Frames of Reference - Scholarship

Atheism and the Poison of Liberal Theology

yeager — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:54:46 +0000

For some reason, atheists aren’t happy unless they convert religious people to their dogma. Why? I don’t know, but they frequently display intolerance, expressing a deep conviction to win converts to the religion of atheism. Here’s a statement which isn’t very remarkable, except for the revelation of the methods atheists should use to win converts.

If we want to change the mind of the believer then the most effective way is to drive a wedge between their arguments for the existence of God (i.e., natural theology) and the other things they believe based in the Bible.

Once we do this the believer will see very soon afterward that those arguments for God’s existence don’t make a good case. What I’m doing undercuts their faith at the most fundamental level.

And so first we must make them liberals, then agnostics and then atheists. If we attempt to argue them from Christianity to atheism in one fell swoop we will not do it.

Make them liberals? We’re not talking politics, liberals means liberal Christians, and may or may not relate to a political view. “Liberal Christianity” might not be familiar to you, but it’s taught in major seminaries across the country. For them, denying the foundational concepts of orthodox Christianity is all in a days work, and these people exist as Christians in name only.

Atheists do quite well creating liberal theologians. Just watch any show “investigating” Jesus, the Bible or similar and you’ll see professors from national seminaries denying the inerrancy of the Bible, resurrection of Jesus, virgin birth, and more. These aren’t in any meaningful way Christians, as atheist Christopher Hitchens says I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Those “liberal Christians” aren’t Christians, any more than calling yourself the President gets you a ride on Air Force One.

The cult of liberal theology is dangerous and heretical. As Paul warned Timothy these have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof. These liberals are ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 2:7), with corrupt minds, and disapproved concerning the faith. They may have a PhD and other accolades, but they’re utterly unqualified in basic Biblical knowledge.

Liberal Christians may posses the warm-and-fuzzy felling of religion, but share nothing with Jesus except ripping off his name.

Once you start accepting liberal theology like Isaiah didn’t write the book bearing his name, replacement theology (where the church replaces the Jews and Israel in God’s plan), Daniel was really written later or other liberal theology garbage, it’s at that point you’ve denied God and become an atheist, not later. Liberal theologians deny most of the major tenets of Christianity — how can they call themselves Christians?

The progression from orthodox Christianity, to liberalism, finally arriving at atheism can be subtle, as the change to atheist actually comes in the first step after rejecting the foundational tenets of Christianity, not the last small step to atheist.

In a warning, the atheist notes his techniques don’t work on the traditional Christian, those who reject liberal theology and stand firm on the Word of God. But if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything — including the cult of liberal theology.

Stand firm on the truth, and reject liberal theology which has nothing in common with Christianity except the name — liberal scholars have created their own religion and abandoned Christianity. For more information, Walter Martin has a message titled “The Cult of Liberal Theology” available at http://waltermartin.com.

Atheist Understanding of the Gospel Surpasses Pastor's

yeager — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:51:06 +0000

Not everyone with the title “pastor” behind their name is trustworthy. That should be obvious, but many fall victim to the “appeal to authority” problem, where someone appearing as an authority has their beliefs accepted without challenge.

As an example, consider the following discussion between an atheist and a pastor; the atheist at least understands what the Gospel is, while the so-called pastor has no idea.

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Atheist Hitchen’s correctly identifies the Gospel (see Paul in 1 Corinthians 15); compare Hitchen’s clear understanding of the Gospel with Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell’s bizarity:

The way I believe in the resurrection is I believe that one can go from a death in this life, in the sense of being dead to the world and dead to other people, and can be resurrected to new life. When I preach about Easter and the resurrection, it’s in a metaphorical sense.

…I have my grandmother’s Bible and I still read it, but I don’t take it as literal truth. I take it as metaphorical truth. The stories, the narrative, are what’s important.

I don’t know whether or not God exists in the first place, let me just say that.

God is a mystery to me. I choose to believe because—and this is a very practical thing for me—I seem to live with more integrity when I find myself accountable to something larger than myself. That thing larger than myself, I call God, but it’s a metaphor. That God is an emptiness out of which everything comes. Perhaps I would say “reality” or “what is” because we’re trying to describe the infinite with language of the finite. My faith is that I put all that I am and all that I have on the line for that which I do not know.

In short, just because some calls themselves a “Christian” and maybe even “pastor” doesn’t mean anything; many churches won’t need new pastors after the rapture.

Be careful, and heed the Bible’s call to check things out for yourself. Be a Berean.

