Author Archives: spencer

The Bible as reliable history

Regions and states

By Spencer D Gear PhD

Does the Bible pass the test of being a reliable historical document? Can it be trusted in its statements about historical events? Is it presenting reliable history? Can we depend on it when cared with other documents of history?

What indices would ancient historians use to check the trustworthiness of any historical document – especially that from ancient history?

This is the type of analysis I encountered on a Christian forum by an atheist who challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Bible doesn’t pass the modern tests for historicity. Using those tests, the Bible is an unreliable witness at best. Faith is required to accept quite a few historical accounts in the Bible, for instance. The Bible’s focus is on the reason behind God’s actions far more than in the chronological accuracy of the raw narrative. It’s why God does certain things that lies in the message contained in the Bible. Biblical scholars know, for instance, that the synoptic gospels are not always chronologically accurate – that the order of certain events has been altered to more clearly express the message contained in that narrative. Little serious argument exists that such events didn’t happen at all, only that they don’t always occur in the order presented, and that is just one way the Bible fails to meet modern historicity standards. It’s much more about faith and God’s message, and how best to present that message with the greatest clarity and continuity. Absolute historical accuracy takes a back seat to that.[1]

When asked about the kinds of events to which he was referring, he clarified:

No, I wasn’t referring to miraculous events, only strictly historical nuts and bolt events like when the Israelites left Egypt, or the existence of Abraham and all the other characters in the Biblical narrative, as well as Jesus, being real a individual and not [one of the ancients] myths, etc..

Things such as the walled city of David actually were built and were destroyed. In other words, the basic stuff of history that any good history book would cover. With regard to events such as the mass murder of the Canaanites by the forces under Joshua, those glorified stories are more embellished stories to make a point. The chronology isn’t faithful to actual events, since recently unearthed archeological evidence in Israel tells a somewhat different story (the Israelites were originally Canaanites themselves, for instance).[2]

Assertions are not evidence

Bible open vector image (Bible, public domain vectors)

My response was:[3]

Those are your assertions and you do not provide sourced historical evidence to support your allegations.

Dr K A Kitchen, Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics, and Oriental Studies, University of Liverpool, England, refutes your perspective BIG TIME in his carefully documented 662pp publication, On the Reliability of the Old Testament 2003. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

What was Kitchen’s assessment of the Bible’s dependability, based on his discipline as an Egyptologist and archaeologist? After examining the evidence from the Hebrew Bible in the light of historical information available from Near Eastern antiquity, he concluded his investigation with this summary:

It is time to return to the questions posed at the beginning of this book: whether or not the existing Old Testament writings were composed (and their contents originated) entirely within the brief and late period of circa 400-200 B.C., or whether or not their contents are pure fiction, unrelated to the world of the Near East in circa 2000-400 B.C.

To pursue such questions, the only practical method of inquiry was to go back to those ancient times and compare the data in the Hebrew Bible with what we have from its putative world. Merely theorizing in one’s head can achieve nothing. Looking back, we do have some definite results. On the independent evidence from antiquity itself, we may safely deliver a firm “No” to both questions posed above. Namely, the Old Testament books and their contents did not exclusively originate as late as 400-200 B.C.; and they are by no means pure fiction – in fact, there is very little proven fiction in them overall.

He added:

What can be said of historical reliability? Here our answer – on the evidence available – is more positive. The periods most in the glare of contemporary documents – the divided monarchy and the exile and return – show a very high level of direct correlation (where adequate data exist) and of reliability. That fact should be graciously accepted by all, regardless of personal starting point, and with the firm exclusion of alien, hence irrelevant, modern “agendas.” When we go back (before ca. 1000) to periods when inscriptional mentions of a then-obscure tribal community and its antecedent families (and founding family) simply cannot be expected a priori, then chronologically typological comparisons of the biblical and external phenomena show clearly that the Hebrew founders bear the marks of reality and of a definite period. The same applies to the Hebrews’ exodus from Egypt and appearance in Canaan, with one clear mention, of course (Israel on the stela of Merenptah). The Sinai covenant (all three versions, Deuteronomy included) has to have originated within a close-set period (1400-1200) – likewise other features. The phenomena of the united monarchy fit well into what we know of the period and of ancient royal usages. The primeval protohistory embodies early popular tradition going very far back, and is set in an early format. Thus we have consistent level of good, fact-based correlations right through from circa 2000 B.C. (with earlier roots) down to 400 B.C. In terms of general reliability – and much more could have been instanced than there was room for here – the Old Testament comes out remarkably well, so long as its writings and writers are treated fairly and evenhandedly, in line with independent data, open to all (Kitchen 2003:499-500).

Another Old Testament scholar, Dr Walter C. Kaiser Jr, has provided a lesser summary of the evidence to positively answer the title of his book: The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? Downers Grove, Illinois/Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press 2001.

The atheist seemed to be pushing an anti-biblical reliability agenda. Here I have provided samples of evidence, from the writings of Kitchen and Kaiser, that contradict the view the atheist promoted.

George, the atheist, did come back with more responses at #135, #136, #137 which I did not answer. Here his replies are. They deserve a comprehensive response, for which I did not have the time to respond when he made the posts.

>>Who said? Which historical scholars are promoting that perspective?<<

I would think, probably most do. A few points here would be illustrative:

1. The stories about the promise given to the patriarchs in Genesis, for example, are not historical, nor do they intend to be historical; they are rather historically determined expressions about Israel and Israel’s relationship to its God, given in forms legitimate to their time, and their truth lies not in their facticity, nor in the historicity, but their ability to express the reality that Israel experienced.” Thompson, Thomas (2002) [1974]. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International.

2. The historicity of Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory, to mention another example, has been thoroughly “dethroned” by modern Geology. No single flood ever simultaneously covered the entire earth. If one did, there would be ample evidence of it in the buried strata, and the is exactly nothing in the geological record to support a world wide flood event. One would have to dismiss science in it’s entirety to believe the Biblical account, and no responsible scientist accepts the diluvian theory today. Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996) [1951]. Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

3. The earth is billions of years old, not around 6,000. Human beings have existed in our present form for over 25,000 years alone.

[That’s a straw man argument as I have never stated that is my position.]

4. Modern archeology overturns the book of Joshua in its account of a rapid, destructive conquest of the Canaanite cities, since “by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period.”

The most high profile example, in fact, would be the “fall of Jericho.” Thomas A. Holland (1997). “Jericho”. In Eric M. Meyers. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Oxford University Press. pp. 220–224.

