Here's one I've seen too many times. "No one can seem to agree what the Bible means." Sure, sure, it's an understandable position. There are, after all, so many people with so many views and so many denominations and all. Well, obviously no one can agree on what the Bible means. On the other hand, that's a clear fabrication, a mishandling of the truth. If you were to pick up all the genuinely Christian people and put them in a room and ask them to write down a basic construct of what the Bible teaches, I bet you'd get vast consensus. I bet you'd find that they all agree that humans are sinners, that Christ, God Incarnate, came to Earth to live a sinless life and die in the place of sinful humans. They would all agree that He was born of a virgin, did many miracles during His time on Earth, and, after being crucified, literally rose again. They would all agree that the Church is the visible representation of Christ, that Christians are commissioned to spread the Gospel, that the Bible is the Word of God. Oh, you'd find huge agreement among genuine believers. Now, if you were to ask them about details -- non-essentials -- I'm sure you'd find a variety of viewpoints. But that's not what the argument states. The argument states that "No one can seem to agree what the Bible means." It may be true that no one can seem to agree 100% with everyone else about what the Bible means. That's not the same thing. That's not even close. And I'm sure it's true that genuine Christians can't agree with non-believers about what the Bible means, but no one should be surprised about that, right?
Some of the more disheartening ones try to sound erudite by going deeper. This one I've heard more than once: "Many people believe that Mary was a virgin, while just as many others state the specific word was mistranslated and it should have read 'a young woman'." Sigh. It is absolutely clear from this argument that the person didn't read the text involved. First, no one but the skeptic would suggest that the Mary of the New Testament who is listed as Jesus's mother is portrayed in the New Testament as anything but a virgin before the birth of Jesus. It is unavoidable. The text in question says:
26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" 35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy -- the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God" (Luke 1:26-37).Now, it is true that the word translated "virgin" in verses 26-27 might be translated "young maiden". The term is used to refer to an unmarried woman, much like we used to use the terms "miss" to mean an unmarried woman and "missus" to mean a married woman. (Quick trivia: Did you know that the abbreviation "Mrs." for a married woman is actually for "Mistress"? Back in the day, the wife was the Mistress of the house. "Missus" is a contraction of "Mistress".) Of course, in that culture an unmarried woman was a virgin (or in deep trouble). But let's just concede that she could just be a "young maiden". Reading on, however, eliminates the question. When the angel tells her she will have a child, she is completely baffled. "How will this be?" Now, again, the actual translation of what it was that had her baffled is more at "I have not known a man", but there can be no doubt what was troubling her. She knew that she had not done what was necessary to have a baby. She knew that she was a virgin. If she was merely a "young maiden" who had been "fooling around", there wouldn't have been any reason to be confused. There would have been no question about "How can this be?" Could the text be translated "young maiden" rather than "virgin"? Sure, I suppose, but the text still makes it painfully, unavoidably clear that Mary was a virgin before Jesus was born. If she wasn't, the entire situation (including Joseph's reaction in Matthew) would have made no sense at all. Argue about terminology if you want, but no one can sincerely doubt that the text intends to say that Mary was a virgin, regardless of the words you use.
On a less biblical topic but just as near and dear to the Christian heart, I've seen this one so many times it hurts. "People who are pro-life seem to only be pro-life when it comes to unborn babies. Many of these same people are pro-war and pro-death penalty. They seem to value life only when it has yet to be lived and not while it is being lived." I personally have yet to meet a person who is "pro-war". I supposes they're out there ... but if they are, they're "out there" mentally. They're not "pro-life" by any means. But, for me to assume that's all that was meant isn't fair. No, look at the merits of the argument all by itself. First, it already assumes that the unborn are babies. The argument from this side always seems to be "So what?! Sure they're babies, but I prefer to consider the rights of the already-born mother than the unborn baby." In other words, they admit to not being pro-life, then complain because people who call themselves "pro-life" seem to fail to meet their criteria. But ... if you're already willing to kill babies, why would you not be willing to allow for war or the death penalty? I don't get it. It's okay to kill innocents, but to use force to stop aggression or to terminate a life of capital crime is bad. Who is mixed up? The argument doesn't make sense. Oh, and there is an answer to "Why do some who are pro-life allow for war" (they're not "pro-war) "and the death penalty?" In the cases of both unjust national aggression and capital crimes, innocent lives are being lost. (See the term "lives" there?) The idea is that in some cases war is necessary to stop unjust national aggression or capital crimes for the purpose of preventing further loss of life. It is, then, pro-life. And it is fundamentally different to protect the innocent as opposed to stopping the guilty.
When Christians run up that old, "NASA has a computer that proves Joshua's missing day", I want to cringe. Please, folks, throw that one away. It just hurts too bad to hear it. It makes no sense. And do you really need a NASA computer to prove it to you? And when skeptics throw out the same nonsense views, whether "erudite" or shallow, it just makes me sigh. We've been here before. Can't we put that tired, old thing to rest? It really isn't doing any good dragging it out of its grave and trotting it around as if it's actually real. Here's all I'm asking. Look at the things you say. Suspect that they might be old, outdated, perhaps even dead. Don't just assume that because you've heard it or it agrees with you that it's actually reasonable. Do some of your own thinking too, okay? Or, to put it in terms for Christians to use, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). You see? It's not just my recommendation. It's God's command, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment