Tag: adultery

Book Plunge: Unbelievable Part 5

Is the gospel good news? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This is the first chapter by David Johnson and would that it had been the last. For some reason, Johnson was given multiple chapters to write which befuddles me since I got so tired of highlighting after awhile in my Kindle because so much was wrong. Well, let’s dive in so I can demonstrate my point.

In this chapter, Johnson is going to accept everything about Christianity is true but argue that it isn’t good news. Some of you might be wondering how that could be. I finished the chapter and I’m still wondering. Let’s start at the beginning with a Scriptural citation.

Go in through the narrow gate. The gate to destruction is wide, and the road that leads there is easy to follow. A lot of people go through that gate. But the gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there is so hard to follow that only a few people find it. Matt. 7:13-14

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Johnson argues that this means the majority of the human race will not make it to the presence of God.  Now someone wanting to study this might look and see if this has always been understood to mean that very few people overall will make it, but nah. Why bother doing that? If one wanted to take in all of Scripture, you could go to Revelation 7 with a great crowd no man could number from every people group, but no, we have an agenda to fulfill.

I contend that Jesus is speaking about His immediate audience. He is not speaking on a global scale. He is saying of the people listening, few will find the way.

And then he told them, “You are to go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere. Those who believe and are baptized will be saved. But those who refuse to believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:15-16 That is quite the sales pitch. Believe or be condemned! I’m not sure how that differs from conversion by sword. Believe or perish! Just to add some modern context, Grant me sexual favors or be fired, might also go well on the list. Any talk of hell renders all other motives for faith moot. If you learn of the tortures of hell as a child, you are going to do everything in your power to avoid it. If that means you have to believe with all your heart things that don’t seem to make sense, you are going to believe them with all your heart.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Let’s leave aside that it’s doubtful Mark 16:9-20 is original. Atheists regularly tout this out not getting they’re misrepresenting the story. It’s not “Love me or burn!” It’s more “You are already guilty of a crime and if you pledge loyalty, I will set you free and give you great benefits.” Not only that, but most evangelicals today do not hold that Hell is a fiery torture chamber.

And the coercion doesn’t stop there. The manipulation continues: If you really love Me, you will keep (obey) My commands. John 14:15 I like the way the Amplified puts it because it is more in keeping with the way we would say it today. And it makes it easier to recognize the manipulative nature of the passage. Just think of all the evil, twisted, manipulative things that started with, if you really love me.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Meanwhile, think about all the true things that start with this conditional statement.

If you love your spouse, you will be faithful to them.
If you love your children, you will provide for them.
If you love your parents, you will respect them.

All of these are true. So it is with Jesus. If you call Him Lord and don’t do what He says, it is right to question if He is Lord or not. That the statement can be misused does not mean it is never properly used, unless Johnson wants to question the above three statements I have.

When speaking about how Hebrews say without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins, Johnson says:

Try to put this into a modern context so that you can fully grasp how dark this is. What civilized culture still believes that there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood? How would that even work?

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Considering a lot of civilized cultures today believe you can mutilate a child’s body and change their sex or rip apart a child in the womb, saying a civilized culture doesn’t really mean much. It boils down to him saying “We don’t like this, therefore it’s wrong.”

In reality, what is being said is that capital offenses require a capital payment and to forgive a capital offense also requires a capital payment. Why do I not need that to forgive you? Because you haven’t committed such an offense against me. For any sin against God, it’s divine treason. Johnson has a view more that God is Superman than God.

God was really big on punishing the children to the third and fourth generation for the sins of the father. The staggering weight of this unfair system is readily apparent. The curse would never be lifted as there would never be four generations of people who didn’t sin. No wonder people were so desperately begging for mercy.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Desperately begging for mercy? Not really. If they were doing that in the Old Testament, they sure had an odd way of doing that by running around constantly committing idolatry and adultery. As for the New Testament, you don’t see that either. About the only exception I can think of is the repentant tax collector in the parable. Johnson is telling more about himself than the world of the Bible.

As for the passage, yes. We still see this today. Many families bear the sins of the fathers down through the past. Lessons of abuse and alcoholism are easily passed on.

If humans could get unmerited guilt, they could get unmerited grace. This means that a person who spent his life murdering and destroying can ask for forgiveness just before he dies, and he will end up in heaven. This, while another who spent her life as a good person will burn in hell because she was raised in a muslim country, unable to do anything but follow tradition in her region. What could be more unfair?

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Ah. That little word fair. One of the most overused words today. If the claims of God were true and He was fair, no one would enjoy His loving presence. Can a repentant criminal be forgiven on his deathbed? Yes. Would Johnson prefer he wasn’t? As for those who have never heard, Johnson acts like this is an open and shut case. Not really. Consider many in Muslim countries are having dreams and visions of Jesus. Also, it is debatable whether those who never heard through no fault of their own are automatically lost, see here.

Johnson also says the message is unclear. Consider how many differences there are:

Catholicism vs. protestantism • Calvinism vs. Arminianism • Baptism? Sprinkling Pouring Immersion • Old Testament laws and observances • Salvation by: Grace alone Grace and faith Grace, faith, and other works • Women in authority • Marriage, remarriage, and divorce • Speaking in tongues: Actual language like Chinese you have studied? Unknown language that only the spirit understands?

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

However, very few in these groups will say that everyone else is automatically lost and condemned. We agree on far more than we disagree on.

In the paper, M. Bar-Ilan, ‘Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries C.E.’, we learn that the literacy rate among Jews in the Christian century would have been no higher than 3%. For a people of the book, there were precious few of them capable of reading it. (M. Bar-Ilan, ‘Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries C.E.’, S. Fishbane, S. Schoenfeld and A. Goldschlaeger (eds.), Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society, II, New York: Ktav, 1992, pp. 46-61.)  https://faculty.biu.ac.il/Given this low rate of literacy, it is curious that god would make a highly complex and intricate set of texts the primary way god delivered his message. The vast majority of Christian truth claims can only be found in the Bible. So it is critical to understand it well. It is somewhat ironic that the people least capable of synthesizing written information are the ones most called to do so. That situation has not changed in the modern era. Psychology Today reports that from a review of 63 studies, there is a negative correlation between religiosity and education. Again, the world’s most religious people have the least education to support it.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

I am not surprised on the supposed connection between religiosity and education seeing as much of education is extremely anti-religious. Getting to Johnson’s main claim, what would he propose instead? A book is a steady and objective form of communication. Would he prefer constant personal communication like many Mormons claim? Were Christianity based on people allegedly having God talk to them regularly and tell them about the life of Jesus, are we to think Johnson’s skepticism would disappear?

Not only that, but the Bible has led to the rise of literacy throughout the world. Christians have been known as people of the book and developed the codex to aid in reading and set up educational facilities and universities for study. Since Johnson can read, he should thank the church.

On another point, he later says:

And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised. (They came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.) Justin puts a lot of stock in the resurrection of Jesus. But he, like many others, is focusing on the wrong resurrection. They should be talking about the one where many dead saints came out of their graves in the big city, and appeared to many people. This should be the most well-attested, undisputed resurrection miracle of them all. It isn’t. The reason why Christians do not focus on this resurrection story is because as a historical event, it is completely made up. It simply never happened. What’s more, they know it didn’t happen. And they are embarrassed by it.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Ah yes. Christians never talk about that because it never happened. Never mind that up until this point, we have been accepting that Christian claims are true for the sake of argument, but I guess that Scripture is wrong was suddenly inserted in. It’s almost like Johnson is inconsistent.

So why do Christians not talk about this? Because what difference does it make? Let’s suppose we never knew about the resurrection of Lazarus. Have we lost anything ultimately in Christianity? Has Christianity changed fundamentally? Not at all. That’s because Jesus’s resurrection is different in kind. A resurrection alone doesn’t bring salvation and change history. Jesus’s did. Jesus began new creation by a resurrection of a different nature and verifying His claims.

Not only that, but we just don’t know a lot about the Matthew 27 resurrection, assuming it to be a historical event. How many people were raised? With what kind of bodies were they raised? Did they just pass through or did they keep living? The text doesn’t tell us.

There is no need to quote it here. We all know the saying about the mustard seed. Jesus was making a point about the kingdom, and highlighted the mustard seed as the smallest seed of them all. In fairness, this is exactly what any Palestine man might have said who knew anything about botany.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

It could be entirely that Jesus was saying that it was the smallest seed that they used. That would not be a problem. However, the word micros is also used to describe children, which doesn’t mean the smallest child is the most valuable. It is saying that for the people of the time, the mustard seed was the least valuable seed, but it still could grow into something great. Either way works fine.

One of the easiest examples is this little nugget: Give to everyone who asks and don’t ask people to return what they have taken from you. Luke 6:30 A shorter and surer road to poverty, I have never seen. There is no context where any part of this advice makes sense. And Christians know it. Not one of them lives this way. Watch how I improve this advice just by saying the opposite:

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Yet in the world of Jesus, if someone was bigger than you, what could you do? Run to the police? Especially if the person was a Roman, they were the police. What is being said here is to not escalate violence. Johnson takes this from one setting, puts it in another, and then declares it invalid.

Then he told them a story: “A rich man had a fertile farm that produced fine crops. He said to himself, ‘What should I do? I don’t have room for all my crops.’ Then he said, ‘I know! I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger ones. Then I’ll have room enough to store all my wheat and other goods. And I’ll sit back and say to myself, “My friend, you have enough stored away for years to come. Now take it easy! Eat, drink, and be merry!”’ “But God said to him, ‘You fool! You will die this very night. Then who will get everything you worked for?’ “Yes, a person is a fool to store up earthly wealth but not have a rich relationship with God.” Luke 12:16-21 Ask yourself: What did the man in the story actually do wrong? Was it the fact that he had worked hard and done well for himself? Was it the fact that he could retire with confidence and enjoy the rest of his life without excessive labor? What was his real crime? It was that Jesus thinks savings are bad because one is relying on his own work, and not god’s providence.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

What did he do wrong? Greed. This man was only thinking of himself and what he could do and didn’t care about God or the world around Him. It is nothing against savings, of which the average person in Jesus’s audience would have none of.

Now Johnson could have studied any of these, but alas, we have an agenda.

When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, my imagination abandons me as I try to come up with something even stupider to say. Even if you don’t want to tell a person to fight back and defend yourself, here are a few other things one could try: • Run like the wind. • Fall to the ground. Curl up in a ball. And cry like a baby. • Beg for mercy. • Start praying for your enemy right there on the spot. Are any of these great pieces of advice? Probably not. But they are all infinitely better than defiantly turning the other cheek so that it makes an easy and inviting target for further assault. What Jesus says on this matter can get you killed. Do not do it at any time, for any reason.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

A slap on the cheek was a personal insult. It was not a cause of assault. Jesus is again telling people to not escalate violence. Yet if all of these show the intense ignorance of Johnson, the next one really puts it in full display in flashing neon lights.

Do you have two eyes and two hands? Jesus might wonder why. He famously said that if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it right out of your head. And if your right hand causes you to sin, chop it off with a sharp blade. Why are there so few one-eyed, one-armed Christians who have self-mutilated? Because they are not stupid enough to follow the advice of a mad man.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Every atheist and agnostic who contributed to this book should be ashamed to have their work alongside someone who writes like this. Jews spoke in hyperbole. They would have understood the point. Get to the root of the matter. No one would have understood Jesus as telling them to mutilate their own bodies.

Did you know that if you as much as looked at a woman with sexual desire in your heart, Jesus deems it the same as the physical act of adultery? That was a particularly incendiary thing to say in a place and time when adultery was a death penalty offense. Did you know that hating a person is the same as physically murdering a person? It is to Jesus. He said so. Do I even need to say more about the moral intuition of a person who can’t work out the difference between hating and killing?

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Jesus says that if you look at the woman with the purpose of desiring her, it is as adultery. He also says similar about hating your brother. Why? Because if you do these things in your heart, what will stop you from doing them in real life? The moment you think the benefits outweigh the consequences. Again, deal with the root and you can avoid murder and adultery both.

Unfortunately, this is not the last chapter by Johnson. He seems to have more than anyone else in the book, which is a shame.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Divorce and Remarriage Four Views — Part 2

What do I think of William Heth’s view? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this volume, Heth defends the position that divorce is allowed, but not remarriage. This is an older work as since then, Heth has changed his position to allow for remarriage after adultery and desertion. Therefore, we can say that eventually he came to abandon his arguments here, but he still has his arguments and we need to address them.

To begin with, I do agree with parts where Heth speaks highly of marriage. I also think ideally that marriage should be permanent, but the problem is that it is too often not. This is even the case with God essentially sending a divorce certificate to Israel and Judah when He allows them to go into exile. There have been some who have said the same thing happens again in Revelation. Hosea 2 has God explicitly saying to Israel “I am not your husband.”

Heth says marriage happens when a man and a woman announce their covenant love for one another and consummate that love together. He says one is not sufficient in itself, pointing to 1 Cor. 6:16. The problem is, as was said yesterday, that 1 Cor. 6:16, quotes Genesis 2:24, which is said to be the foundational passage on marriage. Nothing in Genesis 2:24 speaks about announcing covenant love, for instance.

I do agree with Heth in that the purpose of marriage is not companionship. That is a purpose, but it is not the purpose. After all, men and women have plenty of sources for companionship. They’re called friends. We even consider our pets our companions. That being said, being divorced and single is quite lonely and so yes, that companionship is definitely missed.

I am unconvinced by his point on Deuteronomy 24 considering it does not allow for remarriage of the first husband. The purpose is that it still allows for remarriage. My thinking on this is that a back and forth exchange gives the impression that this is a case of men working together to have the same woman and claim to do so legally. It creates a love triangle scenario.

He speaks on Ezra with the marriages to other tribes at the end and says

As early as 1890, George Rawlinson observed:

It is quite clear that [Ezra] read the Law as absolutely prohibitive of mixed marriages (Ezra 9:10–14)—i.e., as not only forbidding their inception, but their continuance. Strictly speaking, he probably looked upon them as unreal marriages, and so as no better than ordinary illicit connections. For the evils which flow from such unions, those who make them, and not those who break them, are responsible.

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 89.

I find this extremely flimsy. Are we to say that pagan nations had no “real marriages” since evils could flow from such unions? If all that is required for a real marriage is a public testimony and a consummation, then these were real marriages. If these were real marriages, then these were real divorces.

Heth goes on to say that

Yet the most serious cases of unlawful unions could be punished by the death of both parties, just like adulterers (Lev 20:10). Numbers 25:6–15 records the case of an Israelite who took a foreign wife and was summarily executed. It could be a significant act of kindness that Ezra only demanded the “divorce” of the foreigners, not their execution.

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 90.

This also strikes me as problematic. In this case, we have no indication that the two were husband and wife. What is going on is a judgment has come to Israel and right after a public statement denouncing this, a man and a woman brazenly go in public so everyone can see them and then go into a tent and start doing the deed together. Phinehas says that that is enough and takes a spear and runs through both of them in one blow.

Thus, I hardly see this as a parallel. Add in also that Deuteronomy had standards for marrying a woman who was a captive and Rahab and Ruth were foreign women who we see in the genealogy of Jesus. Are we to think that those were illicit marriages?

As we move on, we see a quotation from Tony Lane, a lecturer on Christian doctrine at London Bible College.

If Jesus did allow remarriage, presumably it happened. How did it then cease to happen, despite the fact that his teaching was known, leaving no trace either of a period when it happened or of any controversy.

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 97.

However, what I want to know is how is this known? For instance, let’s go with the early church having a problem with sex for pleasure. Are we to assume then that nowhere in the early church could we find couples having sex for pleasure? The reality is we just don’t have the marriage statistics on the early church so this is really an argument from silence.

Later when talking about Jesus and divorce, Heth says:

Divorce for marital unfaithfulness may be conceded in view of the prevailing social mores, but there must be no remarriage lest adultery be committed. The disciples then react in unbelief at the thought of a life of singleness apart from marital relations: if a man cannot get out of a marriage so as to marry another, it is probably better not to marry at all (v. 10). Jesus then responds by saying that his standards on divorce and remarriage are indeed difficult to understand and to live by. Nevertheless, God gives true disciples the ability to understand and live by Christ’s teaching. Furthermore, God will give faithful disciples the grace they need if they should face a divorce they cannot prevent (v. 11).