[NOTE: This view about the conquest of Jericho not being factual is refuted in Geisler & Howe, When Critics Ask, pp 136-137]

5. Finally, we can determine more about the accuracy of the Bible in terms of its historicity by examining other sources and analytical tools made available starting less than 2 centuries ago, including but not limited to:

Other Near Eastern texts, documents and inscriptions
The material remains recovered throughout the Near East by archaeological excavation, analysed by ever more sophisticated technical and statistical apparatus
Historical geography, demography, soil science, technology studies, and comparative linguistics

George wrote: In historical geography, the preeminent book in English is Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006).

Anthropological and sociological modelling
Non-canonical texts

Let me make things simple here. I know you don’t believe the above, and I’d be wasting my breath trying to convince you of it, which is why I’m not making any effort to do that here. All I did was try to answer your question as briefly as possible. The number of scholars “advancing” this kind of Biblical historicity analysis are too many to list here, I’m sure, but I really don’t want to get into an argument with you about this, that, or the above, OK?[4]

And again:

>>George, you do seem to be pushing an anti-biblical reliability agenda. Here I have provided samples of evidence, from the writings of Kitchen and Kaiser, that contradict the view you are promoting. <<

I’m not “pushing” anything, so I would appreciate it if you would quit trying to mischaracterize my intentions as some “anti-biblical agenda,” which you seem to have a rather presumptive way of doing. I provided references for the sources of my most recent response to you, with considerable effort, so you can go ahead and dismiss them if you think you can, and politely quit trying to call them “my assertions.” I accept them, of course, and I also know, as a Biblical literalist, that you do not. Let’s leave it at that, OK?[5]

And finally, George makes another attempt to debunk Christianity, while giving it a nod of the hat, saying of the OT that ‘a great deal of it is true’; it was not ‘a work of pure fiction’, but it does not immediately pass ‘the modern test for historicity’.

>>Dr K A Kitchen, Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archeology, Classics, and Oriental Studies, University of Liverpool, England, refutes your perspective BIG TIME<<

Not even close. You might want to consider reading my responses more carefully, instead of scanning them dismissively as if they don’t “rate” your undivided attention. That’s because the article you quoted from agrees completely with the line of reasoning I’m representing in my posts. I never said the OT was a work of pure fiction. That’s preposterous. A great deal of it is true. In fact, I’d say, as a single body of work, it bears a very high correlation with actual events that occurred over it’s (sic) historical time span (even if minor errors appear concerning exact chronology, of course).

That doesn’t mean the Bible suddenly passes the modern test for historicity though. It contains, however few or relatively minor, errors – a few of them glaring., and here’s the thing: There’s no real argument among scholars concerning Biblical inaccuracies about certain events and physical facts so easily checked against contemporary archaeological evidence from that period we now have at our disposal which we didn’t have before. Furthermore, there are a determinate number of interpolations in certain scriptures which no modern technically accurate historical document should have.

Please refer to my recent post for a more detailed analysis.[6]

Note his generalities, without specific examples, of:

Biblical inaccuracies about certain events and physical facts;
A determinate number of interpolations in some Scriptures which no accurate historical document should have.

This is a pathetic attempt to debunk Scripture without being explicit.

The Bible passes the test of reliability, using the tests any ancient historian uses. Some historians call them indices while others call them criteria.

See my articles that investigate this topic:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

Secular assaults on the Bible: The inerrant Bible battles

Bible bigotry from an arrogant skeptic

The Bible: fairy tale or history?

Conclusion

George pushed his non-reliability of the Bible while I provided links to evidence of its reliability. I discuss some of the indices for historical reliability in my article, Evidence for the afterlife.

For those with open minds to the evidence, the Bible can be put to the test of any historical document and found to be reliable in what it states in both Old and New Testaments. That reliability applies to all that is in the Bible, not just to historical narratives.

Notes:

[1] George#87, Christian Fellowship Forum, ‘The decline in the Gospel’, August 19 2015. Available at: http://christianfellowshipforum.com/ (Accessed 12 September 2015). When I checked this link on 5 August 2019 the forum had been closed.

[2] Ibid., George#89.

[3] Ibid., ozspen#131.

[4] Ibid., George#135, 12 September 2015.

[5] Ibid., George#136, 12 September 2015.

[6] Ibid., George#137,12 September 2015.

Works consulted:

Geisler, N & Howe, T 1992. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Kaiser Jr., W C 2001. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Kitchen, K A 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Why I am not a theologically liberal person

By Spencer D Gear PhD

This article was published in On Line Opinion, 20 September 2021, Why I am not a theologically liberal person.

I have deliberately avoided using the sentence: “Why I am not a theologically liberal Christian” as I consider liberals have repudiated any sense of Christianity. John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar and a supporter of postmodern deconstruction stated: “In discussing the crucifixion, I argued that the story of Jesus’ burial by his friends was totally unhistorical. If he was buried at all, he was buried not by his friends but by his enemies. And not in a tomb hewed out of stone, but in a shallow grave that would have made his body easy prey for scavenging animals.”

What a disgusting way to speak of the death of the Saviour for the sins of the world. It is totally disrespectful and uncouth.

This is an example of theological liberalism in action. Crossan has added to the text, defining Jesus’ resurrection as “an apparition” (i.e. a ghost or phantom).

Jesus’ resurrection

When I was living in Bundaberg, Rev. David Kidd was the Uniting Church minister who wrote at Easter time 1999 in The Bugle, Bundaberg, Qld, Australia, a local freebie newspaper that was titled, “The Resurrection of Jesus.” In it, he stated: ‘The resurrection of Jesus. It’s impossible. Even our brain dies after a few minutes of death. It’s just not possible’.

This is a characteristic example of what a person’s theological liberalism does to the Bible, by denying the supernatural and imposing a naturalistic, individualistic interpretation on the text. It is called eisegesis – imposing one’s own meaning on the text instead of allowing the text to speak for itself and for meaning to be obtained from the words of the text.

He did not get that view from the Bible. It was out of the mind and theological liberalism of David Kidd.

I would break the rules of grammar and syntax

For me to follow the examples above, I would discard the rules of grammar and syntax I use everyday for the reading of the Brisbane Courier-Mail. I would not go to the Bible for a literal understanding of its content.

Grammar is “the set of rules that explain how words are used in a language” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2021. “grammar.”) Syntax is “the way in which linguistic elements (such as words) are put together to form constituents (such as phrases or clauses)” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2021. “syntax”).

