I read a disturbing article on CNN.com today. I don't want to put a damper on anyone's holiday season, but I think we should all see the direction our world is headed. Here are some quotes:
An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene was taken from the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, on Friday and later found in a ditch.
The sign, which celebrates the winter solstice, has had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth. "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation says in part.
Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher and co-founder of the group, said it was important for atheists to see their viewpoints validated alongside everyone else's. Barker said the display is especially important given that 25 percent of Washington state residents are unaffiliated with religion or do not believe in God. (A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 23 percent of Washingtonians said they were unaffiliated with a religion and 7 percent said they didn't believe in God.)
"It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."
He said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion. "Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."
The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said. "When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."
Now let's be clear. The people in this story are not atheists. They are antitheists. And there is a big difference.
An atheist simply does not believe in God. Atheism is passive, and it is not really a belief system in and of itself. Rather, it is merely the rejection of theism. However, antitheism is active. An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "one opposed to belief in the existence of a God." These people are specifically and purposefully attempting to defeat Christianity and all other forms of theism.
During the heyday of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin was a self-proclaimed militant antitheist. He defined this as "carrying on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight." Likewise, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is an organization based in Wisconsin, which strives to promote the complete separation of church and state, the removal of religion from public life, and to educate the public on matters relating to atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has succeeded in removing Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from public land, overturning a state Good Friday holiday, and making it illegal to present any religious beliefs as viable or true in public schools. They have also attempted (unsuccessfully) to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency and to remove the phrase "So help me, God" from the oath portion of tax forms. They are currently attempting to put an end to the National Day of Prayer.
Unfortunately, this is where our nation is headed. I believe that within the next 50 years or so, Christianity will become an underground faith. We will no longer be allowed to express our faith in any kind of public forum. We will no longer be allowed to evangelize, because even implying that someone else’s religious beliefs are wrong would be considered hate-speech. The Bible will be banned as offensive literature, since it speaks of sin and damnation. Let's all remember that we are living in a world at war. This war has been raging since Satan fell from Heaven, and right now, we're in the Battle of the Bulge. So this Christmas season, let's make it extra clear to all those around us what it is that we are really celebrating.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Is Allah the same as YHVH?
Many Muslims like to claim that Allah is the same as YHVH, the God of the Bible. Now, let me be clear. I think that if you walked up to any Muslim today and asked him or her this question, they would say that Allah and YHVH are one in the same. In fact, Mohammad even said they were. But are they?
Mohammad was born in Mecca, a large trading center. Larger towns like Mecca often had Kaabas - cube-like structures that would attract pilgrims during holy months. The Kaaba at Mecca housed various idols, including the black meteorite that remains to this day. In addition to the black rock, Mohammad’s Quraish tribe worshiped a moon god called Allah. Other gods were recognized as well, and the town of Mecca was renowned for religious tolerance, where people of all faiths could come and pray at the Kaaba.
So this in an interesting fact. The name "Allah" (which can be translated as "the God") was used to describe the pre-Islamic pagan moon god, this highest god in their pantheon. This god had other names as well. The star and crescent, which is the symbol of Islam, can be traced back to this pagan worship of the sun, moon, and stars. If you check it out on Wikipedia, the article states that "most sources agree that these ancient celestial symbols were in use by the peoples of Central Asia and Siberian Turks in their worship of sun, moon, and sky gods."
It would seem that Mohammad basically took the deity and traditions of his own Quraish tribe and merged these ideas with Jewish and Christian monotheistic views.
This idea can be cemented when we look at the "Satanic Verses" incident. At one point while in Mecca, Mohammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This pleased the Meccans; however, Mohammad soon changed his mind after seeing his own people begin to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods. Who were these Meccan deities? Well, they were Allat, al-'Uzza, and Manat. In Pre-Islamic paganism, these three goddesses were known as the daughters of Allah, the moon god.
Mohammad also utilized pagan rituals in Islam, such as the pilgrimage to Mecca. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "pilgrimage had been performed to certain temples of the moon gods, with rituals similar in many details to those of the pre-Islamic and Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca." The various acts involved in the pilgrimage ("the Hajj") such as running around the Kaaba seven times, kissing the black stone, running up and down two hills, throwing stones at the devil, etc. are all pagan in origin. Additionally, Muslims are commanded to pray toward Mecca five times per day. This practice is derived from the fact that pre-Islamic pagans prayed five times a day towards their local temples.
More important than the pagan origin of Allah is the character of Allah. According to Islam, Allah is remote and completely beyond comprehension. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that "the Judeo-Christian precept to 'love God with all thy heart' is nowhere formulated in Islam. The emphasis is rather on God's inscrutable sovereignty, to which one must abandon oneself." So we can see that the Judeo-Christian belief that God is ultimately loving and has a personal relationship with man contrasts sharply with Islamic teaching.
I don't advocate walking up to Muslims and telling them that they actually worship a pagan moon god. They'd probably think you were a bit looney. However, we should be accurate and know the truth about this kind of thing. I had a professor in college who told our entire class that Allah and YHVH were the same god. If we don't know the truth, we can be very easily deceived.
Mohammad was born in Mecca, a large trading center. Larger towns like Mecca often had Kaabas - cube-like structures that would attract pilgrims during holy months. The Kaaba at Mecca housed various idols, including the black meteorite that remains to this day. In addition to the black rock, Mohammad’s Quraish tribe worshiped a moon god called Allah. Other gods were recognized as well, and the town of Mecca was renowned for religious tolerance, where people of all faiths could come and pray at the Kaaba.
So this in an interesting fact. The name "Allah" (which can be translated as "the God") was used to describe the pre-Islamic pagan moon god, this highest god in their pantheon. This god had other names as well. The star and crescent, which is the symbol of Islam, can be traced back to this pagan worship of the sun, moon, and stars. If you check it out on Wikipedia, the article states that "most sources agree that these ancient celestial symbols were in use by the peoples of Central Asia and Siberian Turks in their worship of sun, moon, and sky gods."
It would seem that Mohammad basically took the deity and traditions of his own Quraish tribe and merged these ideas with Jewish and Christian monotheistic views.
This idea can be cemented when we look at the "Satanic Verses" incident. At one point while in Mecca, Mohammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This pleased the Meccans; however, Mohammad soon changed his mind after seeing his own people begin to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods. Who were these Meccan deities? Well, they were Allat, al-'Uzza, and Manat. In Pre-Islamic paganism, these three goddesses were known as the daughters of Allah, the moon god.
Mohammad also utilized pagan rituals in Islam, such as the pilgrimage to Mecca. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "pilgrimage had been performed to certain temples of the moon gods, with rituals similar in many details to those of the pre-Islamic and Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca." The various acts involved in the pilgrimage ("the Hajj") such as running around the Kaaba seven times, kissing the black stone, running up and down two hills, throwing stones at the devil, etc. are all pagan in origin. Additionally, Muslims are commanded to pray toward Mecca five times per day. This practice is derived from the fact that pre-Islamic pagans prayed five times a day towards their local temples.
More important than the pagan origin of Allah is the character of Allah. According to Islam, Allah is remote and completely beyond comprehension. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that "the Judeo-Christian precept to 'love God with all thy heart' is nowhere formulated in Islam. The emphasis is rather on God's inscrutable sovereignty, to which one must abandon oneself." So we can see that the Judeo-Christian belief that God is ultimately loving and has a personal relationship with man contrasts sharply with Islamic teaching.
I don't advocate walking up to Muslims and telling them that they actually worship a pagan moon god. They'd probably think you were a bit looney. However, we should be accurate and know the truth about this kind of thing. I had a professor in college who told our entire class that Allah and YHVH were the same god. If we don't know the truth, we can be very easily deceived.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
"The Freedom of Choice Act"
The Freedom of Choice Act is a bill that is in Congress right now, and if it is enacted, the bill would abolish all restrictions and limitations on abortion in the United States. It would invalidate all parental notification laws, waiting periods, requirements of full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks in abortion, or restrictions on late-term abortion techniques (i.e. partial birth abortions). It would force the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which restricts the use of public funding for abortions. It would also invalidate the ability of religiously-based hospitals to refuse to perform abortions based on the violation of their consciences.
Barack Obama has become a co-sponsor of the Senate version of this Bill, and in a speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, he said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not just about the election. Yes, knowing that signing this bill is first on Obama's agenda makes me sick, but this bill does not live and die with him. I encourage anyone reading this post to write to your congressmen and senators and express your outrage about this horrible piece of legislation.
Barack Obama has become a co-sponsor of the Senate version of this Bill, and in a speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, he said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not just about the election. Yes, knowing that signing this bill is first on Obama's agenda makes me sick, but this bill does not live and die with him. I encourage anyone reading this post to write to your congressmen and senators and express your outrage about this horrible piece of legislation.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Socialism Is Immoral
"Thou shalt not steal." It's the eighth commandment. Parents teach this simple rule to their children when they are very young. However, it seems like our government has a hard time remembering it.
You see, the idea of the welfare state is basically immoral. Without question, it is wrong for any person (or government) to take money from a man who has worked for it and give that money to someone who hasn't. Thou shalt not steal. In a free market economy, monetary transactions are voluntary. Individuals choose what to buy, what to invest in, and who to give their money to. However, in a welfare state, transactions are coercive. The government forces you to give money to people who have not earned it, and if you don't do it, you're in big trouble.
Liberals support this as a form of social engineering. In this way, they wish to create a true class-free system, in which there are no "rich people" or "poor people" but just people. While it is admirable to help the poor, the welfare state creates a class system itself. Instead of rich vs. poor, people are divided into "tax payers" and "tax consumers." The tax payers are punished in order to reward the consumers.
All men should be individually rewarded for their own work, and individually punished for their own sloth. Similarly, mankind is judged individually by God. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul said, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."
A man reaps what he sows. You get what you work for. Yeah, that sounds like capitalism to me.
Yes, our God is loving and merciful. However, He is also just. Although the Bible commands us to give of ourselves and help the poor and less fortunate, this is meant to be an individual choice. We are meant to give freely to the poor out of love, not out of forced government coercion.
"A socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely." - Winston Churchill
You see, the idea of the welfare state is basically immoral. Without question, it is wrong for any person (or government) to take money from a man who has worked for it and give that money to someone who hasn't. Thou shalt not steal. In a free market economy, monetary transactions are voluntary. Individuals choose what to buy, what to invest in, and who to give their money to. However, in a welfare state, transactions are coercive. The government forces you to give money to people who have not earned it, and if you don't do it, you're in big trouble.
Liberals support this as a form of social engineering. In this way, they wish to create a true class-free system, in which there are no "rich people" or "poor people" but just people. While it is admirable to help the poor, the welfare state creates a class system itself. Instead of rich vs. poor, people are divided into "tax payers" and "tax consumers." The tax payers are punished in order to reward the consumers.
All men should be individually rewarded for their own work, and individually punished for their own sloth. Similarly, mankind is judged individually by God. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul said, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."
A man reaps what he sows. You get what you work for. Yeah, that sounds like capitalism to me.
Yes, our God is loving and merciful. However, He is also just. Although the Bible commands us to give of ourselves and help the poor and less fortunate, this is meant to be an individual choice. We are meant to give freely to the poor out of love, not out of forced government coercion.
"A socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely." - Winston Churchill
Friday, October 3, 2008
Was Jesus a "Community Organizer"?
At the Republican National Convention, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin mocked Barak Obama for claiming that he has the experience needed to be president because he was once a "community organizer." Well, that got the Democrats all ticked off, and a bunch of them started saying, "Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was a governor!" just to take a stab back at Governor Palin.Okay, there are several things wrong with this idiotic statement. Firstly, three of our past four presidents were (gasp!) former governors. George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, and Ronald Reagan was Governor of California (by the way, all three of them served two terms). So, making fun of governors by comparing them to Pontias Pilate is pretty stupid.
