Apologetics Made Simple

Equipping the Next Generation of Believers

Debate: Does the Bible Teach Insects Have Four Legs?

by Leave a Comment

 

In a social media group, I saw an atheist post about how the Bible says insects have four legs. On some level, you can see why someone may think the Bible teaches this because some translations, though they make a distinction between the legs that walk on the ground and the hind legs of insects, it can be pretty easy to miss. In this discussion, I am dealing with an atheist that is very hostile toward the faith. I start off by explaining to him that the Bible counted legs differently than modern taxonomy. I then gave an explanation in English for why I believe this. When he still insisted that the Bible says insects had four legs, I went into the Hebrew (I am learning ancient Hebrew at my Messianic Synagogue) and show that the Hebrew text makes it very clear that the Bible classified legs that are used for walking and hind legs separately. I also give additional arguments for why it is silly to think that Moses was incapable of counting the legs of insects. 

—————————————————————————————————————-

Atheist: 

Leviticus 11:20“ ‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

Lol…Someone should tell God how many legs the insects he created have.

Me:

This is a matter of confusion of semantics. The Bible counts what we call “legs” differently than modern taxonomy.

Atheist:

Where exactly did you get this knowledge from other than concluding it must be the case since the Bible author who wrote insects have four legs is mistaken?

Me:

The Bible itself details how the legs were counted when discussing dietary laws.

Atheist:

Please quote those verses.

Me:

“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
Yet you may eat from all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to hop on the earth. You may eat from any kind of locust, any kind of katydid, any kind of cricket and any kind of grasshopper. But all winged creeping things that have four feet are loathsome to you.”–Leviticus 11:20-23

This passage makes a distinction between walking legs and the hind legs (4+2=6).

It is also worth mentioning that the Hebrews (including Moses) knew how to count because the Hebrew letters also have numerical values, and we knew that Moses made use of these numerical values in Genesis and Exodus (again showing that he knew how to count). So, the Hebrews did know how to count, and this is evidenced by the Hebrew language and its usage in the Bible.

Atheist:

Leviticus 11 “You may eat those that have legs with joints above their feet so they can jump.” It says plain as day that they are legs. No insects have four legs. It makes that mistake over and over with different insects such as ones with wings. If they were counting “hopping legs” as not legs then flying insects and others without them would be said to have six legs. The text would read all creeping things which go on six legs except ones that have joints above two legs.

Me:

Before you continue down this path, Aaron. There are certain rules to the Bible that one must follow when interpreting it (Also bear in mind that I actually am learning Ancient Hebrew). These rules have been used even by the prophets, and they were systematized about a hundred years before Yeshua was born. The context of the passage is not a definitive classification of insects. The purpose of the passage was to inform the Israelites of what was expected of them regarding dietary laws. Another part of proper hermeneutics is to watch for distinctions in passages. When the Bible makes a distinction, it is important to pay attention. This is one such case.

By insisting that the Bible is trying to give definitive classifications to all insects, you are violating hermeneutical principles by losing the plain meaning of the passage (the plain meaning is derived from the intent of the passage). This is not the way the Bible is meant to be interpreted, and if you interpret it outside of this framework, you are misrepresenting the Bible.

I have also made an argument that clearly shows that the Hebrews knew how to count. The notion that Moses didn’t know how to count after making extensive use of numerical values to tell the Israelites how to build the tabernacle is a stretch, to say the least. In fact, it goes beyond mere argument, it goes to prove that Moses knew how to count. You can repeat your position ad nauseum if you wish, but I think you can make better use of your time.

Atheist:

They may have known how to count but they sure weren’t concerned with accurately describing insects. It’s clear the authors weren’t entomologist and mistakenly classified insects as having four legs. There’s no way around this fact. It written plain as day. A grasshoppers hind legs were counted as legs. So they thought a grasshopper had two hind legs and two front legs.

Me:

Because the Bible makes a distinction between the four walking legs and two hind legs in that passage–the legs were meant to be counted separately. If the Israelites read the passage as you did, they never would have eaten locusts because they would have assumed they were not kosher because they had more than four legs.

This is why knowing how the Bible is meant to be interpreted is very important. You must pay very careful attention to distinctions. If you come to the Bible and just try to read it from a western lens, you will make mistakes such as these. This isn’t directed toward you specifically, many Americans make this mistake.

Atheist:

There’s no way around this fact. It written plain as day. A grasshoppers hind legs were counted as legs. So they thought a grasshopper had two hind legs and two front legs.

Me:

It is not if you look at the Hebrew. The two Hebrew words to describe these legs are כָּרָע and רֶגֶל. They both have very distinct definitions. One refers to feet (four feet) and the other refers to legs (two legs). It is very clear that a distinction is being made here. It would not be so obvious in some English translations, but the Hebrew makes it very clear that the two hind legs and the four legs that are meant for walking on the ground are distinct from one another in this passage.

Atheist:

No it doesn’t make a distinction between 4 walking legs and two hopping legs. You made that up. It’s says they have four legs and describes edible insects as ones with legs with joints above their feet.

Me:

I went into the Hebrew, and I can go further. The Hebrew word for four, אַרְבַּע, is only used for the Hebrew word ‘רֶגֶל (which means foot).’ This (אַרְבַּע only modifying רֶגֶל) is how we know that רֶגֶל and כָּרָע are meant to be counted separately. Furthermore, if the two distinct words were meant to be modified by four together, there would have been a conjunction prior to כָּרָע. Otherwise, אַרְבַּע could not modify both words.

