With Due Respect: The Bible is so misunderstood, it is a sin.

Recently, a Newsweek post by Kurt Eichenwald was brought to my attention. He argued that the idea that Christians rely on Biblical beliefs is totally flawed because the actual Bible does not exists.

Although Eichenwald stated that he does not intend to "advance a particular theology", he begins his first point by writing,

No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

He also claims that his arguments are supported by "scores of theologians and scholars".

In this post, I will be exploring a few of his points. I will largely not address most of his points, especially those regarding textual criticism of the Bible. For a full rebuttal, check textual critic James White's video.

Playing telephone with the Word of God
1) No punctuation and no spacing

Eichenwald writes that the original New Testament manuscripts were written in common Greek which had "no spaces between words and no punctuation", and therefore it could lead to misunderstanding of the text. He emphasised the need for such things via his example, "weshouldgoeatmum" could mean "we should go eat mum" or "we should go eat, mum".

What he fails to understand is that the meaning of the sentences can be easily understood if you read the whole passage in context. To press his example-- if the passage was talking about a nearby eatery where they served burgers and fries, then it would be obvious which interpretation would make more sense.

2) More variants than words in the New Testament

Eichenwald writes,

And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones,

This gives the impression that there are so many variants in the New Testament copies, it is difficult to know what was said originally. Eichenwald draws support from New Testament scholar Erhman (2005) who stated that there are 200,000 to 400,000 variants in the New Testament manuscripts.

But let's put it in perspectives. We have about 2,000 copies of the Gospels which have 64,766 words in the original Greek (according to this site). If every copyist made 1 mistake every 1,000 words, there will be about 65 variants per copy. Hence there will be a total of 130,000 variants. That sounds like a huge number of variants. However, this number is due to the large number of manuscripts, rather than the inefficiency of the copyists.

In fact by comparing between the variants, it is possible to reconstruct the original manuscript.

The sociopath Emperor

1) Jesus's divinity

The majority of the time at Nicaea was spent debating whether Jesus was a man who was the son of God, as Arius proclaimed, or God himself, as the church hierarchy maintained.

At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the issue of Jesus's divinity was never in question. Bishop Arius (the dissenter) argued that Jesus did not share the same substance as the Father (and that the Father allowed Jesus to achieve godhood), while Bishop Alexander of Alexandria asserted that Jesus did share the same substance as the Father and therefore was existed eternally with God. Even a cursory check of wikipedia would reveal that.

2) Emperor Constantine I

But Constantine sided with those who believed Jesus was both God and man, so a statement of belief, called the Nicene Creed, was composed to proclaim that. Those who refused to sign the statement were banished.

Eichenwald argued that Emperor Constantine I enforced Trinitarian views on the followers of Arian. This does not wash as 

A) Emperor Constantine I had an Arian tutor (and was probably an Arian himself)

B) It were the Trinitarian Christians who were persecuted by the Arians in the political realm.

No three kings

1) Different accounts of Jesus's death and resurrection

The stories in the four Gospels of Jesus’s death and resurrection differ as well. When brought before Pontius Pilate in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks only two words and is never declared innocent. In the Gospel of John, Jesus engages in extended conversations with Pilate, who repeatedly proclaims this Jewish prisoner to be innocent and deserving of release.

Eichenwald argued that the four Gospels differ from each other. This is to be expected as they came from different eyewitnesses accounts. How can he expect them to be exactly the same?

Furthermore, the Gospels agreed on the important points-- Jesus died and rose again.

Conclusion

There are many more issues that I do not have the time nor expertise to deal with. However, I felt that as a reputable online magazine, Newsweek had a responsibility to be accurate and fair in its reporting. Despite Eichenwald's claim that his article was not to attack the "Bible or Christianity", I fear that this article was very judging.

References

Erhman, B. (2005) Misquoting Jesus

For further understanding

Alpha and Omega

My Confession: My struggle with envy

Among the popular Seven Deadly Sins, I struggle the most with envy. I guess it comes to me as naturally as the sunrise.

I hate it when a colleague does better than me, when my peers get attached or when someone else trumps me at the intellectual level.

This poison of envy not only makes me desire to have what others do, but to think of hurtful ways to obtain them. And thus it makes me hate myself even more. I was really a self-loathing green-eyed monster.

Yet it was this brutal envy that initiated my conversion to Christianity. I found that to my great delight, the things of the earth become much less important than the all-surpassing power of Christ.

Even in my envious days, I know the secret of being content-- I look at what gives me hope.

Let me end with Philippians 4:10-13:

10 I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength.


References
Gospel Coalition

The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment

Alternative Culture: ALS and the Ice Bucket Challenge

Earlier this year, the fad of pouring a bucket of ice over one's head has reached the shores of Singapore. Even I was asked by my students to participate in the challenge.

In this post, I want to examine the motivations of this challenge in the light of theology. For other information on the challenge, please go to this site.

What is the Ice Bucket Challenge?

For those not in the know, the Ice Bucket Challenge was designed to raise awareness (and hence funding for treatment) for the neurological disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

As soon as the volunteer dunks the bucket over his/her head, the challengers are obliged to donate money to the relevant organisations.

Sounds like a good idea!

Despite the good intentions, I am generally against the idea of the challenge. None of my challengers could even give a brief description of what ALS is. Thus I just encouraged them to simply donate the money.

