Come and Get it: Temptation in the Bible.

At the blog post, linked to at the end of this post, a discussion on whether or not has again broken out if the Bible has contradictions or not. I again challenged Ryan Anderson to provide a single example. He responded with:

Just for fun (not that witnessing you debase yourself is fun...)

How about James 1:13 vs. Genesis 22:1

Obviously the authors are talking about different gods, but I'd "love" to hear your desecration of language and common sense.

Yes, let us indeed have some fun. First, let's look at what the text (KJV) says,


1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said , Behold, here I am.- Genesis 22:1


Versus


13 Let no man say when he is tempted * , I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted * with evil, neither tempteth he * any man: - James 1:13

So Anderson is saying that both passages seem to be referring to two different gods one who tempts humans and one who doesn't. I think that he is mistaken because he is assuming that both passages are talking about the same kind of "tempting:". This assumption cannot stand. Compare this with the NIV:

22 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied. - Genesis 22:1


Versus


¹³ When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; - James 1:13


Hmmm...The NIV translators use :"Testing" not "tempting:" in Genesis22:1. Which is correct?  Well let's look at the Hebrew word used in Genesis 22:1


The word is   and it means:

to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test

1. (Piel)
   1. to test, try
   2. to attempt, assay, try
   3. to test, try, prove, tempt 

So both translations are correct but given the context the text is referring to testing Abraham, not to do evil or to find out what Abraham would do but improve him like the way burning silver ore purifies it. When God tests us its for us to succeed ultimately, not fail.  In James, the context is definitely concerning temptation as in temptation to do evil in the context of the passage. Look at verses 13 and 14.

¹³ When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; ¹⁴ but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. - James 1:13-14


The shortest and most complete definition of evil is: That which transgresses and contradicts God. In obeying God you can't do evil. Which is why it is silly when people try to argue that God's laws are whimsical or that He can change His mind. As if what's evil today, would please Him tomorrow. Therefore the words here the KJV translates with the English Word tempt can't be the same concept. IF Ryan had bothered to read further maybe he would have realized what "tempt" means in James 1:13-14. 


So for completeness let's look at the Greek of James 1:13-14. The word translated "tempted": is  .It means:

1. to try whether a thing can be done
   1. to attempt, endeavour
2. to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself
   1. in a good sense
   2. in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
   3. to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
      1. to solicit to sin, to tempt 1c
   4. of the temptations of the devil
   5. after the OT usage
      1. of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
      2. men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
      3. by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

We can see how the word is used in the Old and New Testaments. James 1:13  is definitely referring to how God does not get people to sin. And in Abraham's case it's about demonstrating and increasing  his character. Today we don't use the word "prove" the way the definition above does but we must still see that is what God does even today for His people.

So, Mr Anderson, your mistake is that you don't understand what the authors of the Bible were talking about and not that they contradict each other.

What had happen' was.....: Mia Love: The GOP's Next Rising Black Political Star

Check out the following link for a really great Bible search engine in various translation:

http://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: A New Meme, The Oblivious Christian Apologist

It's so cute when John Loftus attempts humor while on his crusade against Christianity. He posted the following meme attempt and linked to more.

I immediately had an issue with this but not for just the reasons that some people made in the comments.



They point out "rejection" and "criticism" cannot be conflated and still make sense, but I think that there is another issue. What does the fact that some Christians think it's okay to reject and criticize Islam but never read anything of the Qur'an have anything to do with Atheists being ignorant about the Bible? It doesn't. You should not reject other people's beliefs and tell them to change those beliefs if you don't know what those beliefs are.



As for the other meme:

Three problems. First, I think the author is confusing scientists with atheists. Not the same thing. Second, no Bible believing Christian believes that God made the universe using magic. No, that sounds like atheists who think that the universe brought itself into existence. Third, Biblical faith isn't blind. Oh and for free, Christians do not believe that God  cares and loves only us. He loves everyone who has or ever will exist. That's not arrogance. Claiming that all scientists are atheists? Now that's arrogant.



And here is another Loftus linked to.

Atheists prove that they don't have an objective foundation for Morality, but Christians are not arguing that God has an objective touchstone for His morality. Christians believe that God is the grounding and foundation for morality.



Epic failure.



Debunking Christianity: A New Meme, The Oblivious Christian Apologist

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Apologists Are Made to be Stupid Because of Their Delusion

John Lofts posted a comment criticizing  Christians in general and Dr Matthew Flannagan in particular.

Do I even need to comment further? Let me just highlight what Christian apologist Matthew Flannagan wrote in response to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Some people simply cannot be helped. Sophisticated theology is bankrupt if he is one of it's defenders, and I mean it. All I have to do is link to the discussion, let him have the last word and laugh at his ignorant, utterly ignorant, responses. Join with me folks, in laughing. Like most apologists he is impervious to reason. Like most of them I must prove their faith is nearly impossible before they will see it as improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard. Take note of how Matt doesn't need to provide a better method than science, which forms the basis for the OTF. Come on Matt, are you stupid or what? I no longer care what Christian apologists think if this is how they reason. If this is the best they can do then the good ship "Christian" will certainly sink eventually. They are on the wrong side of history. Of that I am certain.

Notice that Loftus does not argue that Dr Flannagan is deluded, he's arguing that anyone who would defend Christianity is deluded. 

These particular comments started a very interesting conversation. 

• Derek McAllister Collapse

  John, I'm honestly appalled.  I was looking forward to communicating with you, but comments like this make me cautious.  I don't want my own name slung through mud.

  • Today 02:54 PM 

  
   I've seen very little from Loftus than name slinging and insults against Christians. He's not really interested in dialogue - especially when he has no rebuttal.
  
  

  • F
• Mike D

  I don't think we help ourselves by calling people stupid... have we already forgotten what Bruce G said in his letter? Christians have often accused me of calling them stupid because I'm harsh when I criticize their beliefs, but people and ideas aren't the same thing.
  The best example is Isaac Newton. He was by any measure one of the most brilliant minds that ever lived. And yet, after he discovered the laws of motion, the laws of optics, the law of universal gravitation, and invented calculus, he spent the rest of his long life devoted to alchemy. It goes to show that people can compartmentalize their thinking – and that people can be reasonable in general, perfectly intelligent and right about many things, and yet still on certain things be completely irrational and wrong.

  • Today 02:59 PM 

  
  I admit that this is one of the most gracious comments that I have ever read from a person who rejects Christianity.  I just have to ask: How do atheists know that they are not being irrational and wrong when it comes to their rejection of God?
  
  
• John W. Loftus

  Derek, I don't do this often but Matt is a special case of ignorance due to that fact that since he is so educated, he is MORE not LESS deluded. I don't take kindly to ignorant arguments against the OTF especially from someone like Matt who should know better. 

  • Today 03:02 PM 

  
  

  Actually, John Loftus does it all the time. And I would say that Dr Flannagan does know better that is why he disagrees with Loftus. 
• John W. Loftus

  Mike, I never embraced all of what Bruce G. said. I think a multifaceted number of approaches are warranted and our responses should be situation specific. People like Matt who are impervious to reason cannot be helped. I link to what he said for more reasonable people.
  
  

  It's amazing to me how people like Loftus default to the idea that there must be something wrong with they who disagree with them and that he is correct. It's as if it never occurs to them that they could be wrong - that the delusion could be theirs.  Given what the Bible says this isn't really surprising.

  
  ⁹ The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, ¹⁰ and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. ¹¹ For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie ¹² and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. - 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

Debunking Christianity: Apologists Are Made to be Stupid Because of Their Delusion

Why Your Girlfriend Won't Like The Avengers - G4tv.com

Pie Charts! Is there anything they can't explain?! In 3-D no less! I think this may extend to some wives too.

Why Your Girlfriend Won't Like The Avengers - G4tv.com

Moore’s Law Could Be No More

This is a real good article and video about the future of Computers.

In other versions, including later tweaking by Moore himself, the general theme is that computing power will double roughly every two years, based on the idea of being able to fit twice as many transistors on a same-sized circuit. Intel has tweaked that further to an 18-month period based on the transistors getting further.

The article further points out:

Now Kaku says that as things stand, Moore’s law will “flatten out completely” over the next 10 years. That’s based on the idea that we are beginning to hit the physical limits of silicon. Specifically, if transistors get any smaller, the inherent problems of overheating and leakage will eventually outweigh any gains.

Back in 1999, I had a professor who stated that there was no way we'd get computers faster than one gigahertz because of the space between the atoms of silicon. Today, we have smart phones that operate at higher than one gigahertz to say nothing about full computers - and they are still getting faster! To be fair, engineers figured out how to push silicon atoms further apart to increase better microchips. Dr Kaku goes on to explain alternatives to overcome the limitations  of silicon.





Moore’s Law Could Be No More

Say Hello to my Little Friend » Blog Archiv » Does Richard Carrier Exist?

So what if someone applied Dr Richard Carrier's arguments against Jesus' existence to disproving Carrier's own existence? With an assist from Dr Tim McGrew, Glenn (from the "Say Hello to my Little Friend" podcast and blog) takes a look at if Carrier's arguments could be shown to disprove the existence of Carrier himself and is falsified because Carrier exists. You can read the article at the following link.

Say Hello to my Little Friend » Blog Archiv » Does Richard Carrier Exist?

Answering Muslims: Where Did Jesus Say, "I Am God, Worship Me"? #2

Samuel Green offers a short rebuttal to the often used polemic many Muslims and anti-Trinitarians raise against Christianity: "Jesus never said 'I am God, Worship me!'" Green writes

What is it that ultimately gets him crucified? It is his claim to be the divine man of Daniel 7 who is to be worshipped. The Jewish leaders again understand exactly what he is saying and call it blasphemy. So Jesus actually does say, "I am God worship me"; he just uses the language of the prophets to say it.

If we want to understand Jesus we must learn his language. I am not saying we must learn Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, though that is an excellent thing to do. Instead I am saying that we must know the titles, the concepts and expectations of the prophets who were before Jesus, because it is with these words that Jesus speaks and invites us to understand him.

 Read the whole post at the following link.

Answering Muslims: Where Did Jesus Say, "I Am God, Worship Me"? #2

Apple's Explosion

Apple's Growth

Apple's Explosion

The Evolution of Communication [infographic] | Daily Infographic

The Evolution of Communication [infographic] | Daily Infographic

Walmart Unveils Super Hero Augmented Reality App | Avengers | News | Marvel.com

Only one of my Android devices is supported but my iPad 2 is supported. We went Friday evening to test it out!

With more than 100 million augmented reality-capable smartphones in operation today, Walmart is putting the devices to good use. Customers can use “Super Hero AR” in two modes, Game Mode and Photo Capture Mode. Here is how it works:

Game Mode: Collect All Six Super Powers and Save the World
-Download the “Super Hero AR” App from the iTunes App Store or Android Market that also includes instant access to Hawkeye and his super powers
-Visit a local Walmart with your enabled smart device
-Seek out specific images on "Marvel's The Avengers" signage located in various departments around the store including apparel, grocery, toys and wireless
-Aim your smart devices at the target image to unlock each super hero’s power
-Collect the powers of the five remaining Avengers and get a chance to defeat Loki and win the game
Photo Capture Mode (available for iOS and Android): Take a Photo with Your Favorite Avenger
-Activate “photo capture mode” from a "Marvel’s The Avengers" DVD pallet in-store; a 3-D model of the super hero depicted on the DVD pallet will become visible on your phone
-Take a photo with your favorite Avenger
-Share it with friends on Facebook or via email

More on Marvel.com: http://marvel.com/news/story/18623/walmart_unveils_super_hero_augmented_reality_app#ixzz1tAjagAa4

My family and I had a great time playing with this. Keep in mind that you have to use an internet connection before you start to use it. After the initial set up, you don't need the internet unless you want to Facebook your pictures right away. My kids took pictures with Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and the Hulk. It was almost as if they were right there.

The game is actually really fun too, but I have to go back to unlock all the characters. It's all free. You use their powers in an augmented reality environment to shoot down enemy spacecraft.

Walmart Unveils Super Hero Augmented Reality App | Avengers | News | Marvel.com

The Avengers Facebook Timeline [Image]

What if the Avengers were on Facebook?

Follow the link to see the whole image!

The Avengers Facebook Timeline [Image]

Debunking Christianity: The Christian Reaction to Jesus Mythicism

John Loftus has posted another blog post on the duel between Dr Bart Ehrman and Dr Richard Carrier over whether Jesus was a real person or not. Loftus takes issue with what David Marshall wrote regarding Carrier and that Marshall disagrees with Carrier's conclusion.  Loftus writes:

For the record, Carrier is no fool. He's brilliant and a much better informed scholar than Marshall is, or ever will be. 

It's amazing that Loftus would write such a thing because there are many, many more scholars with better credentials than Loftus' who disagree with Loftus. Is Loftus saying that the man/woman's conclusions and scholarship with the better credentials should be accepted and anyone else with less degrees and books and journal articles should be rejected? If so, then why should anyone listen to Loftus at all? And how do you judge credentials? Brilliance? How does he know that Marshall is less informed? He doesn't. As for whether or not Carrier is a fool or not, the Bible says:

¹ The fool^[a] says in his heart,

    “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;

    there is no one who does good.