When you look at the Hebrew, the meaning of the text is quite clear. I also think the notion that I could travel in time and write the Torah scrolls that contain the dietary guidelines for the Israelites is a bit of a stretch.

If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
——————————————————————-
My Book on Apologetics:

 

Debate: Defending Omniscience

by Leave a Comment

I saw an interesting post in a debate group that I thought was worth addressing. What follows is a transcript that gives a ton of examples of atheists not respecting the definition of terms giving by Bible believers. This is a very common tactic in atheist evangelism. They will try to get you away from definitions of terms that accurately reflect what the Bible teaches and will attempt to get you outside of the Biblical framework in order to attempt to show you that it is not possible for the Bible to be true in the first place.

In my first book, ‘Apologetics Made Simple,’ I stress the importance of both the defining of terms and accurate representation. In this case, the atheist initially claims omniscience is logically impossible and then tries give unbiblical implications to the term, ‘omniscience.’ Atheists cannot argue with us on the basis of Biblical premises and definitions because if they are granted, our position is unassailable. Atheists always try to get the believer to adopt their outrageous assumptions instead. It is the only way atheism can survive a philosophical discussion. Notice that every time these two atheists try to assert that God’s omniscience is impossible by disregarding the definition of omniscience, I bring them back to the definition of omniscience that is compatible with what the Bible teaches.

————————————————————————

Atheist I: Omniscience is logically impossible. One cannot possibly know that one knows everything that can be known.

Me: Your argument assumes that God’s knowledge is the result of a series of inferences, but an omniscient being’s knowledge is a priori. Your objection is inapplicable. All true propositions are already possessed by God, including that he is omniscient.

Atheist I: Circular reasoning is circular.

Me: I hope you are in this group to learn because I find it quite concerning that you cannot tell the difference between two modus ponens arguments and circular reasoning.

Atheist I: Again: How can God know he was not created by a being who instilled in him the belief he is all-knowing? Easy: He can’t. It is logically impossible.

Me: Again? This is the first time you asked that question. God, being omniscient, possesses all truths (this is what it means to be omniscient). If an omniscient being is uncreated, he knows that he is not created. Easy peasy lemon squeezy, as they say.

Atheist I: Let me try help you out. My position is that the very concept of omniscience is illogical.

Me: I have already shown that your position is incorrect.

Atheist I: Surely you can see how just asserting that God is omniscient does not address this.

Me: I didn’t just assert it. I defined what it meant to be omniscient and then I argued its implications. You are trying to argue that it is logically impossible. Since logic has to do with inference, you have to start with the concept of omniscience and then show how it is not possible. I am apparently not the one who needs help in this conversation. Your view of this issue is simplistic, deficient, and primitive.

Atheist I: If I say “A married bachelor cannot exist”, would you reply “Sure he can. If he is married, then he is married by definition”? I hope not.

Me: I would start with the definition of ‘married’ and the definition of ‘bachelor’ and then show that the two are mutually exclusive by definition because that is how philosophy is done well. I took a similar approach in this conversation with omniscience. If you would argue that a bachelor cannot be married by virtue of the definitions of the key terms, you are an intellectual hypocrite for attempting to reject my valid and sound arguments for God’s omniscience. The structure of the argument I gave is the same for what you would give for arguing that a bachelor cannot be married. If we accepted your deficient view of argumentation, you would have to agree arguing that a bachelor is unmarried by definition is circular.

I’m going to give you some unsolicited advice. I recommend you learn something about doing philosophy well before you spend all of this time arguing in Facebook groups. You are wasting your time.

Atheist II: Omniscience assume complete knowledge. It does not assume which theory of knowledge.

Me: With omniscience, all truths are possessed. This makes theories of knowledge irrelevant. God doesn’t need theories of knowledge because he already knew everything from the start. This is a point that is very easy to understand.

Atheist II: If God’s knowledge is reliably produced true belief, then god’s beliefs are all knowledge by his nature.

Me: No beliefs were produced by God as a result of his knowledge. He already knew everything to be true. God doesn’t discover nor infer propositions that were previously unknown to him because he is omniscient. A being that must use inferences to possess new truths is not omniscient by definition. At this point, I’m seeing an ironic parallel between this conversation and the married bachelor example that Faizal used earlier. I assume you think bachelors are married too?

Atheist II: That leads to the problem of the incompleteness theorems if god’s knowledge is recursive, and Russell’s Paradox if it isn’t.

Me: It would only lead to the aforementioned problems if God had to infer in order to come to the possession of truths that were previously unknown to him. Since God possesses all truths, he has no need for inferences when it comes to knowing propositions to be true. Therefore, God’s knowledge is not recursive. God, as an omniscient being, does not rely on an axiom to deduce theorems so that he can know propositions to be true so Russell’s paradox is also not relevant to omniscience either.

Atheist II: Its you that is assuming what theory of knowledge others are assigning to god. Making your objection void.

Me: Anyone who needs a theory of knowledge is not omniscient by definition. Now, I am convinced that you haven’t taken a look at these issues very carefully. I suggest you do some reading and some reflecting before returning to this conversation.