Manhattan Declaration - Answers to Faulty Objections

yeager — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:28:42 +0000

The Manhattan Declaration continues to make people nervous. As we mentioned before in our discussion should a Christian sign the Manhattan Declaration, it’s not so much if you sign or not, but your attitude towards the concepts it contains. Yet some still don’t like the principles and choose to divide over it — even using faulty analysis in the process.

Abortion remains a dividing topic in the country at large, and this declaration illustrates the division existing in the church as well; consider the following comment for why a person should reject the declaration.

The sanctity of human life is of the utmost importance to me, yet, how many of these religious groups support the death penalty? Or believe that health care reform is evil? Or support abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or etc…?

If the sanctity of human life is important, you have no problem declaring that fact. However, this line of reasoning can come from a pro-abortion person attempting to divert attention from the issue at hand — abortion — to other issues such as the death penalty and health-care. Raising side issues remains a classic tactic of pro-abortion people promoting their position.

If a person doesn’t understand the difference between the innocence of an unborn life and the just and lawful condemnation of a murderer to death we can’t say much except hope at some point the difference becomes clear. Of course, injecting the debate over health-care has nothing to do with abortion at all (other than the fight over paying for it, but we won’t digress into that discussion).

Another group’s focus shines brightly on the promotion of same-sex marriage in the Church — something its writers say Christians should do. But let them explain themselves:

It is, sadly, taken as a foregone conclusion by the drafters of the Declaration that same-sex sexual “conduct and relationships” inherently involve immorality of any kind. In fact, Scripture says no such thing. It is not a matter of what one reads on pages of the Bible, but is, rather, a matter of translating, interpreting, and applying the teachings of Scripture in a manner consistent with the original intent, with—as the apostle Paul calls it—the spirit of the law (Romans 7:6).

On the surface, such a claim certainly appears problematic. It’s not a matter of what you read in the Bible??? But, in point of fact, the majority of the Christian Body applies this approach of biblical intent above biblical letter on multiple issues. Churches that allow women to hold any positions of authority in the local church, or to preach/teach the word of God in the local church are directly contradicting the letter of New Testament teachings. In addition, churches that do not enforce a strict dress code for women, as well as short hair lengths for men are, likewise, contradicting the letter of New Testament teachings.

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided [braided] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; [10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. [11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:9-12)

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14)

… the Church is notorious for picking and choosing which passages to apply in the letter of the text, and which to apply in the spirit/intent of the text. The rule of consistency, however, requires us to apply the spirit-over-the-letter approach across the board, or not at all. I trust that few changes, indeed, would opt for the latter option.

This argument makes several errors. We’ll not go into detail as we’ve covered these topics in our Commentary on 1 Corinthians (specifically chapter 11), but allow us to provide a brief reply to their analysis so the mistake becomes clear — for full notes see the referenced article as it covers this and other objections as well.

…something else you must understand before diving into this section. That second item is the structure of an argument, and its presentation in debate. If you haven’t had training in debate, it’s easy to miss the point this chapter presents, as Paul’s argument contains a few principles, and then some supporting examples; if you confuse examples and principles you’ll be lost.

V3 — The principle — order in the family.

V4-7 — Example of head coverings. Additionally, this is a cultural example.

V8-9 — Example from history.

Paul’s principle concerns the military organization of the family unit. If you get all hung up with hair and head coverings thinking that’s his point you’ll become hopelessly lost in this discussion. His principle applies today, but his supporting arguments come partly from the cultural situation of that day.

In the same notes on 1 Corinthians 11 we also explain the passage in 1 Timothy and why it retains its relevance today. But in brief, Paul immediately supports his premise with an argument from history, and unless history changes, neither does his point.

The problems most people have with 1 Corinthians 11 comes from failing to distinguish between Paul’s argument and his supporting examples. If you wish to study this further start with our notes on 1 Corinthians (section called “The Trouble with Order”).

You don’t have to accept the Bible if you don’t want — many “pastors” and “churches” don’t — but it’s rather bizarre to say God didn’t really say that, or some parts don’t apply today simply because they’re not liked. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it’s not — you choose for yourself.

Many so-called “Christians” claim acceptance of the Bible while ignoring parts making them uncomfortable. They perform their slight of hand by strange arguments saying “this part doesn’t apply today” or “God didn’t really say that” and other nonsense — arguments which careful study of the text destroys. This pseudo-scholarship continues to be popular by those promoting dialectic thought because by it you can make any religion you want — just claim those parts of the Bible you don’t like don’t apply anymore, or weren’t really written by those claiming.

