Passion Week Archaeology

I thought this was an awesome video to celebrate the resurrection:

Passion Week Archaeology from SourceFlix.com on Vimeo.

Richard Dawkins’ Horrid Devaluation of Human Life

By Cris Putnam
dawkins-twitter-PIG

We are seeing a strong push in academic and scientific circles to dehumanize mankind. Of course, this opens the door to bizarre experimentation, eugenics, and the transhumanist project. However, the arguments put forth by the alleged intelligentsia are logically fallacious. Let’s unpack Oxford Zoologist Richard Dawkins assertion that a human fetus is actually less human than a swine by way of analogy to a more basic organism, the pine tree.
 
When does a pine cone become a pine tree? You might answer it becomes a proper tree when it roots and sprouts up from the ground and that seems fair but no one argues it was not a pine until it took root and sprouted. It was always a pine in immature form. It can only become a mature pine tree. It cannot become an oak or a maple, only a pine. But young or old, it’s always a pine. It’s  is not a matter of personal opinion rather scientific reality. When we get down to it, “cone” doesn’t describe what a thing is, in a sense; it describes the stage of growth of that particular thing it is not just a cone rather a “pine cone.” It’s kind of like asking what is a toddler?  Because a toddler isn’t an individual unique organism, like there is a particular kind of being called a toddler. Rather, we use the term toddler as a description for the stage of development of a human being. It is a human being at a young age. A pine cone is pine tree at a certain age. And a fetus is a human being at a certain age. Richard Dawkins statement is absurd but it is demonstrative of the monstrous worldview being promoted in the scientific community.  This undergirds the ongoing abortion holocaust in the name of easy sex but we expect it will lead to unimaginable atrocities in the biotech realm as their calloused conscience’s are increasingly emboldened by such sophmoric argumentation.

Reverse Thinking


One of most convincing evidences for Christianity is the way God has completely changed my thinking. In a very real way this video describes my testimony. Thanks to my friends at Providence Baptist Church in Raleigh for producing it.

Joe Ortiz Claims Jesus Was Not a Jew!


By Cris D. Putnam
I was emailed an offensive video over the holiday called “How the Jews Stole Christmas” sent to me by Joe Ortiz. Ortiz has written a couple books criticizing the pretubulation rapture position and dispenationalism. Over a year ago, he approached me about his book The End Times Passover of which I read one chapter but quickly put it down as it was immediately obvious to me that he was misrepresenting what pretiribulational dispensationalists believe so badly that he could not offer a meaningful critique. In case you are wondering, I do not identify as pretribultional so this was not driven by bias. Ortiz misunderstands dispensational theology in very fundamental ways and fails to make distinctions between classic, revised, and progressive dispensationalism, that is, if he is even aware of them.  But this Christmas video is something altogether different:

This video is fallacious on a number of levels. First, Christians historically have not celebrated Christmas. The Puritan community found no Scriptural justification for celebrating Christmas, and associated such celebrations with paganism and idolatry. It is a twentieth century development largely at the hands of American department stores. Second, the video is transparently racist. I define “Jew” as a person who descends from Jacob. Historically, it referred to the tribe of Judah but any good bible dictionary will tell you it assumed a broader definition after the Babylonian captivity:

The Intertestamental Period The Greek name Ioudaios (plural Ioudaioi) was used for the Israelites in the Greek and Roman world. This is the name used in the treaty between Judas Maccabeus and the Romans, described in 1 Macc. 8:23–32: “May all go well with the Romans and with the nation of the Jews” (v. 23).[1]

It’s an ethnic group, a race of people like Hispanics or Italians. So when someone titles a video “How the Jews Stole Christmas” they are engaging in racism by making a broad sweeping generalization accusing all Jews — obviously not all Jews are in on some dubious conspiracy to “steal Christmas” even if a few of them actually were — so anyone who promotes material like this is promoting racism.  Joe Ortiz mass emailed the above video two days prior to Christmas. I replied to Joe how disappointed I was, because making such a broad accusation is obviously racist and that Jesus himself was Jewish.

Cris: “Joe, What’s up with the racism? Please don’t send me this bigoted trash. BTW Jesus was Jewish.”

Joe: “He was? I thought He was Aramaic, but born in the area known as Judah? Did He practice what is written in the Talmud? Isn’t that what it means to be Jewish?”[2]

Cris: “Wow Joe this is very disappointing, I’m sorry but you are really uniformed about the most basic facts. Yes, Jews are people descended from Jacob, David descends from Jacob and Jesus was from the line of David, read the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Aramaic is a language not a race of people…  the Talmud came after the destruction of the temple many years later. I challenge you to dispute any of those statements with documented evidence. Racism is not fitting for anyone who follows Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.”

Joe: Jews came from the tribe of Judah, one of the 12 tribes of Israel. But yet, you believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were Jews, don’t you? Is Hebrew a language or a people? When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees about the traditions of their fathers (which happened before the destruction of the Temple), was He not speaking about the Talmudic mentality? I suppose the racism put out by John Hagee, and most Christian Zionists, against Arabs is fitting?[3]

Cris: Hebrew is both a language and Jews are called Hebrews as well. Since, the Babylonian captivity the term “Jews” includes all 12 tribes.  You need to pray over John 4:22 “Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.(Jn 4:21–22)  I think Hagee is wrong about a lot and I don’t pay attention to him – so I’m not chasing that red herring.

Joe then sent me this article Jesus Was Not a Jew. I am forced to assume he endorses it because he sent it to me as his defense. Read it yourself to understand the level of absurdity he is willing to stoop too. Jesus is even explicitly described as from the tribe of Judah – a true Jew even in the original usage of the term:  “And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” (Re 5:5)

A scholarly lexicon shows that the New Testament used Jew for all 12 tribes descended from Jacob.

ἸσραήλἸουδαῖος in Jewish Literature after the OT.

After the collapse of Northern Israel in 722 b.c., only the comparatively small territory around Jerusalem, the kingdom of יהודה, was left to maintain the ancient tradition and name of what was once the whole people ישראל. Thus in pre-exilic times the total designation ישראל can be used in passages where strictly the reference is only to the kingdom of יהודה. After the return from exile the people is even more exclusively restricted to the province of Judah, and all those who live in Palestine outside this province are non-Israelites. It is thus quite natural that the name which derives from the territory, Heb. יְהוּדִי, Aram. (יהודאי) יְהוּדָי or Greek Ἰουδαῖος, which originally denotes an inhabitant of the kingdom or province of Judah, should come to be used more generally for a member of the people of Israel. To denote, not a member of the Jewish state or an inhabitant of Judaea, but a member of this people, two terms can thus be used, namely, ישלראἸσραήλ “Israel(ite)” and יהודיἸουδαῖος, “Jew.”[4]

Thus, in the New Testament era “Jew” was equivalent to Israelite or Hebrew. The conversation digressed, I accused him of being a racist and Joe repeatedly threw out red herrings and logical fallacies rather than defend his assertion that Jesus was not Jewish. As I argued to no avail, the word “we” in John 4:22 is inclusive, “we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” According to John, Jesus said that and His use of “we” is His identification as a Jew. It seems to me that based on this statement, you are faced with 3 options:

  1. The Bible has an error Jesus never said it.
  2. Salvation comes from the Jews but Jesus was not a Jew.
  3. Salvation is through Christ alone as the Jewish Messiah.

It’s not clear what Ortiz believes because Jesus statement in John 4:21-22 infers that God used the Jewish people to deliver His word and to incarnate himself as the Jewish Messiah. Furthermore, the NT and the OT were written by Jewish people except for Luke who wrote Luke/Acts and of course, the primary dispute, Jesus was an ethnic Jew. So in that sense salvation was delivered to mankind through the Jews. I never got a straight answer out of Joe because he kept changing the subject to Zionism or dispensational theology. I challenged him to debate the topic “Jesus was a Jew” on Youtube but he only made excuses. Doesn’t this seem like a case of “protocols of the learned elders of Zion” mythology inspiring anti-Semitism in Joe?

 


[1]Edwin Yamauchi, “Jews in the New Testament” In , in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 920.

[2] Personal to Cris Putnam email dated 12-27-2012

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ἰσραήλ—Ἰουδαῖος , vol. 3, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-), 359.

Unpacking the Queen James Bible


By Cris D. Putnam
There’s a new Bible “translation” with a pernicious agenda, it’s called the Queen James Bible. The editors named it the Queen James because of the “obvious gay link to King James, known amongst friends and courtiers as “Queen James” because of his many gay lovers.” While King James was known for moral weakness, this is not reflective of the biblical authors. Homosexuality is a sin because it is against the creation order.

First, I think it is important to point out the fallacious theory of interpretation/translation. A helpful guide to understanding theories of translation is How to Read the Bible for All it Worth (a book I reviewed here):

Functional equivalence: the attempt to keep the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek but to put their words and idioms into what would be the normal way of saying the same thing in English. The more one is willing to forego formal equivalence for functional equivalence, the closer one moves toward a theory of translation frequently described as “dynamic equivalent.” Such translations keep historical distance on all historical and factual matters but “update” matters of language, grammar, and style.

Free translation: the attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another, with less concern about using the exact words of the original. A free translation, sometimes also called a paraphrase, tries to eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible and still be faithful to the original text.

Theory of translation has basically to do with whether one puts primary emphasis on formal or on functional equivalency, that is, the degree to which one is willing to go in order to bridge the gap between the two languages, either in use of words and grammar or in bridging the historical distance by offering a modern equivalent. [1]

With the preliminaries out of the way, I think it is safe to say the Queen James Bible does not even qualify as a free translation. It’s not a translation at all. For instance, think about the overtly circular methodology of deciding a position like “homosexuality is not addressed in the Bible” and then imposing that idea on to the text. It’s really not a theory of translation at all rather it seeks to revise the text in accordance with a predetermined agenda. The Queen James Bible is not a Bible translation, it’s an outright forgery.

As an example let’s examine a representative passage from the Queen James:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous, (1 Cor 6:9, QJV)

I contend that the Greek text is actually much more explicitly addressing homosexuality than the English translations reveal. A functional equivalent translation like King James or New American Standard reads as such:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”(1 Co 6:9, KJV)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,(1 Co 6:9. NASB)

A free translation like the New Living Translation or New International Version reads:

“Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,(1 Co 6:9, NLT)

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men,”(1 Co 6:9, NIV)

But looking at the Greek text of 1 Cor 6:9:

“Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται”(1 Co 6:9, NA27)

These terms I underlined “μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται” are much more explicit than our English translations present. One of the most respected Greek lexicons based on semantic domains is very revealing:

88.281 μαλακόςb, οῦ m: the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse —‘homosexual.’ For a context of μαλακόςb, see 1 Cor 6:9–10 in 88.280. As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.

88.280 ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’ It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακόςb, the passive male partner (88.281).[2]

Far from not speaking to the issue, Paul hit it head on. In fact, a woodenly literal translation might read:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners,

The Queen James Bible leads folks who struggle with sexual attraction disorders to forego repentance and invite the wrath of God:

“Because of this, God gave them over to degrading passions, for their females exchanged the natural relations for those contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, abandoning the natural relations with the female, were inflamed in their desire toward one another, males with males committing the shameless deed, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was necessary for their error.”(Ro 1:26–27)

See: Did Jesus Condemn Homosexuality?
Also See: The Same Sex Controversy

 



[1] Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 41

 

[2] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 771-72.