction, but offers no inherit motivation to go there.
That is part of the genius of Jesus’ intervention. Not only does it clear our past sins, his love for us gives us the desire to want to be perfect. His sacrifice changes our hearts’ desires to him and directs us away from things of the world – the law couldn’t do that because it is merely a standard to measure by, like a plumb line or a level.
The best thing I can compare it to is the mirror analogy in the epistle of James. He compared the Word of God to a mirror that accurately reflects and reveals to a person what he looks like – flaws and all. The man without a changed heart will look in the mirror, see his flaws, and walk away forgetting about it. But the person whose desires have been changed based on what Jesus did will look into that “perfect law” and “act” on what he sees to correct it.
That is why I submit that God’s Law (in its amended form according to the Hebrews epistle) can indeed be followed – I believe the opposite view will produce apathy in striving for purity and love among Christians.
For the people who have had their hearts changed by the sacrifice of Jesus – they will delight in following the Law of God, and it will be no burden.
(As an amendment added later, I want to emphasize that any good works completed as a result of the desire to be perfect, still fails to justify the Christian/sinner. Only Jesus can do that for us. The point I'm making is not that one must follow the law of Christ, but that the true believer will want to follow it. For this reason, a Christian is always in a state of repentance. Birds fly, fish swim, Christians repent.)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Islam: peace or wrath?
Is it just me, or does it seem like the whole western world is giving Islam a giant pass when it comes to holding this religion accountable to what it teaches?
Here's the most recent example: a Muslim man, in America, cut off his wife's head after she asked for a divorce. Ironically, this happens to be the very man who founded a TV station devoted to countering the public perception that Islam encourages violence. Read the story here.
Islam experts claim this has the markings of an honor killing, which is a right of a Muslim man to kill a female relative, (without question according to Sharia Law) if she has done something to dishonor the family name. A divorce request from a wife falls into that category.
This comes after the headlines about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who made the anti-Islamic video called "Fitna" - a fifteen-minute film that juxtaposes Islamic texts calling for killing, along with scenes from 9/11 and other violent terrorist acts. This guy is being attacked for hate speech. What did he do? He put together a video with scenes of Imams (Islamic teachers) preaching hate and violence against westerners, and added texts from the Quran (the Islamic religious book) that commands the killing of non-Muslims. The video is almost entirely made up of Islamic teaching and texts, and Wilders is attacked for hate speech against Muslims.
Am I missing something here? Didn't Wilders just connect the dots? The only hate speech in the video is from Islamic teachers and the Quran calling for death and destruction of non-Muslims. There wasn't even any stretching - he packaged certain Islamic ideas all together in one spot. Here's just one article about it.
Don't worry though. There were plenty of Muslims who made a move to prove him wrong by threatening to kill him. He now requires 24-hour security because of all the death threats he's been getting.
There are some other very disturbing teachings of Islam that are hidden away and not discussed by Muslims or the media. Things such as vigilante justice, polygamy, views on rape, and the goal for global dominance, just to name a few. To get an idea of the worldview of Islam I suggest reading Nonie Darwish's book Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. The author is a former Muslim who spent the first thirty years of her life in Egypt, under Islamic Law.
Another disturbing view is how Islam divides the world. To Islam, there is only two kinds of places in the world. The first is called The House of Islam. This is all the countries that live under Islamic rule and law, called Sharia. The rest of the world is called The House of War. In other words, any country or place that isn't ruled by an Islamic government, is considered a place of siege. You can read more on this in Bernard Lewis' objective book called The Crisis of Islam. (Lewis is a renowned professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University.)
Now, having said all this, I know what some people may be saying: "There has been much bloodshed in the name of Christ as well. All people are evil and prone to use a religious system as justification of violence." I agree. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christendom. Christ never would have consented to it. People are evil and are capable of gross violence for the sake of advancing their own enterprises.
But here's the difference: When people who profess to be Christian commit violence and crime of this type it goes against what their Bible teaches them. But what do you do with a religion that encourages violence? When a Muslim abuses his wife and commits violence against innocent "infidels," his religious texts claim there is reward for the Muslim. He is in direct line with what his teachings call for. He may be violent, but he is no hypocrite.
Even from the very beginning Mohammad set an example for violence. He began his movement by killing nearly 800 Jews in Medina for not converting to his new religion. He and his followers made their living from raiding caravans in the desert. Muslims are quick to point out that he took Mecca peacefully, but that was only because he was marching there with an army intent on attacking. To avoid bloodshed, Meccan authorities surrendered to him.
Compare this with Jesus' life and teachings and the contrast is startling: Jesus condemned violence, taught turning the other cheek, encouraged to give Caesar his taxes, encouraged love and self-sacrifice and eventually died a cruel death for his people.
Mohammad had thirteen wives (his favorite whom he married when she was only nine years old) and fought many battles, taking women and children as booty. Yes, there are people in the Bible who did the same thing, but (a) it was never encouraged, only recorded and (b) Jesus is our example, not anyone else.
The point I'm getting at is, it is the history and texts of Islam that present a problem, and not the Muslims in themselves. People need to understand that something must be done about the teachings of Islam that incite hatred and violence - and until something changes within the core teaching, Muslims will be able to commit violence and claim that it was only in harmony with their worldview.
Here's the most recent example: a Muslim man, in America, cut off his wife's head after she asked for a divorce. Ironically, this happens to be the very man who founded a TV station devoted to countering the public perception that Islam encourages violence. Read the story here.
Islam experts claim this has the markings of an honor killing, which is a right of a Muslim man to kill a female relative, (without question according to Sharia Law) if she has done something to dishonor the family name. A divorce request from a wife falls into that category.
This comes after the headlines about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who made the anti-Islamic video called "Fitna" - a fifteen-minute film that juxtaposes Islamic texts calling for killing, along with scenes from 9/11 and other violent terrorist acts. This guy is being attacked for hate speech. What did he do? He put together a video with scenes of Imams (Islamic teachers) preaching hate and violence against westerners, and added texts from the Quran (the Islamic religious book) that commands the killing of non-Muslims. The video is almost entirely made up of Islamic teaching and texts, and Wilders is attacked for hate speech against Muslims.
Am I missing something here? Didn't Wilders just connect the dots? The only hate speech in the video is from Islamic teachers and the Quran calling for death and destruction of non-Muslims. There wasn't even any stretching - he packaged certain Islamic ideas all together in one spot. Here's just one article about it.
Don't worry though. There were plenty of Muslims who made a move to prove him wrong by threatening to kill him. He now requires 24-hour security because of all the death threats he's been getting.
There are some other very disturbing teachings of Islam that are hidden away and not discussed by Muslims or the media. Things such as vigilante justice, polygamy, views on rape, and the goal for global dominance, just to name a few. To get an idea of the worldview of Islam I suggest reading Nonie Darwish's book Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. The author is a former Muslim who spent the first thirty years of her life in Egypt, under Islamic Law.
Another disturbing view is how Islam divides the world. To Islam, there is only two kinds of places in the world. The first is called The House of Islam. This is all the countries that live under Islamic rule and law, called Sharia. The rest of the world is called The House of War. In other words, any country or place that isn't ruled by an Islamic government, is considered a place of siege. You can read more on this in Bernard Lewis' objective book called The Crisis of Islam. (Lewis is a renowned professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University.)
Now, having said all this, I know what some people may be saying: "There has been much bloodshed in the name of Christ as well. All people are evil and prone to use a religious system as justification of violence." I agree. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christendom. Christ never would have consented to it. People are evil and are capable of gross violence for the sake of advancing their own enterprises.
But here's the difference: When people who profess to be Christian commit violence and crime of this type it goes against what their Bible teaches them. But what do you do with a religion that encourages violence? When a Muslim abuses his wife and commits violence against innocent "infidels," his religious texts claim there is reward for the Muslim. He is in direct line with what his teachings call for. He may be violent, but he is no hypocrite.
Even from the very beginning Mohammad set an example for violence. He began his movement by killing nearly 800 Jews in Medina for not converting to his new religion. He and his followers made their living from raiding caravans in the desert. Muslims are quick to point out that he took Mecca peacefully, but that was only because he was marching there with an army intent on attacking. To avoid bloodshed, Meccan authorities surrendered to him.
Compare this with Jesus' life and teachings and the contrast is startling: Jesus condemned violence, taught turning the other cheek, encouraged to give Caesar his taxes, encouraged love and self-sacrifice and eventually died a cruel death for his people.
Mohammad had thirteen wives (his favorite whom he married when she was only nine years old) and fought many battles, taking women and children as booty. Yes, there are people in the Bible who did the same thing, but (a) it was never encouraged, only recorded and (b) Jesus is our example, not anyone else.
The point I'm getting at is, it is the history and texts of Islam that present a problem, and not the Muslims in themselves. People need to understand that something must be done about the teachings of Islam that incite hatred and violence - and until something changes within the core teaching, Muslims will be able to commit violence and claim that it was only in harmony with their worldview.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Inconsistency in Abortion-Rights Supporters
The story of the botched abortion in Tampa, Fla., is one example of the depravity and desensitization of our society. But it's also a unique example of senseless inconsistency in the reaction of those who support abortion rights.
In summary, a woman nearly six months pregnant arrived at an abortion clinic for for an abortion. Upon arrival, she went into labor and delivered a live baby. One of the clinic’s owners cut the umbilical cord of the baby without clamping it, allowing the baby to bleed out, and then put the child in a biohazard bag and threw it in the dumpster. Full article here.
Now, the depravity and desensitization in this act is obvious to anyone with respect for human life. I won’t waste any time arguing against those who disagree. It’s a waste of good time and rhetoric on callous minds. Those who see no issue with this at least remain consistent with their conviction to Pro Choice.
However, may I point out some obvious inconsistencies of people supporting abortion who condemned this act? Yes – in this article it was reported that even those who support abortion rights were crying out against this act, calling it “disturbing”.
I will say this: No one supporting abortion rights are in a position to cry out against this atrocity. They must resist their (God-given) impulse to be disgusted, or reevaluate their position. Lets break this down with logic.
In the United States a person can legally abort a baby up to 24 weeks after conception for almost any reason under the protection of privacy laws. Allow me to ask the obvious question: what is the difference between killing a fetus while its inside the womb, and killing it at the same age outside of the womb? That is the main difference in question here! The only reason Pro Choicers have an issue with this case is several inches of distance in physical space from the mother’s womb. What has changed? Older babies have been killed and no one raises any questions because it was done while in the womb.
The story explicitly states that it’s not uncommon for babies born at 23 weeks to survive. It makes no logical sense, if a person supports abortion, to have any ethical problems with what happened in that clinic. If the fourteenth amendment won’t grant a 23-week-old fetus protection rights while in the womb, why should it grant it protection when it has even less of a chance of survival when its born prematurely?
This only exposes the stupidity of the court-ruled decision not to protect the rights of the unborn in Roe vs. Wade. And, I might add, the emotional response as a result of this is just one clue why it makes no sense. The only real difference is visual. People are less emotionally attached to something they cannot see. But once we can see it with our own eyes, emotions inevitably engage. People are visual.
(I might also add the reason this woman got an abortion wasn’t because she was raped, or her life was at risk, or because she had been using drugs. The article states, “She concluded she didn't have the resources or maturity to raise a child …”)
My wife is now pregnant. We went in for our first ultra sound at nine weeks and by that time our baby had a beating hear, a complete head with arms and legs and other body organs. At nine weeks she moved around in the womb and reacted to the prodding of the tool used to photograph it. This here is an image at nine weeks:
This is an image at thirteen weeks, where she now is developing her ability to hear:
Here’s my conclusion. Abortion-rights supporters seem to be caught up in the emotions of human rights. They see a woman and conclude that woman has certain rights over her own body, to do with it as she pleases. But when they see a 23-week fetus outside of that woman’s body, they also are moved emotionally by what they see and conclude that fetus suddenly has rights. But as long as the womb conceals the form of a human, no emotion will engage to protect the rights of that human. In other words, it seems people are building their worldviews on the fluid foundations of their feelings. And when feelings shift and move (as they always do) contradictory positions result. One reason most Christians are Pro Life is because Christians agree they don’t belong to themselves, but to God. We have been ransomed by him and belong to ourselves no more. Therefore, the fetus is God’s fetus, and not the mothers, and she has no right to terminate that life, no matter how young.
If I may borrow the words of C. S. Lewis, “I am only trying to put the whole problem the right way round, to make it clear that the value given to the testimony of any feeling must depend on our whole philosophy, not our whole philosophy on a feeling” (p. 201).
Works Cited
Lewis, C.S. “Religion: Reality or Substitute” in The Timeless Writings of C.S. Lewis. New York: Inspirational Press. 198-202.
In summary, a woman nearly six months pregnant arrived at an abortion clinic for for an abortion. Upon arrival, she went into labor and delivered a live baby. One of the clinic’s owners cut the umbilical cord of the baby without clamping it, allowing the baby to bleed out, and then put the child in a biohazard bag and threw it in the dumpster. Full article here.