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 106.

First, we don’t know why exactly the disciples reacted the way they did. We just know that they did. However, if someone was stunned at the prospect of a life of singleness without sex, there’s a sure way to get that. Never get married. At least if you get married, you could say you can have sex for some time.

I also don’t deny that God can give grace to those of us who have gone through divorce, but at the same time, He can also give us new spouses who will love us faithfully. There is no doubt God can provide for me regardless. My hope is still that that will be through another companion.

As for Paul, Heth says

Paul’s statement that the believer is “not bound” in such cases has the same function that the exception clause does in Matthew 19:9: it relieves the innocent party of the guilt of violating Christ’s command not to divorce. In the case of Matthew 19:9 the woman who commits adultery is held responsible for the breakup of the marriage, while in 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul exempts the Christian from the responsibility for the divorce which an unbelieving mate brings about. Nothing is said one way or the other about the possibility of remarriage for the believer.

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 112.

This seems like a strange interpretation. Not bound means that the person is not guilty? That doesn’t seem to be the main issue at play here. No one seems to be asking “Who is guilty of the divorce?”

Finally, in looking at the responses, I want to only look at one comment from Thomas Edgar.

Heth’s argument that unless divorce is required it cannot be argued that the one-flesh relationship has been broken due to sexual sin, fails to take into account that although relationship with a prostitute is “one flesh” it is not marriage unless a certain legal ceremony is carried out. In the same way sexual sin breaks the marriage bond, but the marriage is not actually dissolved until a certain legal procedure (divorce) is carried out Does anyone argue that the marriage itself is actually dissolved the instant one enters into sexual unfaithfulness? I think that my discussion of the syntax shows that Heth’s view of Matthew 19:9 is incorrect. It is grammatically impossible to claim that Matthew 19:9 does not allow remarriage in the case of the exception.

J. Carl Laney et al., Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 142.

This is an excellent case. Adultery does not ipso facto destroy the marriage as there can be repentance and it’s not as if the moment a spouse commits adultery, they are a divorced couple and then if the cheater comes home and resumes normal sex with the spouse, that the unaware party is having an affair? Just as the ceremony is part of the marriage, so it is part of the divorce. Adultery doesn’t necessitate divorce, but it is sufficient for it.

Next time, we will look at Thomas Edgar’s essay.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and Science on Gender, Sex, and Marriage

What do I think of Lindsay Harold and Daniel Biddle’s book published by Genesis Apologetics? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I don’t know anything about Daniel Biddle aside from this book, but Lindsay is one of my favorite posters to read on Facebook as her insights on marriage and family are excellent. Thus, when I heard she had a book out on the topic of gender, sex, and marriage, I wanted to get in on helping out with it. I thank her for sending me a copy of it. As I normally do then, I am going to list the positives and then the things I would like to change.

First, a lot of the information in this book is excellent. The authors put in a lot of work to demonstrate that from the womb to the tomb, men and women are different. They point out the ways that men excel in areas women normally don’t and then vice-versa. They do point out that these are generalities. For example, while it is common that men are taller than women, that does not mean that every man is taller than every woman.

Second, they do put a lot of work into demonstrating a biblical foundation for sex and marriage and family. This is important especially for a lot of layman Christians today who are buying into the LGBTQ agenda and haven’t really thought about these issues much. Too many people buy into the idea of just saying “Love is love” as if every kind of love is automatically good.

Third, from a Christian viewpoint, the gospel is clearly here. The writers give the bad news about the wrongs done in our society too, but they also give the good news. They do talk about compassion for those who have made mistakes in their lives in these areas. For instance, when talking about abortion, they do list a number of pro-life ministries to help a woman who is pregnant and doesn’t know what to do.

So now the things I would like to change.

First, I do understand this is Genesis Apologetics and they are YEC, but I think this could be a distraction. For instance, at the start, a biblical worldview is talked about, which includes man created out of clay instantly thousands of years ago. I understand a lot of Christians believe this wholeheartedly, but a lot of them do not. I know plenty of people in all walks of creation beliefs that love Jesus. I also know that if you want to reach non-believers, that they will tend to discount this position quite quickly. People like myself can be told we have a secular worldview, even though I would just as ardently say my view is in line with Scripture.

Second, I am not against using Scripture, but I think the book could be more effective had it stuck to general revelation topics and then at the end perhaps had a postscript covering the gospel for all interested. If I was wanting to convince someone on a Christian worldview of sex and marriage who was an atheist, I would start with what we all know already in general revelation. I would be glad to ground that later on in theism if need be, but I want to go one step at a time.

Third, the authors at the end did list a lot of sexual practices and beliefs about marriage that have caused great harm in society, including divorce. The effects of everything else were covered, but I don’t remember divorce, which is a shame since this is also one of the most abundant and easy ones to cover. I am grateful that many of the others were covered.

Overall though, this is an excellent book and it’s a short one. I read it in a day and you can too and it’s not really a strain to do so. We need more information out there on the differences between men and women and the role sex and marriage should play in our society.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Strange Test In Numbers 5

Is this a misogynistic test? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In Numbers 5, we have a test that seems to us to be very strange. This is a test for faithfulness in marriage. If a man suspects that his wife is being unfaithful to him. In our continuing look at marriage and divorce, we are going to look at this.

