The Full Title of the book by Bart Ehrman's is God's Problem: Why the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. The problem is that the Bible Bart is using is not mine or for that matter the Bible most Christians use. It is Bible that is edited to fit what the liberal scholars have decided it is.
Every Theory Believed but not the Text Itself
Bart's Bible is one in which the Bible is not what it says it is:
1. JEPD Theory is considered fact -- Moses did not write the Pentateuch
2. Two people Wrote Job
3. Two or Three People wrote Isaiah
4. The apostles did not write the documents of the New testament
5. Etc., etc., etc.
In short, the "Bible" is not as the Bible presents itself but a concoction of theories and speculation that is not supported by textual fact. This makes it difficult to say 'the Bible does not answer the question of evil'. This is not accurate in this book by Bart -- He is not using the Bible but a theoretical Bible. I find Bart's position, and those who believe like him, ironic; they reject the Bible on the one hand because of textual error (most of which are not significant), but will present as facts theories that have not textual facts or evidence whatsoever.
A Bible Removed of History
Because of this the Bible's history including Gods acts in history are non-issues for Bart except when they make his case for him. Bart has an interesting argument here -- he rejects any Biblical argument that contradicts what he says because we cant trust the Bible in being historically accurate but then he will turn around and take as fact any event that fits his belief that God is responsible for evil.
Because of these two factors I would say the full title of Bart's book is not true -- it is not how the Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering, but it is rather how the liberal edited Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering and to that I would agree. An edited Bible does not answer the problem of suffering but the real deal does.
Next -- Objection 3 -- No Answer Will Do
Showing posts with label Two Isaiah Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Two Isaiah Theory. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Three
Now some disagreements with Bart Ehrman's God's Problem chapter 3.
This is going to be longer ;-).
1. On page 61, Ehrman's makes a statement that suffering seems to be random but he says this in the context of the Nazi death camps. Sorry this was not random suffering, nor is any suffering that can ultimately be attributed to peoples' decisions. There is nothing involving chance about the death camps -- they were deliberate efforts to inflict human suffering by other humans.
2. On page 62, Bart also shows a poor understanding, like many Christians, about the Proverbs. Proverbs are not promises or guarantees. They are general principles that if lived improve one's chances of living a better life. This is why it is called a book of wisdom, not a book of promises.
3. I want to restate a point that became very clear once again by the time I got to page 64. Ehrman does not seem to see how humans have caused a majority if not all the suffering they receive. He continues to want to point the finger at God, but almost seems to be glib in taking about man's sinfulness leading to mankind's own suffering.
4. Ehrman states that because of Eve's sin she will now experience pain during childbirth. The fact is this passage actually indicates their would have been pain in childbirth already as it does not say cause pain in childbirth but -- "I will greatly multiply or increase you pain". Some suffering may have been present to mark warnings or trigger certain events.
5. When Ehrman considers the flood, I think he puts God in double jeopardy. Mankind has become completely and thoroughly evil. My guess is that humans causing suffering is run amok. God decides to destroy mankind (which would end the evil) to solve the problem. Ehrman sees this as extreme. God is thus damned if he doesn't --because here is God letting evil run amok again. God is damned if he does, now God is causing suffering Himself to 'innocent people'. Though how a people could be innocent if they are thinking evil all the time is beyond me.
6. Bart seems to not understand the seriousness of entering a covenant with God. He seems to think it unfair if God enforces the consequences when people break their word to Him. What's God supposed to do, beg them.
7. He calls Joshua's army ragtag. After training for 40 years and fighting against two people groups already, I doubt they were ragtag. They were trained experienced warriors.
8. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes" -- Bart interprets this improperly as a moral statement. The context of this statement is not moral but political -- "there was no king in those days" It is actually a statement of the freedom that existed in the period of the judges. I believe Samuel (who was against the monarchy) wrote Judges and if so this is actually a statement against becoming a monarchy. The fact is based on judges that when the people did right wilfully as a group they prospered and handled their problems well.
9. Second Isaiah Nonsense -- I have only one thing to say -- show me two separate texts. Oh you don't have any. Why is it that Bart here will believe this theory without a shred of textual evidence but then turn around and say the current manuscripts are false when they actually represent textual evidence. Seems odd that we will believe something with no evidence but then not believe something that actually has evidence.
10. By the time I was done with both chapter 2 and 3, I could safely say that Bart relies way to much on penal atonement theory as the only way to look sacrifice. I can say this there is almost no consideration of the possibilities other atonement theories might have on suffering and sacrifice. He assumes 'this interpretation" of things is the Biblical one and i know many who would beg to differ. This is one Christian way of looking at atonement, but it is by no means the only one.
11. Israel was overcome by her enemies because they didn't listen to God or the prophets. Had they listened they would not have been overcome. The times they are defeated is always in the context of their disobedience. Bart really tries to avoid Israeli culpability here. Part of the problem is that he believes many of the 'fulfilled prophecies' are written after the fact. But then their is no evidence for this either.
