Frames of Reference

Q&A - Is the Best Bible Translation Personal Preference?

yeager — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:24:50 +0000

The Bible translation debate continues to create questions — how do you pick a translation to use? Are they really different?

This is really a confusing and disheartening issue because different people say different things with equal intent and support. I’m beginning to feel its an issue of simple preference?

It’s not a personal preference issue. Since the two textual bases differ, at most one is correct (or they’re both wrong). For example, if you say the sky is orange and I say it’s blue, I’m right and you’re wrong. If you say it’s orange and I say it’s purple we’re both wrong. But we can’t both be right in either case.

It’s not the KJV, it’s Textus Receptus verses the Alexandrian base text.

Since Textus Receptus and Alexandrian texts differ, they can’t both be correct. As to the Alexandrian base (today usually referred to as Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland, or UBS) we have an extensive article on Bible translation detailing these issues (it’s also available as a PDF).

It might surprise you to know many seminaries and/or pastors deny the virgin birth, resurrection, return of Jesus, and more. These so-called “modern translations” frequently follow those liberal theological ideas as they abandon orthodox Christianity. Westcott-Hort denied the creation and Eden, believed themselves Christs, and more.

Whatever you may think about textual analysis, the Bible translation discussion is most definitely not simply personal preference. All translations have problems, whether you use KJV, NKJV, NASB or NIV understand how your translation came to be, what textual base was used, and why they translators chose what they did.

Avoiding Logical Error - There is No God

yeager — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:38:35 +0000

Atheists frequently don’t recognize contradictions while attempting to defend the logical inconsistencies created by atheism. Atheists claim there is no God; after the statement is made (usually as an unproven “fact”), and the logical contradictions of that statement are pointed out to them, instead of admitting they made an error they go to great lengths to disavow the problem. Here’s a case in point during an exchange with an atheist who claimed there is no God, and when he was made aware of the the logical absurdity of the statement “there is no God”, he responded thusly:

@darrinyeager Pay attention, please: most atheists do not assert that gods do not exist. You’re attacking a strawman, coming off as ignorant

He accused us of using a strawman (an argument deliberately misrepresenting his position). But is that true? First, consider the definition of atheism:

athe-ist (n.) A person who believes that there is no God.
ag-nos-tic (n.) A person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena.

First, an atheist by definition believes God does not exist.

Next, let’s go to the replay booth and see what this same person said about the existence of God:

The good news is, there’s still #nogod.

@misscleva But there is no god, silly!

Upon further review we’re discussing exactly his claim — “there is no god”. Either he didn’t understand his own words (or didn’t mean what he wrote), doesn’t understand the definition of atheism, doesn’t understand logic, uses dialectic instead of didactic thought, or he’s simply confused about what a strawman is (or a combination of any or all of them).

Atheism remains trapped by it’s logical absurdities. It persists because atheists have a deep seated need to deny the existence (for many, even the possibility) of God. Unfortunately, this desire to deny God forces them into bizarre contradictions no amount of verbal twister can free them from (even contradicting themselves), and they remain oblivious to the logical contradictions in their position.

That’s not very free-thinking, is it?

Avoiding Logical Error - Science and Confirmation Bias

yeager — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:27:01 +0000

Errors in logic must be avoided if you wish to have an open mind and use critical thinking. This of course means you must be open to all possibilities, forming opinions based on logic and analysis instead of preconceived ideas; confirmation bias can arise during analysis by making assumptions based on what you want to see, instead of evidence and logical deduction.

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month.

So what does that mean? An example from a recent study asking the question “how did religion evolve?” provides an example of confirmation bias. Try and notice the error(s) while reading.

Religion evolved as a byproduct of preexisting mental capacities, and not because it fulfilled a specific function of its own-though it can facilitate cooperation in society, a study concludes.

Why religion emerged among early humans remains a source of contention among scholars. Many scientists believe religion is ultimately based in the brain, but that still leaves unclear how and why these behaviors originated and how they may have been shaped during evolution. Some archaeologists think religion came about partly as a strategy by some people to grab power, simply by claiming some sort of secret knowledge.

Notice the error? They made (at least) two assumptions, and the data in their study “confirmed” their bias that religion somehow evolved from natural man — not God — because they failed to consider (or look for) what contradicted their beliefs:

Evolution is true.
No God exists.

Evolution remains an unscientifically proved assumption; it can’t explain how we got here scientifically (that is, with verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments). The study looked where it wanted to — to an unscientific method. A classic case of confirmation bias.

Second, if God exits, the bias in the study renders it not only useless, but dangerously misleading. We’ve written much on atheism already, but in brief atheism is by definition illogical as it’s impossible to state as fact God doesn’t exist unless you posses all knowledge in the cosmos. Atheists (by definition) lack critical thinking skills and fail to employ logic in their reasoning.

It’s neither scientific nor free-thinking to exclude vast areas for consideration, and it this case it’s an example of confirmation bias — so much so the study becomes worthless.

Carl Sagan's Belief in Spite of Facts

yeager — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:40:47 +0000

Carl Sagan provides many quotes loved by both atheists and evolutionists in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of God and religion in general. Here’s a popular Sagan quote:

You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief isn’t based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe. Carl Sagan

We’d agree as the God denier Sagan himself provides supporting evidence in another of his famous quotes:

The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

Sagan believed in the (now discredited) theory of the infinitely old universe — the eternal existence of the cosmos simply isn’t true. The universe did have a beginning — the question remains when and how, both of which are currently subject to considerable debate.

Sagan held the wrong belief (as far as we know) up until his death — in spite of evidence to the contrary. Why? Because his world-view (secular atheist) required it. Even after most accepted the “big bang” theory, Sagan didn’t — he couldn’t — because it conflicted with his world view. His belief wasn’t based on evidence or science, but a deep seated need to validate his worldview (also a case of confirmation bias, a subject we’ll take up in future post).

… Hoyle dislikes the idea because, as he puts it, “The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the universe that openly invites the concept of creation”. Barry Parker sums up the feelings of most cosmologists: “If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us” (Herren, Fred “Show Me God” page 107–108)

You frequently can’t reason with atheists and evolutionists — their belief isn’t based on evidence, but on a deep seated need to deny the existence of God, as Carl Sagan brilliantly demonstrated. You have to admire Sagan, however, not many people (especially those claiming to be scientists) would continue to hold an absurd position to suit their worldview, when abundant evidence proves them wrong.

It’s sad many quoting Sagan miss the irony.

Presidents' day Honors Washington and Lincoln

yeager — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:33:35 +0000

President’s Day adds to the vast lack of historical knowledge of the average person, as well as general historical confusion.

In 1971, Congress passed a bill to rename Washington’s birthday Presidents Day, and to celebrate it on the third Monday of February instead of the actual date of Washington’s birth — Feb. 22. The holiday also was designated to honor Abraham Lincoln, whose Feb. 12 birthday was celebrated in many states but was not an official federal holiday.

But that was nearly 40 years ago. Now, it seems, many Americans are unsure exactly why their schools and banks and post offices are closed on Monday. Asked which presidents were being honored, people on the street provided many answers…

Originally Presidents Day was known as Washington’s birthday, but later Lincoln was added to the mix. As usual, Congress messed with what was known as Washington’s birthday to help create the confusion. But in any event, President’s Day honors Washington and Lincoln.

Arguably Washington and Lincoln are the two most important Presidents in history (and the best). Never forget.

Book Review: In Justice by Alan Sears

yeager — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:14:38 +0000

In Justice by Alan Sears describes a story similar to Orwell’s “1984”, but relating to first amendment freedoms, specifically religious freedoms. This issue remains at the forefront today, whether it’s speaking on your beliefs, religious displays, so-called “hate speech”, and more. The book considers what might happen if today’s politically correct movement continues to grow.

Three friends say good-bye after graduation from Princeton. Each is bound by high ideals and a resolve to change the world … but unable to anticipate the dramatic events that will bring them back together.

Each Sunday Pastor Pat Preston stands behind the pulpit of his Nashville mega-church, hoping to change the world by proclaiming biblical truth.

Newly appointed US Assistant Attorney General John Knox Smith is out to change the world one arrest at a time. He is determined to mandate equality and wipe out intolerance by criminalizing hate speech. And he will prosecute anyone who discriminates against the new legal classes of people he has helped create … even Pat Preston.

Standing between them is their friend Matt Branson, who now works in the Justice Department.

That’s the basic plot of the book; we won’t give away the ending, you’ll have to read it for yourself. But is such an idea possible? Many might say the events portrayed in the book simply couldn’t happen — after all, we have constitutional rights! For example, the following speech could never happen, as John Knox Smith accepts the position as head of the DTED (Diversity and Tolerance Enforcement Division):

Since it is impossible to acknowledge all the religious and belief systems of the American people, it is our view that any acknowledgment, favor, or accommodation of a particular faith tradition must be seen as an illegal establishment of religion and in direct conflict with the First Amendment. (“In Justice”, page 24)

A growing movement in the country reads the First Amendment as creating a secular, atheist society where religion is not permitted in any public situation — government or otherwise. School valedictorians (as private citizens) can’t mention God in their acceptance speech, and a California shopping mall even banned religious and political discussion by shoppers (not employees)! Was that the founders ideal?

… unfortunately there are still some Protestant evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics who remain unreformed, still clinging to their guns, religion, and a theology from the Middle Ages. There are even a few Jews who adhere to the teachings of Moses and the prophets. (“In Justice”, page 109)

It’s important to understand the first amendment is freedom to religion, not freedom from religion, although it’s been twisted quite a bit recently. To understand the meaning, simply look to the way it’s been applied for the first 180 years of the country. Certainly nobody understood the first amendment to imply the creation of a religious-free country … until recently.

As such, Mr. Smith’s hypothetical speech, and the creation of a DTED division could be our future — and the elimination of free speech by redefining tolerance as a result.

… we are working to bridge religious divides. We’re taking on violations of human rights perpetrated in the name of religion. And we invite members of Congress and clergy and active citizens like all of you here to join us…

Oops, that’s not from the book, it’s current events (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the National Prayer breakfast Feb 4 2010). For those thinking the events portrayed “could never happen here”, events are moving in that direction. The question remains, do you have free speech or not? You can’t “sort of” have free speech. As the argument goes, can you yell “fire” in a crowded movie? Does free speech cover that?

Now we are faced with the question whether or not [name of group] should be allowed to run such an ad …

Darn, that’s not from the book either. The Tim Tebow Superbowl ad brought out many groups saying it shouldn’t be allowed to air (not just they disagreed with it, but it shouldn’t even be played) — placing themselves in the position of approving any “free speech” (approving free speech is quite an oxymoron, don’t you think?).

A free society requires open debate and discussion. Sure, you’ll be exposed to ideas you don’t agree with (or want to hear), that’s part of being a member of a free society. But attempts to restrict speech — no matter how good the intention — eventually restrict your speech.

One of the great ideas about the Internet remains it’s wildly unregulated nature. That is of course at the same time one of it’s greatest strengths, and one of it’s problems. At some point, look for the government to attempt content regulation of the Internet, with the justification either being national security, or safety of the children. It’s coming.

Does anyone (well, some do) want censorship of the Internet? Do you remember when the only news you could get was ABC, CBS, and NBC? Now consider how much information you have access to — sure some of it isn’t right, but you’ve got to use critical thinking skills to do your own research. “If it’s on the Internet it must be true” obviously is a horrible way to think.

In short, free speech is under attack — the so-called “hate speech” laws really boil down to “anything I don’t want to hear”; we see atheists attempting to eradicate religion simply because they violently disagree with it. But free speech means you may hear things you disagree with — it protects the atheist and religious people of all faiths; in a free society open discussion and debate remains not only healthy, but essential.

Curtailing of rights occurs quickly. Ask yourself, one year ago would you have thought the government would take over car companies and banks? What seems impossible now becomes quite likely later.

Yet groups have attempted to change the meaning of tolerance and free speech recently, and “In Justice” demonstrates what could happen if those trends continue — pastors prosecuted and thrown in jail for nothing more than expressing religious views (prosecutions displaying the exact opposite of tolerance toward religion). It’s a work of fiction and not meant to be taken as fact, but a warning to all citizens to work to protect free speech — all speech (even that with which you disagree with).

You either have free speech or not, and books like In Justice and “1984” explain what occurs as those rights become controlled by the government. It doesn’t matter what side of any issue you’re on, you should be concerned when your free speech becomes curtailed; “reasonable restrictions on free speech” becomes the ultimate expression of Doublethink.

Will the book be our future, or remain fiction?

DISCLAIMER: I received a free copy of the book for this review but no other compensation.

Schuller Cancels "Glory of Easter"

dyeager — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:05:01 +0000

The church founded by Robert Schuller canceled it’s famous “Glory of Easter” production due to rough economic times. Seeing the production many years ago showed it was an impressive event. It’s sad to see it go, but in tough times it’s certainly not the most important activity for the church to engage in.

GARDEN GROVE — Crystal Cathedral, the megachurch founded by the Rev. Robert H. Schuller, is laying off employees, will sell property in south Orange County, cut its “Hour of Power” broadcasts and cancel its “Glory of Easter” pageant this year to make up for an unprecedented 27 percent decline in revenue last year, officials said today.

Of course, they could send out a plea for a million dollars (as another southern California pastor did) to get funds, or they could tighten their belts, prioritize activities and recognize in tough economic times the church needs to focus on basic functions.

Looks like they chose the latter option.