According to National Geographic, and a team of archaeologists in Israel, the bible got camels wrong. Seriously, here's a link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/ What is at stake here is quite important. While some may downplay the issue as merely one of camels, what is really at stake is the question of the historical validity of the book of Genesis.
You see, if the writer of Genesis got the information about Abraham having camels wrong, then how can we trust any of his other historical observations. And if we cannot trust the historical observations of Genesis, how do we trust the theological and religious statements made? That is, if the author is wrong about Abraham having camels, is it possible that the writer of Genesis got the conversations between Abraham and God wrong? Perhaps a better question would be, "How can we trust the writer would get theological details right when he can't even get basic facts of history correct?"
So, what are we to do with the article above? Well, let's first examine the evidence, and the claims made.
The claim is as follows: There were no domesticated camels in Abraham's time, therefore the use of camels in Genesis are, at best, an anachronism.
The evidence is that a camel graveyard was excavated at a copper mine and there were no camel bones found that demonstrated evidence of domestication outside of 930-900 BC.
So the evidence is pretty compelling. After all, if there had been domesticated camels then surely Israelites would have been using them for mining purposes prior to the time they were found. The lack of camel bones in earlier strata is a compelling testimony to the fact that there were no domesticated camels prior to the end of the 10th century BC. Or is that the case?
What evidence demonstrates is actually significantly more limited than the claim made. The evidence demonstrates that camels were not used for carrying copper prior to the time period investigated. Further the evidence indicates that camels, if they were domesticated, were not the common pack animals used during the time in question in that region of Israel. But, that is the extent of the claims that can be made in regards to the validity of camels in Scripture.
In other words, the evidence demonstrates that camels were being used for mining purposes by the end of the 10th century BC. It does not demonstrate that there were no uses of domesticated camels in other areas or for other purposes prior to the 10th century BC. The argument that the lack of domesticated camels being used for mining prior to this period demonstrates that there were no domesticated camels is, at best, a very large leap in logic.
Other evidence gives a strong reason to believe camels were, in fact, domesticated prior to the 10th century BC. For a brief look at the other evidence here's another article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/february-web-only/latest-challenge-bible-accuracy-abraham-anachronistic-camel.html
Monday, February 17, 2014
Arks and Archeaology
There is always something new being found by those who examine very old things. For instance, there is a news story out about a 4000 year old clay tablet that reveals the real story of Noah's Ark. A scholar by the name of Irving Finkel has deciphered a clay tablet that was handed to him some 20 years ago and contains in it a Babylonian story that talks about a great flood and gives instructions on building a large sea vessel that will be used to save humans and preserve the animals of the earth. The catch is that the bible got it wrong, the ark isn't a large rectangle object, rather it was a large circular boat of the type that was commonly used in Mesopotamia at that time. Of course, all of this is irrelevant, if, like Dr. Finkel, you believe the Ark never existed in the first place.
So, what should the Christian do with this story? Here we have a 4000 year old tablet, older than any extant manuscript of the Old Testament. Since we have such an old tablet it makes sense to assume that the tablet is the original version of the story and the biblical account is the later. Even the normal traditions and chronologies of when Genesis were written would support the likely hood of this tablet being older than the Genesis account we have passed down to us.
The traditional Christian and Jewish account of the Scripture says that Moses wrote Genesis. Even using the earliest assessment of when the Exodus happened would put the writing of Genesis in the 15th century B.C. However, this tablet is likely from the 18th century, thus hundreds of years before the birth of Moses, likely in the time of Abraham or Isaac.
The argument goes that this shows that Moses would have been inspired by the tales connected to this tablet. Certainly we can, at the least, say that this tablet was not influenced by the biblical version of the flood story (as in the account written in Genesis). Since Moses would have been influenced by this flood tradition this demonstrates that Moses, in writing Genesis, was simply pulling from the various creation and history legends from his own time. More realistically, the argument goes, the bible was written later, probably during the Babylonian captivity and so included an abbreviated version of the Babylonian flood narratives that had passed down over the generations and lost some of the details the earlier versions contained.