12. Bart asks the question: Is suffering really our fault? He states that freewill only answers part of the problem. He then gives a short list of things he believes cannot be explained by freewill. Allow me to engage them.
a. Famine -- actually famine is a preventable thing, if you do not believe me look at the US. When is the last time we had a famine and it is not because we have not had droughts. Why is this the case -- food storage when things are good (Joseph), as well as learning how to get greater yields out of crops and learning how to make food last longer. Many famines happen because of political repression -- the rulers starving their people. By not being wise, prudent or kind people starve. Our fault, we could do better.
b. Genocide -- Is God killing these people or man? Man.
c. AIDS (STDs in general) to be blunt if people followed God's plan of faithful matrimony sexually transmitted diseases of all types would disappear in a couple of generations. God has told us how to stop this we just refuse to listen.
d. Cancer other diseases -- God told us not to eat the tree or we would die -- mankind blew it we die. We all die of something. Who's fault? -- ours.
e. War -- it seems to me that people make decisions that result in wars -- and people make decisions to be soldiers and fight in them. I don't see God' to blame in this.
f. Natural disaster -- see d. Plus the fact that if we take Genesis literally then the introduction of natural disaster may be the result of The Flood which means: WHO got evil, so evil that God almost destroyed us all -- that would be mankind. The odd thing too is that we all know natural disasters happen and yet people rarely prepare for them like they could. Our fault again.
I am beginning to think that maybe all this suffering is just because mankind is sooooooo stupid and continues to refuse to learn from God.
Next: Agreements with chapter Four
This is going to be longer ;-).
1. On page 61, Ehrman's makes a statement that suffering seems to be random but he says this in the context of the Nazi death camps. Sorry this was not random suffering, nor is any suffering that can ultimately be attributed to peoples' decisions. There is nothing involving chance about the death camps -- they were deliberate efforts to inflict human suffering by other humans.
2. On page 62, Bart also shows a poor understanding, like many Christians, about the Proverbs. Proverbs are not promises or guarantees. They are general principles that if lived improve one's chances of living a better life. This is why it is called a book of wisdom, not a book of promises.
3. I want to restate a point that became very clear once again by the time I got to page 64. Ehrman does not seem to see how humans have caused a majority if not all the suffering they receive. He continues to want to point the finger at God, but almost seems to be glib in taking about man's sinfulness leading to mankind's own suffering.
4. Ehrman states that because of Eve's sin she will now experience pain during childbirth. The fact is this passage actually indicates their would have been pain in childbirth already as it does not say cause pain in childbirth but -- "I will greatly multiply or increase you pain". Some suffering may have been present to mark warnings or trigger certain events.
5. When Ehrman considers the flood, I think he puts God in double jeopardy. Mankind has become completely and thoroughly evil. My guess is that humans causing suffering is run amok. God decides to destroy mankind (which would end the evil) to solve the problem. Ehrman sees this as extreme. God is thus damned if he doesn't --because here is God letting evil run amok again. God is damned if he does, now God is causing suffering Himself to 'innocent people'. Though how a people could be innocent if they are thinking evil all the time is beyond me.
6. Bart seems to not understand the seriousness of entering a covenant with God. He seems to think it unfair if God enforces the consequences when people break their word to Him. What's God supposed to do, beg them.
7. He calls Joshua's army ragtag. After training for 40 years and fighting against two people groups already, I doubt they were ragtag. They were trained experienced warriors.
8. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes" -- Bart interprets this improperly as a moral statement. The context of this statement is not moral but political -- "there was no king in those days" It is actually a statement of the freedom that existed in the period of the judges. I believe Samuel (who was against the monarchy) wrote Judges and if so this is actually a statement against becoming a monarchy. The fact is based on judges that when the people did right wilfully as a group they prospered and handled their problems well.
9. Second Isaiah Nonsense -- I have only one thing to say -- show me two separate texts. Oh you don't have any. Why is it that Bart here will believe this theory without a shred of textual evidence but then turn around and say the current manuscripts are false when they actually represent textual evidence. Seems odd that we will believe something with no evidence but then not believe something that actually has evidence.
10. By the time I was done with both chapter 2 and 3, I could safely say that Bart relies way to much on penal atonement theory as the only way to look sacrifice. I can say this there is almost no consideration of the possibilities other atonement theories might have on suffering and sacrifice. He assumes 'this interpretation" of things is the Biblical one and i know many who would beg to differ. This is one Christian way of looking at atonement, but it is by no means the only one.
11. Israel was overcome by her enemies because they didn't listen to God or the prophets. Had they listened they would not have been overcome. The times they are defeated is always in the context of their disobedience. Bart really tries to avoid Israeli culpability here. Part of the problem is that he believes many of the 'fulfilled prophecies' are written after the fact. But then their is no evidence for this either.
