The atheist will often say, “The Bible says that God can do the impossible. A square circle is impossible. Shouldn’t God be able to make a square circle? If not, then God is not all-powerful.” Of course squares exist and circles exist, but there are no square circles. The ideas are contradictory and no amount of power, creative or otherwise can make two antithetical propositions be true at the same time and in the same sense.
First, let’s take a look at some of the Bible verses in question and examine them carefully for their meaning in the context that is given.
Genesis 18:14 “Is anything too difficult for the LORD?...”This verse is in reference to God’s ability to do a miracle in the elderly Sarah’s womb to produce a child for the barren couple.
Job 42:1-2 Then Job answered the LORD and said, "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.This verse speaks of God's purpose being unstoppable.
Jeremiah 32:17 Ah Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for YouThis verse talks about God’s ability to create the world around us.
Jeremiah 32:27 "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?"This prophecy from God is a warning that because of their idolatry and wickedness, He is going to allow Israel to be punished by it’s enemies.
Matthew 19:26, similar accounts in Mark 10:27 and Luke 18:27 …Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."These verses refer specifically to salvation by God when we put our trust in Him.
Luke 1:37 "For nothing will be impossible with God."Similarly to the Genesis quote, this passage also refers to the miraculous conceptions of Mary and Elizabeth.
In the context of these passages, the omnipotence of God refers to God’s ability to do miracles, to create, to save those who trust in Him, to remove His protection from Israel while in disobedience to Him and to ensure that His purpose is fulfilled. These are the Christian claims, that God is supernatural. God has power over the supernatural world He has created. Nowhere here is there any indication that God can do what is nonsense or logically inconsistent. These verses are the foundation for the definition of God’s omnipotence that I gave earlier and do not support the notion that God can do whatever He wants contrary to His nature, conflicting with His character.
In my previous post, I mentioned that God can’t make a square circle because it is nonsense. It is like a married bachelor. It is logically incoherent. A similar question would be, can God #*&%!@? It is meaningless. C.S. Lewis when talking about this idea says, "Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, 'God can’ before it."
Again it seems to come down to the way in which the question is asked. The loaded question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?" assumes the presumption of guilt so that answering “yes” or “no” will not remove the accusation of beating your wife. The type of loaded question asked by the atheist presupposes that omnipotence requires the inclusion of concepts that are illogical or nonsensical as well.
Ultimately the atheist who holds to the position that God is not all powerful if He can’t make a square circle makes the claim that God can't do that which is illogical.
Ultimately isn’t that a good thing?
Isn’t that what we would expect of a perfect Being?
Posts
61 comments:
More excuses and attempts to claim the Bible says something other than what it clearly says.
You say a square circle is impossible and illogical, but I can imagine how something could be shows to be both. Here's an example for you, there are car paints now that appear to be completely different colours depending upon how you look at them, green from one direction, orange from another. If I'd said to you 'can your god make orange green' you'd have no doubt told me such a thing was logically impossible, therefore 'gibberish'. The paint is both colours simultaneously.
Funny isn't it? I'm explaining how your god could do it, yet you're hell bent on diminishing the power of your deity!
Putting verses in context changes things, doesn't it? I thought this was well written, despite the deliberate misunderstandings of nay-sayers.
That's not logically impossible. You just don't know how it works.
Unless you are claiming anything you can't explain is logically impossible. That would be a bit narcissistic.
Technically Orange-Green light is Yellow.
When a photon of light is detected by your eye, it can only have a single wavelength. (Even if you were to claim some quantum effect, the wave function would collapse to a single wavelength when your eye interfered with it by detecting it) Therefore you are not seeing something simultaneously orange and green, but orange photons and green photons.
Natural light is made up of all colours in different ratios. When you see an object, you are actually seeing the light reflected off of it. Reflected light can be preferentially scattered depending on the shape of the surface it hits ( or chemical make up, or other factors). If you have a surface with a fine structure (such as being coated in a fine powder, possibly in the form of paint) and the particles are multifaceted, the preferential reflection can be different for different wavelengths depending on which facet was hit by the photons.
I don't see where logically impossible enters into the picture. Very hard to engineer, maybe. But that is a different thing.