I would be ashamed of the Bible’s literal content.

To be a theological liberal, I would be ashamed of the literal interpretation of the Bible. I would be classified as a “fundamentalist” who would be scoffed at. I’m not afraid of the term “fundamentalist” but when it is used in a pejorative way, it comes loaded with the author’s presuppositions against Bible-believing Christians and the Gospel they share.

I would be accepting heresies.

In NT Greek, the term from which we get ‘heresy’ is hairesis. Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon (1957:23) states that hairesis means ‘sect, party, school’. It was used of the Sadduccees in Acts 5:17; of the Pharisees in Acts 15:5, of the Christians in Acts 24:5. It is used of a heretical sect or those with destructive opinions in 2 Peter 2:1 (‘destructive heresies’ ESV).

The research article on hairesis by Schlier (in Kittel, vol. 1) states that its ‘usage in Acts corresponds exactly to that of Josephus and the earlier Rabbis’ but the development of the Christian sense of heresy does not parallel this Rabbinic use.

When the NT ekklesia (church) came into being, there was no place for hairesis. They were opposed to each other. This author states that ‘the greater seriousness consists in the fact that hairesis affect the foundation of the church in doctrine (2 Pt. 2:1), and that they do so in such a fundamental way as to give rise to a new society alongside the ekklesia’ (Schlier).

Surely that is what we see in the Uniting Church today in Australia (UCA) with its support of theological liberalism’s unbiblical doctrines and most recently endorsing homosexual marriages conducted by its clergy in its churches?

From the NT, heresy also is used to mean what Paul called strange doctrines, different doctrine, doctrines of demons, every wind of doctrine, etc. (1 Tim 1:3; 4:1; 6:3; Eph 4:14), as contrasted with sound doctrine, our doctrine, the doctrine conforming to godliness, the doctrine of God, etc. (1 Timothy 4:6; 6:1,3; 2 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 10).

Therefore, the UCA, in supporting same-sex marriage and the anti-supernaturalism of theological liberalism promotes heresy. This heretical poison will destroy the potential of any church or denomination for growth. According to the Christian Research Association, the UCA lost 31% of its attendance from 1996-2006.

Heresy kills denominations. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, heresy is the “belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.” A second definition is: “Opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted” (Oxford English Dictionary 2021. “heresy.”)

Sucked in by a secular agenda.

The major secular agenda today is the acceptance of homosexuality in society and in the church. This is not God’s view but that of a non-Christian perspective.

Dr. Norman Geisler in his chapter on ‘Liberalism on the Bible’ demonstrated how the rise of modern anti-supernatural liberalism had its roots as far back as Thomas Hobbes and Benedict Spinoza in the 17th century. He lays bare how liberalism’s view of Scripture includes:

An anti-supernatural basis of the liberal view of Scripture;
Cultural accommodation is necessary;
Negative criticism of Scripture;
The Bible is not the Word of God;
The Bible is fallible and errant;
The origin of Scripture is not by divine inspiration;
Sola Scriptura (the Bible is the only written and infallible authority for faith) is rejected.
The Bible contains contradictions, including scientific errors;
There is immorality in the Old Testament;
Human reason is prominent in interpreting the Bible;
There is a strong emphasis on human experience.

While theological liberalism is broad in definition, it also can accommodate the postmodern, deconstruction, reader-response ideologies of the Jesus Seminar.

Theological liberals have a major difficulty with the supernatural, so the God who creates and intervenes in our world is taboo. You would not expect to find support for the Virgin Birth or the bodily resurrection of Jesus in theologically liberal churches.

Do you want to empty your churches?

I am not a theological liberal because I do not want to empty the church I attend. In Australia, these are some of the statistics:

Some Australian denominations are in rapid decline while others are growing. According to our calculations based on various surveys, between 1996 and 2006, the numbers attending on a typical Sunday in Australia declined in the following denominations:

-36% Presbyterians,

-31% Uniting Church,

-25% Lutheran,

-19% Catholic,

-12% Anglican, and

-1% Seventh-day Adventist.

“The Church of England is just ‘one generation away from extinction‘, (said) the former Archbishop of Canterbury” (Lord George Carey).

When John Shelby Spong was Bishop of the Episcopalian Church, Newark NJ, the Episcopalian Church lost 40,000 people. “His works infamously speculated that the Virgin Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier, that St. Paul was a self-hating homosexual, and that Jesus’ unresurrected body was torn asunder by wild dogs.”

That is a brief summary of why I am not a theological liberal.

Slamming Biblical Authority: On Line Opinion

The Honourable

Scott Morrison

Morrison in 2014

30th Prime Minister of Australia

Incumbent

By Spencer D Gear PhD

I wrote this article for On Line Opinion, “Have politics changed ScoMo’s Christianity?” in 2019.

Here are some of the comments that were posted:

Ttbn replied:

“Notice how he dodges the journalist’s questions”.
Morrison dodges questions on everything. He is the most secretive PM we have ever had. His happy clapping in the midst of a sweaty mob doesn’t make him a Christian either.
Anyone trying to analyse the man is doomed to failure: there is nothing there to latch onto. Morrison is a void.[1]

Alan B jumped in with his comment, part of which read:

No!
He like the Author is still welded to the Christian/ (Constantine) manifesto. And like the Author? Is able to cherry-pick from Contatine’s cherry-picked Dogma for convenience?
In the days when alleged Biblical text was written, some 350 years after the event? Many books were left out at the behest of Constantine and or, his hand-picked minions!
One needs to understand that it was once required of believers to believe that planet earth was just 6,000 years old, at the centre of the universe which revolved around it! And those who challenged such irrefutable sacred text could be excommunicated![2]

Alan B is inaccurate with his view of the biblical text being written 350 years after the event and Christians required to be Young Earth Creationists. See my articles:

How were the New Testament documents transmitted in the first century AD?

