This is my final post on this subject and Bart Ehrman's book: God's Problem. The final issue is one of heart and not head. This is mainly because in this book I see a lot of heart and not head when it comes to addressing the problem of evil from Bart Ehrman himself. I simply believe that based on his arguments in this book no response will do or be accepted because Bart is no longer able to accept them because of his prejudice against the Bible as God's Word. He does not accept this and this is a conviction of his heart not his head.
I Have Heard This All Before
One of the great disappointments I had with this book is that there was nothing really new here. I have heard all these arguments before and all Bart really did was repackage them for the masses and thus much of his argument has an emotional, not intellectual, appeal. This is water cooler stuff given an intellectual spin but the arguments are not laid out with any new thing being forefront. This is old stuff redone. At least with his other book Misquoting Jesus there was a well laid out argument, fallacious, but well laid out.
Inability to See Other Possibilities
Bart is entrenched in his viewpoint and cannot see any other one. The freewill defense is shutdown and he never really engages it. He engages theodicy briefly but says it is basically correct but never engages objections. He sticks to his 'the Bible is not the Bible, the Reformed Baptist view of God is correct' point of view throughout.
Fallacious Argument
Bart's whole book hinges on his belief that the answers the Bible presents to the issue contradictory views on how evil is dealt with. He never really proves this and I find the reasoning he does give fallacious. Is God not big enough to have several response to the problem of suffering and evil? Can't God have a multifaceted approach to dealing with the problem?
1. Punish evil because it is a wilful act and causes suffering
2. Warn people that Sin has its Consequences
3. Wage a continuing war against evil without violating mankind's freewill including send your own Son to destroy the work of the devil -- sin
4. Oppose the forces of evil -- the devil and his minions.
5. In the End -- destroy all the supporters and practitioners of evil and sin so that the new world can be free of them -- destroying all the instigators forever in hell. Give the new mankind that survives a fresh start with a place of life where suffering ends.
I fail to see inconsistency here but a multifaceted approach to the problem of evil and suffering by God depending on the nature of the evil and suffering involved. Bart thinks not.
Avoidance of Personal Culpability
I think Bart's reasoning is personal in the sense that he is seeking divorce from his own personal responsibility for suffering. He wants man off the hook so he can be off the hook. I find this strange for a guy who is bothered by the problem of suffering but then washes his hands of it using Ecclesiastes -there is nothing man can do including me Bart Ehrman. Seems like the finger pointing of who is responsible did not stop with Adam and Eve, only Bart has the guts to point his finger at God and say 'foul'. He better hope he is right.
A Final Personal Note
All criticism aside, I feel Bart's pain. If I was going to be anything else besides a Christian, I would also embrace hedonistic agnosticism. I find atheism intellectually vacant -- you can't know their isn't a God either. You are to limited in what you know to make a judgment on that. All other religions saving Judaism seem very man reasoning to the divine to me and I thus reject them. Of course if I reject the Hebrew Scripture then Judaism is out as well. If we are to know what the divine truly is it must reveal itself to us. That gives only two possibilities for me -- Christianity with its Bible as revelation of God as he really is or a rejection of that revelation (the Bible) to agnosticism and living for myself trying to find God's revelation in the world around me. Everything points only to believe in Christ and his resurrection or 'let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die". If I wasn't a Christian I would be joining Bart for those cigars and sherry with a circle of friends to enjoy it with. As it is however, I see that suffering is our fault -- all of it and God has made an answer to it; we just continue to reject it.
Finis
Showing posts with label textual criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label textual criticism. Show all posts
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Three Objections Part 2 -- Bart's Bible is Not Mine
The Full Title of the book by Bart Ehrman's is God's Problem: Why the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. The problem is that the Bible Bart is using is not mine or for that matter the Bible most Christians use. It is Bible that is edited to fit what the liberal scholars have decided it is.
Every Theory Believed but not the Text Itself
Bart's Bible is one in which the Bible is not what it says it is:
1. JEPD Theory is considered fact -- Moses did not write the Pentateuch
2. Two people Wrote Job
3. Two or Three People wrote Isaiah
4. The apostles did not write the documents of the New testament
5. Etc., etc., etc.
In short, the "Bible" is not as the Bible presents itself but a concoction of theories and speculation that is not supported by textual fact. This makes it difficult to say 'the Bible does not answer the question of evil'. This is not accurate in this book by Bart -- He is not using the Bible but a theoretical Bible. I find Bart's position, and those who believe like him, ironic; they reject the Bible on the one hand because of textual error (most of which are not significant), but will present as facts theories that have not textual facts or evidence whatsoever.
A Bible Removed of History
Because of this the Bible's history including Gods acts in history are non-issues for Bart except when they make his case for him. Bart has an interesting argument here -- he rejects any Biblical argument that contradicts what he says because we cant trust the Bible in being historically accurate but then he will turn around and take as fact any event that fits his belief that God is responsible for evil.
Because of these two factors I would say the full title of Bart's book is not true -- it is not how the Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering, but it is rather how the liberal edited Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering and to that I would agree. An edited Bible does not answer the problem of suffering but the real deal does.
Next -- Objection 3 -- No Answer Will Do
Every Theory Believed but not the Text Itself
Bart's Bible is one in which the Bible is not what it says it is:
1. JEPD Theory is considered fact -- Moses did not write the Pentateuch
2. Two people Wrote Job
3. Two or Three People wrote Isaiah
4. The apostles did not write the documents of the New testament
5. Etc., etc., etc.
In short, the "Bible" is not as the Bible presents itself but a concoction of theories and speculation that is not supported by textual fact. This makes it difficult to say 'the Bible does not answer the question of evil'. This is not accurate in this book by Bart -- He is not using the Bible but a theoretical Bible. I find Bart's position, and those who believe like him, ironic; they reject the Bible on the one hand because of textual error (most of which are not significant), but will present as facts theories that have not textual facts or evidence whatsoever.
A Bible Removed of History
Because of this the Bible's history including Gods acts in history are non-issues for Bart except when they make his case for him. Bart has an interesting argument here -- he rejects any Biblical argument that contradicts what he says because we cant trust the Bible in being historically accurate but then he will turn around and take as fact any event that fits his belief that God is responsible for evil.
Because of these two factors I would say the full title of Bart's book is not true -- it is not how the Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering, but it is rather how the liberal edited Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering and to that I would agree. An edited Bible does not answer the problem of suffering but the real deal does.
Next -- Objection 3 -- No Answer Will Do
Friday, July 17, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Seven
Bart Ehrman's God's Problem considers the 'end of the world' answer to the problem of evil. I have a few disagreements with Bart about this although the chapter does have some problems:
1. He plugs some social issues again -- malaria and water issues around the world. Both could be dealt with by humans but were going to blame God.
2. I disagree with Bart's assessment of origin of the apocalyptic view in Scripture. The fact is that it occurs in the writings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes as well as David's psalms and the idea of judgment occurs in Job as well.
3. When people assess that the Jewish people failed to keep the covenant and thus received punishment for not keeping the covenant it is not anti-Semitic. Did not the prophets and Jesus (all Jews) say the same. If Christians simple say the sames things Jews say about themselves how are they anti-Semitic. Jesus pointed this out further in his own when he called the religious leaders self-righteous -Is Jesus anti-Semitic
4. He has some interesting theories about the date of Daniel -- that Daniel is written in Aramaic is proof of a later date for Daniel after the fact of all the predictions of course. The fact is if Daniel is educated by the Babylonians his language would a have been changed into Aramaic along with the rest of the Jews seeing Aramaic is the result of Babylonian influence.
5. Because he does all this his version of apocalyptic views is assume that God has relinquished control for now and will bring things back to right in the end -- The apocalyptic view does not have god out of control at anytime.
Next: Agreements with Chapter Eight
1. He plugs some social issues again -- malaria and water issues around the world. Both could be dealt with by humans but were going to blame God.
2. I disagree with Bart's assessment of origin of the apocalyptic view in Scripture. The fact is that it occurs in the writings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes as well as David's psalms and the idea of judgment occurs in Job as well.
3. When people assess that the Jewish people failed to keep the covenant and thus received punishment for not keeping the covenant it is not anti-Semitic. Did not the prophets and Jesus (all Jews) say the same. If Christians simple say the sames things Jews say about themselves how are they anti-Semitic. Jesus pointed this out further in his own when he called the religious leaders self-righteous -Is Jesus anti-Semitic
4. He has some interesting theories about the date of Daniel -- that Daniel is written in Aramaic is proof of a later date for Daniel after the fact of all the predictions of course. The fact is if Daniel is educated by the Babylonians his language would a have been changed into Aramaic along with the rest of the Jews seeing Aramaic is the result of Babylonian influence.
5. Because he does all this his version of apocalyptic views is assume that God has relinquished control for now and will bring things back to right in the end -- The apocalyptic view does not have god out of control at anytime.
Next: Agreements with Chapter Eight
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Six
I have a lot of disagreements with chapter 6 of Bart Ehrman's Book God's Problem. Some of them trivial but others are major. Here they are:
1. One thing in this chapter that becomes clear is that Bart wants to pin on God what we have unleashed.
2. He talks of sexually transmitted disease as if it is an act of God -- last I looked sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted by sex -- a controllable behavior.
3. He states their are two authors of Job -- one for the narrative and the other for the dialogue. Is there any textual evidence for this? No. I think the problem with Job then would be that the narrative would not make much sense - -the whole book of Job hinges on the whole thing -- Job loses everything, the debate between him and his friends, God intervenes and then Job receives everything back. Without the debate, the narrative makes no sense and the debate would not make any sense without the why of 'why are they talking" Why is it that liberal scholars are so chronologically arrogant to think a single ancient author cannot use multiple styles in a book?
4. The two author theory leads to some very poor interpretation of the Bible in Job. P. 167 is particularly idiotic. The friends of Job think they are defending God but the text of Job says -- through God's mouth no less -- that Job was right and the friends were wrong. This makes no sense in the narrative part of book unless we know what they said in the poetic part. I have never have heard a more ridiculous theory.
5. Disease has its origins in death and ultimately the reason disease exists is because of us -- we didn't listen as a race to God in the garden.
6. Bart doesn't seem to address the fact that part of the answer to the problem of evil is life after death. Job's children die but where did they go? If they go to paradise they went from one party to another. If hell they went their because of their own evil. In short, Bart rarely factors in both personal responsibility and the afterlife into his discussion. They are both part of the answer the Bible has to evil but he does not put that into his factoring of what the Bible says about evil. There is also no honest consideration of Satan's involvement in being the origin of Evil. Maybe he thinks it is superstitious, but the Bible treats Satan as real and it should be considered in the discussion of what the BIBLE says about the problem of evil.
7. Job is not saying that he in outgunned he is simply saying from the Almighty's perspective he knows he cannot argue against God's justice. When Elihu speaks he never says Job sinned in doing this as Bart claims on p. 183 but that Job is not in position to question God's justice.
8. Bart accuses God of not giving Job a chance to get a word in. That is not the way the story reads -- if anything God says -- 'you got you audience, now what?" Job's response is to repent on his own -- we do not know what time God gave Job to respond and it is pure speculation to say God did not give Job a chance. The time is not recorded between God's answer and Job's response.
9. On to Ecclesiastes, Ehrman's makes the claim that is Solomon wrote the book then he would contradict himself compared to Proverbs -- I disagree -- there is a lot of agreement in Solomon's wisdom even with this book. What Ecclesiastes does is place all the other wisdom in its proper place. It is on this basis that Bart claims the book of Ecclesiastes is written in the 3rd Century BCE. How do we know? Do we have a text from that era that says so?
10. One thing that disappoints me is that Bart treats the last three chapters of the book of Ecclesiastes as if they don't exist. The book ends with a simple conclusion but it has end of the world, final judgment connotations -- fear God, obey him because He is going to bring every act to judgment. I agree that Ecclesiastes says some suffering makes no sense, but he does not draw the same conclusion -- reject the God of the Bible but to fear Him instead. Odd Huh?