If you are going to refute God based on science, you should understand science, other than what you see stated in other atheist blogs or wired magazine. I can suggest a fairly good introductory text on wave mechanics if you have a basic understanding of trig and freshman (or even High School AP) calculus.
Vibrations and Waves - MIT Introductory Physics series. AP French
If you don't want to buy it, MIT has more current introductory courses available via iTunes. I'd start with the Classical Mechanics one.
Tim:
I think you misunderstand what context is, particularly in a common accusation that something is being taken out of context. The context of a given statement (or sometimes paragraph) is the surrounding statements or paragraphs. If the quoting of a statement removes context that changes its meaning, then it is quoted out of context.
In this case, you are providing, not context, but an interpretation. It is also a common christian claim that the bible is not open to interpretation. Alex has argued against the plain language of the passages in question. Now, you may not believe that they were meant plainly. I think that christian twist and turn inconvenient passages in the bible so as never to have to admit that the bible is wrong.
Alex has also argued that multichromatic paint is proof against God.
No, Tim knows exactly what he is doing, he is correct. "In this case, you are providing, not context, but an interpretation." You are not correct.
I can't help but feel that the concentration on the 'square circle' is an attempt to move away from the far more troubling 'Can God change his mind?'
Trent, I don't happen to believe that something being both a square and a circle IS impossible, just because you can't imagine a way it could be done doesn't mean it can't be. My point is that, if it's at all possible, then your god should be able to do it.
If it is not impossible explain how you can have a figure that has all points a constant distance from a central point, and have 4 parallel sides and 4 90 degree angles?
I am very confused. If you can't show that it is possible, and it has never been observed in nature, and basic logic says it should not exist, we have a problem. You are insisting that we accept the existence of something using thought processes that Christians are berated for because it allows for belief in God.
It is almost like you are mocking us for not being gullible enough to mock even more? I could also make the argument, that using the same logic you should believe in pink unicorns because I can imagine a horse that has been genetically bred to have pink pigments and selected for having a single horn. I can imagine it, so genetics should be able to produce it, so without seeing every animal in the world you can't rule out a genetic freak or a secret breeding program.
Thing is Trent, I'm working on the assumption that your god, if he is all powerful, could easily show me such a thing, no matter how bizarre or impossible. A pink unicorn would be nothing to your god, if he is as powerful as you're all claiming him to be.
After all, the Bible very clearly states, in context, that NOTHING is impossible with the Christian god.
I'm trying to play this by debating from a theists point of view, accepting that your god is all powerful. I *know* in reality that he doesn't exist, but it's fun watching believers tying themselves in logical knots trying to explain the impossibility of their god, simultaneously demanding that god can't defy basic logic whilst asking us to believe in a being that does just that.
I feel a bit like I'm talking to a bunch of flat earthers.
From this article alone, I'm not sure you understand what logically impossible is.
That paint thing seems reaching a bit for the bottom of that barrel. Making an assertion as to what the author would say to an unasked question, and then mocking based on the supposed answer, is rather low. It also didn't even have anything to do with your point, except as an opportunity to mock.
You didn't explain it, as you claimed, you simply stated that you can imagine it. I explained it.
I'm still unimpressed, but I'll pray for you.
Don't pray for me Trent, praying for people is what theists do when they want to imagine they've some power over that person.
I actually find people praying for me offensive.
And, really, it's nothing more than you talking to yourself.
It's not worth getting hung up on "changing one's mind." This is a reflection of a limitation - either lacking full knowledge or being influenced by emotion - such that when the situation changes, or your reaction to the situation changes, you alter your actions, or your intentions regarding future actions. These are functions of limited beings that cannot control time.
Since God has no such limitations, the question "can He" change his mind is moot. It will never have application to him because he suffers from no deprivation.
Insisting on treating a limitation as a power - i.e. he can't change his mind - is simply a failure to grasp the true nature of things. It's like saying he lacks the "power" to be sick. Sickness is a departure from health - a limitation. It is not a power that someone seeks to obtain.
You seem to think the ability to adjust one's behaviour due to changing circumstances ISN'T a positive attribute!
How strange.
Presenting God as the Absolute means that you are neccessarily going to see instances when he seems to limit Himself by His own nature. I've come up with dozens of ways myself. Could God create another God? Could He commit scuicide? Could he lessen, exceed, or equal his own power? Etc.
Examined logically, many of these questions disolve into nonsense, but I DO believe that God's nature can come in conflict with itself, and the result, it seems to me, is a sort of 'balancing of the equation' to borrow an algebraic term.
Consider: If God is indeed Holy, how can he indwell and uphold an imperfect universe? His Holiness is called 'a consuming fire' by scripture, and it is clear throughout the Bible that he cannot abide anything less than perfection in his presence. Is he, then, absent from the imperfect universe? Clearly not, because we are also told that 'In him we move, and breathe, and have our being.'
We also know that God is Mercifull, Gracious, Loving, Longsuffering, and, here's the killer, Forgiving.
Now if God is ABSOLUTELY Just, how can he also be forgiving and still fulfil the demands of his Justice? In fact, the Gracious, Merciful, Forgiving aspect of God's nature would never have been revealed in a perfect universe. It takes imperfection to manifest these aspects of God's nature.
The confusion here is entirely resolved in the person of Christ. By manifesting himself as a creature and dying, Jesus satisfied BOTH aspects of God's nature in a way that is both simple and incomprehensible. But this raises new questions just as complicated. How could Jesus be the eternal God and a creature? How could he, being the Holiness and Righteousness of God become sin? And how could he be the immortal God and die?
I believe these things are true, but I have no easy answers to these questions.
Theists, your god is shown in the Bible to lie. You claim this is a moral failing....does that make your god imperfect?
You'll have to refresh my memory. Which passage of scripture are you refering to?
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (King James Version)
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
1 Kings 22:23
Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.
Ezekiel 14:9
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
In response to a previous post on here that said your god cannot lie.
Thank you for the clarification, Alex. I'm glad you bring this up. There's actually a very interesting principle at work in each of the passages that you mention, and it's the same in each instance. This is best illustrated by the passage in Romans where it states:
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
(Romans 1:21-25)
In each of the instances you sighted, the truth was given to the people in question FIRST. In each instance, the people rejected the truth and refused to believe it. As a result, God simply removed the truth from them, giving them exactly what they wanted. In the absence of truth, what remains is a lie. So to say that God lied in these instances is similar to saying that he turned off the light. When light is gone, darkness is all that remains.
The 1Kings passage that you sighted is a perfect example. In that instance, God sent a prophet to the king telling him not to go into battle. If he went into battle he would fail. The king didn't want to hear that, so he tried some prophets of other gods. These guys were false prophets to begin with, so anything they might say would already be a lie. God simply controled the lie they told. Keeping in mind that he had ALREADY OFFERED THE TRUTH, and they had rejected it.
Ultimately, you get what you ask for. Which is why they say to be careful what you ask for.
So, Joel, to paraphrase, your god isn't lying, he's just 'not telling the truth', and 'not telling the truth' is different to lying...for some reason.
Actually, the paraphrase would be, "God offers them truth, and they choose to disbelieve."
Let's say I tell you some truth of which you were previously unaware. Say, "Cigarettes are bad for your health." It's stamped on the side of every pack, so I think we can safely assume it to be true.
Now prior to my telling you this, you were in ignorance. Your beliefs were based on a lack of knowledge, which is not the same as a lie. However, once I tell you the truth about cigarettes, if you choose to disbelieve, you have embrased a belief that "Cigarettes are NOT bad for your health." This belief is base in a willful rejection of certain knowledge that I made available to you. At this point, your belief is based in a lie.
Now God, being all powerful, has an option that isn't available to me. He can actually MAKE you believe the truth. However, if he were to do so after you have willfully chosen to DISBELIEVE, then he would be interfering with your free will to choose. You are free to believe or disbelieve as you choose. You are NOT free from the consiquences of your choice, however.
In the case of the passages you sighted, the consiquence of their disbelief was that God allowed them to believe a lie and be lost in the subsiquent confusion.
For instance: you sighted 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. Allow me to re-quote that passage to you with added emphasis:
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who BELIEVED NOT THE TRUTH, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
As you can see, the truth was made available to them. It was their choice to disbelieve.
"If you are going to refute God based on science, you should understand science, other than what you see stated in other atheist blogs or wired magazine. I can suggest a fairly good introductory text on wave mechanics if you have a basic understanding of trig and freshman (or even High School AP) calculus."