If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
——————————————————————-
My Book on Apologetics:

 

Debate: Defending Omnipotence

by Leave a Comment

 

I am a member of the Gordon Clark Discussion Group on Facebook. Every so often, I participate in discussions in that group. There is one Christian gentleman named Jesse who seems to have disliked me from the very first conversation I had with him. We have been in contentious discussions in the past, and they often result in me asking him to define his terms and him either refusing to do so or calling me ‘annoying.’ In this discussion, we argue about whether or not the philosophical system I espouse can allow me to know that God is omnipotent. My position is that what is said in scripture or what can be deduced from scripture by necessary consequence is knowledge. If a proposition is inferred by a deduction that is not inferred from necessary consequence or if a proposition is inferred from scripture by induction, the conclusion is an opinion because it could be wrong. Therefore, my position is not that you can’t make inductive inferences from the Bible, rather, it is that inferences that are not made by necessary consequence are beliefs that could be wrong. Because those beliefs can be wrong, we should not be willing to die on a hill for those beliefs. What follows is a discussion where Jesse attacks my view of omnipotence. 

Jesse: Which methods of inference are appropriate when doing theology?

Me: We are permitted to make inferences from scripture. If those conclusions are necessarily inferred, it is knowledge. If it is not necessarily inferred, it is an opinion.

Jesse: I see that you’re willing to bite the bullet, Jason. How much theology do you know under such a restriction, and how much do you need to throw out?

I’ve given the example of the age of the earth. I presume that you would be willing to admit that we simply don’t know the age of the earth.

However, let’s take a more important doctrine: God’s omnipotence. Classically, this doctrine is formulated as the claim that God is capable of performing any *logically* possible action (Descartes even thought that God could do the logically impossible!) To support this, one could cite Matthew 19:26, where Jesus says: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

So far so good, but what sense of ‘possible’ did Jesus have in view here? There are several options in addition to logical possibility. There is physical possibility, for example. This refers to all that is possible given the physical laws of the universe. After creating these laws, God became subject to them (one might think). For example, while God can do all that is possible, He cannot determine the precise location and speed of quantum particles; nor can He accelerate an object with mass beyond the speed of light.

Far fetched? Of course. I would simply invite you to rule this definition of ‘possible’ out with a deductive argument from Scripture.

Let me give you a further way one could interpret passages about omnipotence. This perspective is more realistic in the sense that some (mainly Jewish) theologians believe it. One this rendering of ‘possible’, the intended meaning has certain assumed but unstated qualifications. Proponents of this view point out that when one is offering praise, or exhorting others to worship, it is inappropriate in that context to mention those qualification. To illustrate, suppose you are an employer giving a speech to motivate your employees, and you declare “as a team, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish!” Obviously, this statement contains many unstated qualifications which would be counterproductive to enumerate given what you are trying to accomplish. Something analogous could be going on in the Bible when it exhorts us to worship God, or when God is described in an awe-inspiring way. God is offered praise for his immense power; indeed, for having the power to dominate human affairs. Nevertheless, God’s power falls short of the ability to do all that is logically possible. The Biblical authors don’t mention this not only because it would be irrelevant, but because it would undercut the intended psychological effect of the statement. On this stronger sense of omnipotence then, the God of the Bible lacks it.

Let me preempt your response by acknowledging that there are many objections to this view. It’s not the view itself that I’m interested in. What matters is whether the correct doctrine of omnipotence can be *deduced* from scripture. The mere possibility of alternative definitions for terms such as ‘possible’ make such a straightforward deduction extremely unlikely. What will be decisive in this case are independent philosophical considerations, as well as any textual clues one can find.

Needless to say, this kind of reasoning will never amount to a deductive proof. The upshot of this is that knowledge of God’s omnipotence (insofar as it has a precise definition) is grounded in something besides a necessary inference from Scripture.

If you wish to continue to deny the status of inductive knowledge, you could bite the bullet again and concede that we may not know what kind of omnipotence God has. I don’t expect you to take this option, Jason, but if you do, there is a slippery slope of theological skepticism that I will take you down as punishment.”

Me: Instead of spending time attacking concepts of omnipotence that I do not agree with, you could have asked me how I define ‘omnipotence,’ first. None of your objections are applicable to my position.

Jesse: Did you read the part of my comment where I said “it’s not the view [of omnipotence] itself that I’m interested in”?

Me: Yes, if you think that views of omnipotence are not related to your questions, I suggest that you rethink that position. The questions you asked are not relevant to my definition of omnipotence.

Jesse: The only question I am interested in is whether a given definition of omnipotence can literally be deduced from scripture. Is that the case for your preferred definition?

Me: Oh, I see. Your question actually gave me an idea for an article that I wrote this morning. [Note: The rest of the conversation is about the definition of omnipotence I gave in this article, “Omnipotence is defined as the ability to carry out one’s will perfectly.”] 

Jesse: It seems like you’re going to be attracted to the bullet-biting strategy I warned against. Bad idea. Shame on you. Your definition of omnipotence is completely impoverished, and even so, still cannot be deduced from the Bible; at least not without making interpretive decisions supported by induction and/or abduction.

Me: How so? What is deficient about the definition given in my article?

Since language is just symbols that communicate propositional meaning, it is rather easy to derive a definition for ‘omnipotence’ from scripture since scripture says so much about God’s power. I’ve already shown why I went with this definition on the basis of the Bible in the article I linked. 

You are making a lot of blanket statements, but I am not seeing any substance from you. Every time I dialogue with you, you come off as rude. If you don’t like me, I don’t see why you even bother to engage me. If you really want to engage with me, I suggest you engage directly with what I have written instead of hiding behind ambiguous blanket statements.

Jesse: The definition is impoverished because of the reasons I gave in my last paragraph. All of those are examples of things which are able to perfectly carry out their will, yet they are not omnipotent.