Next: Agreements with Chapter Seven
1. One thing in this chapter that becomes clear is that Bart wants to pin on God what we have unleashed.
2. He talks of sexually transmitted disease as if it is an act of God -- last I looked sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted by sex -- a controllable behavior.
3. He states their are two authors of Job -- one for the narrative and the other for the dialogue. Is there any textual evidence for this? No. I think the problem with Job then would be that the narrative would not make much sense - -the whole book of Job hinges on the whole thing -- Job loses everything, the debate between him and his friends, God intervenes and then Job receives everything back. Without the debate, the narrative makes no sense and the debate would not make any sense without the why of 'why are they talking" Why is it that liberal scholars are so chronologically arrogant to think a single ancient author cannot use multiple styles in a book?
4. The two author theory leads to some very poor interpretation of the Bible in Job. P. 167 is particularly idiotic. The friends of Job think they are defending God but the text of Job says -- through God's mouth no less -- that Job was right and the friends were wrong. This makes no sense in the narrative part of book unless we know what they said in the poetic part. I have never have heard a more ridiculous theory.
5. Disease has its origins in death and ultimately the reason disease exists is because of us -- we didn't listen as a race to God in the garden.
6. Bart doesn't seem to address the fact that part of the answer to the problem of evil is life after death. Job's children die but where did they go? If they go to paradise they went from one party to another. If hell they went their because of their own evil. In short, Bart rarely factors in both personal responsibility and the afterlife into his discussion. They are both part of the answer the Bible has to evil but he does not put that into his factoring of what the Bible says about evil. There is also no honest consideration of Satan's involvement in being the origin of Evil. Maybe he thinks it is superstitious, but the Bible treats Satan as real and it should be considered in the discussion of what the BIBLE says about the problem of evil.
7. Job is not saying that he in outgunned he is simply saying from the Almighty's perspective he knows he cannot argue against God's justice. When Elihu speaks he never says Job sinned in doing this as Bart claims on p. 183 but that Job is not in position to question God's justice.
8. Bart accuses God of not giving Job a chance to get a word in. That is not the way the story reads -- if anything God says -- 'you got you audience, now what?" Job's response is to repent on his own -- we do not know what time God gave Job to respond and it is pure speculation to say God did not give Job a chance. The time is not recorded between God's answer and Job's response.
9. On to Ecclesiastes, Ehrman's makes the claim that is Solomon wrote the book then he would contradict himself compared to Proverbs -- I disagree -- there is a lot of agreement in Solomon's wisdom even with this book. What Ecclesiastes does is place all the other wisdom in its proper place. It is on this basis that Bart claims the book of Ecclesiastes is written in the 3rd Century BCE. How do we know? Do we have a text from that era that says so?
10. One thing that disappoints me is that Bart treats the last three chapters of the book of Ecclesiastes as if they don't exist. The book ends with a simple conclusion but it has end of the world, final judgment connotations -- fear God, obey him because He is going to bring every act to judgment. I agree that Ecclesiastes says some suffering makes no sense, but he does not draw the same conclusion -- reject the God of the Bible but to fear Him instead. Odd Huh?
Next: Agreements with Chapter Seven
Monday, July 13, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Five
Chapter 5 of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman's has some problems chief among them is his assumption that god does not intervene in human affairs.
1. Bart makes the statement that if God heals -- why does he not do so today -- heard that before and my response is he does -- I have grown up in Pentecostal churches -- when a person says they have cancer and that the doctors (more than one) have confirmed it and then that person is prayed for and they come back and don't have cancer -- confirmed by the same doctors you have to think something is up. It sounds like Hume when I listen to him on this. "I don't believe in miracles because I don't want to believe in miracles". In addition, he has this -- "God should heal all the time without conditions" attitude.
2. Ehrman talks about being committed to truth and integrity -- but if their is no God to be accountable to about truth then what difference does it make?
3. I think Bart over thinks Grace in pages 128-129 -- he talks about how if a person thanks God for food isn't that person condemning God for not feeding others. Here's the thing -- famine often happens because of short sighted agricultural methods or deliberate starvation of human beings by others -- either through malicious intent or apathy. He quotes the United Nations about the 850million starving stats as well. Yes, I am sure that the UN does not have ulterior motives in saying such things seeing they use such numbers to get more aid from other nations.
4. Why is it that when people want to blame God for everything, they always say that the problem in question is too big for humans to handle? Maybe their just looking for a personal excuse?
5. Says government should do more, quite frankly they cause more problems than they solve.
6. Assumes God always gets his way -- if God's will and his kingdom are a done deal and cannot be messed up than why in Jesus instructions to us in prayer does he ask us to pray that God's will be done and His kingdom come. Seems a strange thing to pray for if both just are and cannot be messed with -- another over reliance on classical theology.
7. Pharoah's hardened heart -- it is not hard to push a person a little harder when they have already demonstrated hardness in the first place. I would also point out for the record that the Egyptians were holding the Israelis as slaves. On the one hand he condemns Solomon for such a practice but here he is saying poor Egyptians forced to be victims of plagues when they are doing the same thing. The Egyptians were not nice people and the people who disobeyed the Passover had some control if they only believed enough to obey.
8. Going back to David's child -- David's own words kind of put this in perspective -- "I will see him again" The fact is what is better -- to live here suffering the stigma of sin and being a bastard child or Paradise. Here is Ehrman's saying poor child, but then turning about and say to be on this planet is suffering -- anybody else see the contradiction.
9. Bart assumes that Paul influence how the gospels are written -- he has no evidence of this other than more higher critical theories but were going to proceed as if it is fact anyway.
10. The Bible does not claim all suffering is redemptive like Ehrman attests on p. 155 (bottom). in fact I would say that sinful suffering is many times senseless and the Bible says this as well.
Next: Agreements with Chapter Six
1. Bart makes the statement that if God heals -- why does he not do so today -- heard that before and my response is he does -- I have grown up in Pentecostal churches -- when a person says they have cancer and that the doctors (more than one) have confirmed it and then that person is prayed for and they come back and don't have cancer -- confirmed by the same doctors you have to think something is up. It sounds like Hume when I listen to him on this. "I don't believe in miracles because I don't want to believe in miracles". In addition, he has this -- "God should heal all the time without conditions" attitude.
