John MacArthur on Twisting Scripture

A hilarious animated short of John MacArthur telling a story of a charismatic tv host desperately trying to find a life verse for himself in the Bible! 🤣🤣🤣

Artwork done by @Cartoonist_Anso pic.twitter.com/BUT2WmjCYD

— Kuiper Belt Productions (@KuiperBelt117) July 31, 2025

Exegete This: How to Forgive

 

Without going into a lot of detail, I have been going through a lot of personal setbacks and pain that have forced re-examination and perspective pivots. It appears that this is why God allowed my life to blow up in my face as it has. Fortunately, it is an opportunity to learn about forgiveness. It is a chance to see the love of God from a new vantage point. What I have found out that the deeper the suffering resulting from other people's decisions and actions, the harder it is to forgive the offense and continue loving the way God commands us to love others. I thought that I was way better at forgiveness than I truly am. Turns out that it just take the right offense from the wrong person to make it difficult for me to overlook. Of course God demands deeper and greater love from us. This has forced me to consider how what we call "boundaries" come into the discussion. Does God even have boundaries? Does God demand that we forgive any and every offense and harm done to us without limit? Is this a "Suck it up, buttercup" scenario in our lives? Is there true forgivness if there is no reconcilliation or restoration? What does God say? The above graphic lists scriptures that address a lot of great things about how to forgive others, but invites a larger discussion of what forgiveness even is and how it applies to our lives. So before I exegete the scriptures in the graphic, we need to define "forgiveness" and then describe what characterizes Biblical forgiveness. 

"Forgiveness" is both removing blame and condemenation. Forgiving somone does not mean ignoring the harm or pretending that the offense did not hurt or did not happen. It certainly is not stuffing it down and not dealing with it. Forgiveness is best illustrated by God. It was foreshadowed by the sacrificial system in ancient Israel, and culminates in the propiatory sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. Any discussion of what Forgiveness is and what it is not can only best understood in what Jesus did. You cannot love someone and refuse to forgive them simultaneously. It will not work. I used Microsoft Copilot to summarize the Hebrew and Greek words that communicate the concept of "forgiveness".

In the Bible, *forgiveness* is a rich and multifaceted concept, deeply rooted in both Hebrew and Greek thought. Let’s break it down using the original languages:

Hebrew (Old Testament)

There are three primary Hebrew verbs used to express forgiveness:

1. סָלַח (sālaḥ) – This is the most direct term for divine forgiveness. It’s used exclusively of God forgiving sins (e.g., Leviticus 4:20). It implies a gracious act of releasing someone from guilt.

2. כָּפַר (kāpar) – Often translated as “to atone” or “to cover,” this word is tied to the sacrificial system. It reflects the idea of covering sin so that it no longer incurs divine wrath (Leviticus 16:30).

3. נָשָׂא (nāśā’) – Literally “to lift” or “to carry away.” It conveys the image of sin being lifted off or removed from the sinner (Psalm 32:1).

Together, these words paint a picture of God not only pardoning sin but actively removing its burden and restoring relationship.

These three Hebrew words definitely adds something to the discussion. What is missing from the idea is the idea of erasure. The sin, the harm, the offense, did not disappear. It is not ignored. There is no pretention of innocence. Instead, the sin is expatiated. The cost incurred by the act or thought is paid and reparation and restoration is made. No more guilt. No more condemnation.

Greek (New Testament)

The Greek language offers equally profound insights:

1. ἀφίημι (aphiēmi) – This verb means “to send away” or “to let go.” It’s the most common term for forgiveness in the New Testament, used when Jesus forgives sins (Matthew 6:12). It implies a release from obligation or debt.

2. ἄφεσις (aphesis) – The noun form of *aphiēmi*, meaning “release” or “remission.” It’s used in verses like Luke 4:18, where Jesus proclaims “release to the captives,” linking forgiveness with liberation.

3. χαρίζομαι (charizomai) – This verb emphasizes graciousness and is often used in the context of interpersonal forgiveness (Ephesians 4:32). It reflects the idea of freely granting pardon as an act of kindness.

Forgiveness in both the old and new covenants is not about just our relationship between God but also interpersonal relationship with one another. And using Jesus as our example of what relationship restoration looks like, we have to ask does forgiveness mean a restoration of a broken relationship? It depends on what "restoration" means. Does one mean that the relationship is restored to the same closeness and quality as it was before the breach or break? Does this mean trust is restored? Given the nature of Jesus' forgiveness of our sins, the forced conclusion is not that forgiveness restores a relationship without change. Our relationship with God is not just established by his forgiveness of us but it is deepened and closer. Therefore when we forgive one another, it does not mean that every relationship must neccessarily go back to the way things were before the situation. The point is that the relationship is back in balance and in accordance with God's will. Both sides are changed by Biblical forgiveness. The transgressor and the transgressed become more Christ-like. God heals both. There can be no healing without forgiveness.

 

As far as God is concerned, we are expected to forgive others but we do not get to decide on our own what it will look like. When Joseph forgave his brothers for selling him into slavery, the harm done to him did not disappear.  The twenty plus years of suffering he endured did not magically erase from reality, but God restored Joseph's relationship with his family and he let go of resentment and revenge, The reason I wanted to go into the scriptures above is because they do give legit help in forgiving others. It is painfully obvious to see we must forgive each other. It is literally a command.

Matthew 6:14-16

New International Version

14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

This is important. And God is serious. So one may ask: How do I do it? How do I forgive the unforgivable?  The Bible has answers. These answers work for serious harms and for trivial ones alike.

We must pray. Sometimes we need God's power to forgive others especially when we are really hurt and cannot do it on our own. Instead of commanding that we forgive others, God will help us to do that. 

Matthew 5:44

New International Version

 

44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

When this feels too much to ask, I am reminded that Jesus forgave the men who crucified him on the cross, while they were nailing him to it (Luke 24:34). 

Of course, God really doubles down on this being about Him and not about ourselves. The next thing is to love people even if they do not care about you. Do good to them even if they would not do it to you. Romans 12:9 calls us to do good not just don't do bad. 

You cannot forgive a person and always bad mouthing them too. Talking against them in judgment and condemnation only feeds your own anger and makes forgiveness more difficult. Look at Romans 12:14, 

Romans 12:14

New International Version

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

 Honestly? Really? That is why we need God's help and God will help us do that. And back to prayer.

Sometimes when we are hurting and angry we do not want relief. We want revenge. We want the ones who hurt us to feel our pain that we blame them for causing. Sometimes we don't want them to get what they gave us. We want them to suffer. Romans 12:17-19 takes this attitude off the table if we want to be Christ-like. We have to let go of the desire to hurt them. 

I know I struggle with the next one. It is so tempting to enjoy the suffering of those who hurt you. It honestly, in the short term make the pain of what they did less. The problem is that if you do not forgive, you will never heal. You will never move forward. You will never be able to grow past that pain, even if they move on and grow past it themselves. The wisdom in Proverbs 24:17 tells us that we can forgive others by not gloating over their pain.

Luke 6:31 is one of those often quoted scriptures about treating others as you want to be treated. It is the Golden Rule for good reason. But look at how if facilitates forgiveness. We all screw up and make mistakes. Do you want your mistakes and errors to define you? To be condemned and judged? I do not. So God tells us not to do that to others. 

And the last point is a hard one. I have been dealing with frustration, depression, and anxiety. The TRUTH is that I get stuck in shoulda and woulda and not letting forgiveness eventually free me. This step is very helpful: Let go of the past. Isaiah 43:18-19 is a promise. Not just that we must let the pass go but that God will replace it with better. 

Isaiah 43:18-19

New International Version

18 “Forget the former things;
    do not dwell on the past.
19 See, I am doing a new thing!
    Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?
I am making a way in the wilderness
    and streams in the wasteland.

Exegete This: Proverbs 16:3

This is part of a blog series that I like to call "Exegete This". In this series I will be publishing both in which I will pick Biblical verses and passages and pull as much information and meaning out of them as possible for me at the time of posting. I invite you on this journey and if have a suggestion to work on please send it to me. If you have a disagreement or want to add more thoughts and information please comment. 

Today's Scripture is: Proverbs 16:3

King James Version

Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established.

New International Version

Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and he will establish your plans.

Interlinear 

1556 [e]   3 gōl   3 גֹּ֣ל    3 Commit   3 V‑Qal‑Imp‑ms   3

413 [e] ’el- אֶל־ to Prep

､

3068 [e] Yah·weh יְהוָ֣ה Yahweh N‑proper‑ms

4639 [e] ma·‘ă·śe·ḵā; מַעֲשֶׂ֑יךָ your works N‑mpc | 2ms

3559 [e] wə·yik·kō·nū, וְ֝יִכֹּ֗נוּ and will be established Conj‑w | V‑Nifal‑ConjImperf‑3mp

.