Me: Your “reasons” are insufficient. Basically, your reason for telling me my definition is impoverished is not relevant to the defining of terms.

Since ‘omnipotent’ is not a term that is found in the Bible, I am left to define it myself, but if I am going to use it in reference to the God of the Bible, I have to make sure the definition is in line with what the Bible teaches concerning God’s power. I already explained this in the article, but perhaps you missed the point.

The examples you gave are not consistent with the God that the Bible represents, and are, therefore, irrelevant.

Jesse: Your definition uses induction because of the way that it interprets the biblical evidence. Take Psalm 115:3 as an example, which you cite. “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”

It cannot be deduced from this that “God is able to perfectly carry out his will.”

Me: Wrong. If omnipotence is the ability to perfectly carry out one’s will, Psalm 115:3 is a demonstration of the validity of that concept. If God does whatever he pleases, he can do anything he pleases.

Jesse: You are *interpreting* the passage to mean that, but you are not deducing it.

Me: The separation of the interpretation of the text and the meaning of the text is nonsensical. I challenge you to highlight the necessity of such a distinction. If the interpretation follows by necessity, the distinction is moot in the instance in question.

Jesse: Your interpretation involves at least the following assumptions, each of which are logically possible to be erroneous: (a) that there are no unstated qualifications to the Psalmist’s claim, (b) that when God does something, he does it perfectly, (c) that the Psalmist is teaching something about the extent of God’s power to begin with. (The context of the passage is a comparison between God and pagan idols, the difference being that God is alive and capable of some action.)

Me: I appreciate your attempts to read my mind, but I had none of the things you mentioned in my mind, and really, like much of everything else you have said so far, the assumptions you give are not relevant. Let’s go through them one at a time:

“a) that there are no unstated qualifications to the Psalmist’s claim,”

The Bible is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), and if the plain meaning of the text (known as the P’shat) is false, Psalm 115:3 is not true. Since God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2), this is not possible. The Bible was written with the four levels of interpretation in mind (and those four levels are validated by the use of this method of interpretation by Yeshua, the Apostles, and the Prophets, you may see how I arrived at this conclusion in this article. If there are any unstated qualifications that would change the plain meaning of the text, God would be a liar. Since, by adopting the axiom the Bible is the Word of God, Titus 1:2 is presupposed, there is no place for a lying God in my logical system. If God cannot lie, he cannot be lying about Psalm 115:3.

“b.) that when God does something, he does it perfectly”

In this conversation, I define “perfectly” as successfully executing one’s will without fail.

“c.) that the Psalmist is teaching something about the extent of God’s power to begin with. (The context of the passage is a comparison between God and pagan idols, the difference being that God is alive and capable of some action.)”

I define power as the ability to carry out one’s will. If God can do whatever he pleases, the statement in Psalm 115:3 speaks to the extent of his power. If God can do whatever he pleases, then he is omnipotent.

Jesse: For your understanding of omnipotence to be deduced from this passage, you need to at least show that each of these assumptions is true. Can you do that without inductive reasoning? Maybe you should start by trying to demonstrate (a) deductively and see what happens.

Me: ‘Twas easily done via a series of modus ponens inferences and Biblical hermeneutics.

Jesse: I’m going to regret responding to this, but I’m a glutton for punishment.

 
Me: For once, we agree albeit for different reasons.
 
Jesse: The term has a generic public meaning, so no, that’s not how it works. You can stipulate the term to mean something completely different—nobody will stop you—but doing so is misleading and reflects poor style.
 
Me: What came first? Language or dictionaries?
 
Jesse: It sounds like what you should do given your views (and perhaps already have done) is simply reject the doctrine of omnipotence. Why do you want to hang on to this term in the first place, since it isn’t in the Bible, as you said?
 
Me: It’s a blanket term that covers a wide variety of  topics that the Bible teaches. I have already given an acceptable view of omnipotence so there is no reason for me to reject it.
 
Jesse: This is completely ludicrous. OF COURSE my examples are beings other than God. That’s the whole reason I gave them. They’re test cases for your definition. There should not be so many omnipotent beings as there would be under your definition.
 
Me: Come off it. If they don’t apply to beings other than God, then what do the examples have to do with the Bible? Think! My definitions are not meant to apply to pagan deities or anything other than the Bible. I think this was already pretty clear in the article I wrote, but some people often miss the obvious.
 
Jesse: Your definition counts anyone whose desires does not exceed his abilities as omnipotent. This is ridiculous. That means your definition is bad, period. You should modify it.
 
Me: Finally, you have made an interesting point that I had not yet considered. Fortunately, airtight definitions of terms help avoid problems that one may not have initially considered when laying out their position.
 
In my definition of omnipotence, ‘will’ does not necessarily mean desire [though desire is certainly a component of it]. ‘Will’ means ‘plan.’ The definition of ‘will’ as used in my definition for omnipotence and ‘perfectly’ involves God’s will alone because he has dominion over all things. Since, according to the Bible, God is the one who has dominion over all things, no other being can qualify for omnipotence under my definition. Any consequence of a plan is because of God, not because of anything else (Proverbs 16:9, Proverbs 19:21). In essence, the reason why God executes his plans perfectly without fail is because no other planners can override his plan. I showed in the article (I don’t think you read it very carefully) this is an aspect of omnipotence that is to be taken into consideration in my definition. The meaning of ‘perfect’ in my definition has to do with God executing his plan without fail due to him not being confined by his creation.
 
Your point was interesting, but there is still no need to modify my position. If it were not so comprehensive, perhaps I would have to make a change, but this criticism isn’t a problem for my position either. This is why, as I have been telling you since we met, Jesse, definitions are important. Frankly, you should have asked for a definition of ‘will.’
 
Jesse: A demonstration is not a deduction, lol.
 
Me: I am the one who used the term [demonstration] so I am the one who gets to define it. The only way to show that something is true is by deduction. Therefore, demonstrations must be deductive.
 
Jesse: My point was that the term ‘perfectly’ cannot be found in this verse, nor can a synonym. So, you cannot deduce your definition of omnipotence from this passage insofar as it includes this term.
 
Me: Wrong. I can develop terminology with definitions that cover aspects of the Bible. I can then test the concepts against the propositional revelation of the Bible. If the definition is in agreement with what the Bible says concerning the subject matter that the word references, I can use it. It would be a simple modus ponens syllogism.
 
Jesse: This illustrates the difference between deduction and interpretation, as you asked me to explain.
 
Me: Nope. Interpretations involve either deductive or inductive inferences. I suppose some can be abductive, but I find abuduction to be a bit beside the point. There is, however, no material distinction between deductions and interpretations when the interpretation being referenced is deductive.
 
Jesse: Perhaps it is obvious to you that “perfectly” is in view in this Psalm. Maybe it is. But you certainly wouldn’t know that through deduction alone, since it *possible* that this verse simply means that God doesn’t follow anyone else’s rules; that he does what *He* pleases.
 
Me: I’ve already shown that I do. You can repeat your objections, but both the Bible and logic would disagree with you. I wouldn’t want to be on your side of the argument in this case.
 
I don’t see why the other possibility you raised would even be a problem because if he doesn’t act according to other’s plans, it already means that he does as he pleases. It would just be a different way of stating the same proposition. If God doesn’t do what others want him to do, then it follows that he only does what he pleases (that is, unless another person’s plan and God’s plan intersect). Even then, God takes dominion over the other person’s plan; Proverbs 16:9; Proverbs 19:21).
 
Jesse: This is consistent with him sometimes doing what he pleases imperfectly. Therefore, you cannot deduce the term ‘perfectly’ out of this passage alone. You must make a judgment about what the passage means first; a judgment which is fallible. “
 
Me: Incorrect, but very sneaky. Your argument rests on a different definition of ‘perfect’ than what I have specified in this thread. If you are going to equivocate and misrepresent my position with this criticism, I do not have to address it. You also need to define ‘judgment.’
 
Jesse: Uh, what? Are you asserting that if the Bible means something other than what it ‘plainly’ says; God would be a liar?
 
Me: Never said that. You need to read up on hermeneutics. If the P’shat’s meaning is other than what God has stated, he would be a liar. Don’t try to talk about things until after you have read up on them first. Aside from you not defining your terms as you should, this is another problem that you seem to have when it comes to doing philosophy.
 
Jesse: So there is no poetry or metaphor in the Bible?
 
Me: Didn’t say that. I also didn’t say that the P’shat is always literal. Take care not to read between the lines when there is no need to read between the lines.
 
Jesse: “The whole Judean countryside” in Mark 1:5 literally means every single person in the region? 1 Timothy 2:4 disproves Calvinism?”
 
Me: Since your point with your examples misrepresents what I said about the P’shat of the text, I do not need to answer these questions.
 
Jesse: I’m sure you don’t believe something as ridiculous as this, so I fail to grasp your point here.
 
Me: That is because you started trying to talk to me about a subject that you quite clearly know nothing about. Sometimes, it is beneficial to say, “Let me read up on that first.”
 
Jesse: The overriding point however is that it is *disputable* whether the plain meaning of this text has unstated qualifications in it or not.
 
Me: No, it is not (as I have already shown).
 
Jesse: You don’t claim to know this through a deductive inference, do you? You’re reasoning by examples → principles, aren’t you? In other words … inductively? 
 
Me: I have concluded the hermeneutical method I ascribe to is confirmed from the usage of the method in the Bible itself and from deductive inference[This means that when interpretting passages, there are certain rules we must follow that rules out erroneous interpretations that people say are *possible*]. The inferences involved would be of the modus ponens variety (It wouldn’t be a simple syllogism, however). In addition, I have inductive arguments for my position as well. As Clark says, one must come in possession of the truth before one can demonstrate it. In a system of propositions, the way the initial proposition is attained is not of consequence. What is of consequence is the placement of that proposition in the logical system.

Jesse: No more than the frog in my example from earlier is omnipotent. 

Me: The definition of ‘will’ that I use for omnipotence is not applicable to the frog so I am afraid that the frog is not omnipotent (even though he might be pretty cool). Your objection is just another example of equivocation and misrepresentation of my position.

Jesse: Did you deduce your hermenutical principles from the Bible?

Me: Yes, insofar as how it is arranged in my philosophical system.

For your own good, I’m going to give you some advice. Frankly, I do not think you know what you are doing when it comes to this philosophy thing. I have seen you say some good things in this group so I am not saying that you cannot be good at philosophy, but right now, you have a lot of things that are holding you back from clarity of thought. Engaging other people is good practice and it is a good way to test your ideas, but don’t be dogmatic about ideas on subjects that you clearly know nothing about. On several occasions in this discussion, you have tried to argue with me about things (the most obvious example being the P’shat of scripture) that you clearly know nothing about. Before you start arguing about something, for your own good and to avoid embarrassment, study the subject matter first.