2. Ehrman talks about being committed to truth and integrity -- but if their is no God to be accountable to about truth then what difference does it make?
3. I think Bart over thinks Grace in pages 128-129 -- he talks about how if a person thanks God for food isn't that person condemning God for not feeding others. Here's the thing -- famine often happens because of short sighted agricultural methods or deliberate starvation of human beings by others -- either through malicious intent or apathy. He quotes the United Nations about the 850million starving stats as well. Yes, I am sure that the UN does not have ulterior motives in saying such things seeing they use such numbers to get more aid from other nations.
4. Why is it that when people want to blame God for everything, they always say that the problem in question is too big for humans to handle? Maybe their just looking for a personal excuse?
5. Says government should do more, quite frankly they cause more problems than they solve.
6. Assumes God always gets his way -- if God's will and his kingdom are a done deal and cannot be messed up than why in Jesus instructions to us in prayer does he ask us to pray that God's will be done and His kingdom come. Seems a strange thing to pray for if both just are and cannot be messed with -- another over reliance on classical theology.
7. Pharoah's hardened heart -- it is not hard to push a person a little harder when they have already demonstrated hardness in the first place. I would also point out for the record that the Egyptians were holding the Israelis as slaves. On the one hand he condemns Solomon for such a practice but here he is saying poor Egyptians forced to be victims of plagues when they are doing the same thing. The Egyptians were not nice people and the people who disobeyed the Passover had some control if they only believed enough to obey.
8. Going back to David's child -- David's own words kind of put this in perspective -- "I will see him again" The fact is what is better -- to live here suffering the stigma of sin and being a bastard child or Paradise. Here is Ehrman's saying poor child, but then turning about and say to be on this planet is suffering -- anybody else see the contradiction.
9. Bart assumes that Paul influence how the gospels are written -- he has no evidence of this other than more higher critical theories but were going to proceed as if it is fact anyway.
10. The Bible does not claim all suffering is redemptive like Ehrman attests on p. 155 (bottom). in fact I would say that sinful suffering is many times senseless and the Bible says this as well.
Next: Agreements with Chapter Six
Friday, July 10, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Four
At this point, Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem is dealing with the issue of suffering being the consequence of sin. It is also where I get a little disappointed. The Disagreements are as follows:
1. Bart does not seem to have proper understanding of God's discipline. In particular he seems to think God's discipline is harsh but then again from God's perspective would it be?
2. I was also disappointed to find Bart engaging in a particular brand of politics -- liberal. He bashes capitalism (although he enjoys its benefits) and takes a pot shot at Iraq -- "masses of people dying in Iraq". When did that happen?
3. He state the Bible is a fully human book -- can't agree for a number of reasons, chief among them the historical nature of the Bible as it record God interaction with man.
4. In the debate he seems to skip over both Babel and the Flood parts that indicate the evilness of humanity and their lack of obedience.
5. While I have problems with God ordering the genocide of the Canaanites, I also realize these were not nice people and that their children would have probably grew up to be like them. I think God is taking a long term view. Had the Israelites obeyed God they would have avoided all the long term wars and suffering that followed that amount to greater suffering than simple genocide. Hard but true. Obedience would have avoided this suffering.
6. When a prophecy is fulfilled it does not mean divine will absolute it means the understanding of the prophecy is fulfilled. There is an inconsistency to Bart's reasoning. on the one hand he says that God does not possess a crystal ball with the prophets and yet that is how he treats it when talking about suffering. Can't have it both ways.
7. One thing came through to me loud and clear at this time -- one tone of the book is a cultural arrogance -- that is that the ancient culture of the Bible is inferior to ours. You cannot judge a different culture by standards we have -- their different and who are we to say our culture should judge others. Bart judging slavery of the ancient world is like this -- in that time slavery is just a social status. It also certainly does not say that the forced labor of Israels enemies was like the Nazi death camps or something. He does this again when he talks about Rome. Bart Ehrman sure puts himself up as the person who has the authority to judge ancient cultures and find them wanting -- I wonder what his basis for comparison is?
8. The David thing gets me too. David does get off -- by the law he should have been killed but the price for David is high -- he looses four sons and one of his daughters is raped. In addition he spends a good amount of time running from a son who is trying to kill him and who sleeps with his ten concubines. David suffers a lot for his one sin -- did he really get off? The one thing that does bother me though is the baby's death but David indicates an afterlife so is the child really bad off. Then that reasoning opens up a whole can of worms doesn't it.
9. More higher criticism -- this time that Luke wrote after the fact about the destruction of Jerusalem - -this is pure conjecture, but then again if Jesus predicts the the fall of Jerusalem before the fact and Luke simply records it before the fact then that would be one more proof Jesus is what He said and Christianity said he was. Bart can't have that.
10. Bart gives credence to freewill defence but does not explore it fully. He always pulls up short of where I would in this chapter.
Next: Agreements with Chapter Five.
1. Bart does not seem to have proper understanding of God's discipline. In particular he seems to think God's discipline is harsh but then again from God's perspective would it be?
2. I was also disappointed to find Bart engaging in a particular brand of politics -- liberal. He bashes capitalism (although he enjoys its benefits) and takes a pot shot at Iraq -- "masses of people dying in Iraq". When did that happen?
3. He state the Bible is a fully human book -- can't agree for a number of reasons, chief among them the historical nature of the Bible as it record God interaction with man.
4. In the debate he seems to skip over both Babel and the Flood parts that indicate the evilness of humanity and their lack of obedience.
5. While I have problems with God ordering the genocide of the Canaanites, I also realize these were not nice people and that their children would have probably grew up to be like them. I think God is taking a long term view. Had the Israelites obeyed God they would have avoided all the long term wars and suffering that followed that amount to greater suffering than simple genocide. Hard but true. Obedience would have avoided this suffering.
6. When a prophecy is fulfilled it does not mean divine will absolute it means the understanding of the prophecy is fulfilled. There is an inconsistency to Bart's reasoning. on the one hand he says that God does not possess a crystal ball with the prophets and yet that is how he treats it when talking about suffering. Can't have it both ways.