The New Yorker’s biased journalism on Jesus

A sympathetic Christian Not-Now-Soon responded:

If Christians were united on many of these issues then I agree that the standard should be shared by politicians claiming their faith to be Christian. Unfortunately, I’ve come across too many types of christians to hold a standard of what counts as Christian and what doesn’t. Some don’t believe in the bible, because of social preasure to call it outdated and an old book. Others don’t believe in miracles, the very works that God does that are above and beyond the natural element of the world. And many without a tradition, a church foundation, or a devote study to ground them, mix up popular ideas with their faith. Things like “God looks after those who look after themselves” instead of that “God looks after the poor, the sick, and the widowed.”
With such confusion in the ranks one question needs to be asked, what makes a person a Christian? Is it a base knowledge and understanding that is agreed with? Go past that line and reject some of that and you are no longer a Christian? Is it obedience to teachings and the laws? Is it faith in God and Jesus? I’m sure whatever answer to the question “what makes a Christian a Christian,” will overlap the three aspects above with faith, understanding, and obedience (behavior), all summing up a minimum for what it means to be a Christian.[3]

I think it is good for Christians to hold each other accountable in order to strengthen them in their faith. But I also know that kindness and understanding should be there too. Very few Christians can say they are great at understanding God’s direction, great at acting according to their faith, and great at having faith that is stronger then the difficulties and the opposition we face in life.
The trouble with ScoMo is probably the same trouble many Christians face. They believe but are not strong in their beliefs. They have faith but are not always confidant in that faith. Or they compromise their behaviors and do not follow the direction they know is right.
I know these are just a bunch of excuses for anyone regardless if they are a PM, or are anyone else, but excuses or not this is the situation we find ourselves in. Our weaknesses are easy to over power most of us.
OzSpen, from what you’ve shown in this article it seems ScoMo is along the same lines. He dodges some of those questions because he’s not strong in his Christian foundation to stand up to the opposition. A quality that unfortunately many of us share. If you can, pray for him. Even in light of his stumbling. If you can do more then that too, awesome. Encourage him when you can, and confront him when he’s in the wrong. But still pray for him even if you can do more also.[4]

“Ponder” raised a couple good questions for us to ponder:

Why the obsessive attention to a belief system?
Does Christianity relate to facts and truths, or is it just a fantasy of faith?
We have need in our society for governments to manage and oversee policy on our behalf, not to indulge in rhetorical persuasion.[5]

A brief reply

Ponder, an obsessive attention to a belief system is paid by Christians because our eternal destiny depends on our beliefs in the Trinitarian God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Scripture exhorts us: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes (continues to believe) in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16 NIV).

For the unbeliever and the person who does no good, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt 25:46).

The eternal destinies of human beings are determined in their belief or disbelief in Jesus, the Son of God. “Ponder” has treated the eternal destinies of human beings too lightly.

I wrote again to Not_Now_Soon,

Not_Now.Soon,
<<… from what you’ve shown in this article it seems ScoMo is along the same lines. He dodges some of those questions because he’s not strong in his Christian foundation to stand up to the opposition. A quality that unfortunately many of us share. If you can, pray for him. Even in light of his stumbling. >>
You’ve made a perceptive assessment. ScoMo, as our Aussie Christian Prime Minister, faces challenges similar to those of us in any workforce. Will we look at work and the rest of life through the lens of Scripture and make the necessary adjustments? Or, will we compromise our standards for the sake of popularity. It must be so much harder for a prominent Christian in the public arena.
I pray for ScoMo to keep strong under the pressure but I also call on him to be more overt in what he believes. Perhaps he’s not sure how he can be a public face for Christianity and not offend many in our multicultural society. It seems to me he needs a couple introductory courses in Christian apologetics.
Wouldn’t it be good to hear that he listens to podcasts by John Dickson, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel?[6]

To Ponder I wrote:

<<Why the obsessive attention to a belief system? Does Christianity relate to facts and truths, or is it just a fantasy of faith?>>
Out of your and my beliefs will flow actions. Christianity is based on facts & truths. The Apostle Paul made that clear:
‘If Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins’ (1 Corinthians 15:14-16).
Without the fact of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, preaching for Christ is useless, as is Christian faith.
That’s why it’s important to understand the faith of anyone, whether atheist, pantheist or theist. All such world views impact on what we do in life.[7]

There are more comments for you to address I this thread. I leave that for you to raise and then provide answers but here are a couple suggestions:

“Emeritus professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, Dr Paul L. Maier, concludes:

‘If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.’[8]

How would you refute this evidence?

“What my comment had to do with your article is that your trying to use the same peer pressuring ideology to force our PM into acting in accordance with religion.
It’s not his job to act in accordance to his religion.
In his personal private life yes, sure.
As our PM its his job to act in the citizens best interests, as well as his own, if he wants to get re-elected.”[9]

This statement violates the scriptural mandate, “So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31 NLT). For the Prime Minister, it comes under the umbrella of “whatever you do.”

Notes:

[1] Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 9:26:39 AM.

[2] Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 6 November 2019 9:50:01 AM.

[3] Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 1:04:06 PM.

[4] Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 1:06:19 PM

[5] Posted by Ponder, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 1:24:55 PM.

[6] Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 8:38:22 PM.

[7] Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 6 November 2019 8:48:27 PM.

[8] Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 7 November 2019 8:28:11 AM.

[9] Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 7 November 2019 7:09:45 PM.

Jesus, other gods, and culture

Petroglyphs in modern-day Gobustan, Azerbaijan, dating back to 10,000 BCE and indicating a thriving culture

(Courtesy Wikipedia, “Culture”)

By Spencer D Gear

A teenager asked this question: What is Christian culture? She attended a Christian school and this was one of her assignments.

My immediate response was: What is your understanding of the meaning of culture? There was uncertainty about what elements were included in culture.

Then pursued a discussion of how Jesus fits with all the other gods of other religions. I recommended Ravi Zacharias’s books that addressed these topics:

1. What is culture?

Oxford dictionaries online give these 3 definitions:

1.1 ‘Culture consists of activities such as the arts and philosophy . . .

which are considered to be important for the development of civilization and of people’s minds’ (Oxford Dictionaries Online 2018. s.v. cullture

e.g. ‘There is just not enough fun and frivolity in culture today’;
e.g. ‘aspects of popular culture’.

Synonyms include both the arts and the humanities.

1.2 A culture is a particular society or civilization . . .

especially considered in relation to its beliefs, way of life, or art.

e.g. ‘people from different cultures.’
e.g. ‘We live in a culture that is competitive’.

Synonyms include: civilization, society, way of life, lifestyle; customs, traditions, heritage, habits, ways, mores, values

1.3 ‘The culture of a particular organization or group . . .

consists of the habits of the people in it and the way they generally behave’.

e.g. ‘She comes from a Christian culture, so you’d expect her to oppose

abortion’.

My understanding is that culture consists of the beliefs (in all aspects of life) and way of life of any group.
A Christian culture may vary from denomination to denomination or particular church to another church. However, a Christian culture, based on Scripture, will have beliefs that influence all areas of life. It will speak in music and art, speak up when the Christian world view is attacked and provide a defence of that world view.
At the core of Christian culture, in my understanding, is:

the eternal, living, personal God who exists;

human beings are not created by chance; they are made in the image of God and so music, art, horse riding and gazing on the beauty of nature have meaning;

Because God has revealed himself through Scripture, God is not silent to all human beings and especially those who have the Spirit of God indwelling them;

Human beings are certain of human and moral values. They are absolutes;

We know the difference among fantasy, fairy tales, history and the reality of Jesus’ actions in the world.

why some human beings are Christians on earth; they are here to glorify God;

It is radically different from much of Australian culture which is godless (secular).[1]

All people live according to their world and life view. Australia’s culture currently is driven by a humanistic,[2] postmodern,[3] godless (secular) system of values.

2. Postmodernism’s influence

In simpler language, postmodernism (which we see in art, literature, religion and the mass media) promotes the view you do what is right for you – your own values; there are no absolute standards. Be creative in your interpretation.

2.1 Reader-response interpretation: Ignore literal meaning

Particularly in literature, the intent of the author is ignored. What is important is what I, the reader, do with the text. I interact with the text and place my meaning on it. This element of postmodernism deconstructs language to make it a reader-response to gain the meaning of any written narrative.

Dr Jeremy Koay explained reader-response this way:

The main argument of reader-response theory is that readers, as much as the text, play an active role in a reading experience (Rosenblatt, 1994). This theory rejects the structuralist view that meaning resides solely in the text. Words in a text evoke images in readers’ minds and readers bring their experiences to this encounter. Because individuals have different life experiences, it is almost certain that no two readers or reading sessions will form the exact same interpretation of a text. . . .

As there are as many interpretations of a text as there are readers, teachers should be more receptive to different responses from their students. Rather than focusing on the correct or wrong answers, it is worthwhile helping students explore their reasons for their interpretation of a text (Koay 2016).

Radical historical Jesus’ scholar, John Dominic Crossan, used reader-response theory to define history: ‘History is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse’ (Crossan 1998:20; 1999:3 emphasis in original).

For example,

Pluralism means we need to live among groups of minorities and let them function according to their values. If they don’t want to mix with us, let them be.

The late Francis Schaeffer wrote:

If there are no absolutes, and if we do not like either the chaos of hedonism or the absoluteness of the 51-percent vote, only one other alternative is left: one man or an elite, giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes . . . .
Here is a simple but profound rule: If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute (Schaeffer 1976:224).

Absolutes are rules, values, etc. that cannot change. They apply universally to everyone. When one of the 10 commandments was, ‘You shall not lie’, that is an absolute of God’s values for all believers.

2.2 Example of postmodern, reader-response interpretation of the Bible[4]

Professor of English, Lois Tyson, wrote of the two beliefs shared by reader-response theorists: ‘(1) that the role of the reader cannot be omitted from our understanding of literature and (2) that readers do not passively consume the meaning presented to them by an objective literary text; rather they actively make the meaning they find in literature’ (Tyson 2006:170).

She explained that the second belief suggests that different readers can not only read the same text differently but also that they may read the same text on two different occasions to ‘produce different meanings because so many variables contribute to our experience of the text’. Her explanation was that personal experiences between reading of the same text or a change in purpose ‘can all contribute to our production of different meanings for the same text’ (Tyson 2006:170).

Note her emphases that a reader-response postmodernism is creating or actively making the meaning. Thus, the role of the literary text is not an object to be interpreted but helps the reader to produce meaning, in Tyson’s view. How this happens between text and reader attracts a variety of explanations from theorists.

2.2.1 Summary of the reconstruction evidence

Semiotics is understood as signs in language where anything is standing for something else.

For poststructuralist semiotics (as with Ricoeur, Derrida and Gadamer), signs have broken their ties to what they are supposed to denote.

Semiotics is in contrast with semantics where the latter indicates the relationship between words and meanings.

An issue with poststructuralist theory is that the relationship between speaker and speech perishes with there being no fixed meaning.

Vanhoozer’s thesis is that the author and the sentence are basic to communication. Without them, discussion about other things such as speech acts and meaning are impossible.

There is an overlap of semantics and semiotics as both may depend on a distinction between the sign-system (traffic lights, road signs) and language-system (Thiselton).

Semiotic theory in hermeneutics launches a postmodern understanding of texts with application to John Dominic Crossan’s definition of history.

Some scholars have stated that Crossan applies to texts a “ruthless hermeneutic of suspicion.”

3. Works consulted

Crossan, J D 1998. The birth of Christianity: Discovering what happened in the years immediately after the execution of Jesus. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Crossan, J D 1999. Historical Jesus as risen Lord, in Crossan, J D, Johnson, L T & Kelber, W H, The Jesus controversy : Perspectives in conflict, 1-47. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Eagleton, T 2003. After theory. New York: Basic Books.

Koay, J 2016. What is reader-response theory? edumaxi (online), 5 December. Available at: http://www.edumaxi.com/what-is-reader-response-theory/ (Accessed 28 August 2018).

Rosenblatt, L M 1993. The transactional theory: Against dualisms. College English, 55(4), 377-386.

Schaeffer, F A 1976. How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell.

Thiselton, A C 1980. The two horizons: New Testament hermeneutics and philosophical description with special reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer and Wittgenstein. Grand Rapids,

MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Thiselton, A C 1992. New horizons in hermeneutics: The theory and practice of transforming biblical reading. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Tyson, L 2006. Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide, 2^nd ed.^[5] New York, NY/Milton Park, Abingdon Oxon: Routledge.

Vanhoozer, K J 1998. Is there a meaning in this text? The Bible, the reader and the morality of literary knowledge. Leicester: Apollos.

Vanhoozer, K J 2002. First theology: God, Scripture & hermeneutics. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press.

4. Notes

[1] Lexico.com (Oxford Dictionary) defines ‘secular’ as ‘not connected with religious or spiritual matters’ (2021. s.v. secular); another dictionary explained secular ‘to describe things that have no connection with religion’ (Collins Dictionary 2021. s.v. secular).

[2] Humanism is ‘the principle that people’s spiritual and emotional needs can be satisfied without following a god or religion’ (Cambridge Dictionary 2018. s.v. humanism).

[3] ‘Postmodernism is skeptical of truth, unity, and progress, opposes what it sees as elitism in culture, tends toward cultural relativism, and celebrates pluralism, discontinuity, and heterogeneity’ (Eagleton 2003:13, n.1).

[4] This example is taken from my PhD dissertation, “Crossan and the resurrection of Jesus: Rethinking presuppositions, methods and models.”

[5] The original edition was published in 1999 (Tyson 2006:xi).

Holiness: Instant and progressive

By Spencer D Gear PhD

Many Christians I’ve met don’t like to use the word, holiness, except if a person is from the Wesleyan tradition. See: ‘Renewing Holiness: The Wesleyan Holiness Connection’.

How should a Christian respond to this statement? ‘I don’t see holiness as something to be chased. It is something that is innately in-grafted into our being because we are first created from the source that is Holy’.[1]

This statement was made around a discussion of Hebrews 12:14, ‘Pursue peace with everyone, and holiness, for without it no one will see the Lord’ (NET).[2]

Are Christians to pursue holiness or ‘make every effort’ (NIV), ‘try your best’ (NIRV), or ‘strive for’ (ESV)?

Chase holiness as if hunting

The word used for ‘pursue’ in Heb 12:14 is diwkw and in the Greek it means ‘to put in rapid motion; to pursue; to follow, pursue the direction of’ (Strong’s). Leading NT Greek grammarian from the 20th century, Dr A T Robertson, indicates that diwkw means ‘a chase as if in a hunt’ (Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 5, p. 437).

So, all Christians are to pursue / chase after peace with Christians and holiness.
What was stated about hagiasmos (holiness) being innate is correct for the Christian because this sanctification, which means separation, commences when believers are justified, born again (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Thess 2:13-14).

However, it is an action word that indicates a process where we are separated to God initially, but pursuing sanctification is something we do our entire lives with the conduct we demonstrate in being Christians – growing to be more like Jesus. It will be complete when we are in the presence of the Lord at death.
By faith in Christ we are holy but need to pursue it for a lifetime as we become more holy before God. Progressive sanctification is sound biblical teaching, but it begins at the moment of salvation and then needs to be pursued.

Notes:

[1] Christianforums.net 2018. Are Christians called to be holy and perfect? PrayingMantisRcutiepie#61. Available at: https://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/are-christians-called-to-be-holy-and-perfect.75394/page-4#post-1452691 (Accessed 11 April 2018).

[2] This was my response at OzSpen#67.

The Nature of Homosexuality

Elizabeth Farrelly

Born
1957
Dunedin, New Zealand

By Spencer D Gear PhD

The journalist has labelled people as sodomites without providing a correct definition.

The Bible’s definition of sodomite will be emphasised.

Ferrelly’s agenda is pro-gay.

Ferrelly’s original definition of sodomy – yes, some biblical theologians do define it as lack of hospitality. I refer you to Neil Carter’s article, ‘Why doesn’t “Sodomy” refer to a lack of hospitality?’

Fight for gender equality is emphasised, which pushes for same-sex equality

Fight for marriage equality is an emphasis.

Fight for asylum seekers to be treated like seekers of asylum.

Father Rod Bower vs Bill Muehlenberg.

Although this article is 7 years’ old, Tenets of democracy get lost in hate storm, it is riddled with pro-homosexual presuppositions. Take a read of the first line, “The sin of sodomy, say biblical scholars, was not homosexual sex but a failure of hospitality.” Farrelly gives no example from theologians who adopt that position. However, her view is not that of the evangelical theologians and ethicists I have on my book shelves.

However, the traditional understanding of sodomy has been a “sexual perversion originally associated with male temple prostitutes for which the city of Sodom became infamous.” It also has been associated with “intercourse of men with animals” (bestiality).[1]

In reading around the homosexual topic in the Bible, I’ve come across this interpretation of the sin having to do with a lack of hospitality – but it’s a minority view. When we examine the Bible’s definition of homosexuality (sodomy), we learn . . .

The True Nature of Homosexuality.

“No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine-prostitute . . . because the Lord your God detests them both” (Deut 23:17-18 NIV). So, God “detests” homosexuality. That sure doesn’t sound like lack of hospitality and its association with lack of hospitality.

The Book of Judges records a shameful incident in Judges 19:22-25 (NIV) where some wicked men pounded on the door of an old man:

‘Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.’

²³The owner of the house went outside and said to them, ‘No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.’

²⁵But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.

This sodomy is a wicked same-sex act.

Sodomy is condemned in the Book of 1 Kings 14:24, “There were even male shrine-prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites” (NIV).

See also 2 Kings 23:7: Lev 18:22-23; and Ezek 16:50.

The New Testament provides a similar emphasis in Romans 1:24-29. Paul called it a sin for which the wrath of God would fall on sinful people who practised homosexuality. Verse 18 calls it a sin received for “all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.”

In vv 24-27, the sin is called, “sinful desires”; “degrading of their bodies with one another”; “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error”; “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” “God gave them over to a depraved mind.”

No matter how much a journalist wants to make the sin of sodomy appear as the sin of lack of hospitality, that’s not how God sees the sin in both Old and New Testaments.

Farrelly asks:

“So I ask again, is Scott Morrison a sodomite? Is Tony Abbott? Are we okay with this?”

I ask her: What evidence does she have that Morrison or Abbott is practising the “shameful lusts” and “degrading of their bodies” as sodomities do?

Notes

[1] Robert K Jacobsen, “Sodomy,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics, Carl F. H. Henry (ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 643.

God’s election and foreknowledge for salvation

By Spencer D Gear PhD

How would you respond to these statements on a Christian forum? We were discussing John 12:32.

All that the Father gave Christ shall come to Christ; that is the all that Christ draws to Him.
The all Jesus draws don’t reject Christ, they come to Him, they Willingly come to Him.[1]

I responded:[2]

The Bible bases election on His foreknowledge (Rom 8:28-30; 1 Pet 1:1-2). We need to differentiate between God’s foreknowledge and His randomly determining all things and the distinction between God’s efficient and permissive decrees.

Why did sin enter the world? James N Anderson wrote, “Why would God permit such a tragic event, such an act of flagrant rebellion, in full knowledge of its horrific consequences? A friend of mine quipped, “I can answer that one in three words: I don’t know!”[3]

Anderson reasoned further:

“In His infinite wisdom and goodness, God chose the plan that would bring the greatest good.”

“ God allowed the fall.

“God has good reasons for everything he does, including what he allows.

“Therefore, God had good reasons for allowing the fall, whether or not we can discern them.[4]

God foresaw sin’s entering the world but he did not decree it. God knows how people will respond to the Gospel invitation but he does not deliberately determine that response.

Regarding election we must have regard to God’s justice. Let’s admit it. God is not under any obligation to save anyone even though Jesus has provided salvation that is sufficient for all.

God would not be partial if he did nothing to provide salvation for all. But how can He be other than playing favourites if he selects some from the multitude of people throughout history and does nothing for the remainder who are doomed.

However, that is not how the Bible sees it. The common grace of God has been extended to all people so that everyone has the ability restored to be “willing to do His will” (John 7:17). God’s grace has appeared to all people (Titus 2:11) bringing or offering them salvation. Sadly for many this grace is futile.

Understanding this biblical view of election has the logical and practical ramifications, leading to great missionary and evangelistic actions. If God arbitrarily chooses some and damns the rest, why should the Christian be bothered with preaching or witnessing? When we know salvation is available to everyone, it stimulates resounding evangelistic and missionary activity.

What is God’s plan for permitting evil?

This is the question asked by Dr Norman Geisler.[5]

“In His infinite wisdom and goodness, God chose the plan that would bring the greatest good.”

“God deemed that the plan resulting in the greatest good would be to permit evil in order to defeat it, without destroying free will in the process.”

“As He is the greatest possible Good, God willed the greatest possible good for free creatures.”

“Furthermore, God used the greatest possible means to attain the greatest possible good.”

God is all-good. How can the Best Being possible do less than what is best to do? It would seem that the perfect Being must perform perfect actions, for less than the best does not measure up to the standards of the Best.[6]

[1] Christianforums.net, Theology, “Is man not really capable of seeking God?” brightfame52#550. Available at: https://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/is-man-not-really-capable-of-seeking-god.85385/page-28#post-1611696, accessed 4 March 2021.

[2] Ibid., OzSpen #559.

[3] Anderson, “Why Did God Allow the Fall?” The Gospel Coalition, Available at: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-did-god-allow-the-fall//, accessed 5 September 2021.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Geisler, Systematic Theology: Sin, Salvation (vol 3). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, p. 155.

[6] Ibid.

Old Testament documents confirmed as reliable again[1]

“2,500-year-old said to be the most important ancient Jewish archive since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”[2]

By Spencer D Gear PhD

(Al-Yahudu clay tablet courtesy Wikipedia)[3]

It is not uncommon to read antagonistic statements on the reliability of the Scriptures, including the Old Testament. These are a few contemporary examples from doubters, skeptics and antagonists:

‘The resurrection of Jesus ought not to be seen in physical terms, but as a new spiritual reality. It is important for Christians to be set free from the idea that the resurrection was an extraordinary physical event which restored to life Jesus’ original earthly body’.

‘Why does any of a 2 thousand-year-old mythological legend have to have any basis in actual fact?’

‘Is not the bible simply a book of parables and mythology, written by men for men? Is not the parable simply a short story, never intended to be taken literally?’

‘Take the whole story of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, Moses leading them into the desert, their wanderings in the wilderness for forty years and their conquest of Canaan. There is no mention of any of this in any Egyptian material, no evidence of any wholesale enslavement of Jews or any mention of Jews at all, no evidence that Moses existed, no archaeological evidence of any sojourn in the wilderness and no evidence of some invasion and conquest of Canaan’.

‘What it is dangerous to say is that we believe in the resuscitation of his corpse [concerning Jesus’ resurrection]’.

John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar wrote of ‘the apparitions of the risen Jesus’. What’s an apparition? A phantom, a ghost! Jesus’ resurrected body was not real flesh but ‘the resurrection is a matter of Christian faith’ (1995:189). So, for him, the resurrection of Christ is really a spiritual resurrection among believers – whatever that means.

So, what happened to the body of Jesus? Crossan wrote: ‘Jesus’ burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical. He was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals (Crossan 1994:160).

1. Can the Old Testament be trusted?

Personal and Brunner Professor of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics, and Oriental Studies, University of Liverpool, England, the late Dr Kenneth A Kitchen wrote a comprehensive volume (662pp) On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Kitchen 2003).

In this research, he concluded:

We have a consistent level of good, fact-based correlations right through from circa 2000 B.C. (with earlier roots) down to 400 B.C. In terms of general reliability – and much more could have been instanced than there was room for here – the Old Testament comes out remarkably well, so long as its writings and writers are treated fairly and evenhandedly, in line with independent data, open to all’ (Kitchen 2003:500).[4]

Another Old Testament researcher into the historicity of the Old Testament is the Colman M Mockler Distinguished Professor of Old Testament, Dr Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Does his conclusion harmonize with that of Kitchen regarding The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (Kaiser 2001)?

Given this mounting evidence, Roland de Vauz declared “that these traditions have a firm historical basis,” while John Bright concluded, “We can assert with full confidence that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were actual historical individuals”….

It must be acknowledged that there is no direct external evidence supporting the existence of any one of the three patriarchs. However, the data does exist to demonstrate the fact that they are correctly located in the Middle Bronze setting beginning approximately 2000 B.C…. An increasingly high degree of probability and corroborating evidence continues to mount up from the external evidence to such a point that the case for the genuineness of the patriarchal stories is strong indeed (Kaiser 2001:84-85, 96).

imcha Jacobovici, Contributor[5]

Three-time Emmy-winning filmmaker and New York Times bestselling author

Huffingon Post, 02/03/2015 10:35 am ET Updated Dec 06, 2017

(One of the clay tablets on display in the Bible Lands Museum exhibit. Credit: Olivier Fitoussi)

As we watch horrific images of beheadings from the country formerly called Iraq – a country that is disintegrating into various tribal fiefdoms before our eyes – it is easy to forget that it was once the cradle of civilization. In point of fact, Arabs are latecomers to the area. They are first mentioned in the mid 9th century BCE as a tribal people subjugated by the Assyrians. Way before that, the area was home to the Babylonians. First records indicate that Babylon was established as a city around the 23rd century BCE. It stood about 50 miles south of modern Baghdad. The city is mentioned in the Biblical Book of Genesis (11:9) as the home of the infamous Tower of Babel.