The point I was making about the paint was that something can appear to be two things simultaneously. 500 years ago if you asked anyone if paint could be two colours they'd say it couldn't. In the same way, just because we can't yet see how to make an object that can be both a circle and square doesn't mean that it's not possible.
That you decided it was more important to try and show that I was some kind of idiot than see the point speaks volumes about your approach Trent.
"Let's say I tell you some truth of which you were previously unaware. Say, "Cigarettes are bad for your health." It's stamped on the side of every pack, so I think we can safely assume it to be true.
Now prior to my telling you this, you were in ignorance. Your beliefs were based on a lack of knowledge, which is not the same as a lie. However, once I tell you the truth about cigarettes, if you choose to disbelieve, you have embrased a belief that "Cigarettes are NOT bad for your health." This belief is base in a willful rejection of certain knowledge that I made available to you."
No, it's more like god then turning around and then saying 'smoking is good for you'
"God allowed them to believe a lie"
No, your god clearly TOLD a lie.
Fair enough. Let's say that's the case.
To carry our analogy a bit further, let's say that I try and pursuade you with evidence that smoking is harmful to your health. You continually choose to disbelieve me. Finally, I say, "Fine, have it your way. Smoking is good for you."
In what sense am I at fault? If I did everything in my power to pursuade you of one thing, you continue to disbelieve, so I eventually go along with your disbelief. How is that any different?
It seems to me that you'll go to any length to try and excuse your god's lies.
Nice work, but completely unconvincing. He clearly states that he has put a 'lying spirit' in the mouth of the prophets, so your example is completely in error.
It did say that, yes. And you know who was saying that in the context of that passage? A prophet of the Lord. About the false prophets. As he was telling Kings Ahab and Jehosophat that if they went up into battle, they would be killed. Which is the opposite of what the lying false prophets had said.
In other words, he was telling them the truth.
But let's assume that God tells lies. Please explain why that is a problem.
It's a problem because apologists on this site have said that a) he CAN'T tell lies, and b) to tell a lie is a moral failing.
If your god is guilty of a moral failing then he isn't perfect, and if he's not perfect then he's not god.
I'm SO glad I don't believe in this nonsense! You guys must give yourselves headaches trying to twist it all round into saying what you think it should say!!
Before we explore this principle any further, let’s look at each one of those passages about God’s supposed lying in context.
The first passage comes to us from the first book of Kings. In this passage, King Ahab of Israel has made an arrangement with King Jehosophat of Judah to go into battle together against the troublesome Syrian army. In case you aren’t terribly familiar with Old Testament history, there was a split in the leadership of Israel after the death of King Solomon. The nation was split into Israel to the north, composed of ten of the twelve tribes, and Judah to the South, composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
Since the split occurred, Israel remained in constant rebellion against God, worshipping whatever pagan idols the neighboring countries were worshiping. As bad as all the kings were, the worst of them was Ahab, who was militantly against God, and tried to wipe out all of his prophets and worshipers.
Now Israel and Judah did not typically get along, however in this instance, the Syrians were such a powerful threat, that they decided to join forces. This kind of action had previously been forbidden by the Lord, who did not want Judah to have anything to do with Israel. In other words, Jehosophat should have known better.
As they are gathering to go up to battle, Jehosophat insists that they consult the prophets first. This is consistent behavior recommended by the Law of Moses, so Jehosophat is at least paying some lip service to God. Ahab parades in all of his yes-men prophets, who serve the idol Baal. Each prophet says the same thing: go up and fight the Syrians. You will be victorious.
Jehosophat quickly realizes that none of the prophets represent God, and so he asks Ahab if there is a prophet of the Lord available to consult. Previously in the book, Ahab has made it his policy to kill all the prophets of the Lord he can find, but he is able to find one named Michaiah. Ahab warns Jehosophat ahead of time that Micaiah never tells him what he wants to hear. When they ask Michaiah, the prophet responds “Go ahead and fight the Syrians, you will be victorious.” He must have said it sarcastically, because Ahab immediately recognizes that he is not being sincere with them, and threatens him if he doesn’t tell the truth.