12. Bart asks the question: Is suffering really our fault? He states that freewill only answers part of the problem. He then gives a short list of things he believes cannot be explained by freewill. Allow me to engage them.
a. Famine -- actually famine is a preventable thing, if you do not believe me look at the US. When is the last time we had a famine and it is not because we have not had droughts. Why is this the case -- food storage when things are good (Joseph), as well as learning how to get greater yields out of crops and learning how to make food last longer. Many famines happen because of political repression -- the rulers starving their people. By not being wise, prudent or kind people starve. Our fault, we could do better.
b. Genocide -- Is God killing these people or man? Man.
c. AIDS (STDs in general) to be blunt if people followed God's plan of faithful matrimony sexually transmitted diseases of all types would disappear in a couple of generations. God has told us how to stop this we just refuse to listen.
d. Cancer other diseases -- God told us not to eat the tree or we would die -- mankind blew it we die. We all die of something. Who's fault? -- ours.
e. War -- it seems to me that people make decisions that result in wars -- and people make decisions to be soldiers and fight in them. I don't see God' to blame in this.
f. Natural disaster -- see d. Plus the fact that if we take Genesis literally then the introduction of natural disaster may be the result of The Flood which means: WHO got evil, so evil that God almost destroyed us all -- that would be mankind. The odd thing too is that we all know natural disasters happen and yet people rarely prepare for them like they could. Our fault again.
I am beginning to think that maybe all this suffering is just because mankind is sooooooo stupid and continues to refuse to learn from God.
Next: Agreements with chapter Four
Thursday, June 11, 2009
God's Problem -- Initial Thoughts
I recently picked up a copy of a book by Bart D. Ehrman called God's Problem -- How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. Bart is an agnostic who 'converted' from Christianity and I must say Bart is very good as far laying out the problem and dealing with the 'biblical' issue of suffering and the reasons he does not believe in the God of the Bible.
On a personal note, I have kindred spirit in Bart. I see somewhat similar paths and thoughts we have had as we have 'suffered' through the problem of Evil. We have similar backgrounds as far as education and upbringing although he has gotten farther in his education than I have. His story is compelling and his arguments tough but I think there are some problems:
1. His problem with suffering follows classical lines addressing two classical Christian positions -- theodicy and penal atonement. There are other views of theodicy and the issues of the nature of God and atonement that he does not seem to consider. He does not address one of my favorite viewpoints -- open theism -- at all in the discussion.
2. He heavily relies on Higher criticism as true. In truth the Bible he is talking about is a Bible which is a combination of these views which makes the Bible into something that is unhistorical. In fact, he makes note in a couple places that he is not saying he believes in the history of an event he is talking about but that he is dealing with it in its message. Part of the problem is that the problem of suffering he has then is based not on the Bible I and most Christians have come to know and accept but one that is a combination of JEPD theory, Two Isaiah theory, etc. Not the Bible as it presents itself, but one he and liberal critics have created.
3. By the end of the book, you really get the feeling that no matter what answer you might provide to his questions he will not change his mind.
One thing I liked very much though was his treatment of Ecclesiastes in the problem -- I have seen very few works of late that do and it is refreshing to see someone bring that book into the discussion in any way and both of us like the book of Ecclesiastes very much.
I hope to write a more in depth review and engaged the issues of this book both here and on opentheism.blogspot.com. But have to read it again a couple more times to make sure I am getting him right about the issues involved.
On a personal note, I have kindred spirit in Bart. I see somewhat similar paths and thoughts we have had as we have 'suffered' through the problem of Evil. We have similar backgrounds as far as education and upbringing although he has gotten farther in his education than I have. His story is compelling and his arguments tough but I think there are some problems:
1. His problem with suffering follows classical lines addressing two classical Christian positions -- theodicy and penal atonement. There are other views of theodicy and the issues of the nature of God and atonement that he does not seem to consider. He does not address one of my favorite viewpoints -- open theism -- at all in the discussion.
2. He heavily relies on Higher criticism as true. In truth the Bible he is talking about is a Bible which is a combination of these views which makes the Bible into something that is unhistorical. In fact, he makes note in a couple places that he is not saying he believes in the history of an event he is talking about but that he is dealing with it in its message. Part of the problem is that the problem of suffering he has then is based not on the Bible I and most Christians have come to know and accept but one that is a combination of JEPD theory, Two Isaiah theory, etc. Not the Bible as it presents itself, but one he and liberal critics have created.
3. By the end of the book, you really get the feeling that no matter what answer you might provide to his questions he will not change his mind.
One thing I liked very much though was his treatment of Ecclesiastes in the problem -- I have seen very few works of late that do and it is refreshing to see someone bring that book into the discussion in any way and both of us like the book of Ecclesiastes very much.
I hope to write a more in depth review and engaged the issues of this book both here and on opentheism.blogspot.com. But have to read it again a couple more times to make sure I am getting him right about the issues involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)