² The Lord looks down from heaven

    on all mankind

to see if there are any who understand,

    any who seek God.

³ All have turned away, all have become corrupt;

    there is no one who does good,

    not even one. 



Psalm 14:1-3

Debunking Christianity: The Christian Reaction to Jesus Mythicism

Mia Love: The GOP's Next Rising Black Political Star

God continually surprises me by continuing to show that there are people who exist and live their lives that I had no idea existed! I had never had the idea that there could be a black woman, having Haitian parents, in Utah, a Mormon, and running for Congress as a Republican!!!! I almost fell out my chair.  I never knew such a human being existed!!! I was wrong. Won't be the last time.  This article is the first I have ever heard of Mia Love. Read the article at the link below:

Mia Love: The GOP's Next Rising Black Political Star

Debunking Christianity: Did Jesus Exist? An All Out War Is Going On

John Loftus wrote a blog post about the war being waged over Jesus' existence. He agrees that Jesus was a living person but does not believe what the Bible says about Him. He points out that he thinks that the argument is pointless because Jesus' historical existence being true does not mean that what the Bible says about Him is true. I agree with that. However I see why some Atheists/Agnostics like Dr Richard Carrier and Robert Price desire to deny Jesus' existence because that means the Bible has to be wrong - all of what we call the "New Testament".  No Resurrection. No point to Christianity.



But the myth that Jesus did not exist is a minority opinion. We have evidence for Jesus. Plenty of evidence. People deny this evidence because it keeps them from having to deal with who Jesus is and our accountability to Him. Also asserting that we know that what the Bible says about Jesus is not something that neither Loftus or anyone could possibly prove. They keep trying, but failing that, they punt to denying Jesus' very existence. Rather sad.



Debunking Christianity: Did Jesus Exist? An All Out War Is Going On

Marvel Legends The Avengers Trailer - YouTube

Marvel Legends The Avengers Trailer - YouTube

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: *Sigh* There are Just Too Many Ways to Be Christian

John Loftus is at it again. He attempts to make an argument against Christianity based on the fact that Christians don't agree. Let's look closely at his spectacular and continued failure. 

Christians cannot agree with themselves. So why should I take any of them seriously? Believers have no method to settle their own disputes because faith has no method. Can you at least try to understand this?

If Loftus is correct then the following is also true:

Atheists cannot agree with themselves. So why should I take any of them seriously? NonBelievers have no method to settle their own disputes because atheism has no method. 

Okay? Yeah, it doesn't make sense either. Christians don't always agree with each other, but we do have a method of settling disputes but some people refuse to submit: Scripture.

Here is an example. Evangelical Christians will bristle when they read what a liberal wrote about the resurrection, which I'll quote below. But this is the same type of reasoning skeptics see when we read of your own defenses of the resurrection.

There are some Christian scholars, though, who maintain that the historical method can indeed be used to determine whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead (e.g. N.T. Wright, Mike Licona). There are others who suggest that we can determine the likelihood of Jesus’ resurrection probabilistically via Bayes’ theorem (e.g. Richard Swinburne). I have even seen one guy, Frank Tipler, attempt to utilize quantum physics in order to assert that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Another perspective on this issue, which is what I myself agree with, is that the resurrection of Jesus is a historiographically inaccessible event, due to the fact that the very nature of the resurrection is inherently contradictory towards physical reality, thus making the historical- and scientific-methods inadequate and ineffective in determining whether it really occurred. This type of perspective is held by various contemporary theologians...[Jesus's] resurrection is an act accomplished by the finger of God and is an apocalyptic event which transcends what the historical method can access, meaning that it cannot be confirmed as history and thus has to be seen in other terms. This view is not due to an imperialist epistemological view of history, but is the result of viewing Christ’s resurrection for what it really is – an apocalyptic happening that breaks through into the linearity of history and is itself a history-making event. Link

As John Loftus later states in this very post I'm responding to that even if you don't think Jesus' Resurrection can be supported by historical evidence, that still doesn't mean that it did not happen. I disagree that there is no historical evidence supporting the Resurrection but I'm not going to throw another Christian under the bus because he/she disagrees with me. You can believe the Resurrection happened even if you can't prove it historically. Accepting the Resurrection is one of those things that signifies that you are a Christian, so I have no real problem with the above quote to the point that I would say the writer of the quote is not a Christian 0 based solely on these two paragraphs.

Evangelicals are right to argue that if the resurrection cannot be known using the historical method then they ought to give up their faith.

I disagree. I would more clearly state: If you reject the reality of a Resurrection you ought to give up calling yourself a "Christian" because you are not. 

 Come on now, get real, really, I agree with the evangelicals on this score.

 That perspective is not what makes you an "evangelical".

What kind of event is an "apocalyptic" one that cannot be accessed by the historical method? That method is the only one available for know what happened in the past. The resurrection of Jesus might have occurred, but there are a lot of events that have happened in the past that reasonable people should not accept. The reason is simple. Jesus might have flown into the sky, just as Mohammed might have done so (on a horse). But without sufficient evidence we should not believe either of them did. Aliens might have abducted some guy too. But again, without sufficient evidence to accept his testimony--since none of us were there when the alleged event took place--we should not think it happened. When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, he might have been raised from the dead but since we were not there we need sufficient evidence, historical evidence, to accept, at best, the second, third, and fourth hand testimony of the early church.

That's not true. We have first century evidence as well, even if you reject the Gospels as being from the first century (although they are). Forgotten the epistles, he has. 

Still, liberals are absolutely correct to admit the historical method cannot lead reasonable people to conclude Jesus was raised from the dead. So I agree with the liberals too. The historian's tools are inadequate for the task of detecting the miraculous claim of the resurrection.

So? Even if you accept hogwash like that, it does not mean Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead. 

This is why I say that when believers criticize each other I think they are right! All I need to do is listen in and agree. They do the work for me. It's easy. We don't really even need to debunk Christianity. They are doing it to themselves, all of the time. To see this when it comes to atonement theories read this.

Loftus disagrees that Jesus was raised from the dead, but neither side - those who agree that there is historical evidence and those who disagree  that there is historical evidence - means that Jesus was not raised no matter who is right. 

So what's really going on here? What we see is that Christians will do or say anything in order to maintain their culturally inherited faith.

What about people who become believers who were not raised as Christians? Sorry, but just because some people are raised as Christians and never research or consider what they have been raised to believe does not mean no one does and makes an informed profession of faith!

When faith is the basis for what a person concludes, anything can be believed. Evangelicals either ignore or are ignorant of what the historical method is all about, and liberals ignore or are ignorant of what we should conclude using that method. Faith causes believers to ignore facts. Faith causes believers to be ignorant about the historical method. The historical method is inadequate for detecting miracles like the resurrection of Jesus, so the reasonable conclusion is to doubt it. That method is the only one reasonable people have for knowing what happened in the past. And that method cannot detect miracles.

Considering that there are historians who agree that Jesus was raised from the dead based on historical evidence shows that Loftus is not a historian and not really honest. Also added to the fact that Loftus does not know what Faith is in the first place only further adds to the failure of his argument. And again regardless to whether or not history can be used to detect miracles, there is no reason to conclude that miracles never happen.

In both cases faith has shown itself to be inadequate. It leads liberals and evangelicals to believe against the evidence. That's because faith has no method.

Um no.

To see why the resurrection miracle should not be believed even if it happened simply read this one post.

So basically even if it happened you should no believe it happened? Right. Real smart. 

Debunking Christianity: *Sigh* There are Just Too Many Ways to Be Christian

Inspirational Words of Wisdom from Neil deGrasse Tyson [Pic]

I agree with a lot that Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson says and teaches about science and society but not so much as for his philosophy.

I have to ask how do you know how to lessen the suffering of others? I agree that we should always strive to know more about the world than we did yesterday, but how does it apply. I'd say that we apply it the best we can to lessen the suffering of others. But again how do we do that? That points out the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Without Wisdom we don't know how to lessen the suffering of others. And where does wisdom come from?

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. Proverbs 9:10

Inspirational Words of Wisdom from Neil deGrasse Tyson [Pic]

Safe Gaming

For more information and statistics about gamers and their rising positive reputation, refer to the following infographic hosted by DeviantArt. [Via]



Safe Gaming

The Ancient Order of the Jedi Goes Door to Door

What if the Jedi were like pushy Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons?  What if they visited your Star Ship? Might look like this:





The Ancient Order of the Jedi Goes Door to Door

Cancer Worldwide [infographic] | Daily Infographic

[v