4284 [e] maḥ·šə·ḇō·ṯe·ḵā. מַחְשְׁבֹתֶֽיךָ׃ your thoughts N‑fpc | 2ms

To start with, I want to remind the reader that one reads Hebrew from right to left. That said, I have always thought that I understood this scripture. I thought that was all being communicated was that if you put God first in your life, God will make yo ur plans and thoughts come true. But let us see if there is more to get into. First what does the Hebrew wordgets translated "Commit" really mean? Transliterating the word to "gōl" and Strong Number 1556 and is found in the Bible two other times Psalm 22:8 and Psalm 37:5.  It is used to convey the idea of rolling something away. The word translated "your works" or "Whatever you do" is from מַעֲשֶׂ֑יךָ and Strong's Number 4639. This word mean work but specifies good works for God. The word translated "and will be established" is וְ֝יִכֹּ֗נוּ which has Strong's number 3559 and means "To establish, prepare, make firm, set up, fix, direct"  and conveys that God is doing the set up and direction.  The word translated "thoughts" or "plans" is מַחְשְׁבֹתֶֽיךָ׃ and has Strong's number 4284 meaning "Thought, plan, purpose, device, intention". So taking all this together shows us that it those thoughts and plans that coincide with God's purpose and goals are the things that God causes to come to fruitation. So what is our part? Our part is to be commited to God. Making his goals our goals. 

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Sean McDowell and Matthew Vines in Conversation- What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

  Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Sean McDowell and Matthew Vines in Conversation- What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

Answering Muslims: Refuting Zakir Naik on the Deity of Christ

In their latest episode, David Wood and Sam Shamoun continue to attempt to bless Zakir Naik by cluing him in on how ad his arguments truly are. I sure hope he and those who have fallen for there hell-spawned lies will take heed and abandon them. In this outing, they show that Naik is wrong to say that the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ. Naik really makes it easy.


Answering Muslims: Refuting Zakir Naik on the Deity of Christ

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Three Biblical Spirits of Which One is Likely to Affect People This Holiday Season

It's always pathetic when Harry McCall attempts to be "Biblical".  Maybe he should look up the word. I think that maybe he's just trying an attempt to be funny. He fails because he attempts to throw the Bible "under the bus". If you are going to try to show that the Bible doesn't make sense, one should avoid illustrating how little they actually don't understand what they read. The purpose of Harry McCall's post is to describe different "spirits" in the Bible and the only "spirits" we should embrace during the holidays should be alcohol. Really bad argument.

A. The Holy Spirit (The promised “Comforter”, Acts 2: 4)

Acts 2:4 is discussing the first time the Holy Spirit fell on the Believers at Pentecost. I guess he thinks the account is untrustworthy and isn't as great as getting drunk.  I wonder why he would ignore such better scriptures that really describe what "Comforter" really means.

¹⁶ And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ¹⁷ the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be^[c] in you. John 14:16,17

The tongues in Acts 2:4 were just an outward sign for the Believers that aren't meant for unbelievers like McCall. An unbeliever cannot be filled with this spirit. Jesus also tells us what the Spirit does!

²⁶ “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. ²⁷ And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning. - John 15:26,27

Jesus also said:

I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” - Luke 24:49

So the spirit is not only truth, consolation, but power.


B. An Evil Spirit (Afflicted Saul, 1 Samuel 16: 14)

¹⁴ Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil^[a] spirit from the Lord tormented him. - 1 Samuel 16:14

Hmmm.... The Spirit of God leaves,,,,and an evil one comes and torments. Without God equals "being godless". No wonder so many godless people are tormented.

C. The Distilled Spirit (Lives in a bottle before possessing humans. Often cohabits with either of the above spirits! (Proverbs 23: 31 -32)

 ³¹ Do not gaze at wine when it is red,
    when it sparkles in the cup,
    when it goes down smoothly!
³² In the end it bites like a snake
    and poisons like a viper.