In this test, a woman was required to drink a substance and if her abdomen swells and her thigh rots, then she has been unfaithful. There is no doubt, some euphemistic language here, but there’s nothing to suggest that an abortion or miscarriage is taking place. It could be rendering the woman infertile, however, which would indeed be a mark of shame in that culture.

Why would such a test be found in Scripture? Does God hate women that he puts them through this and the man doesn’t have to do anything similar? This test is not actually put in to demean the woman, but quite the opposite. It is there in order to protect her.

For the most part, a man is not usually in danger from the women in his life. Today, with something like a gun that is an equalizer, that can be different, but in the time of Scripture, when it came to physical power, men held that. It is certainly wrong for a man to be unfaithful, but generally, he would not have to fear that if he wound up being caught, his wife would beat him. (And even in unfaithfulness, wife-beating is never okay.)

A woman doesn’t have that benefit in the culture. Generally, women are physically weaker than men are and don’t have the upper body strength that men do. In many cultures, if a man got jealous, he could easily kill his wife if he so wanted to. If not kill, he could at least seriously injure her.

In this culture, God steps in and has a solution. Undergo a ceremony that can have real physical effects on a woman. The result would be undeniable in that culture and would settle the manner once and for all. At least one person would leave that meeting very shamed. A husband could leave if he has falsely accused his wife and she passes the test with flying colors. If she doesn’t pass, she will leave shamed with physical conditions that she will likely be stuck with because of her unfaithfulness. He could leave shamed as well knowing that his wife has been unfaithful to him.

This also illustrates that in Scripture, faithfulness in marriage is highly valued. Every time a man in Scripture was unfaithful in any way to his marriage covenant, it did not end well. The same happens with women who are unfaithful to their spouses. When we get to the New Testament, we will find that when it comes to the question of remarriage, there is differentiation between a spouse who has been faithful to a prior marriage and the spouse who has been unfaithful to the marriage covenant, but that’s for in the future.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Get Your Own Girl

How should you treat your neighbor? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So far in this list, we have seen a load of people mentioned who are somehow related to you. Now God goes even further and says to avoid your neighbor’s wife. This is something that is extremely relevant today as we normally do agree that you shouldn’t sleep with relatives, but somehow, we do have many people today who sleep with their neighbor’s spouse or at least pursue that.

This is especially the case in the age of social media. A friend told me sometime within the past year about going through divorce records in a court, though I don’t remember what for, and being surprised how many times the word “Facebook” showed up. The problem with this is that you can get easily attached to someone you haven’t met and since they’re a fantasy, they can be whatever you want them to be.

Ladies. Prince Charming will likely snore when you go to bed at night.

And guys, her hair will not stay beautiful and pristine when she wakes up in the morning.

Very few people will wake up one day and say “I think I’ll have an affair today.” It generally starts with something innocent. This is one reason why when I normally message a woman and I think it could be a long conversation, I will include her husband in it as well. I also have some rules set up for whenever I go on dates again.

The action of an affair with someone else’s spouse damages relationships across the board. In my DivorceCare group, we watch a video every week from DivorceCare and one lady does describe how her ex-husband was sleeping with her ex-best friend. I’m pretty sure this other lady was her best friend before this happened.

Even if someone is a skeptic of Christianity, I am sure they will agree with the passage in Proverbs that says that jealousy arouses a husband’s fury and he will not be bought off. He will not be pacified when he seeks revenge. He will refuse a bribe however great it is. There’s something about this activity that gets spouses engaged on a whole new level.

This should also tell us that sexual activity is not like anything else that we have. A husband might be upset if his wife plays tennis with another man or something of that sort, but once he finds out she has slept with someone else, at that point normally all bets are off. Who knows where this could go from here?

So what’s a simple solution? Easy. If you want to sleep with someone, make a lifelong commitment to them first and go through with it. Don’t hedge your bets and say that we’ll be together for now, but there’s no need to make a commitment. You or they can just run out at any time then actually. This is something especially women need to realize who really control the market. Have a guy give a lifetime commitment upfront.

For both sexes, once you are married, build up yourself and your own relationship. If the grass looks greener on the other side, water your own side and care for it more. Be very careful on social media as well. Marriage is a terrible thing to destroy even if it is necessary sometimes such as in abuse and adultery.

The alternative of destroying relationships is far worse.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

You Shall Not Commit Adultery

What is adultery? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Centuries ago, there was a Bible published that was called the Wicked Bible. In this one, there was a misprint in the seventh commandment so it read, “You shall commit adultery.” The publishers were greatly fined for this.

We should all know adultery is wicked, but what is adultery?

Adultery is sexual behavior reserved for the covenant of marriage that is done outside of that covenant. This can be of a physical nature, sexual activity, or it can be of an emotional nature, an emotional commitment to another person where you share things with someone else that should really only be shared with your spouse. Both of these are incredibly harmful to a marriage.

Why is this so? Because marriage is a relationship built on exclusive trust. When you go outside of that, then you are violating that trust. Sexual activity is giving someone total trust with your body and it only makes sense if this takes place in the covenant of a promise that is followed through.

This is why I always tell women to not have sex with a man until he marries you. Why would I not say the same to a man? Technically, I would, but more often than not, the men are the pursuers in the market. If it wasn’t for sex, men would never marry. Men seek to be with women because we have strong drives and those drives drive us to love the woman also.