I have had some critics in this group and others who did not like me and they found me to be annoying (much like you have said), but a couple of them have come around and started to see that I was pushing them to reflect on their ideas and they even started to agree with me on positions that they previously disagreed with. If you really reflect on some of the things I told you, I think it could help you come a long way on your philosophical journey. You don’t have to agree with me on everything, but every time I dialogue with you, I get a great sense of disrespect from you. You either need to get over whatever problem you have with me or stop dialoguing with me. If you are going to “regret” posting something, perhaps you shouldn’t post it. We only get so much time on this planet so it seems rather silly to willfully engage in activities that you do not like.

Conclusion

It is amazing that people think they can say things like, “That is just your interpretation.” There is no meaningful distinction between a correct interpretation of the Bible and the meaning of the Bible. When we interpret the Bible, there are rules that we have to follow, and we can see those rules used in the scriptures. One might say, “You have to use those principles in order to see them in the Bible in the first place.” That may be true; however, in mathematics, one must come to the possession of the truth that 2+2=4 before they can demonstrate that 2+2=4. This is because the axiom of addition must be granted prior to doing addition.

Just the same, we find out about the rules of interpretation and then we see those rules implemented in the Bible. The way we come to posses the truth of how to interpret the Bible is of no consequence. What is of consequence, however, is how we integrate those rules into our system of beliefs. We choose where to place our beliefs in our overarching philosophy. What is tested in philosophical discourse is not how we initially discovered a proposition, but how it fits in with the rest of what we believe.

If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
——————————————————————-
My Book on Apologetics:

Did God Say We Should Sell All of Our Possessions?

by Leave a Comment

 

Introduction

On more than one occasion, I have had unbelievers (particularly those of a Hindu or Islamic persuasion) ask me why I haven’t sold all of my possessions. I’ve also received this question from believers before. In this article, I will address the question, “Did Yeshua say we should sell all of our possessions?”

The Origin of the Claim

Matthew 19:21 reads, “Yeshua said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you own, and give to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” What is interesting about this passage is that the wealthy man claimed to have kept the commandments in verse 20. This prompted what Yeshua said in verse 21.

Addressing the Claim

What is interesting is that the man grieved when Yeshua told him to sell all he had and follow him. The first of the ten commandments is, “You shall have no other gods before Me. (Exodus 20:3).” And Yeshua said the most important commandment was, “And He said to him, “‘You shall love Adonai your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment (Matthew 22:37-38).” What Yeshua said was what it meant to keep the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me.” If the man grieved because Yeshua told him to sell all of his possessions, it is clear he was not keeping the most important commandment. Though the reason why Yeshua told him to do this is not stated, it can be easily inferred that despite the man saying that he kept the commandments, he was not keeping the most important one.

And why is an explanation necessary? Is it not obvious that Yeshua tells all of his followers to sell their possessions? The answer is a resounding, “No,” if the Bible is any indication. Indeed, Abram was wealthy, yet he found favor with Adonai and became Abraham, the Father of Nations (Genesis 13:2; Genesis 17). Did Adonai tell him to sell all of his possessions? No. That is right. God began his covenant for Israel by making his covenant with a rich man. This is quite the far cry from the notion that God wants all of his believers to sell their possessions. Based on this one example of many, those who interpret Matthew 19:21 as a requirement for all believers to sell everything must be in error. King David was also very wealthy but yet he was still referred to as ‘a man after God’s own heart,’ after becoming the earthly king of Israel (Acts 13:22; 1 Samuel 13:14). Since King David was considered a man after God’s heart even after he became wealthy, it is clear that selling all of your earthly possessions is not a requirement for salvation nor favor with God. 

Some will still object by saying that Yeshua said it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:23-24). It is true that Yeshua said this; however, Yeshua also said,  “And looking, Yeshua said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:26).”

Conclusion

Based on God’s dealings with wealthy believers, it is easy to determine that those who say the Bible teaches that all believers must sell their possessions are in error. It should be noted, however, that there are instances where God calls people to sell all of their possessions. Those who are called to do so should do so immediately. It is likely because God is either trying to teach them something, their wealth has become a stumbling block to them, or both. God can use a poor, middle class, or rich person mightily in whatever way he chooses. We should take care to remember that God can use different types of people to further his divine plan.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–
If you found this article helpful, you can support on my Patreon page by contributing at least $1/month.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–

My book on investing and Personal Finance:

Why Does God Allow Evil, Pain, and Suffering?

by Leave a Comment

 

Introduction

This article is a portion of Chapter II of my upcoming book, When God Turns Things Around. The Problem of Evil is one of the most cited reasons for rejecting God’s existence. This chapter of my book gives concise  but definitive answers to the different forms of the Problem of Evil.

The Emotional Problem of Evil

If the Christian God is real, why is there evil and suffering in the world? This is a question that has been asked many times, and there have been various answers that have been given by philosophers and theologians. There are a few ways to answer this question, and the appropriate answer depends on the meaning of the question. After all, not everyone has the same view of evil. Perhaps a more easy way to phrase the question is, “If God is real, why is there pain and suffering?”

We will deal with the question logically. The question at hand assumes that evil, pain, and suffering are somehow at odds with Christianity. This is an assumption that I emphatically reject. If the objector is trying to critique Christianity, the belief system of Christianity must be granted in order for the criticism at hand to be applicable to Christianity. The same goes for someone who is just asking a question such as, “If God exists, why must I suffer?”