At this point, Micaiah tells a very odd story about a bunch of spirits gathered together before God. God asks which one of them would be willing to go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all the prophets to convince Ahab to go up to battle so that he might be killed. One of them steps forward and volunteers, hence the consistent prophesy of all the prophets of Baal.
One of the prophets slaps Micaiah for giving away their secret, and then Ahab has Micaiah locked up and tortured.
Then he goes up to battle and dies.
Alex,
I'm enjoying our discussion, but I would appreciate it if you could tone down the antagonism a bit. I'm not attacking you, or if I am, I apologize.
So Joel, do you believe that your god employs sentient spirits to do his work?
The second passage comes to us from the fourteenth chapter of Ezekiel. Historically, Israel was in captivity to the Babylonians at this time. Some of Israel’s elders come to the prophet Ezekiel looking for some oracle from the Lord. As they approach, God speaks to Ezekiel to tell him that these Hebrew men have adopted the worship of Babylon’s idols, and asks Ezekiel if such men deserve the truth of God. Then God speaks audibly through Ezekiel to tell the elders that first they must destroy their idols and turn their hearts back to God. Until they do, no prophet will speak to them. If a prophet is somehow foolish enough to try to prophesy to them, God will make certain that the words he speaks are NOT the truth of the Lord, and judge that prophet along with the idolaters.
That doesn't answer my question - do you believe that your god employs sentient spirits to do his work?
The final passage comes from Paul’s second epistle to the church at Thessalonica. This epistle was written primarily because this church had begun to spread rumors that the end of time was near. This was resulting in a great deal of distress among the church members. Paul wrote this epistle to correct this error in thinking. In this passage he is mentioning one of the signs that the end of time is near will be the revelation of “The Man of Sin.” This is the person more well-known as the Antichrist. What Paul explains to us in this passage is that the period of time between the resurrection of Christ and the coming of the Antichrist has been for the benefit of the entire world, that everyone should have a chance to hear and believe in the message of the gospel. When the end of time finally DOES come, everyone will have had the opportunity to believe and repent; so that those who are still unbelieving at this time have willfully turned away from the truth. We see this in verse ten where it states, “with all the deceit of unrighteousness in those who perish, because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
The passage goes on to state that God will remove his truth from the world at this time, resulting in a strong delusion.
In each of these passages, we see the exact same principle. The people being "lied" to are in willfull rebellion to God. Moreover, they were openly offered the truth and the opportunity to follow it, and they outright rejected it. In the first passage Ahab, a man who had been mercilessly killing prophets of God and had sought his council from false prophets worshiping idols was STILL given the truth, and rejected it.
In the second passage, the Jewish elders, who had the writings of Moses warning them away from idolatry were in rebellion, worshipping idols, and God told them outright that they would need to abandon their idolatry and come back to their worship of God before he would speak to them. In the final passage, the people, having been exposed to the gospel for their entire lives, eagerly followed after the Antichrist, outright rejecting the truth they had been offered. So the truth was removed from them.
This just highlights the amazing consitancy of the Bible. You just pulled passages from three seperate texts with entirely different authors that were seperated by hundreds of years of history, and each one illustrates the EXACT SAME principle.
so you're not going to answer my question?
You're making excuses, and trying to claim the text doesn't say what it clearly does.
Please answer my question - do you believe in sentient spirits that help your god?
Your question is a red herring and does not relate to the question at hand. We could sideline into that discussion, but it would leave this one unfinished.
Your question is a red herring and does not relate to the question at hand. We could sideline into that discussion, but it would leave this one unfinished.
When you originally began this discussion, you sighted individual verses in a larger context. What I did was to give the verses their context. If you disagree with my summary of the context, I would be interested to hear YOUR summary of the context.
Joel, the context of the verses doesn't change their meaning at all, they still clearly indicate that your god was happy to use dishonesty.
My question about your believe or otherwise in sentient 'helper spirits' ISN'T a red herring, I'm asking because I want to know what your answer is.
So it is your position that context has nothing to do with meaning?
It has everything to do with meaning, but the context of these verses doesn't change the meaning at all.
So, please, tell me about these sentient spirits.
Joel? Hello? Are you there? I've asked you a question, please don't ignore it.
Sorry Alex. I DID post in response to you, however the post apparently never made it up.
Before we entirely abandon the topic of God's truthfullness, since you haven't denied my summary of the context of each of the verses, you will at least have to admit that, in each instance, the truth was made available to the persons involved. Now let's examine the alternatives.
God COULD have spoken through the prophets of Baal to Ahab. If He had done so, he would have been putting truthful words in the mouths of false prophets, leading to a more fundimental deception: ie Baal=God. Instead, the prophets lied, remaining true to their ultimately false nature, and God's prophet told the truth, justifying God.
God COULD have continued to prophesy to the idolitrous Jewish leaders. By doing so, He would have been turning a blind eye to their disobedience and in so-doing compromise His Holiness. By withholding prophecy from them, He again remained true to his nature.
Finally God could continue offering truth to the unrepentant who clearly have no interest in the truth He is offering. In so-doing, He would compromise his Justice by ignoring their continued rebellion.
So not only is the truth offered in these passages, but God's character is never compromised and the fault is always on the part of the person who willfully denies the truth.
Now that we've beat that horse just about dead, let's get on to the topic you seem to be chomping at the bit to discuss: spritual entities.
The Bible is primarily concerned with people's relationship to God, so while spiritual entities are indicated by the Bible, they are not defined to a great degree. What we can tell is that at some undefined point, God created lesser spiritual beings usually called Angels. The purpose of angels appears to have been to praise God.
At some point after their creation, a portion of the angels rebelled. The rebellious angels, typically called 'demons' or 'devils' are entirely corrupt in nature. The angels that chose not to rebel continue to praise God and are occassionally employed as messangers.
The corrupt angels are very clearly still under God's soveriegnty, and their erronious deeds appear to be limited by human choice. That is, God allows them more freedom to act upon people who choose to refuse God's protection by rebelling against Him.
A good example would be the one you sighted in our previous discussion. God allowed a lying spirit to enter the false prophets serving an idol and prophecying to a king who habitually killed God's prophets and followers.
"The purpose of angels appears to have been to praise God."
So your god created beings purely to praise him? What an insecure individual! If this is true then YWHW isn't perfect (as a perfect being doesn't desire anything) and can't be god!
OOOPS!
Well, as you may have noticed, I said "appears" indicating that there is nothing in the Bible that gives us a clear indication of the purpose for which angels were created. We know they DO praise God, but as you so correctly pointed out, God doesn't need their praise. Since the characteristics and purpose of angels are not directly addressed in scripture, I honestly have nothing to argue with you.
You see, here's the thing Joel, Christian beliefs look ludicrous when written down. Seriously, try it - record yourself saying what you believe, and I bet you'll not be able to get all the way through without laughing.
Angels? Supernatural lying spirits? A god that's more concerned with human sexuality than he is saving the lives of millions of starving children in Africa? Stories of a global flood that left zero evidence and wasn't recorded by the surrounding nations who lived through it without noticing? Stories of an Exodus and invasion that similarly left no evidence, including no records AT ALL in the Egyptian archives? The miraculous birth of a man-god who did such amazing things that not a single contemporary writer mentioned him? The same man crucified by Pontius Pilate, despite the fact that in all the records of executions from that time he isn't mentioned?
It takes a huge amount of faith to believe such nonsense! The fact is the Bible ISN'T true, it's isn't good history, the Old Testament represents the hopes of 7th Century Judah under the reign of Josiah, and later the hopes of post exile Jewry, whilst the New Testament is told through the filter of Paul, a man who lied about his reason for going to Damascus (the High Priest of Jerusalem had no authority in Damascus, as it was in a different province).
These are some of the reasons that millions of us have turned away from Christianity.
Joel, you do know that there are different functions for different angels, yes? Cherubs and seraphs are a different sort altogether.
As for the claim that the Bible is simply not true, that is an assertion that is unsupportable, and not a logical argument.
Bad history? Shall we take the word of an angry atheist on the Internet, or of skilled, credentialed experts? How about Rabbi Nelson Glueck? “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
"Bad history? Shall we take the word of an angry atheist on the Internet, or of skilled, credentialed experts? How about Rabbi Nelson Glueck? “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”"
Nelson Glueck died in 1971, at the time the archaeology WAS believed to support the Biblical record. However, but archaeology has come on a long way in the last 40 years!