In 587 BC, it was the Babylonians, under King Nebuchadnezzar II, who destroyed Jerusalem, the capital of the Kingdom of Judah. They also destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem – the “House of God” – built by King Solomon, as the centrepiece of Jewish faith. It stood on Jerusalem’s Mount Zion for almost 400 years. After the destruction, the legendary Ark of the Covenant, that had once housed the Ten Commandments, disappeared. According to Jewish tradition, it was hidden by the prophet Jeremiah. It has never been discovered. The Biblical books of 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings describes how the Babylonians took the elite of the Jewish people into captivity. Psalm 137:1 records the anguish of the captives: “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept, when we remembered Zion”. After the Babylonian empire was defeated by the Persians from modern Iran, the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah led a minority of Jewish exiles back to Jerusalem, motivated by an ancient version of Zionism.

Now for the first time, one hundred and ten, 2,500 year old Babylonian tablets have been discovered in Iraq which provide a glimpse of Jewish life in Babylonian exile. Put simply, the tablets corroborate the Biblical tale. They describe a town called Al-Yahudu i.e., “the village of the Jews”, by the river Chebar, mentioned in Ezekiel 1:1. They also attest to Judaic names such as “Gedalyahu”, “Hanan”, “Dana”, “Shaltiel” and a man with the same name as Israel’s current Prime Minister, “Netanyahu”. The “yahu” ending to these names is called “theophoric”, meaning, they attest to a belief in the God of the Torah, by including part of God’s name in people’s personal names. The tablets also record everyday business transactions and witness to the Jewish return to Jerusalem (Nehemiah 6:15-16), as commemorated in personal names such as “Yashuv Zadik”, meaning, “the righteous shall return [to Zion]”.

This discovery is a remarkable confirmation of the historical reliability of the Biblical text. It is also a reminder that many people once lived in Iraq. Today, there are still remnants of some of these people: Jews, Christians, Mandeans (the last remaining followers of John the Baptist) and Yazidis, an ancient people whose beliefs combine elements of Zoroastrianism, the pre-Islamic religion of Persia, early Christianity and Judaism. All these ethnic survivors are now facing massacres, crucifixions, rape and decapitation.

Do we dare let them disappear?

For more information, see: http://www.haaretz.com/life/archaeology/.premium-1.639822

See my other articles on Christianity and history:

Secular historian confirmed Christian martyrs by Nero in first century

Can Jesus Christ’s resurrection be investigated as history?

Works consulted

Crossan, J D 1994. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Crossan, J D 1995. Who Killed Jesus? New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Hasson, N 2015. Ancient Tablets Disclose Jewish Exiles’ Life in Babylonia. Haaretz (online),[6] 29 January. Available at: https://archive.is/4ptde (Accessed 3 February 2019).

Kaiser Jr., W C 2001. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Kitchen, K A 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Notes

[1] Instead of being an original narrative compiled by this author, this will be an exposition of a new archaeological finds in Iraq that confirm the reliability of the Old Testament documents.

[2] Hasson (2015).

[3] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yahudu_Tablets (Accessed 3 February 2019).

[4] A more detailed quote from Kitchen on the reliability of the Old Testament can by found in my article, Circumcision and masturbation.

[5] Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha-jacobovici/2500-year-old-jewish-tabl_b_6579996.html (Accessed 3 February 2019).

[6] Haaretz presents breaking news from Israel and the MidEast and it is available online in English.

Nobody knows what happens after death!

By Spencer D Gear PhD

I do some Internet blogging and met this fellow who stated:

There are no answers, and there never will be for the living. And there is no difference in dogmatism of those who say that there has to an after life and those who say there is not. Nobody knows.[1]

I responded: Do you understand your hypocrisy? You claim there is no difference between the dogmatism of those who affirm an after-life and those who don’t. Then you give us your dogmatism: “Nobody knows.”

Meet someone who gives evidence for life-after-death.
Let me introduce you to somebody who knows what happens after death.

Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back. After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power (1 Corinthians 15:22-24 NLT).

This same author, the Apostle Paul, writing under divine inspiration, affirmed: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21 NIV).

This kind of evidence led to this statement in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.”

“Nobody knows” is arrogance.

I know you won’t like the evidence I’ve provided, but your “nobody knows” position is one of ignorance – even arrogance.
What was Jesus’ view? He said to Martha at the time when her brother, Lazarus, was raised from the dead by Jesus, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in me will never die [i.e. will never die forever]. Do you believe this?”(John 11:25-26 NET)

Meet the One who knows what happens at death.

There is most definitely someone who knows where you will be one minute after your last breath. He is the crucified, resurrected and returning Jesus Christ who is alive and well. He is the only one who has provided assurance in life and after death.

You must count the cost of following Jesus with much thought.

Salvation is absolutely free.

So is joining the army; you don’t have to pay to get into it. Everything you need is provided.[2]

Following Christ is like joining the army. It will cost you daily. It will cost you freedom, family, friends, doing things your own way (autonomy), and possibly even your life.[3]

I must tell you, a prospective believer, the full truth and nothing but the truth.

Read what Jesus said about this in Luke 14:26-33; Matthew 10:34-38, and Romans 6:6.

See a more extensive discussion on the Gospel and discipleship in, The Content of the Gospel . . . and some discipleship.

Romanian pastor, Richard Wurmbrand, spent 14 years in a communist prison – three of these years were in solitary confinement. Later, he was able to say,

We prisoners have experienced the power of God, the love of God which made us leap with joy. Prison has proved that love is as strong as death. We have conquered through Christ. Officers with rubber truncheons came to interrogate us; we interrogated them, and they became Christians. Other prisoners had been converted… The Communists believe that happiness comes from material satisfaction; but alone in my cell, cold, hungry and in rags, I danced for joy every night… Sometimes I was so filled with joy that I felt I would burst if I did not give it expression… I had discovered a beauty in Christ which I had not known before.[4]

Will you join me in confessing your sin, seeking God’s forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ?

(VOM refers to Voice of the Martyrs, founded by Richard & Sabina Wurmbrand. Image courtesy Persecution Blog, VOM)

Notes:

[1] On Line Opinion, “Death and the Lords of the Universe,” Peter Sellick, 18 January 2021. Sellick is a liberal Anglican deacon. Posted by ttbn, Monday, 18 January 2021 4:38:24 PM (Accessed 19 January 2021).

[2] John F. MacArthur Jr., Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Milton Keynes, England: Word Publishing, 1993, p. 253.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Richard Wurmbrand, In God’s Underground (Diane Books), in David K. Watson, How to Find God. Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1974, p. 65.

Crooked Lines Images, Stock Photos & Vectors | Shutterstock