Clearly, the Bible teaches that there is a God, and there is such thing as evil, pain, and suffering. This is the result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:14-19). Once this answer is given, the following question is commonly asked, “If God knew about the fall and allowed it to happen, is God the author of evil?” The interesting thing about this question is that there is an assumption that the cause of an effect determines who is responsible for the effect, but this is not how the Bible treats responsibility. In the Bible, responsibility is based on accountability to a higher authority (1 Samuel 2:3). If the question at hand conditionally assumes that Christianity is true, are we not obliged to grant what the Bible says concerning the concepts contained in the questions that are asked about Christianity? After all, any objection or question that takes aim at Christianity only will misrepresent Christianity if we discount what scripture says about the issues at hand.

Another might ask, “If God is all powerful and all knowing, how could anyone resist his will? How could God hold me responsible if I cannot frustrate his will?” The Apostle Paul answers this question in Romans 9, “ But who in the world are you, O man, who talks back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?” Does the potter have no right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and another for common use? Now what if God, willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath designed for destruction? And what if He did so to make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory?” The Apostle Paul is pointing out that as the creation, we have no standing that allows us to question the one who made us. God made us, and he is in charge of his creation. Indeed, even Hebrews 6:13 reads, “Now when God made His promise to Abraham—since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself.”

God’s Purpose for Evil

As for evil, God endures it with much patience. But why does he endure it? The Bible makes this clear in numerous places. For instance, in Genesis 37, Joseph, the favorite son of Jacob, is thrown into a well. Joseph is then sold into servitude and is falsely accused of adultery and is sent to prison in Genesis 39. In Genesis 40, God helps Joseph help other people by interpreting their dreams. A couple of years later, the Pharaoh begins having dreams and none of his servants can interpret it. Hearing about Joseph’s success in interpreting dreams, he sends for Joseph (Genesis 41). The Pharaoh knew that Joseph’s interpretation was from God and therefore correct so he placed Joseph above all the land. Joseph was now the Pharaoh’s second in command over Egypt.

At some point, Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt, and they unknowingly crossed paths with Joseph. Joseph kept his identity hidden for a time, but he revealed who he was to his brothers in Genesis 45. Joseph even told his brothers that despite their actions, God was the one who actually sent him to Egypt (Genesis 45:5-8). Why did Joseph have to suffer for so long? It wasn’t because of an indifferent or powerless God; God had a purpose for Joseph’s trials and suffering. Even the evil deeds of Joseph’s brothers could not frustrate God’s will. In Genesis 50:20, Joseph said to his brothers, “Yes, you yourselves planned evil against me. God planned it for good, in order to bring about what it is this day—to preserve the lives of many people.”

There is no such thing as gratuitous suffering. God has a purpose even for evil and suffering. Indeed, Romans 8:28 reads, “Now we know that ALL things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose.” Even all pain and suffering has a purpose, and that purpose is determined by God. If you are going through a difficult time, rest assured that your suffering is not pointless, and God has his reasons for leading you to your trial.

The Logical Problem of Evil

There is another version of the Problem of Evil that has not yet been covered. We have largely dealt with the Emotional Problem of Evil. The Logical Problem of Evil attempts to show that God does not exist because of evil and suffering. There are multiple variations of the argument, but all of them have the same implications. Here is an example:

1. There shouldn’t be gratuitous evil in the world if an all powerful and all good God exists.

2. There is gratuitous evil in the world.

3. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

It is worth noting that even most atheist philosophers have given up on this argument because there are too many issues with it. The first issue is that they take too much liberty with the property of goodness. God’s goodness in the Bible does not preclude the notion of evil, for God has made us agents who have a will that is distinct from his own. 1 Therefore, it was God’s will that the decisions we make, whether they are good or bad, would impact the world. While our own intentions are not always good, God’s intentions always are. This is what demonstrates God’s goodness.

Given what has been discussed earlier in this article, there is no such thing as gratuitous pain and suffering. Therefore, given what the Bible says, the syllogism that is used for this argument is not applicable to Christianity. While Christian philosophers have offered solutions to this problem (most atheist philosophers have conceded the issue, but most of the solutions that Christian philosophers give are more rhetorical than Biblical), I will submit my own solution; my solution is based on what the Bible says about evil, pain, and suffering.  If we were to take what the Bible says concerning evil into account, we can refute this argument with the following syllogism:

1. If the Bible is true, there is evil in the world.

2. The Bible is true.

3. Therefore, there is evil in the world.

4. If there is evil in the world, God has a purpose for evil.

5. There is evil in the world.

6. Therefore, God has a purpose for evil.

7. If God has a purpose for evil, there is no such thing as gratuitous pain, suffering, or evil.

8. God has a purpose for evil.

9. Therefore, there is no such thing as gratuitous pain, suffering, or evil.

Any good philosopher would be inclined to accept this solution, but a lot of people who are taking part in the discussion of evil and God will state something along the lines of, “You have to prove the Bible is true before you can make this argument.” In such a scenario, the atheist would have to concede the issue of the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil is an internal critique of various forms of theism. You cannot do an internal critique without granting the other worldview for the sake of argument. Clearly, this argument is offered only to show that if Christianity is granted, there is no explicit or implicit contradictions between the truth of Christianity and evil. In essence, if the objector rejects the argument on the basis of a lack of proof for the Bible’s truth, they concede the Logical Problem of Evil. If they grant Christianity for argument’s sake, logic demands that they accept the conclusion of the argument. 2 Either way, the objector concedes the issue and Christianity still stands. This response is equally applicable to what is called ‘The Evidential Problem of Evil.’