Modern Israeli archaeologists don't believe that the Old Testament presents an accurate history at all, and the evidence from digs backs that up. You should read 'The Bible Unearthed' by Israel Finkelstein (http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/directory/dir_israel_finkelstein.html) of the University of Tel Aviv. Finkelstein at no point in his book tries to discuss the ramifications for the Abrahamic faiths, instead he presents the facts as revealed by the physical evidence and the contemporary records of the surrounding nations.
Of the supposed great Royal City of David he says -
"There is no archaeological evidence for it...This is something unexampled in history. I don't think there is any other place in the world where there was a city with such a wretched material infrastructure but which succeeded in creating such a sweeping movement in its favor as Jerusalem, which even in its time of greatness was a joke in comparison to the cities of Assyria, Babylon or Egypt. It was a typical mountain village. There is no magnificent finding, no gates of Nebuchadnezzar, no Assyrian reliefs, no Egyptian temples - nothing. Even the temple couldn't compete with the temples of Egypt and their splendor."
As for the Exodus and conquest -
"It is a story which, as it is presented in the Bible, definitely never happened. Archaeology shows that it has no historical grounds. Many of the sites that are cited in the story of the conquest were not even inhabited in the relevant period, so there was nothing to conquer, there were only hills and rocks. Jericho was not fortified and had no walls, and it's doubtful that there was a settlement there at the time. Therefore, in the case of the story of the conquest of Arad, for instance, some scholars said that the war was fought against the forces of one Bedouin sheikh.
"If one does a calculation backward from the point at which we have historical documentation, such as the external Assyrian writings about the monarchy of Ahab, it turns out that the story of the biblical conquest would have occurred at the end of the 13th century BCE. At that time the Egyptians ruled in the land, but there is no mention of that in the Bible.
"There is a stela in a Cairo museum on which the word Israel first appears in written form. The son of Ramesses II launched a military expedition to Caanan and conquered Ashkelon and Gezer, and wrote the famous sentence, `Israel is spoiled, his seed is not.' That was in 1207 BCE - after the conquest as related in the Bible."
Read more here - http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
Finkelstein is NOT an 'angry atheist', but he is a Jew, and a trained archaeologist. In fact he's remarkably PRO-Bible - "I am a great believer in a total separation between tradition and research. I myself have a warm spot in my heart for the Bible and its splendid stories. During our Pesach seder, my two girls, who are 11 and 7, didn't hear a word about the fact that there was no exodus from Egypt. When they are 25, we will tell them a different story. Belief, tradition and research are three parallel lines that can exist simultaneously. I don't see that as a gross contradiction."
So, who are you going to take the word of? A man who died 20+ years before a lot of the important discoveries were made, or an Israeli archaeologist who has held the evidence in his hands?
please excuse the one or two typos, am writing on a small netbook during my lunchbreak at work
Alex,
I get it. I really do. And I fully sympathize with your skeptisicm. And, of course, I'm certain that YOU are aware that, for every argument against Christian beliefs, there are well-reasoned responses. I grant you that they may not seem convincing to YOU, but you cannot deny the intelligence with which they are presented. I am willing to go through these arguments, but many of them, such as the one about angels, or the flood, or creation v evolution, are periferal to the real point of our belief: Man's relationship with God. As a Christian, it is my claim that man is able to have a close relationship with God because of the work of Jesus Christ. As a skeptic, it is your claim that either there is no God, or if God exists, he cannot be known in any significant way by us.
This is the real point of contention between us, and this should be the focus of our conversation.
I don't want to play "my archeologist trumps your archeologist", but simply want to show that this is not the open and shut case that some would have us think.
From the article http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3814
"The minimalists’ approach, which Finkelstein’s resembles closely, is decried by many scholars, both theistic and atheistic. An example of the former is Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world’s foremost Egyptologists. In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, he spends considerable time examining the biblical minimalists and their history in the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship (2003, pp. 449-500). Specifically of Finkelstein’s book The Bible Unearthed (coauthored by Neil Asher Silberman), he says, “[A] careful critical perusal of this work—which certainly has much to say about both archaeology and the biblical writings—reveals that we are dealing very largely with a work of imaginative fiction, not a serious or reliable account of the subject” (p. 464). Concerning their treatment of the patriarchal period, which the two describe as a virtual fiction, Kitchen comments, “our two friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading” (p. 465). Finkelstein’s and Silberman’s discussion of the exodus prompts Kitchen to remark, “Their treatment of the exodus is among the most factually ignorant and misleading that this writer has ever read” (p. 466).