7. One thing came through to me loud and clear at this time -- one tone of the book is a cultural arrogance -- that is that the ancient culture of the Bible is inferior to ours. You cannot judge a different culture by standards we have -- their different and who are we to say our culture should judge others. Bart judging slavery of the ancient world is like this -- in that time slavery is just a social status. It also certainly does not say that the forced labor of Israels enemies was like the Nazi death camps or something. He does this again when he talks about Rome. Bart Ehrman sure puts himself up as the person who has the authority to judge ancient cultures and find them wanting -- I wonder what his basis for comparison is?
8. The David thing gets me too. David does get off -- by the law he should have been killed but the price for David is high -- he looses four sons and one of his daughters is raped. In addition he spends a good amount of time running from a son who is trying to kill him and who sleeps with his ten concubines. David suffers a lot for his one sin -- did he really get off? The one thing that does bother me though is the baby's death but David indicates an afterlife so is the child really bad off. Then that reasoning opens up a whole can of worms doesn't it.
9. More higher criticism -- this time that Luke wrote after the fact about the destruction of Jerusalem - -this is pure conjecture, but then again if Jesus predicts the the fall of Jerusalem before the fact and Luke simply records it before the fact then that would be one more proof Jesus is what He said and Christianity said he was. Bart can't have that.
10. Bart gives credence to freewill defence but does not explore it fully. He always pulls up short of where I would in this chapter.
Next: Agreements with Chapter Five.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Three
Now some disagreements with Bart Ehrman's God's Problem chapter 3.
This is going to be longer ;-).
1. On page 61, Ehrman's makes a statement that suffering seems to be random but he says this in the context of the Nazi death camps. Sorry this was not random suffering, nor is any suffering that can ultimately be attributed to peoples' decisions. There is nothing involving chance about the death camps -- they were deliberate efforts to inflict human suffering by other humans.
2. On page 62, Bart also shows a poor understanding, like many Christians, about the Proverbs. Proverbs are not promises or guarantees. They are general principles that if lived improve one's chances of living a better life. This is why it is called a book of wisdom, not a book of promises.
3. I want to restate a point that became very clear once again by the time I got to page 64. Ehrman does not seem to see how humans have caused a majority if not all the suffering they receive. He continues to want to point the finger at God, but almost seems to be glib in taking about man's sinfulness leading to mankind's own suffering.
4. Ehrman states that because of Eve's sin she will now experience pain during childbirth. The fact is this passage actually indicates their would have been pain in childbirth already as it does not say cause pain in childbirth but -- "I will greatly multiply or increase you pain". Some suffering may have been present to mark warnings or trigger certain events.
5. When Ehrman considers the flood, I think he puts God in double jeopardy. Mankind has become completely and thoroughly evil. My guess is that humans causing suffering is run amok. God decides to destroy mankind (which would end the evil) to solve the problem. Ehrman sees this as extreme. God is thus damned if he doesn't --because here is God letting evil run amok again. God is damned if he does, now God is causing suffering Himself to 'innocent people'. Though how a people could be innocent if they are thinking evil all the time is beyond me.
6. Bart seems to not understand the seriousness of entering a covenant with God. He seems to think it unfair if God enforces the consequences when people break their word to Him. What's God supposed to do, beg them.
7. He calls Joshua's army ragtag. After training for 40 years and fighting against two people groups already, I doubt they were ragtag. They were trained experienced warriors.
8. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes" -- Bart interprets this improperly as a moral statement. The context of this statement is not moral but political -- "there was no king in those days" It is actually a statement of the freedom that existed in the period of the judges. I believe Samuel (who was against the monarchy) wrote Judges and if so this is actually a statement against becoming a monarchy. The fact is based on judges that when the people did right wilfully as a group they prospered and handled their problems well.
9. Second Isaiah Nonsense -- I have only one thing to say -- show me two separate texts. Oh you don't have any. Why is it that Bart here will believe this theory without a shred of textual evidence but then turn around and say the current manuscripts are false when they actually represent textual evidence. Seems odd that we will believe something with no evidence but then not believe something that actually has evidence.
10. By the time I was done with both chapter 2 and 3, I could safely say that Bart relies way to much on penal atonement theory as the only way to look sacrifice. I can say this there is almost no consideration of the possibilities other atonement theories might have on suffering and sacrifice. He assumes 'this interpretation" of things is the Biblical one and i know many who would beg to differ. This is one Christian way of looking at atonement, but it is by no means the only one.
11. Israel was overcome by her enemies because they didn't listen to God or the prophets. Had they listened they would not have been overcome. The times they are defeated is always in the context of their disobedience. Bart really tries to avoid Israeli culpability here. Part of the problem is that he believes many of the 'fulfilled prophecies' are written after the fact. But then their is no evidence for this either.
12. Bart asks the question: Is suffering really our fault? He states that freewill only answers part of the problem. He then gives a short list of things he believes cannot be explained by freewill. Allow me to engage them.
a. Famine -- actually famine is a preventable thing, if you do not believe me look at the US. When is the last time we had a famine and it is not because we have not had droughts. Why is this the case -- food storage when things are good (Joseph), as well as learning how to get greater yields out of crops and learning how to make food last longer. Many famines happen because of political repression -- the rulers starving their people. By not being wise, prudent or kind people starve. Our fault, we could do better.
b. Genocide -- Is God killing these people or man? Man.
c. AIDS (STDs in general) to be blunt if people followed God's plan of faithful matrimony sexually transmitted diseases of all types would disappear in a couple of generations. God has told us how to stop this we just refuse to listen.
d. Cancer other diseases -- God told us not to eat the tree or we would die -- mankind blew it we die. We all die of something. Who's fault? -- ours.
e. War -- it seems to me that people make decisions that result in wars -- and people make decisions to be soldiers and fight in them. I don't see God' to blame in this.
f. Natural disaster -- see d. Plus the fact that if we take Genesis literally then the introduction of natural disaster may be the result of The Flood which means: WHO got evil, so evil that God almost destroyed us all -- that would be mankind. The odd thing too is that we all know natural disasters happen and yet people rarely prepare for them like they could. Our fault again.