When a woman gives herself to a man without that, she is ultimately saying she will give him her very body for whatever he has done already. It’s hard to think of something greater one human can trust another with than their body. So a woman needs to decide what her body is worth. A promise to marry in engagement? Six months of dating? A month? A week? Dinner and a movie?

By the way, normally, once a man is given what he wants, odds are that he could have a good chance of plateauing at that level. Many a woman will think living together is a prelude to marriage. It isn’t. He’s got a great deal already. He gets the sex he wants, he can leave any time that he wants, and in the end, he doesn’t have to pay alimony if something happens because there was no commitment.

Now while I said it’s hard to think of something greater one human can give to another than their body, there is one thing indeed. Their heart. Emotional affairs hurt. I speak from experience. In the age of Facebook, they can much more easily happen. Most physical affairs also start off as emotional ones.

A man goes out from his office on lunch and there’s a woman that goes out at the same time. Why not just go together? We’re friends. We’re both married to other people, but why not? Then they begin talking over lunch and they enjoy each other’s company and not too much later, they’re meeting in a hotel room and having sex.

Yes. This happens.

Very few people get up one morning and say “I think I’ll have an affair to screw up my marriage.” It happens gradually. Often, the other side of the fence can look greener to which the reply is “Tend your own lawn first.” This will lead to hopping from relationship to relationship, especially when the spark dies down.

This is why vigilance is required to guard a marriage. In my own personal life, I have said when I get my own place again, I don’t want to be alone with a woman who is not family, even one I am dating. I know my temptations. I know as a man I greatly desire sex and having been there before, I don’t want to put myself in a position where it’s hard to put the brakes on.

Sex is reserved for the covenant of marriage. Taking it outside is lying with your bodies. It is a beautiful gift to be given to a man and a woman who have made a lifelong covenant with one another. Their bodies in sex show what they have done with their hearts to one another.

God stands against adultery not because He is anti-sex, but because He is pro-sex. He created everything about it after all. If we are to enjoy it to the best, then we need to follow His counsel on the matter.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Why Don’t The Ten Commandments Condemn Rape?

Why are the Ten Commandments supposedly silent on rape? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Skeptics will always be finding something to complain about with Scripture. This time it’s about the Ten Commandments. Why do they not mention rape? Isn’t that worth talking about?

For one thing, the Ten Commandments are not meant to be all-inclusive of everything. (Note that if we followed the first one perfectly, the other nine would be done naturally.) Laws in that culture were more didactic in that they were guidelines. Today, if you read a single law on a federal website, odds are it will be longer than the book of Exodus entirely itself. Every single possible exception is meant to be covered.

The ancients instead gave general principles and the role of a judge was to be wise and know how to apply the Law in every single case. Even if there was a prescribed punishment, no judge was forced to go that way. It was as said before more of a guideline.

Yet what about rape?

A simple answer is to say that rape would be understood to fall under the commandment against adultery. Adultery is any improper sexual behavior that is done outside of the marriage covenant. Rape is such a case. Of course, that can happen in marriage as well, but a wise judge would know what was going on.

Why would adultery be mentioned? Because looking at Israelite history, Israel seemed to have a much more consistent problem with adultery than they did with rape. Of all the horizontal sins that are mentioned in the Ten Commandments, the #1 sin that the Israelites were committing on that level was adultery. The idea that sex is the great god that people pursue in our culture is nothing new. It has been the same in most cultures throughout history. Honestly, I’d be surprised to find one where that wasn’t the case.

In the history of Israel, I can only think of two cases where rape takes place and both of them are condemned. The first is in the end of Judges where we have a scene much like Sodom and Gomorrah and a slave woman is raped and raped so much that she actually dies. What’s amusing is when skeptics quote this passage as a look at the depravity the Bible has and actually think it’s being endorsed, when Scripture records this to show an example of what happens when a society abandons the covenant with God. If you think it’s something horrible and disgusting, Scripture agrees.

The second is the case of Amnon and Tamar. In this, Amnon is in love with his half-sister Tamar and rapes her. After that, the text says he hated her and he hated her so much that his hatred was greater than the love that he had for her. (Which shows that it wasn’t really love.) Again, this is condemned. It’s seen as a sign of judgment on the house of David and later, Absalom will sleep with the concubines of David, though that’s not specified as rape.

Ultimately, by condemning adultery, the Ten Commandments do condemn rape. It’s my plan that next time we will look closer at adultery. It’s one of those commandments that many of us didn’t ask about as kids and I always wonder now what goes through the minds of children at church when it is mentioned. Hopefully, we can give the adults a better answer.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Divorce as Rejection

What ultimately is divorce? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have my laptop back and everything looks to be working fine, so let’s jump back into this topic. When it gets down to it, what is the #1 pain of divorce? If I could sum it up in one word, it would be rejection.

Many of us have experienced a break-up in our lives or have asked someone out and been told no, and those can compare, but divorce is just so much worse. Divorce is when someone makes a promise to you and then breaks it. Divorce is when in a marriage you have given everything you have to someone and they have said that it wasn’t good enough.

For me, this has hit quite hard as if you asked my parents about me growing up, I always wanted a woman in my ilfe, and this was long before I knew about the birds and the bees. I never had that faze in my life where girls were icky and had cooties or anything like that. I can still remember the first crush I had was back in elementary school in Transition and that lasted all through elementary school.

I also had got used to being told no later on when I would ask any girl out. No. No. No. I still want to roll my eyes when I hear a lady say something like “I just want a nice guy who cares about me and my feelings.” Let’s face it. We’re all a bit superficial at times and those looks play a big role in it. I would just prefer the honesty.

So when she came into my life and was interested in me, it was something incredible. I had never once encountered a girl that was actually desiring of me. Not only that, she didn’t get turned off by the Aspie traits that I have. Everyone who saw us thought we were the best couple. My best man at the wedding in his toast said he didn’t think there were two people more suited for each other. The counselor doing our pre-marital counseling said he had only met seven couples he thought were a match made in Heaven and we were one of those couples.

And yet something went wrong.

Did I make mistakes? Obviously. Everyone does. Only a fool says he goes into a marriage and makes no mistakes. Anything worthy of this? Not a bit. The message given is that things were so bad with me that she thought she had to break her promise to God to escape.

Now I realize that sometimes people divorce over issues like divorce and adultery being done. In that case, the party that divorces when their spouse is unfaithful in that way is responding to a rejection already. I recommend trying to work things out if possible, but if the other party isn’t willing, there’s nothing you can do.

Today, I notice that I am very sensitive to rejection. It’s different for different people. A girl I used to go to DivorceCare with said once the ultimate one breaks the promise and rejects, the other rejections don’t really hurt anymore. For me, they do. They remind me of that rejection.

I used to tell people I was on the spectrum and have no problem with it. Now I do it and get nervous beforehand worried that they will reject me. If I make a mistake at my job, I am sure for some time that I will be fired. It hasn’t happened yet, but that is still there. I do try to approach women, but I am still again sensitive to any hint of rejection.

Rejection is so painful because the message given is not just your actions but that you as a person are inadequate. You are not good enough. I find this ironic since what she always complained about was other people saying she wasn’t good enough. Now who is the one saying that?

By the way, I want to stress that while I am honest about her behavior when I speak of it, I am not trying to speak ill of her honestly. For her, I really do want the best for her. I want her to have a holy and happy life eventually. I do have my concerns about that, but I try to eliminate any animosity. That doesn’t do me any good after all.

My DivorceCare leader and I had a discussion a few months ago that covered rejection. I told him that I didn’t understand when he said he wanted me to speak less, but was always praising other people when they spoke. That was one thing among many. He thanked me for sharing and said “I thought you knew that I was encouraging them because they were new. I didn’t realize you didn’t see it that way.” In truth, I didn’t. It felt like a rejection every time.

I also realize that ultimately, this is not an issue with other people. This is an issue with me. I cannot demand that other people change to fit my happiness. None of us can. Anyone has a right and freedom to reject me if they wish. It could be wrong perhaps, but it is their choice. I also have a right to not accept everyone who comes to me. I have a desire to remarry, but I don’t want to remarry someone who isn’t a Christian.

I do know that at my workplace I will soon be able to have health insurance. I have a therapist already, but one of my plans is also to get a psychiatrist then so I can work on the issues that I am dealing with and if need be, get medication. I wonder if I might have a form of PTSD from everything I went through and I think a psychiatrist can best determine that.

Now some of you might be tempted to go all spiritual on me and say “Well God accepts you. Isn’t that good enough?” In a sense, it should be for all of us, but God also made us social creatures. We are not meant to be alone. Even in the most glorious state in creation for man, it was not good for man to be alone. When our Lord walked this Earth, He had friends. Could there not be a hint of the pain of rejection in his words when he says to His disciples in John 6, “Will you go also?”

If I desire friends in my life and don’t want to be rejected, will anyone really tell me that’s wrong? If I desire for even strangers to like me and not reject me, is that wrong? If I also, which I do, desire a lady in my life to share my journeys with, will anyone say that that is wrong? These are all desires that I think are God-given so we should celebrate them and try to meet them.

Can this kind of thing be taken too far? Yes. That is something that I have to work on on my end, but at the same time try to better myself for my interactions with other people. I have read some books on interacting socially lately to try to work on this all the more. I can easily say I don’t ever want to go through the pain that divorce brings and is bringing again.

I say bringing because everything I do around me often is a reminder of it. When I go to bed at night, there’s no one lying next to me or no one who can reach over and touch me or vice-versa. She was the only person who I really craved the touch of. I live with my parents again now and I don’t even like it if they touch me.

When I am at work, I wonder if I would be where I was if she hadn’t rejected me. When I find myself going out there trying to make friends again and trying to win the heart of a lady, i often think about what I have lost. Yes. Despite the wrong that has done, I have lost something.

The Scripture says the two become one flesh. How can you become one flesh with someone and then when they are gone not have a real loss? When you marry, so much of your life becomes integral around another person and then that person says they don’t want you anymore? What are you to think of that? In some sense, does your identity not come into question?

I look through Facebook memories and so many times, I see myself making a post on how much she means to me. In the comments, I can sometimes see her talking about how much she will always be devoted to me and always love me and how thankful she is. Yep. That stings every time I see it.

I had a coworker ask me about animes recently. I don’t remember what brought it up, but that was hard to talk about. After all, the main person I know about those through is her.

When you’re 41 also, it’s much harder to find someone who is in your age range who is still looking for someone for marriage. Put in all my eccentricities and it can become even harder. Still, I think it’s worth it. I have a therapist working with me in this regard, but it is difficult.

If you’re in a marriage and struggling, please do try to work out your struggles. Aside from abuse and adultery, divorce should be a last option. It is a great pain to the person who is being rejected. I have met people who have lost a spouse to divorce and death and to a person, I think aside from just one maybe, all of them said divorce was worse.

Yes. Divorce is worse than death.

It’s worse I think because it’s an ongoing living death. You know the other person is out there and has intentionally acted in this way to get away from you. This person has decided that you are unlovable. Now I still maintain that if you think your neighbor is unlovable, the real deficiency is in you and not in them, but that doesn’t change that it hurts.

Yet I think the more I stay hidden away and don’t get myself out there, the more I am just bringing that rejection on myself. As I go out in the world, will I still get rejected? Obviously. Whether it’s for friendship or a date or a job interview, it will always hurt, but that’s life. You can’t control that other people will do hurtful things to you, but you are in control of how you respond to them. I have to make a deliberate choice to choose to overcome. Everyone has their choice to make. I also have mine.

Thank you for all who have been supporting me on this journey, fellow travelers.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Has The Bible Been Changed A Lot?

Is the text vastly different than it was? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It was recently brought to my attention that Business Insider decided to celebrate Christmas with a video on why the Bible isn’t trustworthy. Normally, I prefer to celebrate with presents and time with friends and family, but to each his own I suppose. So do we really have anything new here?

Of course not.

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be addressed. After all, a lot of people will never bother to study what it is they believe and why. (You know how it is, we live in a society where people will learn about their favorite sports team, TV show, video game, etc. but won’t dare to really consider maybe they should think about the belief that they base their entire life on.) Sadly, this will also apply to many skeptics who will take a faith that makes strong claims and decides ipso facto that since those claims involve miracles they must be nonsense and never examine the claims seriously.

So let’s dive into this video. The speaker starts with talking about the Bible being the most sold book of all and that many think it contains the actual words of God. What many people don’t realize according to him is that the Bible has been changed, A LOT. So what are these evidences?

To begin with, no first edition exists. All we have are copies of copies.

This sounds scary if you’re someone who doesn’t know about manuscripts in the ancient world, until you realize that we don’t have the first writing of ANY ancient work that I know of. If there is one, I will be quite surprised. We have copies in every case. How much we can trust the account depends on a number of factors.

How soon is the earliest copy to the date of the original writing?
How many copies do we have?
Can we check these copies back and forth?

So how does the New Testament measure up?

manuscript copies

As you can see, Homer comes closest and it’s not even a contest really. Now if the speaker wants to make a big deal out of this, we ask that he be consistent. Please be extremely skeptical of all the other books on the list as well.

The speaker then says that this all took place many years after the events supposedly took place. It would be good to know how much skepticism he has. Would he go all the way to being a mythicist? Inquiring minds want to know! He also points out that many of these copies weren’t made by professionals but were made by laymen.

Naturally, we can’t expect someone busy enough to make a video for Business Insider to go out and read some of the scholarship on this issue and actually inform himself. While he cites a couple of scholars, there’s no in-depth looking at what they say and providing context for the issue. He could do what I did and interview Charles Hill on the Early Text of the New Testament and issues of canonicity or interview Daniel Wallace. (And if he can’t interview at least listen to what they have to say.)

The speaker goes on to talk about how this lead to many errors and omissions.

No. It’s not a typo on my part. He’s the one who said “This lead to many,” Who knows? Maybe he differed from the original script at one point.

If he wants to talk about these kinds of omissions and errors, he’s free to examine the texts. We will have a little bit more on this, but we have so many texts in so many languages that it’s easy to cross-check. When we do, we find that in fact the Bible does hold up, but again, a little bit more on this later.

We go to the three biggest changes. The first is the woman caught in adultery. It’s a shame that this is news to so many Christians, but such it is. We live in a time of great Biblical ignorance.

The next is the Gospel of Mark. (It’s amazing how predictable these are.) This change is the ending of the Gospel and how it has no narrative of Jesus rising and appearing. The speaker then tells us that in original manuscripts, this story is nowhere to be found.

Wait a second.

What original manuscripts?

Our speaker has gone on and on about how there are no original manuscripts and now is saying this is not to be found in the original? In what way does he know? Could it be that we can tell because we can actually check the texts back and forth and see what they say and compare them? Has our speaker undermined his own case?

The third is that in Luke, Jesus makes a dying plea to forgive the executioners, but it was not intended to refer to the Romans but to the Jews. This was taken out and then added centuries later to appear to be about the Romans. This is one many haven’t heard of, but notice something.

Apparently, we don’t have a clue what the text said, but we can tell what the originals somehow said, that a change was made, and that said change was later corrected. We can discuss why it happened and how, but that doesn’t change what the original said. Even his source on this, Bart Ehrman, says it is likely to be found in the originals.

While we’re at it, what else does Bart Ehrman, this non-Christian New Testament scholar say about the New Testament?

If the primary purpose of this discipline is to get back to the original text, we may as well admit either defeat or victory, depending on how one chooses to look at it, because we’re not going to get much closer to the original text than we already are.… At this stage, our work on the original amounts to little more than tinkering. There’s something about historical scholarship that refuses to concede that a major task has been accomplished, but there it is. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior: An Evaluation: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998, a revision of a paper presented at the Textual Criticism section of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Ehrman1998.html

 

In spite of these remarkable [textual] differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy. Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 481.

Sadly, too many Christians won’t be prepared for something like this because, well, all those sermons on how to be a good person and how much God loves you won’t really matter when the text that all that is based on is called into question. Even worse, these kinds of objections are not the crisis that many people think that they are. With some serious study, instead of focusing only on one’s personal hobbies, it’s amazing what one can learn.

Hopefully Business Insider from now on will stick to business instead of going to Biblical studies.

In Christ,
Nick Peters