As for non-Christian scholars, there are several who would oppose Finkelstein’s treatment of the Bible. One of these is William Dever, who has often described himself as an agnostic at best. Dever’s battle with Finkelstein is well-known to those in archaeological circles, as well as to readers of Biblical Archaeology Review. The two have feuded publicly in print, although Dever generally commands more respect than Finkelstein. [NOTE: In a personal conversation, a Canadian archaeologist from the University of Toronto told me in 2006 that not only does Finkelstein have a reputation for criticizing other archaeologists’ conclusions without examining their evidence, but other Israeli archaeologists have been critical and almost dismissive of him and his methods.]
Both believers and nonbelievers view Finkelstein’s approach as unwarranted. His point of view has won very few converts in archaeological circles. His skepticism borders on extremism not only because of the way he approaches the biblical text, but also because of the way he treats other scholars who disagree with him. In the end, Finkelstein may be a respected archaeologist in some circles, but he is spectacularly incorrect in his conclusions about the historical accuracy of the Bible."
Apologies for the long quote.
"Apologies for the long quote."
An apologist's gotta do what an apologist's gotta do!
Although Glueck is long gone, that does not mean his work, and that of other archaeologists, is to simply get brushed off in light of subsequent discoveries. What are we to make of previous archaeology? "Oops, we were wrong, guess we'd better start over". Instead, there are more finds supporting the Biblical record (often reluctantly revealed by unbelievers) over the decades.
Obviously people are going to have different opinions, but answers me these questions -
where are the fallen walls of Jericho?
where is the evidence that the Exodus happened, both in the archaeology and the Egyptian records?
where is the evidence of a great Davidic empire?
Whether you agree with Silberman and Finkelstein or not, these questions still need answering.
I'll go further -
where is the evidence of a global flood? where is the evidence of the Tower of Babel? Why does the evidence of biology, geology, and astronomy directly contradict the Young Earth model some theists cling to?
Why don't the FACTS match the stories of the Bible?
Stormbringer, would you want knowledge to stop at the point where it seems to support your view, or do you think searching onwards is a good idea? Glueck died a long time before a lot of the important archaeological discoveries were made, and operated from the point of view that the Bible was right, using it as his verification of the finds, rather than doing things properly and letting the finds dictate the story.
Tim, Kitchen has been heavily criticised for his approach and the way he uses emotive language to dismiss rival claims, and even a favourable review commented that his book was not to be read as history.
Dever doesn't appear to believe that the Old Testament is literal history either, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up. I guess it's a bit like Answers in Genesis positioning Michael Behe as one of their own, even though his views still directly contradict their YEC agenda - the enemy of my enemy is my friend indeed!
Ultimately, if the Bible is wrong about the origins of life, if it makes claims that are not borne out in the evidence (ie the flood, the fall of man) then how can you trust any of it?
If Adam and Eve didn't exist then the whole thing is meaningless, as sin never entered the world through man, and Jesus didn't need to die at all. Most museums hold man made items that are older than the world if you're to believe the Bible YEC account. Reality contradicts the ancient myths and fables. To put it simply the Bible is WRONG.
I used to be a believer, and I've considered these issues very carefully (after all, my life may depend on it) and I cannot see any logical reason, or find any evidence, to believe the Bible to be correct. It simply isn't there.
When AlexB states, 'Stormbringer, would you want knowledge to stop at the point where it seems to support your view, or do you think searching onwards is a good idea? Glueck died a long time before a lot of the important archaeological discoveries were made, and operated from the point of view that the Bible was right, using it as his verification of the finds, rather than doing things properly and letting the finds dictate the story.', he appears to be committing something similar to the 'taxicab fallacy'. He is selecting information from a certain point to arrive at another point, and then dismissing the 'taxi' because he is content with his destination, although it has not actually arrived at the logical destination.
Hey, Alex, they referenced our conversation in the most recent podcast! Pretty sweet, huh?
Post a Comment