If someone desires to reject the Bible (or parts of it) and God, fine, that’s their option — nobody forces anyone to believe in God or the Bible. But we wish they’d have the honesty to state their rejection openly, instead of twisting words into something the text obviously doesn’t say to justify their designer religion.

New NIV appears in 2011 - TNIV to be dropped

yeager — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:47:25 +0000

Bible translations come and go; we generally don’t proclaim all modern translations evil as it’s not inherently bad to have a Bible in modern English, but you must be careful — some of these groups claim they’re only updating English and grammar, but after a careful review you find they don’t just update English, but actually change doctrines to fit their liberal theology — all under the guise of “updating” the venerable KJV.

Don’t be fooled — what God wrote, He wrote. Nobody has to believe it, like it, or accept it, but to claim God didn’t want His Word to apply today strikes us as the height of hubris. Once you go down that road, who gets to decide what parts fit today and what doesn’t? What doctrine still applies today, and what doesn’t? And by what methods do you pick and choose? Oh yes, the “we’ll use the best of modern scholarship” rears its ugly head again. But we’ll take God’s word over modern scholarship, and we’d recommend everyone do the same.

In the end “scholars” end up with a designer religion bearing little resemblance to Christianity — how many “scholars” and pastors deny the virgin birth, existence of hell, literal return of Jesus, and the inerrancy of the Bible? How much picking and choosing of what they feel to apply for today, and what they won’t? They may use orthodox terminology, but only to cover their un-Christian ideas straight from the pit of hell.

Instead of Christianity, they’ve built themselves a cult of liberal theology. That’s fine if they so choose to and reject Christianity, but keep your slimy “scholarship” off my Bible.

The latest to get the “updating” treatment is the NIV. We’re not big fans of the NIV generally, but it does have uses. But we’re definitely wary of any update when “scholars” complain the new 2011 version of the NIV won’t be liberal enough! Notice what Bart Ehrman (a self-described “renowned Bible scholar”) has to say about it.

Reporting from Chicago — When the new New International Version of the Bible is unveiled in 2011, don’t look for androgynous vocabulary that had rankled some evangelicals. In fact, as soon as the latest version is published, the gender-neutral Today’s New International Version will vanish.

“If we want to maintain the NIV as a Bible that English speakers around the world can understand, we have to listen to and respect the vocabulary they are using today,” said Keith Danby, president of Biblica.

New Testament scholar and author Bart Ehrman doubts the revision has as much to do with the evolution of the English language as the orthodox trends in evangelical thought.

“They are changing the gender-neutral language, no doubt, because their ‘base’ is conservative evangelical Christians who are offended by anything that appears to have a feminist agenda behind it, not because the language has changed,” Ehrman said. “If it has changed, of course, it has changed toward greater gender neutrality — except in religiously and politically conservative circles.”

We’ve noted about Mr. Ehrman’s total lack of credible scholarship before — so much so even atheists heap scorn on his bizarre theories. But let’s look at one example of the TNIV (1 Corinthians 15:21), and you’ll quickly see why it’s corrupt, and why these attempts to “modernize” the Bible frequently also turn out corrupt, no matter how many “scholars” work on them (even if they call themselves “renowned”) using the “best of modern scholarship”.

NIV: For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

TNIV: For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being.

Death came from Adam (we’ll say he was a man, but perhaps the “scholars” disagree), and the Resurrection comes from Jesus, who was also a man (again, scholars?). In this case they go way beyond gender language, changing the intent and meaning of a passage — all in the name of “scholarship” and “gender-neutral”. Why were these “gender-neutral” changes made when it’s obvious the passages mean Adam (man) and Jesus (man)? If they’re going to eliminate gender, why not just call Jesus “it”? Of course, Paul had something to say about mixing gender roles in 1 Corinthians 11, but perhaps they’ll leave out that chapter — it likely doesn’t fit with their worldview anyway.

Hands off my Bible — don’t let any “scholar” tell you some parts don’t apply, or the Bible needs to be “updated” for modern times. Hogwash.

You’re free to accept or reject the Bible as you wish, but it’s quite the example of hubris to re-write it to fit your own mold — and that hubris frequently comes from so-called “scholars”.

As Bible versions appear and disappear with regularity you’re left with problems — especially if you want to memorize. What will you do with all your memorized NIV verses when they no longer match the 2011 NIV? Worse, they’ll likely stop selling the older version, so even if you want to you’ll have no way to purchase what you’re familiar with; another hidden danger of the modern versions as they come and go.

Good riddance TNIV. Will the 2011 NIV be as bad? We hope not, but most likely it will be between what the NIV is now, and what the liberal scholars hoped for in the TNIV.

God doesn’t change, why do scholars want to change His Word?

Richard Dawkins Equates Scientific Inquiry with Holocaust Denial

yeager — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:28:03 +0000

Richard Dawkins makes absurd claims which don’t withstand even a casual glance, but at least provide some entertainment value — get the popcorn, this could surpass the best summer movie. You’ll watch as Dawkins equates scientific inquiry with Holocaust deniers. The suspense! The thrill! The betrayal! See Mr. Dawkins replace the scientific method by his own vision of truth by fiat! It’s the greatest show on earth! Get your tickets now for the best comedy of the year! Oh the humanity!

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips …

Leaving for the moment his bizarre notion equating Holocaust deniers with scientific inquiry of evolution (when you have nothing logical to argue, call ‘em names, a loose corollary to Goodwins Law), the remainder of his article is no less absurd by allowing his atheist dogma to cloud what remains of his scientific judgment (hardly the “clear thinking oasis” his website claims).

Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town, some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Mr. Dawkins misunderstands science, yet again. It’s not the job to disprove evolution after he assumes a priori its truth, it’s his job to prove it scientifically — via the scientific method — otherwise it’s not science. Call it philosophy or some other discipline, but it certainly isn’t science.

To demonstrate the absurdity of Dawkins’ idea, suppose we proposed the following theory: Just before you read this page, aliens placed you and everyone else on this earth, with all memories intact, and created the world around you to match your memory; what you thought happened yesterday is just an implanted memory.

Prove that false. Since it will survive the assault, according to Dawkins we would “happily call that fact”. Absurd? Of course, but thus so is Dawkins error as he desires to substitute his dogma for science.

Actual scientific theory builds on experimental evidence. If you don’t have that, it’s not science. So where is the repeatable, verifiable experimental evidence for the following evolutionary ideas?

Matter comes from nothing.
Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
Species can change from one to another.
Explosions produce order.

If you don’t have the first three, evolution doesn’t work. Surely such foundational and critical ideas in evolution have huge amounts of experimental data? Well, no, they don’t. Remember, they must all be true — if even one doesn’t have valid, experimental data, the theory isn’t science. These questions don’t exist on the periphery of evolutionary theory, they form the basis for it. Where’s the data? As Mr. Dawkins states evolution is a fact, certainly he can supply copious experimental results for those ideas.

Well, Mr. Dawkins? If you don’t have that, it’s not science, by definition. In other words, evolution is not science. No experimental data, no science. Evolution is a (bad) guess for people desperately clinging to the dogma of atheism (itself illogical, though that’s a topic for another time). That’s it. You can call evolution religion, philosophy, or any thing else — just not science.

“The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past” as Mr Dawkins says wonderfully by his own mouth admits evolution isn’t science. No experiment, no science. And of course, DNA evidence can now be created in the lab to fool those blindly trusting it (similar to Piltdown man) revealing how “science” can be easily fooled, as even the evolution zealots at talkorigins.org admit:

The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration.

Honest debate and discussion is good for science — lacking that science descends into personal attacks about what someone thinks is right, instead of discussing experimental data (or the lack thereof). Attempting to squelch scientific discussion by dogmatic fiat isn’t good for science, and Mr. Dawkins should be ashamed at himself for proposing the idea, while actual scientists should distance themselves from his attempts to be un-scientific.

We’re sure Mr. Dawkins’ filled his book with citations of experimental data covering the foundations of evolutionary theory. We’d like to review the book (it’s likely an entertaining read), so if Mr. Dawkins would send a copy, we’d like to review the evidence for ourselves. After all, if the evidence he presents is so overwhelming it should easily convince everyone with it’s voluminous scientific experiments proving foundational principles.

Mr. Dawkins desires to throw out the scientific method and proclaim evolution as fact by his own fiat. Sorry, Mr. Dawkins you don’t get to proclaim scientific truth to fit your dogma by your own fiat — that pesky scientific method rears its ugly head again, or perhaps we can call it “The Evolution Delusion”.

After all, blind acceptance of dogma allowed the piltdown man evolutionary hoax in the first place, did it not?

Pseudo-Scholarship even Atheists Dismiss

yeager — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:43:30 +0000

We’ve mentioned previously a book by a “scholar” utterly lacking basic logical and Biblical analysis as a warning not to depend on Phd’s and other accolades to give credibility to some theory. Another book by that “renowned Bible scholar” has come under fire … by an atheist desperately trying to show no God exists, yet we’ll agree with the atheist the “renowned Bible scholar” uses bogus “scholarship”, in spite of their title.

Ehrman’s book is an engaging one, and his explanation of text criticism method invites no complaints. But his main thesis — that New Testament manuscripts have been changed so badly that we can’t know what the originals said about theologically important matters — is not only dead wrong, it is contradicted by Ehrman’s own writings for the scholarly community. Clearly, Christian scholars can be accused of telling one story in the scholarly community and telling another story to their flocks — but Ehrman is doing the same thing with Misquoting Jesus.

If one wants to undermine the reliability of the New Testament, one better not do it through textual criticism. The New Testament contains by far the best-attested and most reliably reconstructed texts of the ancient world.

The atheist notes this “renowned Bible scholar” uses bogus “scholarship”, contradicting himself in the process. As we continue to warn, be vary careful with those calling themselves “scholars” or with PhD’s and other titles behind their names. That means nothing save they’ve received accolades from others who think the same as they do — do your own homework as many “scholars” turn out to be completely wrong, and some don’t appear to even read the book they claim to be a scholar on.

On the reliability of the New Testament, this atheist agrees on the reliability of the Bible passed to us. For some reason, only “Christian” scholars doubt the reliability of the New Testament and seek to tear it apart. Skeptics generally accept the Bible as almost completely pure but find other faults, as he goes on to state:

It is more honest (and much easier) to undermine the reliability of the New Testament using its own numerous contradictions and inherent implausibility. Everyone outright rejects the many other claims of god-men who come to earth, perform some magic, die, and rise from the dead. Why treat Jesus any different? Because a group of people from a superstitious age said so? Seriously?

We’ve looked at many of those “contradictions” before, and will continue to answer the most popular claims of the atheist. If you’ve got one, send it using our contact link (please do not send massive lists you’ve cut and pasted from other sources — we’ve seen those before, and most of them are so absurd they don’t deserve an answer); we’ll answer the most popular ones (also see The Skeptic Series for a basic introduction).

You must do your own homework, study the Bible for yourself, and reach your own conclusions — don’t rely on anyone calling themselves a “renowned Bible scholar” — even if they claim to be “Christian”. After all, if you called yourself the President that doesn’t make it so, does it? Do your own homework, and decide who Jesus is for yourself.

After all, eternity depends on it.

Pseudo-Scholarship - Why do People Suffer?

yeager — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:54:40 +0000

Occasionally we stumble across (or someone recommends) a scholar touted as the ultimate answer to rebut Christianity and promote (presumably) atheism, or at the least the absurdity of Christianity. One such person is Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. One of his books discusses the problem of why suffering exists, but let the review on his web site speak for itself:

In times of questioning and despair, people often quote the Bible to provide answers. Surprisingly, though, the Bible does not have one answer but many “answers” that often contradict one another. Consider these competing explanations for suffering put forth by various biblical writers: The prophets: suffering is a punishment for sin. The book of Job, which offers two different answers: suffering is a test, and you will be rewarded later for passing it; and suffering is beyond comprehension, since we are just human beings and God, after all, is God. Ecclesiastes: suffering is the nature of things, so just accept it. All apocalyptic texts in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament: God will eventually make right all that is wrong with the world. For renowned Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, the question of why there is so much suffering in the world is more than a haunting thought. Ehrman’s inability to reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of real life led the former pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church to reject Christianity. (God’s Problem)

Keep in mind a “renowned Bible scholar” teaching at a university should (must) have a greater understanding of the text of the Bible, logic, and other fundamental analysis skills than other people — it’s their fiduciary duty — and should avoid basic mistakes in logic and analysis. With that in mind, let’s examine his points and see how they stack up — does the Bible offer competing explanations for suffering as Mr. Ehrman proposes, or is his scholarship lacking?

The prophets: suffering is a punishment for sin.

Without references it’s difficult to determine what he refers to. However, it’s true sometimes sin can result in suffering (Luke 5) — the problem comes when people equate all suffering with sin, and that’s not true. So he’s partially correct in this point, sometimes sin results in suffering. Of course, if he’s claiming suffering always results from sin, he’s way off (Luke 13:4, Matt 5:45).