Secondly, the liberals are always the ones who never want conservatives to mention Jesus. They spent eight years mocking President Bush for talking about his faith. And yet here they are, invoking the name of Jesus Christ (a name they usually want banned from the public forum) to support their own agenda. How very hypocritical.
Lastly, Jesus was NOT a community organizer. What did he organize? Did he organize pep rallies or bake sales? Did he organize protests or groups to lobby the government? Did he organize a rebellion against the Romans? No, he didn't do any of those things (although the Jews wanted him to). Jesus acted on his own, and people followed him. He taught on his own. He healed people on his own. And the last time I checked, there was no community group hanging next to him on the Cross. Jesus led by example, and those who followed him did so because Jesus knew what it meant to bring real hope to mankind.
Anti-Christian Supreme Court Rulings
- Skiros v. City of New York (2006) - This case ruled in favor of the New York City public school system, which had banned the display of nativity scenes, but allowed religious symbols of Hanukkah and Ramadan to be displayed.
- Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) - This case ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This is despite the fact that 92% of Americans believe in God.
- County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) - During the holiday season, the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pennsylvania displayed a nativity scene, a Christmas tree, and a Menorah. The Supreme Court ruled that the Menorah and the (secular) Christmas tree were allowed, but that the display of the nativity scene was unconstitutional. This is despite a poll showing that 87% of Americans say nativity scenes should be allowed on public property.
- Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) - The State of Louisiana passed a law requiring any public school that taught evolution to also teach creation science as an alternative theory; however, the Supreme Court ruled this law unconstitutional, claiming that it was intended to promote religion.
- Lee v. Weisman (1992) - The Supreme Court ruled that inviting local clergy members to offer non-denominational prayers at high school graduations violated the First Amendment, claiming that doing so amounted to religious coercion.
In 2005, the American Atheists filed a lawsuit, which sought to remove steel crosses that dot roadways throughout Utah and memorialize Utah Highway Patrol troopers who have died in the line of duty. Groups like American Atheists, the ACLU, and others want crosses removed from every public cemetery and war memorial in the United States, including Arlington National Cemetery. Lawsuits such as this one are meant to establish test cases and precedents for their liberal agenda.
“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.” - Benjamin Franklin
The Liberal War on Christianity
"The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives." - Ronald Reagan
In recent years, as the United States has entered a more secular, politically correct, post-modern climate, Christianity has been under attack. It seems that the anti-Christian socialist liberals in our country want to achieve a new, Godless America where our children will be protected from the “bigoted” Christian ideas of sin and absolute truth. The main weapon used in this attack is an extremely broad interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" had always meant that Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination. The founders wanted to be sure that Congress could not require all Americans to become Catholics, Anglicans, or members of any other denomination (as the British government had done). The First Amendment states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. Therefore, the government cannot prevent you from speaking simply because you are a Christian, Muslim, Agnostic, Druid, worshipper of Poseidon, or whatever.
In response to a request that all reference to religion be removed from government, the House Judiciary Committee Report on
March 3, 1854, said the following:
“Had the people, during the Revolution, had any suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, the Revolution would have been strangled in the cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The great vital and conservative element in our system is the doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Additionally, President John Quincy Adams once said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
Liberals in America today constantly harp on the idea of tolerance. However, the word “tolerance” has come to be synonymous with the idea of relativism. Essentially, it is considered intolerant to accuse someone else of being wrong (generally on moral or religious issues). A large amount of people today who call themselves Christians have bought into this idea, and they will often agree with statements such as “there are many roads to Heaven” or “what’s true for me is not necessarily true for you.” That is not what Jesus taught.
An evangelical Christian who expresses beliefs that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven, that there is only one Truth, that abortion and homosexuality are sins, etc. would be instantly labeled an intolerant bigot.
If we are not careful, and if we allow the secularization of our society to continue unchecked, Christianity will become an underground faith. We will no longer be allowed to express our faith in any kind of public forum. We will no longer be allowed to evangelize, because even implying that someone else’s religious beliefs are wrong would be considered hate-speech. The Bible will be banned as offensive literature, since it speaks of sin and damnation. These statements may sound far-fetched, but such ideas exist today and are gaining prominence in our society.
In recent years, as the United States has entered a more secular, politically correct, post-modern climate, Christianity has been under attack. It seems that the anti-Christian socialist liberals in our country want to achieve a new, Godless America where our children will be protected from the “bigoted” Christian ideas of sin and absolute truth. The main weapon used in this attack is an extremely broad interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" had always meant that Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination. The founders wanted to be sure that Congress could not require all Americans to become Catholics, Anglicans, or members of any other denomination (as the British government had done). The First Amendment states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. Therefore, the government cannot prevent you from speaking simply because you are a Christian, Muslim, Agnostic, Druid, worshipper of Poseidon, or whatever.
In response to a request that all reference to religion be removed from government, the House Judiciary Committee Report on
March 3, 1854, said the following:
“Had the people, during the Revolution, had any suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, the Revolution would have been strangled in the cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The great vital and conservative element in our system is the doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Additionally, President John Quincy Adams once said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
Liberals in America today constantly harp on the idea of tolerance. However, the word “tolerance” has come to be synonymous with the idea of relativism. Essentially, it is considered intolerant to accuse someone else of being wrong (generally on moral or religious issues). A large amount of people today who call themselves Christians have bought into this idea, and they will often agree with statements such as “there are many roads to Heaven” or “what’s true for me is not necessarily true for you.” That is not what Jesus taught.
An evangelical Christian who expresses beliefs that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven, that there is only one Truth, that abortion and homosexuality are sins, etc. would be instantly labeled an intolerant bigot.
If we are not careful, and if we allow the secularization of our society to continue unchecked, Christianity will become an underground faith. We will no longer be allowed to express our faith in any kind of public forum. We will no longer be allowed to evangelize, because even implying that someone else’s religious beliefs are wrong would be considered hate-speech. The Bible will be banned as offensive literature, since it speaks of sin and damnation. These statements may sound far-fetched, but such ideas exist today and are gaining prominence in our society.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Truth About Abortion
The following passage is quoted from an article published by the Washington Post on September 23, 2008:"...the proportion of abortions obtained by women younger than 20 dropped steadily, falling from 33% in 1974 to 17% in 2004. For those younger than 18, it fell from 15% of all abortions in 1974 to 6% in 2004. At the same time, the proportion of abortions obtained by women in their 20s increased from 50% to 57%, and the share done for women age 30 and older rose from 18% to 27%. Although abortion rates have declined among all racial and ethnic groups, large disparities persist, with Hispanic and black women having the procedure at rates three to five times the rate of white women."
Do you know what this means? Read it again. In 2004, only 6% of abortions were for girls under 18. That means that abortion is not about protecting young girls who are sexually abused or who make a mistake and can't take care of the baby. No, the stats tell us that 57% of abortions are for women in their 20s, and 27% are for women age 30 and over. These are not young girls who don't know what else to do and need help. These are mostly adult women who don't want the responsibility. These are mostly women who want to murder their unborn children because children are inconvenient. Here is another quote from the same article, proving what I just wrote:
"The proportion of all abortions performed for women who already had a child increased from 46% in 1974 to 60% in 2004."
Life is precious, people. We need to fight for it.
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." - Psalm 139:13
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Was the Bible "Lost in Translation"?
Critics often claim that the Bible has been translated and re-translated over and again numerous times throughout history. They claim that our Bibles today are nothing but “translations of translations of translations” and are therefore inaccurate. However, this statement is false.
Each version of the Christian Bible (NIV, NASB, NKJ, the Message, etc.) has been translated one time and one time only, each from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The only exception is the Old King James Version, portions of which were translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible. The Latin Vulgate itself was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts by Christian scholar Jerome in the fifth century AD.
Word for word, the most accurate translation of the Bible is the New American Standard version. When I took Greek in college, I compared my translations of New Testament passages with the NASB, and for the most part they were identical.
Note: The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, also called the Inspired Version of the Bible, is not considered valid. Smith supposedly created this “translation” through divine inspiration, since he was not intellectually qualified to perform any sort of actual linguistic translation. The work is merely the Old King James Version with some significant additions, clarifications, and revisions to support Mormon doctrines.
Each version of the Christian Bible (NIV, NASB, NKJ, the Message, etc.) has been translated one time and one time only, each from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The only exception is the Old King James Version, portions of which were translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible. The Latin Vulgate itself was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts by Christian scholar Jerome in the fifth century AD.
Word for word, the most accurate translation of the Bible is the New American Standard version. When I took Greek in college, I compared my translations of New Testament passages with the NASB, and for the most part they were identical.
Note: The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, also called the Inspired Version of the Bible, is not considered valid. Smith supposedly created this “translation” through divine inspiration, since he was not intellectually qualified to perform any sort of actual linguistic translation. The work is merely the Old King James Version with some significant additions, clarifications, and revisions to support Mormon doctrines.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Did Jesus Really Exist?
Some people doubt whether Jesus even existed. Was he a historical person, or a made-up character? However, early Greek, Roman, and Jewish sources make mention of Jesus. These include Tacitus (Annals), Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), Pliny the Younger (Epistles), and Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). Additionally, there is a letter from a Syrian, Mara Bar-Serapion, to his son. In it, he compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Jesus. Due to the amount of extra-Biblical evidence, most agree that Jesus at least existed.
Author Josh McDowell was as an agnostic in college when he decided to prepare a paper that would disprove the Christian faith through historical evidence. However, he instead ended up converting to Christianity after he was unable to do so. His writings became the best-selling book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Another good book on the subject is The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.
Some may claim that Jesus was one prophet among many, or simply a great, human teacher. However, Jesus claimed to be Son of God, the prophesied Messiah, and also claimed the power to forgive sins. He was executed for these claims, despite having committed no other crime. If Jesus was not who he said he was, that would make him either a liar, a raving lunatic, or both.
“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a devil, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.” - C.S. Lewis
Author Josh McDowell was as an agnostic in college when he decided to prepare a paper that would disprove the Christian faith through historical evidence. However, he instead ended up converting to Christianity after he was unable to do so. His writings became the best-selling book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Another good book on the subject is The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.
Some may claim that Jesus was one prophet among many, or simply a great, human teacher. However, Jesus claimed to be Son of God, the prophesied Messiah, and also claimed the power to forgive sins. He was executed for these claims, despite having committed no other crime. If Jesus was not who he said he was, that would make him either a liar, a raving lunatic, or both.
“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a devil, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.” - C.S. Lewis
Is There Historical Evidence For the Bible?
Through sources outside the Bible, we can reconstruct the history of the Bible and the timeline of past events, pinpoint the dates of empires and kingdoms, rulers, and battles, as well as explore discoveries and inventions, early technology, and ancient economies.
Through Biblical archaeology and painstakingly careful excavations at far flung sites, many of the Bible’s records of cities, fortifications, and structures have been verified. Artifacts and documents from distant time periods help evaluate both history and the Biblical record. However, the real power of Biblical archaeology and historical research is not just the ability to confirm the history of the Bible. It is more amazing that there is no known case where archaeology has ever decisively disproven the Bible.
The NIV Study Bible includes a chart listing more than thirty major archaeological finds relating directly to the New Testament. These include Herod’s temple and winter palace, an early synagogue in Capernaum, the pool of Siloam, an inscription about Pontius Pilate, and many others. A large compilation of historical and archeological information can be found online at www.facingthechallenge.org.
Through Biblical archaeology and painstakingly careful excavations at far flung sites, many of the Bible’s records of cities, fortifications, and structures have been verified. Artifacts and documents from distant time periods help evaluate both history and the Biblical record. However, the real power of Biblical archaeology and historical research is not just the ability to confirm the history of the Bible. It is more amazing that there is no known case where archaeology has ever decisively disproven the Bible.
The NIV Study Bible includes a chart listing more than thirty major archaeological finds relating directly to the New Testament. These include Herod’s temple and winter palace, an early synagogue in Capernaum, the pool of Siloam, an inscription about Pontius Pilate, and many others. A large compilation of historical and archeological information can be found online at www.facingthechallenge.org.
Is the Bible Reliable?
People often wonder whether the Bible is reliable. How can we be sure that a collection of documents written many centuries ago has been faithfully and correctly transmitted to us today? This is a good question. Fortunately, we don’t need to rely on the myth of ‘blind faith’ to answer it. We apply the same tests to the biblical documents as we would to any other ancient writing.
The Old Testament
There are more than 14,000 existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and the European regions that agree dramatically with each other. In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek sometime during the third century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940’s and 50’s, also provide phenomenal evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures. The Hebrew scribes who copied the Jewish Scriptures were highly trained and meticulously observed, counting every letter, word, and paragraph against master scrolls. A single error would require the immediate destruction of the entire text.
The New Testament
We have found copies of numerous ancient manuscripts written by different authors. They have discovered 643 copies of the writings of Homer, which have a 95% accuracy rating. Other ancient writings by Herodotus (8 copies), Euripides (9 copies), Plato (7 copies), and Aristotle (5 copies) have been discovered. In these cases, there are not enough ancient copies to reconstruct the original. Therefore, scholars are unable to determine an accuracy rating.
More than 5,300 known ancient copies and fragments of the New Testament exist in the original Greek. These texts have a 99.5% accuracy rating.
As previously stated, apart from the New Testament, the only other ancient writing which has any level of accuracy associated with it is Homer. And yet the New Testament has a far higher degree of accuracy than Homer. Scholars universally accept the copies of Homer’s writings as being accurate. It is undeniable, then, that the New Testament is by far the most accurately reconstructed ancient document in existence.
Tertullian, an early church leader, stated that by 150 AD, the Church in Rome had compiled a list of New Testament books matching our list of today. We have 32,000 quotes from before 325 AD, from Irenaeus (182-188 AD), Justin Martyr (before 150 AD), Polycarp (107 AD), Ignatius (100), Clement (96 AD), and many other second and third century fathers. All but eleven verses of the New Testament could be reconstructed through their writings alone.
The Old Testament
There are more than 14,000 existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and the European regions that agree dramatically with each other. In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek sometime during the third century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940’s and 50’s, also provide phenomenal evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures. The Hebrew scribes who copied the Jewish Scriptures were highly trained and meticulously observed, counting every letter, word, and paragraph against master scrolls. A single error would require the immediate destruction of the entire text.
The New Testament
We have found copies of numerous ancient manuscripts written by different authors. They have discovered 643 copies of the writings of Homer, which have a 95% accuracy rating. Other ancient writings by Herodotus (8 copies), Euripides (9 copies), Plato (7 copies), and Aristotle (5 copies) have been discovered. In these cases, there are not enough ancient copies to reconstruct the original. Therefore, scholars are unable to determine an accuracy rating.
More than 5,300 known ancient copies and fragments of the New Testament exist in the original Greek. These texts have a 99.5% accuracy rating.
As previously stated, apart from the New Testament, the only other ancient writing which has any level of accuracy associated with it is Homer. And yet the New Testament has a far higher degree of accuracy than Homer. Scholars universally accept the copies of Homer’s writings as being accurate. It is undeniable, then, that the New Testament is by far the most accurately reconstructed ancient document in existence.
Tertullian, an early church leader, stated that by 150 AD, the Church in Rome had compiled a list of New Testament books matching our list of today. We have 32,000 quotes from before 325 AD, from Irenaeus (182-188 AD), Justin Martyr (before 150 AD), Polycarp (107 AD), Ignatius (100), Clement (96 AD), and many other second and third century fathers. All but eleven verses of the New Testament could be reconstructed through their writings alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