McCall wants to pretend that the passage is talking about a spirit like the spirits he already mentions in his parts a and b. If you look at the passage, all it's saying is that alcohol abuse will destroy you. Who can argue against that? I've seen alcoholism do exactly that - destroy the alcoholic and the people around him/her.

May your Holiday Season be a spirit filled one! Harry 

Obviously, McCall is trying to insult God using the Bible as well as tell his friends " happy holidays." There is a problem when you misuse the Bible. Just tell the truth. McCall hates God and willing to lie about what God said. Before I sum this up, take a look at what Greg Gay wrote. He tried to help McCall out by pointing out other passages that describe spirits I guess in an attempt to show that drunkenness is better.

Greg Gay Collapse

D. The Spirit of Jealousy (When children see what their brother or sister got. Numbers 5:14,30)
E. The Spirit of Whoredoms (Hosea 5:4)

1. Numbers 5:14
   And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Numbers 5:13-15 (in Context) Numbers 5 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
2. Numbers 5:30
   Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
   Numbers 5:29-31 (in Context) Numbers 5 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

So who really want to be filled with Jealousy? You can't be jealous and contented simultaneously. Passages about jealousy in marriage misses the point. It's not a sin to want what is yours. It's a sin when you want what belongs to someone else. If your spouse cheats on you, you are supposed to feel Jealous. The problem begins with your response. If you have the Spirit from part a, you will respond differently than you would if you are filled with any other kind of Spirit.

As for the Spirit of Whoredoms

⁴ They will not frame their doings to turn unto their God: for the spirit of whoredoms is in the midst of them, and they have not known the Lord. - Hosea 5:4

Notice that the passage is not just about adultery and prostitution. It is about idolatry and Rejecting God and embracing your rebellion against God.  Again this is atheism defined and godlessness illustrated. So what spirit do you want to be filled with? Truth land consolation? Evil? Jealousy? Or Whoredoms? So what is a better passage explaining what we should choose in regards to drunkenness?

¹⁷ Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. ¹⁸ Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, ¹⁹ speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, - Ephesians 5:17-19

Gee....I wonder why Harry didn't think this one through? It is much better advice - good not just for the holidays but perpetually.

Debunking Christianity: Three Biblical Spirits of Which One is Likely to Affect People This Holiday Season

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.

John Loftus has posted a recent conversation he had with Dr Doug Geivett on Facebook regarding an idea he had regarding a book written by Christians and Atheist about Biblical interpretation. When Dr Geivett politely declined, John Loftus took it badly and personally. I think it's worth looking at what was said.

Previously I made a book proposal:

Let's have a four -five -six views book with this as a question: "Why are there so many ways to interpret the Bible?" A proposed title might be this: "Five Views on Why Christians Disagree," or something like that. Then invite me as a contributor. I've written on this issue, calling it The Problem of Divine Miscommunication. See here.

Doug Geivett, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology strongly recommends against it. Now isn't that interesting? Why would he do so? He doesn't explain. He refuses to explain.

On the face of it, one might wonder with Loftus why would Christian think that such a proposal is a bad idea. But in light of Loftus' attitude in response and what the Bible says about unbeliever's abilities to understand the Bible, Dr Geivett's response makes sense. Maybe the reason that he does not answer Loftus in the way Loftus wants is because Geivett recognizes that it's a waste of his time. 

Here's the story:



I messaged him on Facebook with a link to my proposal asking if he or anyone else he knows might be interested in editing such a book. His response:

Hi, John. To be honest, I really would not be interested. And if I were advising Christian publishers of the sort you have in mind, I'd strongly recommend against it. This isn't a personal thing. But I don't think it serves the cause. My recommendation is that you continue to pursue secular avenues. Maybe they would be interested in your proposal.

Feeling a bit slighted and testy I responded:

So why did Loftus feel "slighted and testy"? Dr Geivett was not rude or dismissive and suggested a different take. Loftus' ego was bruised in my opinion. 

So, you don't think my arguments can be answered or what? It would be an apologetics work. Someone must answer them. Or, is it your view that it's best to ignore arguments whenever needed? I'm puzzled. I do have a few bites though. One Greek Orthodox scholar can argue it's because of Romanism and sola Scriptura. A liberal wants to argue that there are simply different voices in Scripture. An evangelical wants to argue it's because as human beings we lack understanding. In any case, thanks for the response. I'm certainly happy I'm not an apologist in this day and age, that's for sure.

Oh wow. Nice way to stay civil, Mr Loftus. Loftus gets meaner as the thing goes on. 

Geivett:

John, this is just the sort of response that leaves me cold, this tendency to jump to certain conclusions without adequate evidence, and to psychoanalyze those you disagree with. Take your two questions and ask yourself, "What is the most likely thing Geivett believes about these things, given his record?"

Notice the condescending tone?

Geivett was condescending?  So how is saying I'm certainly happy I'm not an apologist in this day and age, that's for sure. or saying that he can't answer his arguments is not condescending? It is. Pointing out that Loftus psychoanalyze people he disagrees with and jumping to conclusions is not condescension or insulting because it's true.


Loftus:

I don't know your record enough to know what you believe. I do know you're into guessing games. You could have told me why you think it doesn't serve the cause, but you didn't. No, I don't think a deluded person such as yourself thinks he cannot answer my arguments. I was giving you an opportunity to answer them. Now why does this project not serve the cause?

Hmmm...an admission that Loftus does not know Geivett's record so that the rest of the comment is pointless. Oh...and I guess referring to a person as deluded whom you don't know enough to know what they believe or that they can't answer your arguments is never insulting or condescending? I see! I sure hope Loftus does not really think that because that is stupid.

Geivett:

John, I got your message, which is why I replied. Think what you will about "guessing games," but understand that this kind of rhetoric is bound to alienate people you seem to want to talk to.

More condescension. I want to talk to him and so I must be more humble since, after all, I'm talking to the great and mighty Geivett. If you want to get my ire think or say that. Sooo...

Looks like Loftus has some kind of inferiority complex. Why else would he take Geivett's comments so negatively and offensively? He said, "No, I don't want to work with you on this." So what? Is Loftus so immature that he cannot take a "No"? Looks that way.

Loftus:

Ahhh, you fail to understand me then. I can't convince you that you're wrong. I intend to marginalize you. Play guessing games if you want to. I am dead serious. I think I understand full well what you mean when you say this book project will hurt the cause. You are afraid.

I suppose you think Randal Rauser hurt the cause by co-writing a book with me too, eh? Tell me straight up what you mean, that's all, no more guessing games.

I sent that yesterday morning. His response? Click on the red button in the upper right. ;-)

Crickets? LOL. Like threatening to marginalize him and calling him a coward fosters good will and open dialogue? Nope. 

So I was wondering aloud. Why would he say my book proposal doesn't serve the cause? I'm supposed to figure this out on my own. Any suggestions?

Yup. Let's look at the Bible's  answer. It answers the question in more than one place, but here is two of my favorite.

⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:6-8

It's pretty clear that a person who is an unbeliever cannot understand God's Law - the Bible. Therefore an Atheist like John Loftus is ill-equipped to critique interpretations of the Bible. They cannot understand it let alone submit to it.

¹³ This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.^{[a] 14} The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. ¹⁵ The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, - 1 Corinthians 2:13-15

Bottom line is that John Loftus, or any Atheist, is not equipped to discuss why people who claim to be Christian interpret the Bible differently or who is right or who is wrong. I think a book about how different people interpret the Bible and why is a good idea. I would like to see the contributing author breakdown be the following scholars:

a. A Jew
b. A Mormorn
c. A Jehovah Witness
d. A  Reformed Baptist
e. An Anglican
f. A Lutheran
g. A Methodist
h. A Roman Catholic
i. A Liberal
j. A Greek Orthodox
k. A Baptist
l. A Calvary Chapel

It would be good if each scholar discussed what makes their denomination distinctive and define what the Gospel is.  They could even include a brief historical of each church and discussions of core theology and why they look at the Bible the way they do. Focus on how they view Sola Scriptura and Biblical inerrancy. Can you have Bible inerrancy without Sola Scriptura? The core idea is a good idea but I don't think that Atheism has anything to add to the conversation.
 
Debunking Christianity: Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.

Calvinistic Cartoons: Provoking Thought

Eddie Eddings has posted a provoking short essay by John W. Robbins called "The Virtue of Name-Calling". A real interesting posts!


Calvinistic Cartoons: Provoking Thought

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why John 3:16 is a Lie in Its Biblical Context

I have noticed several people who constantly comment on Debunking Christianity. Since John Loftus has decided to....uh...step back...a few of them have contributed some articles. This one by Harry McCall is quite bad. I think it's one of the worst articles I've ever seen on that site. I think the first four comments made on the article is very important to look at because it shows the mentality of people who have bought into such truly illogical thinking.