I am beginning to think that maybe all this suffering is just because mankind is sooooooo stupid and continues to refuse to learn from God.
Next: Agreements with chapter Four
This is going to be longer ;-).
1. On page 61, Ehrman's makes a statement that suffering seems to be random but he says this in the context of the Nazi death camps. Sorry this was not random suffering, nor is any suffering that can ultimately be attributed to peoples' decisions. There is nothing involving chance about the death camps -- they were deliberate efforts to inflict human suffering by other humans.
2. On page 62, Bart also shows a poor understanding, like many Christians, about the Proverbs. Proverbs are not promises or guarantees. They are general principles that if lived improve one's chances of living a better life. This is why it is called a book of wisdom, not a book of promises.
3. I want to restate a point that became very clear once again by the time I got to page 64. Ehrman does not seem to see how humans have caused a majority if not all the suffering they receive. He continues to want to point the finger at God, but almost seems to be glib in taking about man's sinfulness leading to mankind's own suffering.
4. Ehrman states that because of Eve's sin she will now experience pain during childbirth. The fact is this passage actually indicates their would have been pain in childbirth already as it does not say cause pain in childbirth but -- "I will greatly multiply or increase you pain". Some suffering may have been present to mark warnings or trigger certain events.
5. When Ehrman considers the flood, I think he puts God in double jeopardy. Mankind has become completely and thoroughly evil. My guess is that humans causing suffering is run amok. God decides to destroy mankind (which would end the evil) to solve the problem. Ehrman sees this as extreme. God is thus damned if he doesn't --because here is God letting evil run amok again. God is damned if he does, now God is causing suffering Himself to 'innocent people'. Though how a people could be innocent if they are thinking evil all the time is beyond me.
6. Bart seems to not understand the seriousness of entering a covenant with God. He seems to think it unfair if God enforces the consequences when people break their word to Him. What's God supposed to do, beg them.
7. He calls Joshua's army ragtag. After training for 40 years and fighting against two people groups already, I doubt they were ragtag. They were trained experienced warriors.
8. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes" -- Bart interprets this improperly as a moral statement. The context of this statement is not moral but political -- "there was no king in those days" It is actually a statement of the freedom that existed in the period of the judges. I believe Samuel (who was against the monarchy) wrote Judges and if so this is actually a statement against becoming a monarchy. The fact is based on judges that when the people did right wilfully as a group they prospered and handled their problems well.
9. Second Isaiah Nonsense -- I have only one thing to say -- show me two separate texts. Oh you don't have any. Why is it that Bart here will believe this theory without a shred of textual evidence but then turn around and say the current manuscripts are false when they actually represent textual evidence. Seems odd that we will believe something with no evidence but then not believe something that actually has evidence.
10. By the time I was done with both chapter 2 and 3, I could safely say that Bart relies way to much on penal atonement theory as the only way to look sacrifice. I can say this there is almost no consideration of the possibilities other atonement theories might have on suffering and sacrifice. He assumes 'this interpretation" of things is the Biblical one and i know many who would beg to differ. This is one Christian way of looking at atonement, but it is by no means the only one.
11. Israel was overcome by her enemies because they didn't listen to God or the prophets. Had they listened they would not have been overcome. The times they are defeated is always in the context of their disobedience. Bart really tries to avoid Israeli culpability here. Part of the problem is that he believes many of the 'fulfilled prophecies' are written after the fact. But then their is no evidence for this either.
12. Bart asks the question: Is suffering really our fault? He states that freewill only answers part of the problem. He then gives a short list of things he believes cannot be explained by freewill. Allow me to engage them.
a. Famine -- actually famine is a preventable thing, if you do not believe me look at the US. When is the last time we had a famine and it is not because we have not had droughts. Why is this the case -- food storage when things are good (Joseph), as well as learning how to get greater yields out of crops and learning how to make food last longer. Many famines happen because of political repression -- the rulers starving their people. By not being wise, prudent or kind people starve. Our fault, we could do better.
b. Genocide -- Is God killing these people or man? Man.
c. AIDS (STDs in general) to be blunt if people followed God's plan of faithful matrimony sexually transmitted diseases of all types would disappear in a couple of generations. God has told us how to stop this we just refuse to listen.
d. Cancer other diseases -- God told us not to eat the tree or we would die -- mankind blew it we die. We all die of something. Who's fault? -- ours.
e. War -- it seems to me that people make decisions that result in wars -- and people make decisions to be soldiers and fight in them. I don't see God' to blame in this.
f. Natural disaster -- see d. Plus the fact that if we take Genesis literally then the introduction of natural disaster may be the result of The Flood which means: WHO got evil, so evil that God almost destroyed us all -- that would be mankind. The odd thing too is that we all know natural disasters happen and yet people rarely prepare for them like they could. Our fault again.
I am beginning to think that maybe all this suffering is just because mankind is sooooooo stupid and continues to refuse to learn from God.
Next: Agreements with chapter Four
Monday, July 6, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Two
As short as my last post was, this one is going to be a little longer.
The first thing I want to make abundantly clear is that think that Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem is not evil. In fact I am glad he wrote it. These issues need to be front and center because if Christians just stick their head in the sand about them it is cowardly -- people are asking these questions and we need to give reasoned responses.
1. The first disagreement I have with this chapter and one that I have throughout the book is that Ehrman seeks constantly to avoid human responsibility for evil. The one thing that Bart constantly harps on is God is responsible for evil according to the Bible. I disagree. Bart says that while many things can be attributed to freewill he says that things like natural disasters cannot be attributed to human responsibility. I believe that Bart's great weakness in his book is that he does not consider the stories of Genesis and their showing of the origins of evil seriously. His contention is that THE BIBLE does not answer the problem of suffering but then he dismisses some of the Bible's explanation because he does not want to believe it. If I say as a apparent to a child -- "don't do that or you will be punished" and then the child does it who is going to be responsible when the punishment is carried out? This kind of puts God in a position of 'damned if He does, damned if He doesn't" If God does -- he is too harsh. If he doesn't -- he does not keep His Word. No matter what God does he loses to Bart.
2. This leads to my second problem with Bart Ehrman -- His constant reliance that liberal views of the text of Scripture is absolutely true. He uses the JEPD theory in this chapter and I find it interesting that He on the one had dismisses the text of Scripture of the New Testament (See Misquoting Jesus) but then supports and uses as a guiding light for his interpretation a theory that has NO TEXTUAL SUPPORT AT ALL. It is inconsistencies like this in Bart's reasoning that bother me.
3. Bart has problems with God's treatment of Israel after their disobedience. God promised to protect them and make them great but then he destroys them. "What kind of God is this?" Bart contends. He is a God that keeps his word. You cannot read Deuteronomy and not get the impression that God's promises were conditional, very conditional and that IF they did not keep their end they were bring the punishments on themselves. Bart never brings this out or seems to even have considered it.
4. Bart contends that the prophets only spoke to their time. I am not sure other Biblical writers would agree. The Gospel writers in particular believed that Jesus fulfilled a lot of things said by OT prophets. I think this a poor understanding of prophecy by Bart as poor as the Evangelicals have at times. Egotism aside, that does not mean the prophets did not speak to the future of God's activities. As to some predictions being unfulfilled -- Prophecy is also conditional, if the conditions change, the results change. Being an open theist my understandings of prophecy are different -- God makes promises but he can choose the time and place of their fulfillment and if the other side of the relationship does not keep their end he is free to not keep His.
5. In punishment, God is not trying to improve morale as Bart contends (humorously but the point is wrong) the point of punishment is correction of behavior. The fact is that Israel could have avoided the evil it suffered by doing one thing -- OBEY, and it wouldn't be to hard. It was only hard because the Israelites thought it was more important to serve themselves than God.
Next: Agreement with Chapter Three
The first thing I want to make abundantly clear is that think that Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem is not evil. In fact I am glad he wrote it. These issues need to be front and center because if Christians just stick their head in the sand about them it is cowardly -- people are asking these questions and we need to give reasoned responses.
1. The first disagreement I have with this chapter and one that I have throughout the book is that Ehrman seeks constantly to avoid human responsibility for evil. The one thing that Bart constantly harps on is God is responsible for evil according to the Bible. I disagree. Bart says that while many things can be attributed to freewill he says that things like natural disasters cannot be attributed to human responsibility. I believe that Bart's great weakness in his book is that he does not consider the stories of Genesis and their showing of the origins of evil seriously. His contention is that THE BIBLE does not answer the problem of suffering but then he dismisses some of the Bible's explanation because he does not want to believe it. If I say as a apparent to a child -- "don't do that or you will be punished" and then the child does it who is going to be responsible when the punishment is carried out? This kind of puts God in a position of 'damned if He does, damned if He doesn't" If God does -- he is too harsh. If he doesn't -- he does not keep His Word. No matter what God does he loses to Bart.
2. This leads to my second problem with Bart Ehrman -- His constant reliance that liberal views of the text of Scripture is absolutely true. He uses the JEPD theory in this chapter and I find it interesting that He on the one had dismisses the text of Scripture of the New Testament (See Misquoting Jesus) but then supports and uses as a guiding light for his interpretation a theory that has NO TEXTUAL SUPPORT AT ALL. It is inconsistencies like this in Bart's reasoning that bother me.
3. Bart has problems with God's treatment of Israel after their disobedience. God promised to protect them and make them great but then he destroys them. "What kind of God is this?" Bart contends. He is a God that keeps his word. You cannot read Deuteronomy and not get the impression that God's promises were conditional, very conditional and that IF they did not keep their end they were bring the punishments on themselves. Bart never brings this out or seems to even have considered it.
4. Bart contends that the prophets only spoke to their time. I am not sure other Biblical writers would agree. The Gospel writers in particular believed that Jesus fulfilled a lot of things said by OT prophets. I think this a poor understanding of prophecy by Bart as poor as the Evangelicals have at times. Egotism aside, that does not mean the prophets did not speak to the future of God's activities. As to some predictions being unfulfilled -- Prophecy is also conditional, if the conditions change, the results change. Being an open theist my understandings of prophecy are different -- God makes promises but he can choose the time and place of their fulfillment and if the other side of the relationship does not keep their end he is free to not keep His.
5. In punishment, God is not trying to improve morale as Bart contends (humorously but the point is wrong) the point of punishment is correction of behavior. The fact is that Israel could have avoided the evil it suffered by doing one thing -- OBEY, and it wouldn't be to hard. It was only hard because the Israelites thought it was more important to serve themselves than God.
Next: Agreement with Chapter Three
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Thoughts on Misquoting Truth -- A Response to Ehrman
Hey just finished Misquoting Truth by Timothy Paul Davis which is a response to Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I have to say it is well done as much as Ehrman's. Vinny wrote me a list of what Ehrman might say in a comment to my last post to my questions and I agree because I have read both books and much of what Jones has said I would have said in response.
A little background on me -- I have taken two years of Greek and the entire second year focused on two things -- translation and textual criticism. I know the ropes and the basic arguments -- my problem with Ehrman is that his book is very one sided and like Jones I find his reasoning flawed.
In responding to Ehrman and Vinny (note Vinny did not say that he agreed with Ehrman but tried to speak for him) I and Jones would like to respond in the following manner.
But what is the nature of those variants. 99% of them are, to be blunt -- insignificant and can be easily corrected -- that means only 4000 variants (roughly) are of any real significance. Of these many can be explained and the best reading discovered. The ones left (In my experience I found only about 25) where it is a toss up what it could read -- both sides of the reading were backed up by other Scriptures. I would also like to point out that as far as variants in the first and second century there are many of the insignificant type not very many significant ones. The fact is all variants can be explained in different ways but none of them is truly shaking to the basic tenets of Christian faith or undermines the history value of the documents.
Instability of what kind -- small scribal errors or wholesale alterations? They really don't say. In think the significance of this is overplayed we don't know specifically at times what they are talking about.
Which Scholars -- sorry the basic tenet of textual criticism is -- older is better because of less chance of corruption, now were going to contradict this idea because Ehrman's says so? -- Ehrman's might say this but the fact is 'most scholars' is usually code for -- 'the ones that agree with me' See my post "Most Scholars Agree..." The fact is that scholarly debate this point is sharp and contested, a point that Ehrman's omits and I think on purpose.
Jones smashes this notion as both Paul's writings and others are thought of as Scripture and are named as such by other writers including the church fathers. The fact is this is a big whopper of a lie. I have read the earlier church fathers and they refer to many writings of the apostles as 'Scripture". A such they would have been carefully preserved by someone -- to say all early Christians didn't consider these things as Scripture is contradicted by the early lists of books considered Scripture including the hostile witness of Marcion.
And. Even so a pagan scribe would have still done his job well if a rich client payed him -- his reputation would have depended on it. Rich Christians then could have not only preserved Scripture but hired good scribes to copy them -- a point Ehrman never considers.
In addition, Jones points out many other things that are problems with Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. Misquoting Truth is a good read. Read both books and make up your own mind.
A little background on me -- I have taken two years of Greek and the entire second year focused on two things -- translation and textual criticism. I know the ropes and the basic arguments -- my problem with Ehrman is that his book is very one sided and like Jones I find his reasoning flawed.
In responding to Ehrman and Vinny (note Vinny did not say that he agreed with Ehrman but tried to speak for him) I and Jones would like to respond in the following manner.
(1) The rate of variants in the third century manuscripts is greater than the
rate of variants in the fourth century manuscripts. The rate of variants in
the second is greater than the rate in the third. Projecting the trend
backwards points towards the rate of variants being greater still in the
first century.
But what is the nature of those variants. 99% of them are, to be blunt -- insignificant and can be easily corrected -- that means only 4000 variants (roughly) are of any real significance. Of these many can be explained and the best reading discovered. The ones left (In my experience I found only about 25) where it is a toss up what it could read -- both sides of the reading were backed up by other Scriptures. I would also like to point out that as far as variants in the first and second century there are many of the insignificant type not very many significant ones. The fact is all variants can be explained in different ways but none of them is truly shaking to the basic tenets of Christian faith or undermines the history value of the documents.
(2) Origen indicates that the early copying practices were poor.
Yeah and Origen is one of the later church fathers -- he is not early on in the
question of the quality of the first and second century documents being a
late
second third century father. He also could be whining about the quality
of
what he had access to -- being only one witness though he stand alone.
(3) The quotations in the early Apostolic Fathers point towards instability in
the texts.
Instability of what kind -- small scribal errors or wholesale alterations? They really don't say. In think the significance of this is overplayed we don't know specifically at times what they are talking about.
(4) Scholars believe that ancient texts were most susceptible to corruption in
the first hundred years after they were composed.
Which Scholars -- sorry the basic tenet of textual criticism is -- older is better because of less chance of corruption, now were going to contradict this idea because Ehrman's says so? -- Ehrman's might say this but the fact is 'most scholars' is usually code for -- 'the ones that agree with me' See my post "Most Scholars Agree..." The fact is that scholarly debate this point is sharp and contested, a point that Ehrman's omits and I think on purpose.
(5) The earliest copyists might have thought the writings important, but they
did not think of them as scripture.
Jones smashes this notion as both Paul's writings and others are thought of as Scripture and are named as such by other writers including the church fathers. The fact is this is a big whopper of a lie. I have read the earlier church fathers and they refer to many writings of the apostles as 'Scripture". A such they would have been carefully preserved by someone -- to say all early Christians didn't consider these things as Scripture is contradicted by the early lists of books considered Scripture including the hostile witness of Marcion.
(6) Early pagan copyists would not have even had a concept of
“scripture.”
And. Even so a pagan scribe would have still done his job well if a rich client payed him -- his reputation would have depended on it. Rich Christians then could have not only preserved Scripture but hired good scribes to copy them -- a point Ehrman never considers.
In addition, Jones points out many other things that are problems with Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. Misquoting Truth is a good read. Read both books and make up your own mind.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Initial Thoughts on Misquoting Jesus
To get some background on Bart Ehrman's thoughts on Scripture I picked up his other book Misquoting Jesus -- Who Changed the Bible and Why. It was on the New York Times Bestseller list. I read it and now I understand why Bart has a problem with God -- he doesn't really believe the Bible accurately represents God because of the variants in the texts of Scripture.
The arguments he presents are not new but he communicates them well -- he has a great way of making the complicated more understandable. Besides this I still think his reasoning has problems:
1. He thinks the early copyists (1st and 2nd centuries) were just rich Christians and not professional scribes. Given the absence of a text from the period how would we know this? How can we ascertain quality if we have nothing to look at. We do many things about how the scripture were preserved. One question: if it was the rich Christians who held the texts wouldn't they be rich enough to hire a professional scribe to do the work especially if they thought the Scriptures in question were important?
2. One thing he does not mention is how much of Scripture has no variants at all. Wouldn't this indicate that the text at least at these points are accurate and trustworthy?
3. He still relies on higher criticism in this book which is largely opinion.
Right now I am reading the counter to this book by Timothy Paul Jones called Misquoting Truth. Hopefully his arguments will cover everything I think about in dealing with Ehrman. If not I will mention some of them.
The arguments he presents are not new but he communicates them well -- he has a great way of making the complicated more understandable. Besides this I still think his reasoning has problems:
1. He thinks the early copyists (1st and 2nd centuries) were just rich Christians and not professional scribes. Given the absence of a text from the period how would we know this? How can we ascertain quality if we have nothing to look at. We do many things about how the scripture were preserved. One question: if it was the rich Christians who held the texts wouldn't they be rich enough to hire a professional scribe to do the work especially if they thought the Scriptures in question were important?
2. One thing he does not mention is how much of Scripture has no variants at all. Wouldn't this indicate that the text at least at these points are accurate and trustworthy?
3. He still relies on higher criticism in this book which is largely opinion.
Right now I am reading the counter to this book by Timothy Paul Jones called Misquoting Truth. Hopefully his arguments will cover everything I think about in dealing with Ehrman. If not I will mention some of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
