Jesus on the good samaritan

The crowd does have a point.

I wanna win a book!

Mike Burgess is having a contest. The prize: Bart Ehrman’s The New Testament – A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (4th Ed., 2008). I have a used copy (1996), which I will give away to a local church or school when I win the new edition. Pray for me! :)

I’m a Biblioblogger

I’ve been added to the Biblioblog list, together with R. Joseph Hoffman. I don’t think I can beat Jim West traffic-wise, but the other Dr. Jim is beatable. Or not. :p

Firefox blues

I uninstalled Firefox cause it won’t launch without giving this error message. There’s probably a way to fix it, but I rarely use the browser anyway. I’ve replaced it with K-Meleon, an underrated gecko browser. My primary browsers are still Google Chrome and Opera. Back to bible-related blogging…

Church and state

Three religious leaders are running for the presidency in the Philippines next year: a catholic-priest-turned-governor, a charismatic catholic leader (not ordained), and a charismatic protestant leader. Are we so corrupt that these religious leaders feel the need to redeem us? If one of them wins, will he respect the separation of church and state provision in our constitution, or will he mingle sectarianism with politics? What about us nonbelievers, will we be relegated to second class citizen status? Are religious leaders really the answer to what ails us?

Mark’s Christology

Nick Norelli and Vinny are debating whether the author of Mark thought of Jesus as a divine figure (Christology). Both give good arguments for their positions and I am ill-equipped to judge which one is right.

Interestingly, if Nick is correct, that Mark’s Christology is advance like John’s, wouldn’t that undermine the historical reliability of Mark?

Did Quirinius have two terms?

Mainstream scholars claim that Quirinius only served one term as governor of Syria. This has caused difficulties for Biblical inerrantists, who must show that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt 2:1) and the term of Quirinius (Luke 2:2). But historians have concluded that Herod died around 4 BCE and Quirinius's census is usually dated at around 6-7 CE. One of the most creatives responses to this difficulty is to claim that Quirinius had two terms.

Arguments made by apologists I've read only show that it's possible that Quirinius served twice, or that he must have served twice because Inerrancy requires it. Indeed, I've seen internet apologists assume this as fact when it's very controversial (perhaps even wrong). But I'm not a historian and I'm willing to be set straight. What good evidence are there for this argument?

There is a different argument used by inerrantists which claim that the word πρωτη (prōtey/prōtos) in Luke 2:2 should be translated as "before", not "first". My Greek is still at the novice level so I can't judge the accuracy of the translation, but I think this would be a better avenue to defend inerrancy than to make up history. Philologists might beg to differ.

Reviewer FAIL

Even with high praises, this reviewer still thinks the book Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament deserves one star:

Some people are hard to please.

On liberal Christianity

There is a blogversation going on about the merits of liberal Christianity. It started when apologist-turned-atheist John Loftus criticized liberals for not abandoning Christianity:

What I don’t get is how these critically honest scholars could come to these correct conclusions and still profess to be followers of Christ (i.e. Christians). I think anyone with intellectual honesty should jump ship like I have.

Liberal Christian James McGrath steps up and defends his brand of religion. AIGBusted piped in his thoughts (liberal Christianity is bankrupt).

Personally, I don’t have much of a problem with liberals. They tend to be more tolerant of nonbelievers than their more evangelical brethren. So I usually just let them be. The world would be a better place if people like Karen Armstrong or John Shelby Spong would replace Benedict XVI and Pat Robertson as spokespersons of the faith.

But I can relate to the atheists in their critiques. The thousand little nuances and complex wordplays ensure that the liberal God can never be understood rationally (and therefore cannot be refuted rationally). I mean, what’s with the impenetrable prose? Do I need to go to seminary to understand what Paul Tillich is talking about? Oy vey!

I’m currently reading Spong’s book Why Christianity Must Change or Die. It is both refreshing in its honest criticism of the author’s faith system, yet infuriating in that the alternative being offered is an amorphous blob of feelings and babble. Where’s the “meat”, Right Reverend?

Next up on my reading list is Richard Holloway. I hope his exposition of liberal faith would be more informative.

Trolling does pay

From William Dembski’s course:

You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

This would explain the proliferation of creationists trolling in science blogs.

The sunday school syndrome

There’s a new book out by young earth creationist Ken Ham, and some other unimportant guy, titled Already Gone. This book is written in reaction to a recent survey Ham commissioned that concludes the following:

• Those who faithfully attend Sunday School are more likely to leave the church than those who do not.
• Those who regularly attend Sunday School are more likely to believe that the Bible is less true.
• Those who regularly attend Sunday School are actually more likely to defend that abortion and gay marriage should be legal.
• Those who regularly attend Sunday School are actually more likely to defend premarital sex. (source)

I have grave reservations with Ken Ham’s ability to “do science”, and his solution is detestble. In essence, he wants sunday schools to become training camps for young earth apologists. By becoming dogmatically literalist in one’s reading of scripture, Ham hopes that secular influences, like real education, would have no effect on a child’s mind.

To be fair, though, when I did attend sunday school regularly, I did believe that the bible is less true; and I did end up leaving the church and the faith eventually. So at least his book has some truth in it.

Listening to the bible

A certain ministry has launched a campaign to distribute audio bibles in the State of Texas. It’s not the whole bible though, just the New Testament. Which conveniently sidesteps all the awkward passages in the Old Testament (murder, genocide, curses, sacrificial procedures, lots of hanky-panky, boring lists of begats, etc.).

What caught my eye though is that the audio books will be “dramatized”, complete with sound effects and music. I have a few audio bibles myself and I much prefer the plain ones to the dramatized versions. Usually, the sound effects and music are too distracting, and the voice actors are overly dramatic.

I don’t know how to embed a poll (yet) so I ask my two or three readers if you listen to the bible, which version do you prefer, your opinion on “dramatized” versions, etc. I listen to the un-dramatized KJV (archaic English can be good for listening), which can be downloaded here.

The true church

Nothing to watch on TV. I don’t have cable and most of the local channels are covering the overlong funeral of our ex-president (I am not a fan), so I surfed the UHF stations looking for something good to watch. I ended up watching NET 25, a hip and innovative (mostly) tech channel owned and operated by the Iglesia ni Cristo (trans. Church of Christ, not affiliated with the American church of the same name). Tonight they are showing their apologetics TV show Ang Tamang Daan (The Right Path), and the topic was about the prophecies concerning their church from the bible.

A little bit of background first. The INC is a non-Trinitarian “cult” with a strong central administration, fundamentalist and biblically literalist. They also claim to be the One True Church™ and only members in good standing will be saved. Normally, I would not hesitate to call it a cult, but it has millions of members, and has enjoyed some respectability in the country. (Yes, the difference between a cult and a church is a matter of size. You heard it here first!)

The INC’s claim for being the One True Church is based on their tortuous reading of the bible, ripping verses way out of context, using esoteric biblical versions (they usually do not refer back to the original languages), and a generous amount of chutzpah. I’ll try to recreate their arguments as best I can.

They start by quoting John 10:16 -

I have other sheep too. They are not in this flock here. I must lead them also. They will listen to my voice. In the future there will be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:16 EVD)

Note the use of the Easy Version for the Deaf. They used this version because of the phrase “in the future”. This makes Jesus’ words sound like a prophecy of some distant future event. According to the INC apologist, Jesus is prophesying the coming Church of Christ, a flock with one shepherd (INC founder, the late Felix Manalo).

One of the apologists rhetorically asks, what does this verse refer to? The other apologist then quotes from Acts 20:28 -

Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood. (Acts 20:28 Lamsa)

Again note the use of a peculiar bible version, the Lamsa Bible which is based on the Aramaic Peshitta. According to the INC apologist, this verse states that the flock is the Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo) itself. The bible refers to their cult church by name! Lo and behold! Of course they had to use an obscure english translation, but it gets the job done.

After a little back-and-forth concerning the implications of this wondrous verse, one of the apologists summarizes the argument so far, that Jesus Christ in John 10:16 refers to three flocks of sheep, the first flock were the Jews, the second were the gentile converts in the first century, and the third being the INC members. To counter the claim that the flocks do not refer to non-Jews, the apologist quotes another bible verse:

For it was to you that the gift was promised, to you and your children, and to all those in distant times and places whom the Lord our God calls him. (Acts 2:39 Rieu Translation)

Not only was the gift of promise given to non-Jews, the verse (using another obscure version) refers to “distant times and places”. Why, the Philippines is a distant land, and the INC was founded in the distant future from the time of the biblical authors. That must be it! I don’t know where they get their bible versions, but I’m impressed. I usually stick to the more well-known ones.

To further reinforce the point that non-Jews would receive the message, they also quoted Rom 9:24. Knowing that even on their use of the Rieu translation of Acts 2:39 would not prove to skeptics that the bible refers to the INC, one of the apologists quotes from Isa 43:5 -

From the far east will I bring your offspring, and from the far west I will gather you. (Isa 43:5 Moffatt)

Here we go again, another idiosyncratic bible version. The reason they use this version is that it uses the term “far east”, which narrows the “distant places” in Acts 2:39. But since they’re getting criticized by other groups for their use of exotic versions, one of apologists picks up a Tagalog version of the Good News Bible (a mainstream translation) and quotes from it (I’ll use the GNB original):

Do not be afraid---I am with you! From the distant east and the farthest west I will bring your people home.  (Isa 43:5 GNB)

They point out that distant east and far east are practically the same, and therefore the bible is clear in its teaching that the Church of Christ is the one from the far east, which is the Iglesia ni Cristo from the Philippines!

One of the apologists even took out a history book which says that the Philippines is situated in the Far East (never mind the fact that the term was not used in its modern sense till long after the Biblical Age). It’s all part of their shtick, a show of documentary evidence for all of their main assertions.

To make their case airtight (for all we know, the One True Church might be the Unification Church from Korea) they quote Isa 24:15-16 -

Therefore in the east give glory to the Lord; exalt the name of the Lord, the God of Israel, in the islands of the sea. From the ends of the earth we hear singing: "Glory to the Righteous One." (Isa 24:15-16 NIV)

I’m surprised they used the Evangelical NIV, they must’ve ran out of weird bible versions to use. Anyway, it serves their purposes since it refers to the “islands of the sea”. For the geographically challenged, our fair country is an archipelago, which means it’s  group of islands in the sea.

So, they say, there is absolutely no other way to explain away the biblical prophecy. The One True Church, the “islands of the sea” which is in the “far east”, which was established in “distant times” as the “Church of Christ”, “one flock with one shepherd” really is the Iglesia ni Cristo. Join now or be damned!

To whom are bible scholars writing for?

Dr. Jim started a new series where he tries to identify the audience of secular biblical scholarship. As a bible-reading atheist, I think I’m the audience he’s thinking of. :)

The second creation narrative

In chapter 2 of Genesis we have the second creation story, this one relating the creation of the first man (Adam). I’ve seen biblical fundamentalists try to harmonize the two disparate creation narratives but it seems to be more of a fool’s errand. There really are two different stories here.

The story itself is pretty interesting. Unlike the first story, this one had God creating man before plants and animals (Gen 2:5-7). Here we have an anthropomorphic deity, Yahweh, making a humanoid figure from dust and breathing life into the dust golem, thus creating the first man.

God then created Eden, a paradise where he can raise his prized creation. While the biblical author gave some detail as to Eden’s location, it has never been found. Biblical archaeologist Eric H. Cline, in his wondrous award-winning book From Eden to Exile, chronicles some of the misguided theories put forth by well-meaning but frankly mistaken pseudo-archaeologists as to the location of Eden. While dismissing some of the theories about Eden’s location (Iran, Egypt, Turkey, etc.), Cline seems to be drawn to a remarkable suggestion that Eden may have been situated at an area that is now covered by the Persian Gulf. In the end, though, Cline admits that the story belongs to human prehistory, if not outright mythology.

Back to the bible, God planted the first man in Eden, giving him this important rule:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

An odd rule, but since it’s from the Almighty Creator it would be best to follow his advice. Next, the Omniscient One realizes that his creation might get lonely, so God creates the various animals which would keep the man company. The man meets the various animals, names them (presumably, these names aren’t the names of animals we use now) but did not find a suitable partner. (It has been suggested by some bible-bashers that the man had inappropriate sexual contact with the animals before realizing that these creatures aren’t a perfect fit for him.)

So God puts the man into sleep, took one of his ribs and fashioned the first woman out of it (Gen 2:21-23). This part is obviously written by a man who, in an ingenious juxtaposition of natural order, makes man the bearer of woman. And so the oppression of women begins.

Verse 24 states that in this act of creating woman we derive the institution of marriage. This suggests to me that that the story, or at least this passage, was ultimately written as an “etiological tale”. Maybe we’re reading too much from the story and missing the big picture. Maybe it wasn’t the creation that was originally the theme but the union of man and woman.

--

In my grade school days, one of our teachers told of a story, the origin of the various human races. God was walking in the garden of Eden and decided to fashion man from the ground. So he took a lump of clay, made a human figure, and baked it in his divine oven. God walked around the garden a bit when he noticed smoke billowing from the kitchen. He rushed back, only to find that his had burned his creation. Not wanting to waste his first attempt at human creation, God then breathed life into the figure, and so we have the black race.

Being a perfectionist, God then created another figure from the ground and baked it again. Mindful of his earlier mistake, God only baked the figure for a few minutes before taking the man out of the oven. Unfortunately, it was not sufficiently baked and the man was “undercooked” and pale. He breathed life into this second being, and we now have Caucasians.

Not letting the second setback take his spirit down, God then made a third figure out of clay. This time when he baked the man, God followed the recipe book and took the third man out at the right time. At last god perfected his creation, a man that is neither overcooked or under, but one made just right. He breathed life into this man, the pinnacle of his creation, and from thence we have brown people.

Yeah, it’s one weird creation story, but whenever I read the story in Eden, I can’t help but see it as no less mythological as the one told by my teacher. Heck, I know of at least one more creation-of-man myth from our country (the Philippines), but it’s not as shockingly politically incorrect as this one. I aim to offend. ;)