Saturday, January 30, 2010
The truth is that Israel from the exodus forward was plagued by a besetting polytheism. The polemic of Moses and the prophets who followed him against the worship of the calves of the exodus and later Baal and Asherah and a pantheon of others is on every page of the Old Testament. There was nothing added to our knowledge of the religious condition of Israel by these finds. In fact, they confirm what the Bible has declared always. So what's the big deal?
The big deal is the attempt now to find an affirmation of polytheism in the words of the prophets. The most often quoted text is Deuteronomy 32:8 It reads in the RSV: "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God." The argument is that these "sons of God" ("ben Elohim" in the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Deuteronomy) are the 70 sons of El referred to in the Ugaritic tablets. Therefore, the Deuteronomy passage agrees with the polytheism of the Phoenician Canaanites. That would be a big deal - if it were not for the context of the Deuteronomy passage.
The context is the entire poem from 32:1 through verse 43, in particular verses 5 and 6. There it is the people of Israel who are called the children (ben) of God. That provides the insight we need to understand verse 8 - God fixed the bounds of peoples of the earth according to, or in consideration of, the sons of Israel. Interestingly, that is how the Masoretic text of the Old Testament reads. Apparently the scribes who copied down what we now call the Masoretic text wished to make it clear that it was the people of Israel who were the sons of God.
A simple reading of the poem in its entirety, rather than picking out individual verses, would have cleared up the controversy. But skeptics are inclined to isolate the verses in which they believe there is an inconsistency and ignore the context. Fortunately, almost any careful reader of the scriptures can recognize that error. That is an admonishment to us, however, to read the scriptures for ourselves and to read carefully.
Monday, January 18, 2010
The last several weeks I have surfed YouTube videos interacting with some of the guys on skeptic and atheist sites. It has been a learning experience in how strongly worldview affects our ability to connect with others.
I come from a biblical worldview, or try to, though it is probably not possible to divest myself fully of the worldview that dominates the culture of America. Most of those with whom I've interacted have held worldviews that are philosophically materialistic.
In one instance, with the creator of a video claiming to disprove the existence of God in three minutes or less (I am not making this up), I found a young man who believed that there was not nor could there be anything beyond the present universe. He found it impossible to entertain any idea other idea. In order to prove the non-existence of God he created a deductive argument that went somewhat like this:
Premise. There is nothing beyond or before the universe.
Premise. God must exist before and outside the universe.
Conclusion. Therefore, God can not exist.
I think he actually was convinced of the validity of his argument. And, of course, it was perfect deduction though irrational at the same time. A deductive argument rests on the truth of the premise. The first premise is obviously unprovable and seriously debated even among those who do not believe in God, and that made the conclusion inconclusive at best. It cannot follow from the flawed premise.
But try to explain that to this young man. His worldview did not allow the possibility of anything beyond the universe. Finding common ground to be able to talk intelligibly was impossible. It was like what the early navigators of the seas must have experienced talking with an entrenched flat worlder. No amount of reason, personal experience or observation could change their worldview. It is easy to understand their terror of sailing out "to the edge of the world." Would they not fall off into nothingness?
This worldview was, of course, extreme. But it illustrates the difficulties of engaging in reasonable conversation with those of different worldviews. Reason fails at this point. We must depend on the Holy Spirit to bridge the gap and bring understanding to the heart - this man's and everyone's with whom we engage in apologetics.