The book of Job, which offers two different answers: suffering is a test, and you will be rewarded later for passing it; and suffering is beyond comprehension, since we are just human beings and God, after all, is God.

Suffering as a test? Were those the words of Job’s friends? It’s not what God said — to see God’s view, read the last few chapters and you’ll arrive at God’s explanation — I’m God, you’re not, where were you when the foundation of the cosmos was laid? Do you have knowledge of each star and planet? If not, it’s an admission God has knowledge you don’t.

Ecclesiastes: suffering is the nature of things, so just accept it.

Written by Solomon giving man’s perspective, not God’s.

All apocalyptic texts in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament: God will eventually make right all that is wrong with the world.

That’s a bit vague, but in general correct. Man’s sin caused the decay we see in the world, and at the proper moment the corruption caused by it will be corrected.

So, if Mr. Ehrman wants to know what the Bible says about suffering, he’s somewhat correct in that several perspectives exist, but some of them are man’s, and some God’s — equating the two causes confusion (even for a “renowned Bible scholar”). If Mr. Ehrman wants to understand why suffering exists, he’d be wise to ignore man’s thoughts (which may or may not be correct), and focus on what God said. Perhaps if he did, his confusion would clear.

Perhaps Bible Scholar Ehrman doesn’t know some parts of the Bible relate historical accounts, and just because something appears in the Bible doesn’t mean God approves of it, or it represents His view. The Bible contains historical accounts of sexual immorality, murder, lying, deception, and more, but that doesn’t mean it’s God promoting (or approving) those actions. Thus Mr. Ehrman’s confusion stems (in part) from failing to distinguish man’s views from God’s in the Bible — a surprising fundamental error from a “renowned Bible scholar” teaching at a University.

Some will say we haven’t read the book, so we should not comment. But with several basic analysis and logic errors in the book summary what could the remainder of the book hold? Attempting to build a skyscraper on a shaky foundation never yields quality results. Additionally, if we purchased all the books people wanted us to, we’d have to get a second (or third) job to pay for it. If Mr. Ehrman sends a copy (it would be nice if he signed it as well), we’d read it. But otherwise, paying for reading a book which by it’s own admission provides no answers and contains basic Biblical analysis (and other logical) errors is not a profitable way to spend our time.

We’re left with God’s view on suffering — first, He’s God and has vastly more knowledge and wisdom. If we don’t understand why events occur, that should not surprise us as He’s God, we’re not. If God is God, then God is God — how big is your God? If you have the same knowledge as He, is He really God? Or just something you keep in a box for emergencies?

Second, God’s plan will run to completion, and if you read the back of the book for the answers, you’ll see it all works out in the end. How we get from point “A” to point “B” is unclear, but eventually we do get to point “B”.

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28 KJV)

So, you many not like what God has to say about suffering, and you may wish for more understanding, but now you’re spared reading 294 pages which fail to provide answers.

If God exists, by definition He knows more than we do, so why would it surprise us if we don’t understand some things God does? Rejecting ideas we don’t understand places a huge realm of thought off-limits — and isn’t part of a university education involve exploring ideas with an open mind? Again, it’s surprising a University scholar makes such basic errors.

Be careful upon hearing “scholars” making wild claims — they may sound scholarly, but don’t be fooled by scholarly language. The Deutero-Isaiah hypothesis, Documentary Hypothesis, Who Wrote Daniel and more all contain “scholarly” wisdom you may be trapped by, but in the end contain such basic errors you don’t need to spend your time with them, and they’re best left on the garbage heap of pseudo-scholarship.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:21–22 KJV)

Beware of pseudo-scholarship — no matter how many Phd’s and other initials appear behind a name, or how many books published, or awards and stature, scholarship sometimes turns out to be pseudo-scholarship — Physicist Richard Feynman said if an argument can’t be made simple, it means we really don’t understand it — don’t be fooled by volumes of “scholarship” hiding a lack of understanding (in Physics we called that a “hand-waving” argument).

Frames of Reference - Scholarship

Atheism and the Poison of Liberal Theology

Related Articles

Atheist Understanding of the Gospel Surpasses Pastor's

Manhattan Declaration - Answers to Faulty Objections

New NIV appears in 2011 - TNIV to be dropped

Related Articles

Richard Dawkins Equates Scientific Inquiry with Holocaust Denial

Related Articles

Pseudo-Scholarship even Atheists Dismiss

Pseudo-Scholarship - Why do People Suffer?