We see this loss of information as stories are handed down through generations on a regular basis. One doesn't have to be a scientist to test the process. For instance, think of the family stories you may have heard about how your Grand Mother and your Grand Father met. Think of the stories friends have told you about their lives. Most of the time we can probably re-tell the stories of others, but not with the same detail or in the same way the stories were told.
This loss of information in stories is actually most easily seen with stories many of us would think of as the most familiar stories we know, the folk tales and fairy tales we grew up with. For instance, most of us may know the basics of the story of Little Red Riding Hood, but how many of us know about the Huntsman cutting open the wolf's belly and placing stones inside so that the wolf died? And how many of us know that there is a second story about another time a wolf tried to trick Little Red Riding Hood, and about how that wolf was drowned? The fact is that most of the folk tales we know have multiple variations, and many are more detailed than the versions we have learned and remember.
The point is that this is the same argument used for how the bible came into being. Here we have an example of a Babylonian story that discusses a great flood, written on a tablet that preceded the bible we know of today (at least by a few hundred years). The most obvious way to think about these two stories is that the flood story in Genesis is a derivative of the flood story written on the tablet, or at least comes from the same tradition. Thus the Genesis story is not the original, or the true version of events, but is a late arrival on the scene.
But, is this is the only way to look at the two stories? Is there some other way to think about these two stories that does justice to logic and, at the same time, defends the biblical account of the flood?
One way we could interpret the evidence before us is that we have two different flood traditions, both deriving from one real event that happened prior to either of the two traditions being handed down in written form. Such a view would acknowledge that this tablet is older than the written words of Genesis, but it does not hold that the account in Genesis spawned from the tablet. Rather, what we would be acknowledging is that there was some real event (the flood) that lead to the people of the area writing down a version of the flood that made sense of the technology that they most commonly used. This flood tradition lost the accuracy of what really happened in the flood as people passed it down, replacing the events of history with modern versions of what they saw in their own time.
On the other hand the Genesis narrative, while being written later, was not based upon the traditions spawned from this tablet, but rather either relied on other written documents, which we do not have or know about, or was based on divine revelation from God. In other words it is possible that the Genesis account, though written later, is the more factually accurate of the two as it includes more factually accurate information that was lost in the tradition that the clay tablet derived from. The mere fact that the clay tablet is older than the extant manuscripts of Genesis that we have, and older than the tradition of Mosaic authorship would allow Genesis to be, does not mean that it is more accurate, or that Genesis derived from the same religious tradition as the clay tablet.
We can make no positive argument in either direction based solely upon the fact that the clay tablet is older. While normally we would assume that an older manuscript demonstrates a more reliable version of a story, this is not always the case. There are times when an older manuscript is less reliable than a newer one. In this case, the fact that there exists a clay tablet that supports a flood tradition that is similar but different to the bible's, and that this clay tablet is older than the biblical text we have, does not mean that it is necessarily the most accurate version. The only thing the tablet proves is that there existed a flood story 4000 years ago, and that there were written narratives that allowed the peoples of that time to pass on their traditions.
The Christian does not need to be concerned that this discovery is going to upset the bible or that it proves the bible simply copied the stories of other cultures. Logic does not dictate that this is a strike to the bible in any way. We can rest assured that our faith stands on a solid bedrock, just as it did the day before this discovery became big news. The accuracy of the bible has been demonstrated by archaeological finds many times over. We should not be surprised if other cultures also had flood stories that existed before the bible was written (and that some of the details would be different from the biblical account), if we assume the accuracy of the biblical text in telling us that there was a world wide flood.
So, what should the Christian do with this story? Here we have a 4000 year old tablet, older than any extant manuscript of the Old Testament. Since we have such an old tablet it makes sense to assume that the tablet is the original version of the story and the biblical account is the later. Even the normal traditions and chronologies of when Genesis were written would support the likely hood of this tablet being older than the Genesis account we have passed down to us.
The traditional Christian and Jewish account of the Scripture says that Moses wrote Genesis. Even using the earliest assessment of when the Exodus happened would put the writing of Genesis in the 15th century B.C. However, this tablet is likely from the 18th century, thus hundreds of years before the birth of Moses, likely in the time of Abraham or Isaac.
The argument goes that this shows that Moses would have been inspired by the tales connected to this tablet. Certainly we can, at the least, say that this tablet was not influenced by the biblical version of the flood story (as in the account written in Genesis). Since Moses would have been influenced by this flood tradition this demonstrates that Moses, in writing Genesis, was simply pulling from the various creation and history legends from his own time. More realistically, the argument goes, the bible was written later, probably during the Babylonian captivity and so included an abbreviated version of the Babylonian flood narratives that had passed down over the generations and lost some of the details the earlier versions contained.
We see this loss of information as stories are handed down through generations on a regular basis. One doesn't have to be a scientist to test the process. For instance, think of the family stories you may have heard about how your Grand Mother and your Grand Father met. Think of the stories friends have told you about their lives. Most of the time we can probably re-tell the stories of others, but not with the same detail or in the same way the stories were told.
This loss of information in stories is actually most easily seen with stories many of us would think of as the most familiar stories we know, the folk tales and fairy tales we grew up with. For instance, most of us may know the basics of the story of Little Red Riding Hood, but how many of us know about the Huntsman cutting open the wolf's belly and placing stones inside so that the wolf died? And how many of us know that there is a second story about another time a wolf tried to trick Little Red Riding Hood, and about how that wolf was drowned? The fact is that most of the folk tales we know have multiple variations, and many are more detailed than the versions we have learned and remember.
The point is that this is the same argument used for how the bible came into being. Here we have an example of a Babylonian story that discusses a great flood, written on a tablet that preceded the bible we know of today (at least by a few hundred years). The most obvious way to think about these two stories is that the flood story in Genesis is a derivative of the flood story written on the tablet, or at least comes from the same tradition. Thus the Genesis story is not the original, or the true version of events, but is a late arrival on the scene.
But, is this is the only way to look at the two stories? Is there some other way to think about these two stories that does justice to logic and, at the same time, defends the biblical account of the flood?
One way we could interpret the evidence before us is that we have two different flood traditions, both deriving from one real event that happened prior to either of the two traditions being handed down in written form. Such a view would acknowledge that this tablet is older than the written words of Genesis, but it does not hold that the account in Genesis spawned from the tablet. Rather, what we would be acknowledging is that there was some real event (the flood) that lead to the people of the area writing down a version of the flood that made sense of the technology that they most commonly used. This flood tradition lost the accuracy of what really happened in the flood as people passed it down, replacing the events of history with modern versions of what they saw in their own time.
On the other hand the Genesis narrative, while being written later, was not based upon the traditions spawned from this tablet, but rather either relied on other written documents, which we do not have or know about, or was based on divine revelation from God. In other words it is possible that the Genesis account, though written later, is the more factually accurate of the two as it includes more factually accurate information that was lost in the tradition that the clay tablet derived from. The mere fact that the clay tablet is older than the extant manuscripts of Genesis that we have, and older than the tradition of Mosaic authorship would allow Genesis to be, does not mean that it is more accurate, or that Genesis derived from the same religious tradition as the clay tablet.
We can make no positive argument in either direction based solely upon the fact that the clay tablet is older. While normally we would assume that an older manuscript demonstrates a more reliable version of a story, this is not always the case. There are times when an older manuscript is less reliable than a newer one. In this case, the fact that there exists a clay tablet that supports a flood tradition that is similar but different to the bible's, and that this clay tablet is older than the biblical text we have, does not mean that it is necessarily the most accurate version. The only thing the tablet proves is that there existed a flood story 4000 years ago, and that there were written narratives that allowed the peoples of that time to pass on their traditions.
The Christian does not need to be concerned that this discovery is going to upset the bible or that it proves the bible simply copied the stories of other cultures. Logic does not dictate that this is a strike to the bible in any way. We can rest assured that our faith stands on a solid bedrock, just as it did the day before this discovery became big news. The accuracy of the bible has been demonstrated by archaeological finds many times over. We should not be surprised if other cultures also had flood stories that existed before the bible was written (and that some of the details would be different from the biblical account), if we assume the accuracy of the biblical text in telling us that there was a world wide flood.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
What is the Gospel?
Apologetics is the reasonable defense of the faith. But this raises an immediate question: what is the faith? That is to say, what are we saying is worth defending? Thus the necessity of explanation prior to defense.
Faith is more than mere intellectual assent, but at the same time there must be something we are affirming our faith in. Thus there must be an intellectual assent to some certain propositions as part of our faith. It is the specific propositions of Christianity that separate the Christian faith from other faiths. If we are not able to express or explain the tenets of the faith in a logical way, then we are not able to accurately pass on the faith. However, the assumption of Scripture is that the propositions of Christianity are able to be logically understood and communicated via language.
The fact that Christianity has certain propositions that separate it from other religions also informs us that there are different levels of necessity in our propositions. There are those propositions which may be affirmed by multiple religions. For instance, the idea that there is only one God is a proposition that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other monotheistic religions would hold to. But there are also those propositions that define a religion as separate from others. And there are those propositions within a religion that separate groups within that religion.
Within Christianity we may affirm there are at least three levels of propositions. There are primary tenets of the faith which define Christianity and which denial of would mean a person is not a Christian. Then there are the secondary tenets of the faith which separate groups within Christianity. Disagreement on a secondary position would not mean someone is not a Christian, but would create significant difficulties in communal worship. After these two groups are the less important tenets-- the tertiary tenets-- where disagreement would not prevent communal worship and would certainly not rise to the point of causing a split from Christianity.
So, what would a tertiary tenet of the faith be? My favorite example is questions over the millennium. Whether one is an amillennial or a post-millennial should not affect the ability of two Christians to worship together. Likewise being a dispensationalist or a historical pre-millennialist. These positions are all minor disputes on one area of doctrine. The only time a disagreement over the millennium should affect communal worship would be when one puts too much emphasis on the millennium and makes it a central tenet, which would be an unhealthy understanding of the faith.
An example of a secondary tenet would be questions over who should be baptized. For instance the Presbyterian church argues that, due to their understanding of the Abrahamic covenant, believers and their children should all be baptized. However, Baptists argue that only believers should be baptized. Because of the disagreement over baptism between these two groups, worshiping together would be very problematic. The Baptists would argue that the Presbyterians have non-Christians as members of the church, and the Presbyterians would argue that Baptists are improperly restricting certain people from participation in the covenant.
So, what's the point of all this? Having come to the conclusion that there are certain propositions within the Christian faith that must be affirmed, it is also these positions that are worthy of our first consideration when we discuss defending the faith. It is the necessary propositions of the faith that make up the Gospel of Christ. Without affirming these propositions one cannot be a Christian, yet merely affirming these positions also does not make one a Christian. These propositions are the intellectual bedrock of the Christian faith, the foundation upon which the faith is built.
So, what is the Gospel? At the bare minimum the Gospel is this: All men commit evil acts (sin) and are thus condemned before a totally perfect and holy God. Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, is the only begotten Son of God, who was crucified and died, and was raised to life again. Anyone who has faith in Christ will have his sins forgiven and will receive eternal life as a gift from God. In these few sentences we have the six following propositions that separate Christianity from all other faiths (some of these may be held by other faiths, but taken together they are unique to Christianity):
1) God is holy and requires holiness of all those who would come into his presence.
2) All men are sinners, and are thus unholy, and therefore condemned by God.
3) Jesus is the Son of God
4) Jesus died on the cross in order to justify sinners before God.
5) Jesus was raised from the dead in order to provide life to those who believe in him.
6) All those who believe in Jesus are thus made right with God and forgiven their sins, and thus granted eternal life.
Of the above propositions we can demonstrate the following: All men commit evil acts; there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified under Pontius Pilate; the same Jesus who was crucified was claimed to be resurrected by his followers. The arguments for God's holiness, man's condemnation, and the forgiveness of sins are arguments of faith that are made from Scripture. Thus these are not propositions that can be proven or defended from either history or observation. This is the limit of apologetics.
Faith is more than mere intellectual assent, but at the same time there must be something we are affirming our faith in. Thus there must be an intellectual assent to some certain propositions as part of our faith. It is the specific propositions of Christianity that separate the Christian faith from other faiths. If we are not able to express or explain the tenets of the faith in a logical way, then we are not able to accurately pass on the faith. However, the assumption of Scripture is that the propositions of Christianity are able to be logically understood and communicated via language.
The fact that Christianity has certain propositions that separate it from other religions also informs us that there are different levels of necessity in our propositions. There are those propositions which may be affirmed by multiple religions. For instance, the idea that there is only one God is a proposition that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other monotheistic religions would hold to. But there are also those propositions that define a religion as separate from others. And there are those propositions within a religion that separate groups within that religion.
Within Christianity we may affirm there are at least three levels of propositions. There are primary tenets of the faith which define Christianity and which denial of would mean a person is not a Christian. Then there are the secondary tenets of the faith which separate groups within Christianity. Disagreement on a secondary position would not mean someone is not a Christian, but would create significant difficulties in communal worship. After these two groups are the less important tenets-- the tertiary tenets-- where disagreement would not prevent communal worship and would certainly not rise to the point of causing a split from Christianity.
So, what would a tertiary tenet of the faith be? My favorite example is questions over the millennium. Whether one is an amillennial or a post-millennial should not affect the ability of two Christians to worship together. Likewise being a dispensationalist or a historical pre-millennialist. These positions are all minor disputes on one area of doctrine. The only time a disagreement over the millennium should affect communal worship would be when one puts too much emphasis on the millennium and makes it a central tenet, which would be an unhealthy understanding of the faith.
An example of a secondary tenet would be questions over who should be baptized. For instance the Presbyterian church argues that, due to their understanding of the Abrahamic covenant, believers and their children should all be baptized. However, Baptists argue that only believers should be baptized. Because of the disagreement over baptism between these two groups, worshiping together would be very problematic. The Baptists would argue that the Presbyterians have non-Christians as members of the church, and the Presbyterians would argue that Baptists are improperly restricting certain people from participation in the covenant.
So, what's the point of all this? Having come to the conclusion that there are certain propositions within the Christian faith that must be affirmed, it is also these positions that are worthy of our first consideration when we discuss defending the faith. It is the necessary propositions of the faith that make up the Gospel of Christ. Without affirming these propositions one cannot be a Christian, yet merely affirming these positions also does not make one a Christian. These propositions are the intellectual bedrock of the Christian faith, the foundation upon which the faith is built.
So, what is the Gospel? At the bare minimum the Gospel is this: All men commit evil acts (sin) and are thus condemned before a totally perfect and holy God. Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, is the only begotten Son of God, who was crucified and died, and was raised to life again. Anyone who has faith in Christ will have his sins forgiven and will receive eternal life as a gift from God. In these few sentences we have the six following propositions that separate Christianity from all other faiths (some of these may be held by other faiths, but taken together they are unique to Christianity):
1) God is holy and requires holiness of all those who would come into his presence.
2) All men are sinners, and are thus unholy, and therefore condemned by God.
3) Jesus is the Son of God
4) Jesus died on the cross in order to justify sinners before God.
5) Jesus was raised from the dead in order to provide life to those who believe in him.
6) All those who believe in Jesus are thus made right with God and forgiven their sins, and thus granted eternal life.
Of the above propositions we can demonstrate the following: All men commit evil acts; there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified under Pontius Pilate; the same Jesus who was crucified was claimed to be resurrected by his followers. The arguments for God's holiness, man's condemnation, and the forgiveness of sins are arguments of faith that are made from Scripture. Thus these are not propositions that can be proven or defended from either history or observation. This is the limit of apologetics.
Friday, December 27, 2013
What is due
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." With these words Moses began the greatest story-- in fact the only original story-- in all creation. The existence and reality of God is assumed from the first sentence of scripture. Likewise, the editors who arranged the New Testament put the letter to the Romans at the beginning of the epistles. There we read Paul say, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." Again, the existence of God is seen as a self-evident reality, one which is plain to all and has been made evident through creation.
So why have we within Christianity spent so much time, so much ink, and so much money, attempting to prove and defend what God says is a self-evident truth? Why do we invest in the intellectual pursuit of defending what God says about himself if his revelation is indisputable? First of all, because there are aspects of God's revelation that must be explained, taught, and defended; secondly, because we are commanded to invest ourselves in this great task. Thus, for the sake of obedience and the joy of logic, these are my apologies.
In accord with Stephen (Acts 7), Paul (Acts 22; 24; 25), and Peter (1 Peter 3), I have decided to here lay out my defense for what I believe. In Deuteronomy 6 God commanded Moses to pass certain rules on to the Israelites. In accord with the command of God and following the example of the saints of old, I am placing here my explanation of the statutes that I have received. And this first post is my first apology, my reason for posting at all.
Many have written before me in words more eloquent than I can muster. Many have written more convincingly than I am learned to write. Many have been wiser, smarter, older, more faithful, and of truer character than my own. Yet, in spite of all that I lack, I have no defense for not laying out a defense. So please, understand that in all I may lack I hope my earnest conviction will be of use for the faith.
I will not undertake to explain everything, for certainly no man is master of all knowledge and sufficient to the task of explaining all things. Yet, the example of Paul was that we should become all things to all men in the hopes of winning some. So that is my hope. That in laying out my defense, in presenting what I hold to be true, there may be some who will be convinced of the accuracy of that which has been handed to me. And perhaps there will be some who will be strengthened and so persevere in the midst of doubts and turmoil of their own.
What God may do with what is here is entirely up to him, and at the end of things my hope is only that this may be of some service to my master. If it is his delight, then it will be so. But this is written first in obedience to what I hold my faith commands. It is not written first to anyone person or any group of people. It must, of necessity, be in conversation with some, for one cannot present an apology without an accusation. In court there must be a prosecution in order for there to need be a defense. Yet in all things it will be deemed a success if this has pleased my Lord.
So this is my defense. A defense laid out in response to the command and joy of presenting such a defense. A defense laid out of necessity to those who would make an accusation against the faith I hold as true. A defense written first of all, not to men, but to the honor and glory of God. A defense written in full recognition of the limits of my ability to present any defense at all.
So why have we within Christianity spent so much time, so much ink, and so much money, attempting to prove and defend what God says is a self-evident truth? Why do we invest in the intellectual pursuit of defending what God says about himself if his revelation is indisputable? First of all, because there are aspects of God's revelation that must be explained, taught, and defended; secondly, because we are commanded to invest ourselves in this great task. Thus, for the sake of obedience and the joy of logic, these are my apologies.
In accord with Stephen (Acts 7), Paul (Acts 22; 24; 25), and Peter (1 Peter 3), I have decided to here lay out my defense for what I believe. In Deuteronomy 6 God commanded Moses to pass certain rules on to the Israelites. In accord with the command of God and following the example of the saints of old, I am placing here my explanation of the statutes that I have received. And this first post is my first apology, my reason for posting at all.
Many have written before me in words more eloquent than I can muster. Many have written more convincingly than I am learned to write. Many have been wiser, smarter, older, more faithful, and of truer character than my own. Yet, in spite of all that I lack, I have no defense for not laying out a defense. So please, understand that in all I may lack I hope my earnest conviction will be of use for the faith.
I will not undertake to explain everything, for certainly no man is master of all knowledge and sufficient to the task of explaining all things. Yet, the example of Paul was that we should become all things to all men in the hopes of winning some. So that is my hope. That in laying out my defense, in presenting what I hold to be true, there may be some who will be convinced of the accuracy of that which has been handed to me. And perhaps there will be some who will be strengthened and so persevere in the midst of doubts and turmoil of their own.
What God may do with what is here is entirely up to him, and at the end of things my hope is only that this may be of some service to my master. If it is his delight, then it will be so. But this is written first in obedience to what I hold my faith commands. It is not written first to anyone person or any group of people. It must, of necessity, be in conversation with some, for one cannot present an apology without an accusation. In court there must be a prosecution in order for there to need be a defense. Yet in all things it will be deemed a success if this has pleased my Lord.
So this is my defense. A defense laid out in response to the command and joy of presenting such a defense. A defense laid out of necessity to those who would make an accusation against the faith I hold as true. A defense written first of all, not to men, but to the honor and glory of God. A defense written in full recognition of the limits of my ability to present any defense at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)