Even though some proponents suggest it builds empathy for ALS patients, shoving ice over our heads at best allows us to simulate the disease for minutes. That is nothing compared to the long-term suffering of the ALS patients.

Conclusion

While the Ice Bucket Challenge has allegedly increased the donations to ALS charities, I strongly doubt if this gimmick has increased the awareness of the disease. Similarly, we (Christians) should also be wary of gimmicks we use to promote our faith. Do such methods actually help people understand Christianity better?

Alternative Culture: Age of Aztec review

Aziciting Aztecs!
What happened if the Aztecs conquered the old world? In this novel, James Lovegrove explores an alternate reality where the Aztecs had ruled the world for hundred of years.

Synopsis
Welcome to 2012 London, where a premier footballer willingly sacrifices his life (and literally his heart) to appease the Aztec pantheon. The crowds cheer in support and even children are brought to marvel at the sight.

Enter the Conquistador, a vigilante with similarities to the Punisher and Batman. With an ambitious aim to overthrow Aztec rule over the British, the Conquistador is not above killing and using terror tactics to pursue his goals.

Mal, a police officer is dispatched to stop the Conquistador, even as her loyalties to the Aztec are questioned. Who will prevail?

What I liked
I really enjoyed the idea on how theology drives the culture of the world. For instance, captial punishment is regarded as the norm and violence is accepted as part of sporting and workplace culture. This puts us in a perspective that should be uncomfortable with the modern day person, who tends peace for granted.

Furthermore, the Aztec gods are portrayed as bickering superhumans, as opposed to the omnipotent and omnibenevolent Judeo-Christian God we are all so used to.


What was missing
I kind of wished that the author explored the world more. Although passing references were made to the Mayans, Japanese, French and the Americans, I wished he had described what had happened in Africa and the rest of Asia.

I also wished he had described more of how Europe fells to the invading Aztecs.

Conclusion
The novel is a great read, and explores how theology guides society. I give it a 75/100.

Theology 1.0: What is poisoning the well?

An ad-hoc fallacy
Imagine two people having a debate. The first man begins by denouncing his opponent of being liar, an adulterer and untrustworthy person.

His statement (while it made be true) is an ad-hoc fallacy. It is an attempt to disprove an argument by discrediting the person. In debates, this tactic is called "poisoning the well" (Sire, 2006).

But how does this apply to apologetics?
In our attempts to reason with our non-believing friends, we may unwittingly use such tactics. Let's see some example statements:

"This person doesn't know anything about theology."

"He comes from a church that promotes materialism."

"She does not come from a reputable school."

Sometimes, the tables get turned. For instance, my Christian friends and I have been accused of being "fundamentalists", "imposing morality" and "misguided idealists".

Conclusion
Every argument should be treated on its own merit, and should be independent of the reputation of the person making the argument.



References
Sire, J.W. (2006) Why good arguments often fail

With due respect: God cannot defeat chariots of iron!

The logo of the atheistic site, Iron Chariots

One of the attributes of God is His omnipotence. However in Judges 1:19 (KJV), this is revealed,

And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

This verse seems to cast doubt on the power of God. Even the atheistic website, Iron Chariots adopt this Bible verse as their logo.

Objection!
As usual, even a cursory examination would reveal that the conclusions drawn for this verse (that God was unable to defeat iron chariots or that the Bible writers were making excuses for their lack of success) are shaky at best.

Pronoun
If you look closely, "he" refers to Judah and not God. When the reader is in doubt, he/she is more than welcome to look between translations. Often (but not always), God is referred as "He" and not "he".

Guaranteed success?
Some people may point out Judah should have been victorious since God was "with him". However, nowhere in the Bible says that when God is with us, we will be always successful. Let's look at Genesis 39:20-21:

Joseph’s master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined.

But while Joseph was there in the prison, the Lord was with him; he showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden.

Granted, Joseph had been shown favour, but he was still in prison.

Conclusion 
Although it is easy to nitpick on Bible verses, we must take things in context.

For more detailed information
Holdings

Theology 1.0: Is a theology essential for a Christian?

During a one Alpha Weekend (a church camp designed for new Christians and non-Christians) the question of the importance theology arose among my small group. Does it matter if we view the Holy Communion a sacrament, a vehicle of grace or purely representative? Is it it important to allow or ban infant baptism?

The general sentiment was that theology was not as important as Christian unity. In my opinion, while a deep understanding of theology is not essential for salvation, it is an inevitable part of a Christian's journey with God.

The inevitable part of knowing God more
Just as in any human relationship, we may know little about the person at the start, but grow to know him/her person as our lives progresses.

As an analogy, let me use my relationship with my parents. When I was born, the concept of parenthood may not even be formulated in my infant mind, yet that does not change the fact that my parents exist. As I grow older, it was inevitable that I know

Just as so with our relationship with God.

The importance of theology
In having a theology, we clearly state that God has spoken. As Christians, the God we believe in is theistic-- God is actively involved with the world. What I mean here is that theology is not an extension of God's word, but simply our response to God.

In having a strong theology, we can live our lives as close to the gospels as possible.

Conclusion
As Christians, knowing God more is an inevitable part of Christian life. I invite all of you to find out more!

For further reading
The importance of confession

Pursuing illogical studies?