Lets compare this famous evangelical Gospel tract verse cited in the late Gospel of John with both the older Bible traditions themselves as well as the New Testament itself.

First the verse from John 3: 16:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Lofty goal. Let's see if McCall can make this  charge stick. Huge hint: he doesn't.

Deception 1: “For God so loved the world,…” but 1 John 2:15 believers are told that God wants them NOT to love the world: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

Thus, on the one hand we are told God loves the world in John’s Gospel only to be again told in John’s Epistle for Christians NOT to love the world. Since - in both cases the Greek for word here is κόσμον, one is totally fed a flat out contradiction in these two New Testament books.

Secondly, if God really loves the world, he would not have destroyed it in the Flood of Noah. (Love and destruction are totally antonyms!)

Let us look at the first comment from Harold815.

Harry,

This is some really bad exegesis.  I think that your problem here is that your bias towards Christianity is getting in the way of an accurate analysis of this text.  John you’re the biblical scholar your can explain to him what is wrong with his exegesis.  I mean this is really bad.  A hint, you have to allow your context to explain the passage.  This is the flaw in your first “deception”. The context shows that there is no deception here at all.  You seem to be taking everything literally in the Bible.  This is a bad thing to do and will not help you understand or get to the deeper parts of a Biblical passage.  You need to do some studying of hermeneutics.

-Harold

I think Harold815 is exactly right except that I doubt that John Loftus' exegesis would be any better than McCalls' exegesis. One of the first rules of good hermeneutics is to look at the context. It should be obvious that in John 3:16 and 1 John 2:15, "Kosmos" or "world" are not referring to the same things. John 3:16 is referring to humanity  (or believers if you are a Calvinist) and in 1 John 2:15 "world" is referring to the sin of the world and the evil that people do. Also "love" and "destruction" are not antonyms. You can't have love without justice. And don't forget that it took Noah 120 years to build the Ark and during the time Noah tried to get the other people to repent and they wouldn't.

Deception 2: “…that He gave His only begotten Son,…” Yet in Genesis 6:2 we are clearly told: “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” Just as the Hebrew plainly states: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּרְאוּ God already had “sons” plural! So one must wondered: Even if the Hellenistic Greek writer of the Gospel of John did not understand the Hebrew text, he surely had the LXX which clearly again states “οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ”.

This same Hebrew syntax is also found again in Job 1:6 האלהים בני which also supports Genesis 6:2 in that God already had male children. However, in the LXX this verse is changed to: …“ἰδοὺ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ παραστῆναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἦλθεν μετ' αὐτῶν”. Thus, by the mid-third century BCE, בני (sons) has become οἱ ἄγγελοι (angles) and השטן (the accuser) has become ὁ διάβολος (the devil).

While Christians get all choked up about God giving his only son, Jesus; they need to read and believe their Bibles more! With all the effort by Christian apologists to make Jesus’ birth special and totally different from God’s other sons found in Genesis 6:2 and Job 1:6 by pointing out that Jesus was God’s “only begotten son” (μονογενῆ / monogenē), this “mono” (one / only) + “gene” (generation) is also used as the suffix that gives the book of Gene-sis it name. But this enforces the lie by not taking the fact that God already had fathered sons much earlier making them just as divine / semi-divine as Jesus was himself. While Greek authors love New Testament to quote the LXX for proof texts to prove Jesus was divine, sometimes the Old Testament can be a source of embarrassment as in the case of God’s own sexual philandering!

One must remember that Jesus' position as "Son" is not a sexual one! The same is true as in Genesis 6:2 and Job 1:6. This particular argument is heard most often from Muslim Apologist. It doesn't help them either. Newer translations are more clearer rendering μονογενῆ in English as "one and only". The Bible very clearly explains why Jesus is higher than Angels in Hebrews. Strike two.

Deception 3: “…that whoever believes in Him shall not perish,…” The problem posed here is the fact that orthodox Christian dogma states, as based on both Jesus and the New Testament, that the soul of the non-believer will suffer for eternity in the fires of torment (see: Mark 9: 44 - 48). However, the Greek word used here is “ἀπόληται” which clearly means “to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, perish”. So just which part of the New Testament contains the lie? According to atheists and John 3: 16, all the non-believing humans who die are simply destroyed; meaning they have at death no eternal soul (Also the Belief of Jehovah Witnesses). Fact is, we could say that John 3:16 supports the atheist view of life!