Conclusion

Throughout the history of philosophy, unbelievers have made quite a bit of noise about the Problem of Evil. To be fair, Christianity is not the only worldview that this argument is used against, but, when an objector uses it to address Christianity, the argument is really much ado about nothing. Any attempt to construct a moral framework that is compatible with naturalism leads to logical contradiction due to a problem of infinite regress, and any attempt to do an internal critique of Christianity by arguing that evil and the existence of God are incompatible is doomed to failure. 3

Footnotes:

1. In this article, man’s will and God’s will are defined by their respective intent.

2. In this article, ‘logic’ is defined as the science of necessary inference.

3. I am fully convinced that the objections to the Problem of Evil that are given in this article are insurmountable.

 

My book on Apologetics:

 

Notes:

    The Omnipotence Paradox Solved

    by Leave a Comment

    Introduction

    Unbelievers often ask, “Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?” Unbelievers allege that this question highlights that the notion of an omnipotent God, or in this case, Adonai, is self contradictory, and therefore, impossible.

    The Omnipotence Paradox: Inapplicable to Christianity?

    The idea behind the question is to show that if God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, he is not omnipotent. On the other hand, if God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he can’t lift it, God is not omnipotent. According to the atheist, either answer means that God cannot be omnipotent. The Christian loses either way.

    There is a glaring problem with the question that is being asked. The question implies that if Adonai is omnipotent, he should be able to create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it. Yet, if Adonai can actually do it, he is not omnipotent. What is the definition of ‘omnipotent’ that the questioner is attacking? Should Adonai be able to do anything? I have not seen any atheist who has asked this question, whether it be on social media or in an academic journal, bother to define ‘omnipotent.’ Fortunately, since our position is the one being attacked, we are the ones who get to define the terms that are related to our own position. Without a definition of ‘omnipotent,’ the question is meaningless.

    Adonai Elohim’s Nature and Defining ‘Omnipotence’

    It is important to note that Adonai exercises his power within the confines of his will. 1 Adonai has made it clear that he does not lie (Numbers, 23:19, Titus 1:2), and Yeshua said he is the truth (John 14:6). Adonai is self sustaining, and whatsoever comes to pass only comes by his will and power (Ephesian 3:1, Ephesians 1:11, Romans 8:28). Therefore, we know that Adonai will only do what he wills. This has lead many theologians to correctly point out that when omnipotence is defined by Christians, it should be consistent with Adonai’s attributes. Our God is logical and because of this, his actions will be too. Therefore, any question that asks Adonai to violate his own will is a question that is inapplicable to Adonai. Still, the definitions that Christian theologians have given for ‘omnipotence’ are largely incomplete. What does it mean to say, “Omnipotence only refers to being able to do what is logically possible?” Clearly, this is a start, but it is not a Biblical definition, nor is it a definition at all. The Bible does not tie omnipotence to what is logically possible, rather, omnipotence is tied to Adonai’s will (Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 1:19-21). While theologians are correct to say that Adonai doesn’t do anything that is illogical, the connection that the Bible attributes to Adonai’s power goes beyond a simple matter of logical possibility. Therefore, a more Biblical and precise definition is needed. In this article, omnipotence is defined as the ability to perfectly carry out one’s will.

    Other similar questions have been raised too such as, “Can God destroy himself?” The answer to this question is no; an eternal being cannot be destroyed by definition. In particular, a being that does not lie, is all knowing, and who has told us he is eternal, cannot be destroyed, for if he were, it would make him a liar, and Adonai does not lie.  This does not denote a limitation of his own power, rather, it is a testament to his power and glory, for no one can frustrate Adonai’s will.

    Another similar question is, “Can God create a being more powerful than himself?” It is written, “Yours, Adonai, is the greatness, the power and the splendor, and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything in heaven and earth. Yours is the kingdom, Adonai and You are exalted above all. Both riches and honor come from You. You rule over everything. In Your hand is power and might, in Your hand, to magnify and give strength to all (1 Chronicles 29:11-12).” It is clear that Adonai Elohim will never create a being greater than himself because he will always be the greatest.

    This brings us to the question, “Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?” Adonai has told us that he is the greatest, and by consequence, he is greater than his creation. It is clear that Adonai did not will for his creation to be greater than he is. Therefore, the answer to the question is no. Adonai does not lie, and he has told us that he the greatest, therefore, there will never be a rock that is so great that Adonai cannot lift it. Given the definition of ‘omnipotence’ that was given in this article, the answer that I gave to this question is not problematic. Rather, it answers this supposed ‘paradox.’

    Conclusion

    It is obvious. The unbeliever is using some sort of unconstrained definition of ‘omnipotence.’ While we do use the word ‘omnipotence,’ to describe Adonai’s power, the Bible only tells us about what Adonai will and will not do. Clearly, Adonai’s power is exercised only within the confines of his will, not due to lack of power or ability, but simply because of who he is. Such questions that ignore the parameters assigned to Adonai’s omnipotence by the scriptures are attacking another god instead of the God of Christianity.

    Footnotes:

    1. Adonai’s will is synonymous with his nature. Adonai’s nature has been decreed in eternity’s past (James 1:17-18). Simply put, Adonai is who he has always willed to be. One could use the term, ‘nature,’ but the word ‘will,’ which is defined as ‘intention,’ is a term that is easier to understand.

     

    My book on apologetics:

    Notes: