|
Discussion 5 |
|---|
This does not relate to an email exchange: I was directed to some pages where a Christian made an attempt to deal with some issues raised in the pages on this website. In the case of those many issues to which he has not responded, I take it that he agrees with my viewpoint.
He begins:
Answers For Strike
Why the Bible is not as contradictory or inconsistent as he thinks. Strike has put up a web site with his opinion on the Bible, the value of his research is under scrutiny on this web site. His conclusions leave much to be desired.
Unfortunately in the following we witness the usual desperate attempts to defend the indefensible by streams of irrelevancies, fanciful claims, arguments without any evidence whatsoever, and sadly, abuse (e.g. 'The only "screeching" here is Strike's', 'Either Strike is truly that dumb', 'If strike cannot figure this out, he's pretty dull', 'yet Strike fails to understand his folly', 'making a fool out of yourself', and so on), and far more serious, defamatory and libellous comments (e.g. 'Strike just enjoys lying' and so on).
Additionally, there are accusations of ignorance but the writer then proceeds to make one error after another and in several cases, it results in actually supporting what he denies. The unpleasant rhetoric is sadly very typical of Christians when they encounter material which challenges their baseless faith and they find that they are unable to answer what is said: this supports the proposal that the Christian faith is nothing more than a failed escape from the world of reality, it is entirely man-made, and those who profess it, always 'customize' it according to their own personal needs and personal circumstances.
In the light of believing in the Christian god without any evidence for this, all the errors made in the following, and the tone adopted, it is surprising to find the writer has a webpage which he has entitled 'The Seven Woes', in which he includes: leading people to man-made traditions rather than God's Word, concentrating on minor details rather than such things as justice, mercy, and faith, and failing to learn from history and behaving in a manner that shows nothing has been learned. And yet there is little evidence of any of this in his writing which is detailed below. I have not given the writer's url as he has not done so in relation to my site. Although linking it, he has managed to give the url of another site.
As seen in earlier correspondence, the only way that Christians can respond is by insults and accusations, and can only 'explain' problems by 'rewriting' texts or attributing fanciful interpretations to otherwise straightforward statements. Christians often conveniently forget the legal axiom: 'Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat', that is, 'The onus of proof lies on the man who affirms, not the man who denies'. The atheist does not have to prove anything, nor defend anything as he/she is not making an affirmation: it is the Christian's responsibility to supply evidence for what he is affirming, i.e., God's existence and all the concepts taught in and by Christian theology.
But the Christian will rarely, if ever, give any supporting evidence as if to suggest that his word should be accepted at face value. The following is no different.
For ease, my original statements to which the Christian tries to respond are in red, the Christian's attempt to invalidate them are in green, and my final response is in black.
(1)The Jesus of the Gospels is hardly the character that Christian like to present, e. g. he used violence - John 2:15 (and apparently encouraged it; before the disciples to buy a sword; this was used immediately afterwards - Luke 23:36, 49-50; if he was the omniscient Son of God, he would have known this was to happen.
Comment: Well, duh, yes I suppose Jesus did know that was going to happen. Perhaps Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves because things were coming quickly to the sad end, and maybe they were in a bit of danger because of it. Sure, Jesus knew they wouldn't be harmed, and God would protect them, but it may have been to keep the disciples assured of their safety. Who knows. The Bible is full of the history of violence and the stories of God's people. This is a very violent world we live in, and mankind is full of himself. God's people are always in danger. If a reader cannot handle that fact, then they shouldn't bother reading it.
The problem here is that while the writer says 'Perhaps Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves because things were coming quickly to the sad end, and maybe they were in a bit of danger because of it', he overlooks the fact that when Peter used his sword, Jesus condemned him for doing this (Matt 26:52); thus his instruction to buy swords is incomprehensible.
And as originally stated, while Jesus is portrayed as 'the prince of peace' (etc., etc.), it is difficult to reconcile this with someone who tells his associates to arm themselves like common thugs.
The writer continues: 'This is a very violent world we live in, and mankind is full of himself. God's people are always in danger'; from this the writer seems to be saying that 'God's people' should arm themselves despite Jesus supposedly teaching that we should 'turn the other cheek' if threatened (Matt 5:39). Has the writer had a divine revelation that this injunction has been cancelled perhaps?.
It may be worth noting that much of the violence in this world's history has not been against Christians, but by them. For example, the massacre on 24 August 1572 when 10,000 Protestants were slaughtered by Catholics, or the Protestant Luther's support in 1525 of the slaughtering of many thousands in the Peasants' War and his belief that the Anabaptists should be killed, even affirming this in 1531 by an edict in Wittenberg. Of the likely (small) number of Christians martyred in the first few centuries, please see the quotation from Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire on page 4.
(2)His purpose was to break up families - Matthew 10:34-35, Luke 12:51-53.
Comment: This is a very narrow view to take on these verses. Jesus was definitely giving a warning, but His purpose was not to break up families. If Jesus was talking about missionaries here, yes, they must depart from their families to follow in His footsteps. On another slant to this idea, if the family remains pagan, then yes, separate yourselves from them. Very sound advice, actually. If the entire family converted to Christianity, then there was no need to do this. Jesus was not in any sense advocating a breakup of families if they were believers. The simple fact is even to this day families will try to control a new convert to deny their faith.
It is not 'a narrow view to take' at all. Jesus is reported as saying: 'I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law' (Matt 10:35). He does not say 'If you decide to become missionaries, then you should expect strife within your immediate family', but rather his actual purpose was to cause division. Note the words:- 'I have come to.....'.
The writer says 'if the family remains pagan, then yes, separate yourselves from them. Very sound advice, actually'.
This of course means that if the father-husband becomes a Christian but his wife and children do not, he should leave them. This is hardly commendable and is in sharp conflict with the evangelical message of 'the importance of family life' and Jesus' supposed teachings about honouring parents (e.g. Matt 19:19). Here we see a classic example of trying to reconcile two wholly contradictory concepts.
Moreover, one might ask how many Christians actually do leave their family if he/she is the only Christian? I have certainly never encountered one.
(3)Another folly of Strike's: Jesus was ignorant of the Scriptures he quoted - Mark 2:26 (In fact the priest was Ahimelech, not Abiathar - see 1 Samuel 21:1,6."
Jesus Comment: Apparently a lot of people get confused on this one. It is a matter of association, since Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, the priest, and both were priests in service at this time. Perhaps Jesus knew something here that is not readily available to see in the Scriptures, but it would be correct in both instances.
The writer appears to be so anxious to offer a defence, he overlooks the fact that there was no high priest in David's time as this office occurred later: as noted,The later title 'the high priest' (kohen gadol) is probably a later addition to the accounts of the monarch (Prof. Helmer Ringgren, Israelite Religion, p.211).But even if we accept the writer's argument that there were high priests in the Davidic period, the fact remains that the O.T story says quite clearly: 'Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest' (1 Sam 21:1): there is no mention of anyone else.
(4)"He was cruel to animals - Matthew 8:1-4 ('the offering' Jesus commanded was a bird being sacrificed - Leviticus 14:2-5), 8:28-34."
Comment: Jesus lived during the time of the Law, and this was a common practice to have remission of sins, the sacrifice was still in effect at this time. Jesus was the end of the sacrificial law. Since many people were poor and could not afford the sacrifice of a lamb, or a goat, or even a ram, they were allowed to sacrifice a bird, instead. Remember too, Jesus was the end of the Law and all of these sacrifices were put to an end. Now which one is more important here? Is the person more important, or the animal? Jesus lived in a time where there was no "New Age" teaching and everything needs to "be rosy" and to be perfect, you must not eat meat. Times were hard then, and if people couldn't eat meat, they may well have starved! Thank God he didn't put eating restrictions such as those, other than eating meat sacrificed to idols. Nowadays, New Agers want to make you believe the false teachings that animals lives are sacred, even more so than peoples' lives. God views the human as above the animals.
Much of what is said here is not even relevant, but it does indicate the muddled thinking of Christians.
The point being made here is that if Jesus was all-knowing and all-wise, he would know that such sacrifices were cruel and unnecessary, although I appreciate that Christians are not concerned with suffering - of animal or human life.
If of course God was appeased by animals being slaughtered and burned, this simply portrays him as a baal-type deity demanding blood, and indeed Biblical references do support such a view, e.g., 'And the priest shall burn the whole on the altar, as a burnt offering, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord (Lev 1:9). In other words, God can smell the burning flesh and finds this enjoyable. Perhaps when he's not busy, he hangs around burger bars?
The writer also says: 'God views the human as above the animals', when in fact it was the writers of the Bible who advanced this view.
He then says: 'Jesus lived in a time where there was no "New Age" teaching and everything needs to "be rosy" and to be perfect, you must not eat meat. Times were hard then, and if people couldn't eat meat, they may well have starved!'.
If the writer had studied history he would find that vegetarianism is found and was advanced long before the Christian era (i.e., it is not 'New Age'), and primarily by the greatest thinkers of the time; it was also favoured in times of great hardship as it was (and still is) the least expensive means of producing food.
As far as the 'divide' that the writer wishes to advance, the reality is that the difference between animals and human animals in some cases is relatively minor: for example:'We differ in about 1.6% of our DNA from both species of chimps [common and pygmy]...All we can say with confidence is this: much of our DNA is junk; at least some of the 1.6 per cent that differs between us and chimps is already known to be junk; and the functionally significant differences must be confined to some as yet unidentified small fraction of 1.6 per cent...In this respect as in most others, we are just a third species of chimpanzee'. (Jared Diamond, 'The third chimpanzee', in The Great Ape Project, ed. by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer (Fourth Estate: London, 1993), pp.94,95,99).On what do Christians base the difference between humans and animals? Intelligence? But some animals are more intelligent than some humans (e.g., infants and the mentally-ill). The ability to use language? But primates can and do use ASL, whereas there are humans who cannot communicate. Physical form? But if a being whose form is even slightly different from the human one is automatically designated inferior, this would apply to the resurrected Jesus. In sum, the Christian view of life on earth is a relic of the Dark Ages although with Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism it is fortunately being shown for the nonsense that it is.
With regard to the writer's note concerning poverty and near- starvation, it is surely strange that Jesus did nothing to alleviate these (the story of feeding the 4000/5000 on just one occasion is historically impossible as crowds of this size were banned under Roman rule).
(5)He treated his mother with contempt - John 2:4.
Comment: This reference is at a time that Jesus' mother, brothers, and sisters did not understand who He was or what his mission was. They even thought he was "out of his mind" at one point. Of course, he wanted nothing to do with them because they did not believe, and they did not want him to preach. Perhaps they were embarrassed by him. By the time he was crucified, however, they did believe, due to his miracles. His brother, James, became a very prominent figure in the rise of the Christian church in Paul's time, and wrote the book of James of the New Testament. Perhaps his family would have gotten a little more respect out of Jesus had they only believed. This goes for your too, Strike!
Firstly, the writer excuses the episode by saying that Jesus' family did not accept his messiahship. But if he reviews the actual text, Jesus' rebuke is in response to a simple request by his mother, wholly unrelated to any supposed disbelief or doubts.
Secondly, the writer says that James, Jesus' brother, wrote the letter of James. Firstly, this is not endorsed by the majority of Biblical scholars, and the writer fails to explain why it does not appear to be mentioned until the early second century (Origen). This is incomprehensible if Jesus' human brother composed it. Moreover, there is nothing in it to suggest a close relationship with Jesus, and no less peculiar is that it hardly mentions Jesus and makes no reference to his death and resurrection, and that it is written in very good Greek, hardly something possible for an Aramaic Jew of Palestine.
Finally, the writer, in his closing note makes a discourteous comment concerning my family and apparently claims knowledge about their beliefs and disbeliefs. I find this remarkable.
(6)He suffered fits of temper, not justified by the situation - Matthew 21:18-19, 23:13-33 (In the John 7 outburst, in John 7:37, the Greek is 'to screech like a raven').
Comment: The only "screeching" here is Strike's. He has this so wrong! He's taking a root word and trying to make it fit in to distort the meaning, which this usually doesn't work at all. No, the way to translate the Bible is to use exact words. The exact words are "cried out." Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."
If anyone can understand the apostles would not place such language on the description of Jesus, it just wasn't done. It also wouldn't make any sense because they were believers and followers of him. In addition to this, Strike just enjoys lying about what Jesus said and did, in addition to attacking God. Then the Matthew 21:18-19 story of the fig tree is obvious, it is a lesson. If strike cannot figure this out, he's pretty dull.
The writer writes a great deal of precisely nothing to defend the bizarre behaviour of Jesus in John 7 (How Matt 21:18f has any relevance to this is unclear and regrettably the writer chooses not to enlighten us). He says the 'exact words' are 'cried out'. No, the Greek word is:-
'a word that imitates the horse cry of a raven' (Bullingers Critical Lexicon and Concordance).
I find it sad that the writer has to resort to libel ('Strike just enjoys lying about what Jesus said and did, to defend his position') and he would do well to seriously consider this point as libellous statements on internet webpages are actionable.
(7)He had contempt for other religions and their adherents - Matthew 12:30, 23:2-33, John 8:44-55.
Comment: Either Strike is truly that dumb, or he is really reaching to try to convince himself. "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age, or in the age to come." This is stated very plainly, and clear to understand, that there is only one religion, one belief, and one God. Strike cannot understand that God, who is not "New Age" or anything of that type, to only speak of flowers and rosy pictures. GET REAL! What is the lesson here is so simple that anyone can understand it, yet Strike fails to understand his folly simply because "other faiths" need to be understood, or are more important? Let us not get all "touchy-feely" when it comes to God's truth. Those other faiths are blasphemy, and outright lies. So what is to understand? God knows the truth, and has shared these truths freely with us. His Son is all we really need. In reality, God made it very simple for us to understand, and unbelievers are without excuse.
Once again, in infantile language ('Get real!') the writer has written a great deal but actually said nothing. What does emerge from this is that the writer agrees that Jesus proclaimed his religion was the only true religion, which is the point that I made. It is therefore unclear why he should take any exception to this. Secondly, the writer says 'there is only one religion, one belief': consequently one justifiably wonders why there are, literally, thousands of different Protestant denominations, all claiming to follow Biblical teaching, but each saying something very different from the other....
Thirdly, the writer says 'Those other faiths are blasphemy, and outright lies' - it was the very same thing which was said by those who butchered while on the Crusades, functioned as the Inquisitors, and caused the mass slaughtering carried out by the Catholic church on Protestants (and others), and the Protestant churches on Catholics (and others).
Fourthly while saying these other faiths are 'outright lies', he does not offer a shred of evidence to support this wild claim, and ironically says this while believing in a book which is almost entirely lies, untruths and fiction dressed up as fact.
(8)He deliberately taught in a way so people would not understand him (and therefore be saved from going to eternal hellfire) -Mark 4:9-12.
Comment: Isn't it amazing that the simple and poor people listened intently to Jesus, and followed him, yet the Pharisees and Sadducees heard the very same parables and were unable to comprehend? They had nothing but contempt for him. The parables were for the hardhearted (such as the Pharisees and Sadducees and other "elite" groups to stumble upon. Unless they believed as a child, they would not inherit the Kingdom of God. Strike ignores this fact that in Mark 4:13-20 Jesus goes on to explain the parable.
The only relevant text here is the comment 'Strike ignores this fact that in Mark 4:13-20 Jesus goes on to explain the parable'. In fact if the writer had bothered to study the passage he would have seen that the explanation of the parable was only for the disciples when they were 'alone' (Mark 4:10). This corroborates what I have said, i.e., Jesus deliberately spoke in parables so people would not understand him and be saved, i.e., he spoke to 'a large crowd' (Mark 4:1), in parables (4:2) and then admits that the parables are that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they turn again and be forgiven' (4:12).
I appreciate the writer may not like Jesus's supposed words here, but these are the words attributed to him and it seems rather extreme to simply 'rewrite' them to make them more acceptable. Notwithstanding this feature, the writer appears to be accepting the Gospel narratives as historically accurate, and yet he offers nothing whatsoever to support this viewpoint. He also says nothing to counter what I have argued at length in my website regarding the noticeable lack of evidence for Jesus' historical existence.
There is the further point that he begins by referring to how the Gospels record that it was 'the simple and poor people' who listened to Jesus. This is certainly relevant: one second century writer, i.e., Celsus referred to how it was the ignorant and the uneducated who were primarily attracted to Christianity; he describes Christians in his time (second century) 'as the most illiterate and bucolic yokels who would not dare say anything at all in front of their elders and more intelligent masters. But whenever they get hold of children in private and some stupid women with them, they let out some astounding statements' (Cit. Origen, Against Celsus, iii.55).
(9)He taught people to hate* their families - Luke 14:26 (*The Greek here means 'active ill-will' or 'persecuting spirit').
Comment: Matthew 10:37 explains this as simply loving Christ more than your own family, and even your own life. My commentary calls the above verse (Mark 4:9-12) hyperbole, since this would be in stark contrast to the Commandments which Jesus gave, which included "Honor thy Mother and Father." In an unbelieving family, you must obey God first, rather than men. Strike's understanding of the original Greek is poor.
My Greek is not 'poor', it is just that I do not provide foreign meanings to words when they happen not to suit me. The Greek word here means 'active ill-will' or 'persecuting spirit', and no matter how it is 'reinterpreted', the meaning cannot be changed.
Secondly, the writer says Jesus' command was in 'stark contrast to the Commandments', so surely we are justified in asking why Jesus then taught the way to eternal life was to 'keep the commandments' (Matt 19:17 - see 19:19 in particular where Jesus repeats the commandment to honour parents).
(10)He ignored a woman pleading for his help; only after she asked him three times did he condescend to help - Matthew 15:22-28.
Comment: This was a case that the woman was not an Israelite. Jesus repeatedly said He came to save the lost sheep of Israel. This woman was a Canaanite, and she really had no right to ask Him for help. This demonstrated her faith in Him, and she continued to plea. Jesus did grant her request, and again, Strike ignores the fact He was impressed with her faith.
Firstly, while Matthew says Jesus came for the 'lost sheep of Israel' (Matt 15:24) and in Matt 10:5, he links Samaritans with gentiles and tells his disciples to avoid them and go only to the house of Israel, and in Luke 17:18, Jesus refers to a Samaritan as 'a foreigner', the Gospels differ on this subject. For example, in Luke, Jesus wants to enter a Samaritan community, but is not allowed to by the inhabitants (Luke 9:52-53), while in John, Jesus is recorded as not only preaching to the Samaritans but converting 'many' of them (John 4:39 - his disciples were also with him in the area - 4:31). Once again, we find wide contradictions. If any of this were true, why should such divergences occur?
Secondly, some might find it extraordinary for anyone to condone/defend racism - for whatever reason - and despite all that the writer says, the fact remains that Jesus is said to have ignored a woman pleading for help in respect of her severely ill daughter due to her race, and compared her and her people to 'dogs' (Matt 15:26).
(11)He taught that ill-health and human suffering was the result of sin, or for the purpose of glorifying God. - Mark 2:5, 11-12, John 5:8-14.
Comment: First, Jesus forgave the paralytic's sins, then he told him to get up and walk. He didn't say in any place that his infirmity was due to his sin. Again, Strike is trying to read more into the words than is really there.
In Mark 2:5,11-12, it is said that the cripple 'rose immediately' after Jesus forgave his sins. This clearly indicates that it was his sin that both caused and continued his disability.
In John 5, a cripple is healed after which Jesus says to him: 'See, you are well. Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you' (John 5:14). Again, the illness is attributed to sin.
Moreover, in John 9:3, Jesus said that a man had been born blind in order 'that the works of God might be made manifest in him'. In John 11, Jesus deliberately delays going to Bethany for two days after hearing his friend Lazarus was ill, so he is dead by the time that he does arrive. The reason for this is that 'it is for the glory of God'. (John 11:1-6) In all these texts, Jesus has a total disregard for human suffering.
(12)And furthermore, he clearly seemed to have thought that his second coming/the end of the world, i.e., the final judgement (etc. etc.) was only a short time away, e.g., he told the high priest that he would see his return - Mark 14:61-62, he told three disciples that they would see his return - Matthew 16:28, he told the disciples he would return before they had preached throughout his return - Matthew 10:23. Furthermore, when Jesus told his disciples about the end of the world (Mark 13:3-27), he told them that the generation living at that time (ca. 30 CE) would still be alive when "all these things," (i.e., the Second Coming, the Final Judgment, the end of the world, etc. etc.) took place (Mark 13:30).
Despite saying all this, only seconds later he then told the disciples that no one - including himself - knew when the end would come (13:32).
Comment: Jesus said, "...the generation that see these things" would be the ones that would see His return. So Strike answers his own accusation with "no one -including himself- knew when the end would come." This was definitely put into the future by Jesus, if anyone looks over it carefully. Jesus put a lot of prophecy into the "here and now" tense since it was the same as already done, although we wouldn't realize it until it does happen. This confuses people like Strike, who want to accuse God or Jesus of lying, but they won't give the Scriptures a chance to show the chain of events that have to happen before the end comes. Interestingly, a lot of the prophecies have come true after all of this time has passed, and it's more true now than ever before.
Yet again, the writer writes a great deal and says nothing, and what is written is nonsensical, e.g., 'Jesus put a lot of prophecy into the "here and now" tense since it was the same as already done, although we wouldn't realize it until it'. What is this supposed to mean?
His note 'a lot of the prophecies have come true after all of this time has passed' unfortunately fails to include even one example of these supposedly fulfilled end-time Bible prophecies.
Interestingly, the writer utilizes exactly the same argument as Jehovah's Witnesses: even though Jesus refers to various signs before the end of the world and the end itself and then says 'this generation will not pass away before all these things take place' (Mark 13:30) and is clearly referring to the generation living at the time of speaking (when he details all the signs before the end, he says to his disciples 'When you see these things taking place' - 13:29), in a rather feeble attempt to overcome this unfulfilled prophecy Christians (and Jehovah's Witnesses) claim that 'the generation' refers not to Jesus' generation, but the one living at the time when all these signs occur, which is 'sometime' in the future.
As I stated, Jesus is reported as saying time and time again that the end would be seen by the generation living in his time. For example he tells the high priest at his trial: 'You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power, and coming with clouds of heaven'. What could be clearer than that?
When he speaks to his disciples in Matt 16:24, he tells them, 'There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom'. Again, what could be clearer than that?
In fact, there are numerous statements to this effect in the New Testament, e.g. in 1 Cor 7:29, Paul says that Christians should avoid marriage because the time 'is short' (It interesting to note that no Christians seem to take any notice of this).
An excellent book to read on this subject is The Sign of the Last Days - When? by Carl Olof Jonsson and Wolfgang Herbst (Commentary Press, Atlanta, 1987. ISBN: 0-914675-09-5). It is primarily directed to Jehovah's Witnesses but is equally applicable to evangelical Christians who are constantly telling us 'the end is near'. The book shows that the claims made by end-timers about the increase of disease, war, famines, etc., (which supposedly 'prove' the end is near) are invariably wrong.
Another useful book is Bible Prophecy - Failure or Fulfilment?, by Tim Callahan (Millennium Press, Altadena, CA., 1997 ISBN: 0-9655047-0-0). This is particularly relevant as it shows how the current end-time preaching by fundamentalist Christians is valueless. He includes reference to the evangelical Christian Hal Lindsey and his book The Late Great Planet Earth (pub. 1970), and refers to how Lindsey 'amended' his dates and/or calculations when it became obvious that his Bible-based predictions were failing. In my own copy, Lindsey says that:within forty years or so of 1948, all these things (e.g., the end of world), could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believes that this is so'. (p.54).Note that he uses the word 'could' to allow an escape when his prediction fails. Moreover, 'scholars' should read 'Christian scholars' as no scholar with an objective view would arrive at such an absurd idea. As Callahan advises, after the world did not end in 1988, Lindsey altered the start-date to 1967 which takes us (+40 years) to 2007. However Lindsey also suggests that 'a generation' could be one hundred years rather than forty, taking us to 2067, although it could be 2048 if we retain the 1948 start-date. Obviously Lindsey needs to push 'the end' further and further away from the present. As Callahan drily notes, either one of these dates are 'both likely to occur after he is dead' (p.212), which is obviously very convenient for Lindsey...
Callahan also deals with the problem that fundamentalists have with the absence of America in the New Testament's description of the events leading up to the end. As the New Testament writers did not know about America's existence (and if this is God's word, this would indicate that God did not know about America either), this global super-power is therefore not mentioned in any New Testament end-time prophecies. Thus, fundamentalists are faced with having to explain why a nation such as America is completely absent in all the events that lead up to armageddon and the end. The only way in which they can do this is to argue that America will become 'a minor power' in the grip of Rome(!) (p.211-212).
The problem is, of course, that Christians must have prophecies for the future as the Christian god has been remarkably inactive in both the past and the present. In fact, one could fairly say that such extraordinary inactivity is really no different from being completely non-existent. As Michael Goulder, a Christian minister who became an atheist, observes:One may also perhaps reflect on the implausibility of a theology which allows that the world has been going for four billion years and posits only two actions by God [i.e., the birth and resurrection of Christ] , or a half a dozen to a dozen more, all clustered around the same period (Why Believe in God?, ed. by Michael Goulder and John Hick, p.87).I include the above simply to illustrate why any Christian discussion about 'the end of the world' is worthless. I have only covered a little of the overall subject and I would strongly recommend further reading. I am sure that sci-fi fans who enjoy the bizarre and the sheer fantastic, will find the subject of fundamentalist beliefs about the end to be no less enjoyable.
Returning to the subject of all the Bible's failed prophecies, in Revelation, which depicts all the events up to and including the end of the world, it is said that the events described 'must soon take place' (Rev 1:1) and ends with a reference to Jesus who says 'Surely I am coming soon' (Rev 22:20). As Revelation is usually understood as having been written in 96 CE, it is somewhat obvious that the assurances are (as all Biblical assurances) worthless.
It is noteworthy that the Bible not only begins with an untruth (the myth of Adam and Eve) but also ends with one (i.e., Jesus promising to return 'soon'). It is surely not unreasonable to assert that all the material between Genesis 1 and Revelation 22 is as dishonest and valueless.
The writer also that says people such as myself 'won't give the Scriptures a chance', but this is hardly surprising in view of its absurdities, immoralities and contradictions; just a few examples:-
Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began his reign - 2 Chron 36:9.
Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began his reign - 2 Kings 24:8.
According to Luke 2:21-39, Jesus is taken to the Jerusalem Temple eight days after he is born; the family then go up to Nazareth. In Matt 2:14-23, after being born the family flee in Egypt and stay there until Herod dies; even on returning, they avoid Judea and go up to Nazareth.
Jesus baptised - John 3:22.
Jesus did not baptise - John 4:2.
No one has ascended into heaven before Jesus - John 3:13.
Elijah ascended into heaven - 2 Kings 2:11.
Jesus refuses to give signs - Matt 12:38,39, Mark 8:12, Luke 11:29.
Jesus did give signs - John 3:2, 20:30, Acts 2:22.
The Synoptics make it clear the last supper was the Passover meal - Matt 26:19, Mark 14:16, Luke 22:13. However in John, it was held on the day before the Passover - 13:29, and states that even after the meal the Passover had still not begun - 18:28. Moreover, even after the trial, it was the Preparation day for the Passover - 19:31.
Abraham was justified by faith - Rom 4:1-5.
Abraham was justified by works - James 2:22-24.
Man does not die for his ancestors' sin - Deut 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, Ezek 18:20.
Man does die for his ancestors' sin - Ex 20:5, 34:6-7, 2 Sam 12:13-18, Isa 14:21, Rom 5:12,19, 1 Cor 15:22.
Jesus to be buried for three days and nights - Matt 12:40.
Jesus buried for one day and two nights - Mark 15:42,43, John 20:1 (These texts show the burial did not take place until Friday night and the tomb was empty before Sunday morning). Jesus was therefore not in the tomb for "three days and three nights" - whether Roman or Jewish time-reckoning is used.
No one is righteous - Rom 3:10.
There are righteous - James 5:16.
The sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable - Matt 12:32, Mark 3:29.
God forgives all sins - 1 John 1:7.
No one has ever seen God - Ex 33:17,20, John 1:18, 1 Tim 6:15-16.
People have seen God - Gen 32:30, Ex 24:9-10, 33:11,21- 23, Isa 6:5, Deut 5:24, Amos 9:1.
God wants everyone to be saved - 1 Tim 2:3-4, 2 Pet 3:9.
God does not want everyone to be saved - Prov 16:4, Mark 4:11-12, Rom 9:18, 2 Thess 2:11.
(13)Also, he foretold he foretold that he would be buried for 3 days and 3 nights in Matthew 12:40 but Friday evening (Mark 15:42-46) to before Sunday daybreak (John 20:1-2) is not 3 days and 3 nights. Mark 15:42 states he was buried after sundown on the Friday, i.e., the sabbath (this is Saturday in Jewish reckoning - something quite impossible to have happened). The Gospels repeatedly say how Jesus' death etc. 'fulfilled' the Old Test scriptures (e.g., Luke 24:27), but here is no O. T. statement that says the messiah is to be killed, buried and resurrected after 3 days.
With regard to the end of the world etc., Jesus stated that there would be an "abominating sacrilege" (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14) which would cause a tribulation (Matt 24:16, Mark 13:15-23) and IMMEDIATELY after this (Matthew 24:29), he would return to usher in the Final Judgement (Matthew 24:29-31). Now Luke has in the parallel passage, the "abominating sacrilege" as the Fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20; as can be seen by Luke 21:21-23, the author of Luke does equate "the abominating sacrilege" with Jerusalem's destruction). However, Jerusalem's destruction (particularly as described in Luke) occurred in 70 C. E.
Comment: First of all, the fact he was buried on Friday, then Saturday, and rose again on Sunday would mean he was buried for 3 days. Some scholars believe he actually rose again on Monday morning, which would put the three nights he was actually buried. This isn't possible in the light of Luke 24:1. The Sabbath actually begins on sundown of Friday. This means Jesus had to have been buried before sundown. Where Strike gets the idea Jesus was buried after sundown on Friday is something that is not in the Bible. He makes this idea up. In John 19:42 it clearly states: "And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there." This means it was BEFORE sundown since after sundown was considered the Sabbath. Jerusalem's destruction will again happen in the end times. This was only a precursor to the coming of Christ in his Kingdom.
It is noteworthy that the writer chooses to only respond to some of my original writing.
Sadly, the writer once again demonstrates his ignorance of the book that he claims to believe in, i.e., he says:
'Where Strike gets the idea Jesus was buried after sundown on Friday is something that is not in the Bible. He makes this idea up'.
Apart from once again resorting to libel, if he bothered to read Mark 15, he would see that the chronology is reported as follows:
(i)Jesus dies - Mark 15:37.
(ii)The evening begins - Mark 15:42. As the writer admits above, 'the Sabbath actually begins on sundown'. Therefore by Mark 15:42, the sabbath had already begun as it was evening when the sabbath 'day' had begun.
(iii)Joseph of Arimathea approaches Pilate - Mark 15:43.
(iv)Pilate ensures that Jesus is dead - Mark 15:44.
(v)Pilate agrees that Joseph can have the body - Mark 15:45.
(vi)Joseph removes the body and buries it - Mark 15:46.
Thus Jesus is buried after the evening had begun which signalled the beginning of the Saturday sabbath. In simple terms, Mark has Jesus being buried on Saturday. One would have hoped that the writer would have at least made himself familiar with the relevant texts before launching into this tirade.
Indicating further ignorance, he has not picked up on the most noticeable contradiction in this section. The Synoptics all say that the last supper was when the passover was also eaten (Mark 14:14-17, Matt 26:17-20, Luke 22:11-14), but in John the last supper is moved to one day earlier so after the last supper, it is not the day of the passover meal, but the preparation day (when the lambs were slaughtered), that is, the day before the passover. For example, after the last supper in John (13:2), we are told that the 'feast' was still a future event (13:29), and that the passover had still not been eaten (18:28), and then clearly, when Jesus is said to have been crucified, it was still 'the day of Preparation' (19:14), i.e., the day before the Passover. This all conflicts with the Synoptics saying the last supper was eaten the same evening as the passover meal. I cannot understand why the writer is unable to grasp this. Any commentary discusses this contradiction. For example:It appears from John 18:28 that the last supper was on the day before the feast of the passover,. i.e., on the evening (which on Jewish reckoning began the day) of the Friday, or, on our reckoning, on Thursday. Thus for John the meal was not the Passover, though according to Mark 14:12, it was...Many attempts have been made to reconcile the Synoptics and John. (J. N. Sanders and A. Mastin A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, p.303).Therefore we return to the point I made which the writer has failed to invalidate due to his ignorance of the Biblical text. If Jesus was buried on Friday evening, which in Jewish reckoning was Saturday, and rose before daybreak on Sunday morning (Sunday night in Jewish reckoning) he was not dead and buried for 'three days and three nights' as Jesus is said to have prophesied in Matt 12:40. According to the Bible's own record, he was dead and buried for just Saturday night (our Friday night), Saturday daytime, and Sunday night (our Saturday night). As he is said to be missing/resurrected before daybreak Sunday (John 20:1), this means the time of being buried is just one day and not even two full nights. I am unable to see why the writer cannot grasp this.
The writer continues:
The Old Testament prophecies included these: Isaiah 52:13,14,15, Isaiah 53:1,3, Isaiah 53:4,5, Isaiah 53:6,8, Isaiah 53:7,8, Isaiah 53:9, Isaiah 53:10,11, Isaiah 53:12.
So this is proof the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in the death and resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ. So, Strike, why don't you read the Bible before tearing it down? (Or trying to)
In the above, the writer then tries to prove that Jesus 'fulfilled' texts from the 'Suffering Servant poems' of Deutero-Isaiah which are said to appear in (i)42:1-4/8/9, (ii)49:1-7/9, (iii)50:4-9, and (iv)52:13-53:12.
Unfortunately for him, I have read the Bible, and would point out that these poems (which the Jews believed referred to themselves to explain their exile and suffering) include the following:
(a)Isaiah 49:3 clearly identifies the suffering servant as the nation of Israel and not a messiah/christ.
(b)As the writer wants to use Isa 53 in an attempt to 'prove' that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, it may be useful to examine it further. In 53:9a it says: 'And they made his grave with the wicked'. But the grave used for Jesus is said to have belonged to Joseph of Arimathea who was a disciple (Matt 27:57).
In 53:9b it says that he died with the rich, but Jesus died with two robbers (Matt 27:38).
In 53:10, it says that he will see his offspring - but Jesus is not reported to have had any children.
|
The following is from:
An evaluation of messianic prophecies:- The Song of the Servant, the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is probably the passage most often presented as startling proof of the inspiration of the Bible, and of the Messiahship of Jesus. And, at first blush, the passage does seem to be remarkably accurate. It speaks of a servant who was 'despised, and rejected of men' (Isa 53:3), who has 'borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows' (Isa 53:4), who was 'wounded for our transgressions', 'bruised for our iniquities' (Isa 53:5) and 'the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all' (Isa 53:6). We are further told that he 'made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death' (Isa 53:9) and the Lord will 'make his soul an offering for sin' (Isa 53:10). All this seems like an extremely prescient synopsis of Jesus' earthly career. But is it really so clear? We have to ask why so many Jewish people down through the centuries have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, if their own scriptures testify of him so clearly? Is there perhaps another interpretation of this passage? In order to correctly divine the meaning of this passage, we have to take note of the historical context in which it appears. The second part of Isaiah, from chapter 40 to 55, is generally thought to be the work of a later author, commonly designated deutero-Isaiah. The reasons for this designation are far too complex to go into here, but it should be noted that the name 'Isaiah' does not appear anywhere in this section. Nor is this section thematically related to the first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah. Whereas proto-Isaiah saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (42:24-25) and the restoration as imminent (43:1-9) (Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from 39:6-7, where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to 43:14, where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon). For this, and other reasons, scholars generally date this second part of Isaiah to about 536 BCE, when Cyrus the Persian first gave permission for the Jews to return back to Israel (Ezra 1:1). The theme of second Isaiah is jubilation, a song of celebration at the imminent end of the Babylonian Captivity (42:9-10). It is in this setting that we find the Song of the Servant, chapter fifty-three. (In fact, chapter 53 is actually the fourth of a quartet of 'servant songs'. The others are 42:1-9, 49:1-6, 50:4-9. Who, then, was this servant of whom deutero-Isaiah speaks? It is evident that the word is used in two different ways. First, it is used by deutero-Isaiah to apply to himself, as the servant of God (49:5). The word is used overwhelmingly, however, by the poet to refer to the nation Israel itself: Isaiah 41:8-9: But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.It should be abundantly clear, then, that the servant is the nation Israel. When we combine these two facts, the fact that the theme of second Isaiah is the restoration of of Israel after Exile, and the fact that the servant is the nation Israel itself, we then find that the meaning of the Song of the Servant, in chapter 53, becomes clear. Why Isaiah chose to use the third person is not immediately obvious. Some have suggested that the Song is written from the perspective of the gentile nations. This is certainly the case in 52:15. Here, the nations are said to be astonished at the restoration of Israel. Another interpretation is that deutero-Isaiah is speaking of the generation that went into Exile so many years ago as 'him', and the generation that is now returning to Israel as 'us'. In this sense, the poet casts the former generation in the role of a sin-offering (53:10), who were punished for the sins of the nation (53:5-6) so that the later generation could be forgiven and restored (53:11) This interpretation, while not without its flaws, is still better than the Christian view, which does not fit the context of Isaiah 52-54, and further is not supported by some statements in the Song itself. For example, 53:10 states that the Servant will live a long life, and have many children. It should be fairly obvious that Jesus died at a young age, and never had any children. Christian apologists often claim that this verse is symbolic, that it refers to Jesus' resurrection, and the establishment of the Christian Church. It has not been explained why we are required to take the rest of Isaiah 53 literally, but this one verse as allegorical. |
The truth of the matter is that the Gospel writers deliberately shaped events in Jesus' life to 'fulfil' what they deemed to be prophecies (sometimes even introducing non-existent ones, e.g., Matt 2:23). The fact that the Gospel writers composed stories about Jesus without historical foundation is shown by their interpretation of what they considered to be Old Testament messianic 'prophecies'. For example, because the author of John misunderstood the Hebrew parallelism of Psa 22:18 and believed this referred to two different actions, he has the soldiers carrying out two separate actions (19:23-24). The other evangelists who did not misunderstand the text, only have one action in the disposal of Jesus' clothes (Matt 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34).
In much the same way, the author of Matt misunderstood the parallelism of Zech 9:9 and had two animals involved in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (21:2-7) when in fact there is only one animal being spoken of. The other evangelists do not make this mistake and therefore only have one animal (Mark 1:2-7, Luke 19:30-35, John 12:14-16). From these examples it can be seen that the evangelists deliberately introduced events to 'agree' with what they believed to be Old Testament prophecy. In view of this, there is no way of knowing what is accurate (if anything) and more relevant is the question is how could they introduce so much fictitious material if Jesus did actually exist as a historic person?
In the list of recommended urls on the Index, I have listed http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld: anyone seriously interested in the subject of Bible prophecy will find the site to be extremely useful:- Prophecy, Messianic prophecies, Messianic prophecies, Messianic prophecies, Prophecy, part 1 (Scroll down for part 2), Prophecy, part 3 (Scroll down for part 4), Messianic prophecies, part 1, and Messianic prophecies, part 2 (Scroll down for parts 3-5).
(14)There are actually numerous fictional stories in the Gospels, (i.e. stories of occurrences that defy historical possibility), e.g. the Jews going to Pilate on their sabbath day - something quite impossible (Matthew 28:62)."
Comment: There is no such verse in the Bible, Matthew 28:62. The 28th chapter ends in verse 20. However, it is very apparent that the Jews did NOT go to Pilate on their Sabbath, it was the day of Preparation, as the Scriptures say over and over again.
As the writer comments that Matthew 28 only has twenty verses, it should not have been beyond his ability to realize the verse should read Matt 27:62. Here the Jews go to Pilate on the Passover day. At this point we return to what has already been discussed above where John says it was the preparation day when Jesus was crucified but the Synoptics say it was the passover. The writer prefers the Johannine chronology but chooses not to advise us why this is.
The writer says: 'It is very apparent that the Jews did NOT go to Pilate on their Sabbath, it was the day of Preparation, as the Scriptures say over and over again.
Unfortunately he has not bothered to consider Matt 27:62, where it clearly says: 'Next day, that is, after the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate', i.e., the day after the preparation day being the passover day when the Jews certainly could not do as described in Matt 27:62. Here the writer displays an ignorance of not only the Biblical text, but Jewish customs and practices.
(15)Note how Matthew (26:17-19), Mark (14:12-16) and Luke (23:8-13) say that it was the Passover (this was eaten on the evening of 14 Nisan) that Jesus ate at the Last Supper. However in John, after the meal, after the arrest, after the trial before the Sanhedrin, the Passover had still not started (John 18:28) and even after his appearance before Pilate the next day, the Passover still had not begun - John 19:14.
This shows how little Strike knows about Jewish customs. The Passover lasts for a week.
The passover 'feast' celebration period lasts for more than a few days, but the passover day lasted, not surprisingly for one day. The writer's comment about my 'little knowledge' is somewhat ironic in view of his astonishing catalogue of errors in the above (and below).
Moreover, the writer has completely failed to respond to what is said about the contradiction between John and the Synoptics regarding the timing of the last supper onwards.
(16)This was deliberately done by John's author to have Jesus executed at the same time that the Passover lambs were slaughtered (the day before the Passover) to fit the idea in John 1:29, 36 that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb (In fact lambs were NOT offered up as sacrifices for sin; only rams and goats were). If the Gospel writers could manipulate the data with so much ease, how can their accounts be reliable? Each Gospel either contains details known to be incorrect (e.g. that Herod was a king in Mark in Mark 6:14 when in fact he was only a petty tetrach - this is corrected in the other two Synoptic Gospels), or they contradict one another. How can they be reliable historical documents?
Comment:(i)This is the according to Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary. "Tetrarch --the ruler or governor of the fourth part of a country. Before Herod the Great was named king he was first named tetrarch." This means Herod was BOTH tetrarch and king. This makes the Bible very reliable! The Bible is not manipulated.
(ii)The Bible is correct, Strike is wrong --again. The sacrificial lambs were offered up as sacrifices for sin. Strike, perhaps you should do more reading! You're making a fool out of yourself.
(i)The only one making a fool of himself here is the writer as he is confusing different people. He refers to Herod the Great and believes this is the Herod mentioned in Mark 6:14. As a child undertaking elementary religious studies is aware, there were several Herods in the New Testament period. As Matt 1:19 refers to Herod's death when Jesus was supposedly a child and yet Mark 6:14 refers to Herod being alive when Jesus is said to be an adult, one would have thought that basic common sense would have told the writer that there had to be (at least) two Herods. Clearly, this did not happen.
In the event there are Christians reading this with the usual superficial knowledge of New Testament history, I will set down the situation below, even though I find it incredible that this should even be necessary.
* King Herod (Herod the Great, or Herod I). Made king in 40 BCE. Died 4 BCE. Mentioned in Matt 2.
* After King Herod's death, Augustus Caesar resolved the dispute that arose between King Herod's sons by dividing the kingdom amongst them as follows (he also withdrew the royal title (king) from them).
* Herod Archelaus was given the title 'ethnarch' and half of the territory (Judea, Idumea and Samaria). Ruled 4 BCE - 6 CE.
* Herod Philip was also given the title of 'tetrach' with Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis to govern. Ruled 4 BCE to 33/34 CE.
* Herod Antipas was given the title of 'tetrach' and the areas of Galilee and Perea to rule. Ruled 4 BCE to 39 CE. This is the Herod mentioned in Matt 14:1-12, Luke 3:19-20, 9:7-9 and Mark 6:14, and where Mark wrongly refers to him as 'King'. The error in Mark is corrected in Matt 14:1 and Luke 9:7.
Therefore once again, we encounter a classic example of a Christian not undertaking the necessary research, but launching into a tirade and only managing to make his position look even more untenable. And, as always, demonstrating an inability to grasp simple facts and details. If he had bothered to research the subject before his outburst, he would have (presumably) realized his error.
(ii)The writer is incorrect. Lambs were not offered up as sin offerings. They were slaughtered in the passover as a commemoration of the exodus deliverance: there was no association with 'sin offering'. As is usual with Christians, statements are made without any supporting text/reference. If the writer had bothered to try and find a supporting text for what he was arguing, he would have then (presumably!) realized his error. But as is typical with Christian writings, supporting texts and references are completely absent.
(17)For example, the Synoptics have Jesus clearing the Temple at the end of his ministry (Mark 11:15-17 and par.), but John has this at the very beginning (2:13-16). John has Jesus travelling back and forth between Galilee and Jerusalem, but the Synoptics have him in Galilee and making the one journey south to Jerusalem ending in his execution.
The Bible does not say EVER or ANYWHERE the gospels must be in chronological order. John had his reasons for putting the Temple clearing by Jesus at the beginning, I'm sure. The gospels were never meant to be identical accounts. They are accounts from different viewpoints. It would be redundant to have identical accounts, several in a row. As far as Jesus travelling back and forth between Galilee and Jerusalem, it would be logical Jesus made several such trips in his lifetime on earth. These are petty points to try to discredit the gospels, but again, Strike knows not what he is talking about.
This is a ridiculous excuse arising from desperation. Throughout the Gospels, we have chronological references are provided, for example those relating to the last supper/passover as already discussed. If the Synoptic Gospels say Jesus began his ministry in Galilee and travelled south in Jerusalem (apparently in one year) whereas John has Jesus travelling back and forth over a period of between two and three years, there is an obvious contradiction. As Prof. Kummel notes:Even if 5:1 9 [if a passover, this adds a further year to Jesus' ministry] is left out of consideration, the ministry of Jesus according John 2-19 encompasses more than two years, of which the last half-year is in Judea and Jerusalem [Contrast Mark 11-15 when Jesus' stay in Jerusalem lasts only a week]. The chronological inferences from Mark...suggests a ministry of Jesus lasting not more than year.
The great majority of Johannine sayings have no parallel in the Synoptics, and the language of the speeches is completely different from the Synoptic Jesus... (W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, pp.200,201).
(18)There was actually a long dark tunnel period between the writings of the N. T. (New Testament) writings and them being treated as Holy Writ. The first earliest papyri is Rylands P52 dated ca. 140 CE but this only has just 6 verses of John. In fact the first complete MSS of the N. T. are 4th century (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). All NT writings were apparently written in Greek - not the language that Palestinian Jews would have used. There was clearly tampering with the text in this tunnel period - Eusebius admits this was so - H. E. 29.6-7. The differences between the Byzantine, Alexandrian and Caesarean texts show copyists changed the text (e.g. Acts 2:17 in the Western text). The 3rd cent Christian writer Origen condemned those Christians for "their depraved audacity"in changing the text and Jerome told Pope Damascus of the "numerous errors" that had arisen in the texts through attempted harmonising.
In 1707 John Mill Oxford listed 30,000 variants in the different N.T texts and at the beginning of this century with further discoveries of manuscripts, the scholar Hermann von Soden listed some 45,000 variants in the N.T texts illustrating how they were altered. Even in the one 4th cent Codex Sinaiticus containing all the N.T, Professor Tishendorf the discoverer, noted that it had been altered by at least three different scribes. Therefore this shows the present-day Bible is not "inerrant copy" of the original writings, and secondly cannot be "God's inspired word" as presumably if this were so, he would have ensured such alterations could not have been made."
Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) This manuscript, usually designated S, was discovered in 1859 by C. von Tischendorf at the Monastery of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt. Sinai (in the south central Sinai Peninsula) after a partial discovery of 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex there in 1844. Though some of the Old Testament is missing, a whole 4th-century New Testament is preserved, with the Shepherd of Hermas at the end. There were probably 3 hands and several later correctors. Tischendorf convinced the monks that giving the precious manuscript to Tsar Alexander II of Russia would grant them needed protection of their abbey and the Greek Church. Tischendorf subsequently published S at Leipzig and then presented it to the Tsar. The manuscript remained in Leningrad until 1933, during which time the Oxford University Press in 1911 published a facsimile of the New Testament portion from photographs of the manuscript taken by Kirsopp Lake, an English biblical scholar. The manuscript was sold in 1933 by the Soviet government to the British Museum for £100,000. The text type of S is in the Alexandrian group, although it has some Western readings. Later corrections representing attempts to alter the text to a different standard probably were made about the 6th or 7th century at Caesarea.
Anytime you are dealing with the Alexandrian texts, you are dealing with corrupted texts. They are the Gnostic gospels, which the Bible warns against the Gnostic teachings. These were corrupted to support the Arian dogma. These texts are not valid to begin with. It is the Majority Text that makes up our Bible, and this includes the King James Version and the New King James Version. Most other versions are from the Alexandrian texts and so, therefore, not even reliable. There were Gnostic settlements in Egypt and these manuscripts were found buried in the sand. Because of the warm, dry conditions the parchments and papyrus paper were fairly well preserved. Strike's arguments are not valid because he has simply chosen the wrong manuscripts to criticize.
Once again, much of this is irrelevant and is available from any standard textbook.
The writer says:-
'The text type of S is in the Alexandrian group, although it has some Western readings. Later corrections representing attempts to alter the text to a different standard probably were made about the 6th or 7th century at Caesarea. Anytime you are dealing with the Alexandrian texts, you are dealing with corrupted texts. They are the Gnostic gospels, which the Bible warns against the Gnostic teachings'.
(1)The statement that the Alexandrian texts are Gnostic-corrupted is nonsense and once again, to no surprise, he fails to substantiate anything of this fantastic claim. Moreover, if he was actually familiar with what he was referring rather than merely quoting from textbooks, he would realize the claim that Alexandrian texts are Gnostic-coloured could not be correct in view of Matt 1:16. The Sinaiticus rewords the text to strongly suggest that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. However the Gnostics denied Jesus' humanity, believing that he only 'seemed' to be physical (hence the term 'Docetists' for Gnostics from the Greek dokeo, 'to seem') and they would hardly alter the text to advance a view that they fiercely rejected.
In fact while the writer says the Alexandrian texts are Gnostic-coloured, i.e., the Gnostics tampered with the original texts, the fact remains that as we do not have the original MSS with which to compare the later MSS, for all we know, the 'Gnostic coloured' texts may be closer to the original writings. If a number of variant readings are found in a few MSS and these differ from the majority, this does not mean these are the amendments as they may actually represent the original text. Some MSS text groups were in areas where distribution and copying was the easiest and this could have resulted in more MSS being produced which included copyists' 'amendments'. Such amendments by (early Christian) copyists are for example:-
Matthew 24:26. Jesus says only the Father knows the time of the parousia/eschaton. No one else, including himself, knows it. However, as God is omniscient, this obviously conflicts with the idea that Jesus is God. Therefore a copyist has omitted 'nor the Son' so he is not included in those who do not know the time of the end (Note that Mark 13:32 retains this).
Luke 24:51. In Luke 24, all of Jesus' resurrection appearances occur on the same day and in the same area, when he also ascends into heaven (24:51). This sharply conflicts with Matthew and John which report that Jesus remained on earth for some time after the resurrection. To overcome the contradiction, a copyist has removed the 'and was carried into heaven' in 24:51 so it allows for the possibility of yet more post-resurrection appearances to agree with Matthew and John.
John 1:18. 'Son' referring to Jesus has been altered to 'God'.
As can be seen, these are not 'accidental mistakes' but are done to suit a theological perspective or to overcome a contradiction (or both). As these Christian copyists felt free to do this surely demonstrates that the writings were not deemed to be 'sacred', 'Holy Writ' or even authoritative at the time of copying (late 1st - late 2nd cent CE). Furthermore, one wonders how many contradictions were present in the original writings but were permanently 'removed' by first-century Christian copyists? (Any standard Bible will show the variant readings in the page footnotes).
I also repeat what I said in page 4 that a comparison of the MSS P45, P46, P47, P66, P72 and P75 shows:-
P45: Additions-28: Omissions-63
P46: Additions-55: Omissions-167
P47: Additions-5: Omissions-18
P66: Additions-14: Omissions-19
P72: Additions-16: Omissions-29
P75: Additions-12: Omissions-41
These few examples clearly demonstrate that Christian copyists frequently amended the text in the very early stages, and it is therefore impossible to know what the original writings said.
(2)Despite what the writer implies, it is not actually possible to tightly classify all MSS in specific groups. For example:Sinaiticus, and the later L. and 33, as well as P46 and 1739 for Paul, etc, which might be called the B text group (traditionally the Egyptian, Alexandrian or 'Neutral'). Second, three or four papyri and one uncial prior to the fourth century contain portions of Luke-Acts...This has long been called the 'Western' text which might be better designated the D text group. Third, a cluster for the Gospels exists in P45 and Codex Washingtonianus which might be called the C text group because it stands midway between the B and D text groups (though no longer called Caesarean)...(3)Although the writer claims, 'It is the Majority Text that makes up our Bible, and this includes the King James Version and the New King James Version', the actual reality is:
What this tells us is that a text-type is not a closely concentrated entity with rigid boundaries, but is more like a galaxy - with a compact nucleus and additional but less closely related members which range out (Eldon Jay Epp, 'The papyrus manuscripts of the N.T. in Studies and Documents in the Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. B. D. Ehrman and M. W. Holmes, pp.17,18)It is obvious that no MS can have greater authority than that from which it is copied. In other words, the number of MSS in a group which have a common parentage proves nothing, except that the form of the text represented by that group was preferred in former times; which may or may not be an important factor of the evidence. It does not in itself prove superiority in either age or merit.(4)All 'textual families' have divergences from the other(s). Differences are not only found in one group. It is strange that the writer cites the Alexandrian as being the most suspect as it is in the Western text that changes are most obvious, e.g., omissions arise in Luke 22:19b-20, 23:34, 24:12,40,51b, Acts 15:20,29. Again, as noted, variants do not only occur in the Alexandrian texts:Through a detailed and exhaustive analysis, Epp concluded that some 40 per cent of Codex Bezae's variant readings in Acts point towards an anti-Jewish bias. The sensible inference is that the scribe himself, or his tradition, was anti-Jewish and this prejudice came to be embodied in the transcribing of the text (Prof. Bart D. Ehrman, 'The text as window', in Studies and Documents in the Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. B. D. Ehrman and M. W. Holmes, p.364).(5)If the writer had bothered to read what was said, while I refer to Sinaiticus, I also refer to the overall text of all the families, i.e., 'the scholar Hermann von Soden listed some 45,000 variants in the N.T texts [i.e., all of them] illustrating how they were altered'.
(6)Despite all that the writer says, he fails to respond to the central point of what I said, which is: 'There was actually a long dark tunnel period between the writings of the N. T. (New Testament) and them being treated as Holy Writ' and there is no way of knowing how different the extant MSS are from the originals while there is considerable evidence of the text being tampered with by copyists - hence the thousands of different textual variations. In fact, the writer agrees with this when he refers to Codex Sinaiticus being 'a whole 4th-century New Testament...preserved, with the Shepherd of Hermas at the end. There were probably 3 hands and several later correctors'.
So the writer agrees that the church had still not agreed on the canon by the fourth century (i.e., the inclusion of Hermas) which is remarkable if the New Testament was God's word to humanity. And furthermore, he admits that in just the one MS, there is evidence of at least three copyists tampering with the text (or as the writer prefers to think, 'correcting' it!).
(7)In the above I have already made reference to another website, regarding the subject of Bible prophecy. This website also has material on different renderings in the various versions of the Bible which exist: Versions of the Bible, part 1 (Scroll down for parts 2 and 3), and Versions of the Bible, part 4 (Scroll down for part 5).
On seeing the contents of the webpages which are cited above, I recognized the usual signs of Christian writing and did not consider anything useful would be achieved by responding. However more for amusement than anything else, I decided that I would consider the writer's attempt to challenge my argumentation, which has not been easy due to the infantile style of writing and the complete absence of any supporting evidence or authorities being cited. On the one and only occasion when the writer deigns to use a textbook, he manages to make a fundamental error (i.e., regarding Herod in (16) above).
In the upshot, despite the obvious difficulties in responding to such a poor quality writing, I trust that I have adequately demonstrated in the above, that Christians are unable to come to terms with factual data, present anything resembling an academic work, or defend their absurd and mythologically-based beliefs which have no more basis in fact than Santa Claus or the Flat Earth theory.
Finally, after writing the above, I sought to ascertain whether the Christian had amended the content of his website: this in itself became an 'interesting' exercise - details are included in the Supplementary page.
David
|
Forward to Discussion 5 (supp.) (21k) Home |