Um..no way. The Bible does not use  ἀπόληται to equate to annihilation. No where does the Bible lead us to think that anyone ceases to exist once God brings us into existence. Strike 3

Deception 4: “…but have eternal life…” The propaganda sold in this verse is to an ancient world which has its Sitz im Leben (Life Situation) in an ancient society where the average person making it to the age of 30 was considered old and a time when a simple abscessed tooth could mean certain death! The promise sold in John 3: 16 is that the average person to be just like the Egyptian Pharaohs or a Roman Caesars (working miracles and never dying spiritually or having an eternal after life). Thus, Christianity now offered the poor masses that they to though belief in Jesus could achieve godhood themselves! To argue that “ζωὴν αἰώνιον” (life eternal) simply means that the dead believer lives forever with a theos / god in some heaven is reading much later Christian dogma into verse.

Now Mormon theology creeps in to McCall's eisogesis. No where does the Bible promise anyone godhood. In Christian theology no one is promised to a god in the slightest. There is a lot more to being God than just eternal life and there can only be one God.  Strike 4

Secondly, when one considers the older Hebrew eternal life in the stories of Enoch, Moses and Elijah (along with the Greek story of the miracle worker Apollinus of Tyana who also is claimed also to have worked miracles and to have never died); the claim of eternal life in John 3:16 was given even far more credence than it was accorded as it was preached to the superstitious and mostly literate masses of the Greco-Roman empire in order to gain fast converts in a ancient world that swam in a sea of competing religions which also offered promises of hope. In the end, it was Christianity which out sold its fellow rival religions with a godhood / miracles and eternal life for all who believed.

No where does the Bible tell us Moses had eternal life on Earth. He died. As for Enoch and Elijah they didn't die but none of them were ever a god. Enoch and Elijah simply experienced the same kind of rapture described in the New Testament when Jesus returns.  Apollinus of Tyana is a real bad example. Read this post - http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/09/bible-defended-is-there-connection.html - to being to understand why. Here the whole argument continues to dissolve.

With verses like John 3:16, which promised one could live eternally like any god, coupled with wonders ) working miracles (τέρατα Acts 2:19), signs (σημεῖον Matt. 12:38), and mighty works (δυνάμεσιν Acts 2:22), the Christian sale pitch was on for converts. After all, this god status of working miracles was even promised to fateful believers by Jesus himself in the same Gospel: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. John 14: 12.

Jesus never taught that we can be like god. All He promised was eternal life with Him not that we can gods. The job is taken. The works we do is not on our own volition but according to obeying Him. Again context, context, and again context.

Conclusion: With regards to John 3:16, we must understand that hope need not be true (as this verse certainly is not when place in both its Biblical and historical doctrinal context). It only needs to be a sales pitch of hope! Thus, as with the old circus con-game: Everybody who plays (Who believes); is Everybody is a winner! (Has Eternal life (meaning godhood itself)).

 It's more than just hope. We can expect Jesus' words to be true because he authenticated it with his own Resurrection.

2^nd revision by Harry McCall

I can only hope for a third revision correcting the exegetical mistakes everywhere in this piece. If you are going to criticize the Bible, then at least have the decency to correctly state what it actually says. Now turning attention to the rest of the comments which just add fail on top of more fail.

• GearHedEd

  Q: What would the Bible be without contradictions?
  A: A more consistent fairy tale.
  
  

  First you have to show that there are contradictions which McCall failed to do. 

  
  
• articulett

  Why does there need to be exegesis at all-- this is supposedly inspired by the creator of the universe, right? Why would the creator of the universe need humans to tell other humans what he was really trying to communicate?
  You'd think an omnipotent being could communicate clearly and would take care to mitigate against differing interpretations, no?

  
  

  This post shows exactly why exegesis is necessary. God doesn't need us to explain the Bible, but exegesis is just the practice of reading and understanding what is there in the text - not editing or making it say what we want it to say. It's not about misinterpretation but just understanding what it says. This is what McCall failed to do in this article.

Debunking Christianity: Why John 3:16 is a Lie in Its Biblical Context