Now, the depravity and desensitization in this act is obvious to anyone with respect for human life. I won’t waste any time arguing against those who disagree. It’s a waste of good time and rhetoric on callous minds. Those who see no issue with this at least remain consistent with their conviction to Pro Choice.
However, may I point out some obvious inconsistencies of people supporting abortion who condemned this act? Yes – in this article it was reported that even those who support abortion rights were crying out against this act, calling it “disturbing”.
I will say this: No one supporting abortion rights are in a position to cry out against this atrocity. They must resist their (God-given) impulse to be disgusted, or reevaluate their position. Lets break this down with logic.
In the United States a person can legally abort a baby up to 24 weeks after conception for almost any reason under the protection of privacy laws. Allow me to ask the obvious question: what is the difference between killing a fetus while its inside the womb, and killing it at the same age outside of the womb? That is the main difference in question here! The only reason Pro Choicers have an issue with this case is several inches of distance in physical space from the mother’s womb. What has changed? Older babies have been killed and no one raises any questions because it was done while in the womb.
The story explicitly states that it’s not uncommon for babies born at 23 weeks to survive. It makes no logical sense, if a person supports abortion, to have any ethical problems with what happened in that clinic. If the fourteenth amendment won’t grant a 23-week-old fetus protection rights while in the womb, why should it grant it protection when it has even less of a chance of survival when its born prematurely?
This only exposes the stupidity of the court-ruled decision not to protect the rights of the unborn in Roe vs. Wade. And, I might add, the emotional response as a result of this is just one clue why it makes no sense. The only real difference is visual. People are less emotionally attached to something they cannot see. But once we can see it with our own eyes, emotions inevitably engage. People are visual.
(I might also add the reason this woman got an abortion wasn’t because she was raped, or her life was at risk, or because she had been using drugs. The article states, “She concluded she didn't have the resources or maturity to raise a child …”)
My wife is now pregnant. We went in for our first ultra sound at nine weeks and by that time our baby had a beating hear, a complete head with arms and legs and other body organs. At nine weeks she moved around in the womb and reacted to the prodding of the tool used to photograph it. This here is an image at nine weeks:
This is an image at thirteen weeks, where she now is developing her ability to hear:
Here’s my conclusion. Abortion-rights supporters seem to be caught up in the emotions of human rights. They see a woman and conclude that woman has certain rights over her own body, to do with it as she pleases. But when they see a 23-week fetus outside of that woman’s body, they also are moved emotionally by what they see and conclude that fetus suddenly has rights. But as long as the womb conceals the form of a human, no emotion will engage to protect the rights of that human. In other words, it seems people are building their worldviews on the fluid foundations of their feelings. And when feelings shift and move (as they always do) contradictory positions result. One reason most Christians are Pro Life is because Christians agree they don’t belong to themselves, but to God. We have been ransomed by him and belong to ourselves no more. Therefore, the fetus is God’s fetus, and not the mothers, and she has no right to terminate that life, no matter how young.
If I may borrow the words of C. S. Lewis, “I am only trying to put the whole problem the right way round, to make it clear that the value given to the testimony of any feeling must depend on our whole philosophy, not our whole philosophy on a feeling” (p. 201).
Works Cited
Lewis, C.S. “Religion: Reality or Substitute” in The Timeless Writings of C.S. Lewis. New York: Inspirational Press. 198-202.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Christianity: Pagan?
This may sound strange to both Christians and Jews, but it is not proper to consider Judaism and Christianity as separate religions.
In the first ten years after Jesus resurrected, the only believers in him were, in fact, Jews. Even after non-Jews were accepted into the faith by virtue of Peter's vision (Acts 10), first century Christians (Jews and non-Jews) considered Christianity to be a sect of Judaism. Many Christian pundits today make the false claim that it was God's will for the church to move away from everything (instead of only some things) we call Jewish. In the process of tossing out Jewish traditions, Christendom tossed out some jewels of Judaism it should have retained - things like the celebration of Passover, which was, among other things, an idea of God and not men.
Therefore, to the believing Jew, Christianity should be considered a more-correct, or completed form of Judaism; and to Gentiles, a new religion. This is how every author in the New Testament saw it. Or else, why did Paul take part in Jewish purification rites to prove there was nothing to the rumors that he was teaching people to apostatize from the Jewish Torah (Acts 21:17-26)? Or, why does James mention worship in synagogues for Christians in James 2:2, (most English translations don't use the word synagogue here, but that is the very word used in the Greek texts, which is the same Greek word used for the other 46 references to synagogues the rest of the NT).
So, it's important to recognize that non-believing Jews today don't pray to a different God than Christians do. It is not like the difference between Allah for the Muslims and the LORD for Christians. Jews pray to the God who sent Moses, which is also the same God who sent Jesus.
Christian pundits of today will say the vast expanse between Judaism and Christianity happened as a natural course of action based on the writing of the NT. This is not the case. The view of Christianity being merely another sect of Judaism changed in the third century when the Roman Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity as a theocracy and began to Christianize the Roman Empire. Political motives sought to eschew the Jews (even the believing Jews) because there was a very antisemitic atmosphere in Rome. So in order to make Christianity more palatable for the average citizen, Roman leadership "sanitized" Christianity by stripping it of all things Jewish: The Sabbath moved to Sunday and Passover, Pentecost, The Feast of Tabernacles, The Day of Atonement were all stripped and forbidden from Christianity - and these are events that Jesus himself celebrated and used to teach his disciples about God and himself. In fact, the NT says these things are the very shadow of Jesus himself. Why did we toss them if there is so much about them that tells us about who God is?
Here's my point. If we are serious about being credible witnesses to Jewish people (who the Gospel was meant for first, according to Rom. 1:16), then we had better provide a more favorable understanding of Christianity to them. As it is now, to the Jew, Christianity looks like a pagan religion. And when we use the word "conversion" for a Jew who becomes a believer, it has a horrible ring of dropping one religion and embracing a different one, when instead, it should be considered a commitment that leads to the Jew accepting an updated version of Judaism, and an ushering in of more books in his Torah.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The meaning of Easter
Saul made a regular habit of bringing her a tulip. Christina could barely resist the sight of the purple flowers – especially because they came from a man in pursuit of her. But there was one irony she never noticed: Saul picked them from her husband’s garden every time. Saul had other devious qualities she would come to know as time went by. But as for now she was enjoying herself.
It wasn’t that she thought her husband, David, would never find out. Him knowing about her infidelity hadn’t yet crossed her mind. She actually believed she loved David very much. She missed him deeply. But as more time went by, she thought of him less and less, until eventually her memory of him became two dimensional and faint. It didn’t matter that she kept photos of him in the bedroom and living area – indeed, almost every room in her downtown apartment. Waiting for him had become cumbersome and tiring. She couldn’t quite envision how wonderful their new life would be when he returned. She had desires, and wanted them satisfied immediately – even if it meant settling for someone less – like Saul. Saul was an ex-boyfriend of Christina whom she broke up with because he was abusive. David had always loved Christina and ended up marrying her after she left Saul. In the time of David’s absence, she found herself reverting to her past attractions with Saul.
David knew Christina’s desire for city life. He shared that desire with her and couldn’t wait to establish them in New York – where he had a job waiting for him when he got out of the Army. But he couldn’t tell her when he would be back to get her. He didn’t know. The Army had extended his enlistment because of the war in Asia. Christina only knew David may return anytime between a few weeks and fifteen months. But since David’s departure, a week had barely passed before Christina started meeting Saul at the local café.
David and Christina’s twins, Ruth and Joseph, were too young to know what was happening. Indeed, even before they grew old enough to walk, David had returned to his unfaithful wife and the ugly mess she had created with Saul. David forgave Christina and continued to care for her year after year. All seemed to be forgotten.
Christina had given up Saul when David returned – but there was one loathsome and peculiar habit Christina retained annually. It stemmed from her adulterous relationship with Saul. Every year, on her anniversary with David, Christina would go out to her husband’s garden, pick a single tulip, and place it in a vase on the kitchen table – just as Saul often did for her. The action was insulting on multiple levels. Not only did it defile their own anniversary, but the very flower used for this purpose came right out of David’s own garden. This became a routine Ruth and Joseph grew up accustomed to, without even understanding the meaning.
Eventually, after the twins became adults, they retained their mother’s “tradition” on their parent’s anniversary by plucking a purple tulip from their father’s garden and displaying it in their own homes.
Years later, after David and Christina died, Joseph found an old letter written by his father, David. It addressed Christina and its contents revealed her infidelity with Saul. It had been written to Joseph’s mother, not long after David returned from war. In specific details it confronted her offenses starting with the tulips and ending with the affair.
Joseph was grief stricken. Learning of his mother’s infidelity was shocking enough, but realizing he had kept symbols of it (the tulip) every year in his own home was overwhelming. In zeal for his father’s dignity and past wounds, Joseph ceased picking tulips and displaying them on his parent’s anniversary. When he approached his sister Ruth, he explained everything so she also would cease displaying the symbol of their mother’s offense as well. But she saw things differently.
This was a long maintained tradition in their family and even her children had grown accustomed to it. “No,” she said, “I will not stop this tradition. The tulip may have started as a symbol of mom’s offense, but it now represents who we are. It is a harmless symbol purified by our family as a way of honoring our parent’s relationship.”
Joseph couldn’t understand Ruth’s clear conscience over the matter. No amount of time or ignorance could ever permit him to display a tulip after he understood the original meaning. But it has remained with his family generation after generation, because Ruth insisted upon teaching it to her children as an act with a concealed meaning.
It wasn’t that she thought her husband, David, would never find out. Him knowing about her infidelity hadn’t yet crossed her mind. She actually believed she loved David very much. She missed him deeply. But as more time went by, she thought of him less and less, until eventually her memory of him became two dimensional and faint. It didn’t matter that she kept photos of him in the bedroom and living area – indeed, almost every room in her downtown apartment. Waiting for him had become cumbersome and tiring. She couldn’t quite envision how wonderful their new life would be when he returned. She had desires, and wanted them satisfied immediately – even if it meant settling for someone less – like Saul. Saul was an ex-boyfriend of Christina whom she broke up with because he was abusive. David had always loved Christina and ended up marrying her after she left Saul. In the time of David’s absence, she found herself reverting to her past attractions with Saul.
David knew Christina’s desire for city life. He shared that desire with her and couldn’t wait to establish them in New York – where he had a job waiting for him when he got out of the Army. But he couldn’t tell her when he would be back to get her. He didn’t know. The Army had extended his enlistment because of the war in Asia. Christina only knew David may return anytime between a few weeks and fifteen months. But since David’s departure, a week had barely passed before Christina started meeting Saul at the local café.
David and Christina’s twins, Ruth and Joseph, were too young to know what was happening. Indeed, even before they grew old enough to walk, David had returned to his unfaithful wife and the ugly mess she had created with Saul. David forgave Christina and continued to care for her year after year. All seemed to be forgotten.
Christina had given up Saul when David returned – but there was one loathsome and peculiar habit Christina retained annually. It stemmed from her adulterous relationship with Saul. Every year, on her anniversary with David, Christina would go out to her husband’s garden, pick a single tulip, and place it in a vase on the kitchen table – just as Saul often did for her. The action was insulting on multiple levels. Not only did it defile their own anniversary, but the very flower used for this purpose came right out of David’s own garden. This became a routine Ruth and Joseph grew up accustomed to, without even understanding the meaning.
Eventually, after the twins became adults, they retained their mother’s “tradition” on their parent’s anniversary by plucking a purple tulip from their father’s garden and displaying it in their own homes.
Years later, after David and Christina died, Joseph found an old letter written by his father, David. It addressed Christina and its contents revealed her infidelity with Saul. It had been written to Joseph’s mother, not long after David returned from war. In specific details it confronted her offenses starting with the tulips and ending with the affair.
Joseph was grief stricken. Learning of his mother’s infidelity was shocking enough, but realizing he had kept symbols of it (the tulip) every year in his own home was overwhelming. In zeal for his father’s dignity and past wounds, Joseph ceased picking tulips and displaying them on his parent’s anniversary. When he approached his sister Ruth, he explained everything so she also would cease displaying the symbol of their mother’s offense as well. But she saw things differently.
This was a long maintained tradition in their family and even her children had grown accustomed to it. “No,” she said, “I will not stop this tradition. The tulip may have started as a symbol of mom’s offense, but it now represents who we are. It is a harmless symbol purified by our family as a way of honoring our parent’s relationship.”
Joseph couldn’t understand Ruth’s clear conscience over the matter. No amount of time or ignorance could ever permit him to display a tulip after he understood the original meaning. But it has remained with his family generation after generation, because Ruth insisted upon teaching it to her children as an act with a concealed meaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
