Friday, November 09, 2007

Christian Scholarship vs. Penn and Teller

Baptist Press - Scholar lists reasons for Gospels' reliability - News with a Christian Perspective

A few days ago I was looking through YouTube for any videos that related to the Bible. I was appalled when I found a video by the comedy/magic team of Penn and Teller. The name of the Video was "Why the Bible is Unreliable". Ok, I lied, they didn't say unreliable, but they instead used a crass term with the same initials as Barbara Streisand. I found it very offensive. And no, I won't give you a link for it. They attacked the Bible's historicity and reliability as a moral and ethical standard. Of course, they gave a completely one sided presentation, never giving anyone an opportunity to defend the historicity and reliability of scripture. When I read the article above this morning I realized that some of the reasons that this scholar gives for the historicity and reliability of scripture are the same reasons these atheists gave NOT to trust it. Penn and Teller pointed out many "difficult" passages of scripture, such as the command to stone to death children who disobey their parents, as a reason why we should not trust the Bible.

Blomberg in this article lists some of the difficult sayings of Jesus, as evidence of the reliability of the gospels. As an example he mentions Jesus command that if we would follow him we must hate our father and mother. If the gospel writers were trying to fabricate stories to build up Jesus, they would be unlikely to include such a difficult saying. Likewise, by examining the things Jesus didn't speak on, we can assume that the gospel writers sought to be historically accurate. Two major areas of controversy in the early church were speaking in tongues and circumcision. The gospels don't record Jesus speaking on either. If the gospel writers were playing free and loose with history they could have put words in Jesus mouth to settle these issues, but they did not. Knowing that they did not shy away from Jesus difficult teachings, and that they did not fabricate things Jesus did not teach, gives me all the more reason to trust what they did record. You know, little things, like Jesus' immaculate conception and birth to a virgin. His miracles of healing, raising the dead, feeding thousands with the contents of one boy's lunch pail, calming the seas with the sound of his voice, and most importantly, his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of the Father.

Penn and Teller pride themselves on being intellectuals that would never fall for the silly superstitions of scripture. I believe, however, that if they were as confident in their intellect as they pretend to be, that they would have included prominent Biblical scholars and Christian Archaeologists to provide a rebuttal. Anyone can make a case for anything if they don't have to defend their facts and logic. And why did they feel the need to make this video? What is it that compels them to attack the foundation of Christian faith. They certainly have a right to be atheists, and not to believe the Bible. But why the need to attack the Bible? In a day when the likes of Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Don Imus, and so many others are raked across the coals for hateful and disparaging remarks, why do entertainers like these two feel free to attack the predominant faith in this country with impunity? It seems that Christians are the one people group that can be maligned without consequence in our culture of political correctness. Had Penn and Teller created such a video attacking the Koran, we'd see major news coverage of their hate speech, and the need to ban them from performing in Vegas and appearing on TV.

I challenge Penn and Teller to debate the reliability and historicity of the Bible with genuine Jewish and Christian Biblical scholars, but I won't hold my breath. And I won't be watching any more of their magic/comedy acts.

4 comments:

Theodore said...

Just for the record pastor, this paragraph which you use to justify the validity of the Bible, has be confused:

"If the gospel writers were trying to fabricate stories to build up Jesus, they would be unlikely to include such a difficult saying. Likewise, by examining the things Jesus didn't speak on, we can assume that the gospel writers sought to be historically accurate. Two major areas of controversy in the early church were speaking in tongues and circumcision. The gospels don't record Jesus speaking on either. If the gospel writers were playing free and loose with history they could have put words in Jesus mouth to settle these issues, but they did not. Knowing that they did not shy away from Jesus difficult teachings, and that they did not fabricate things Jesus did not teach, gives me all the more reason to trust what they did record."

There is nothing there but assumption and conjecture. There is no evidence or proof, it is all circumstantial based on your opinion of what you think the gospel writers would or would not have included if they were trying to fabricate the stories of the Bible.

The questions regarding the validity of the Bible surround those stories that there typically should be scientific evidence for, such as the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood, the resurrection or even some historical record of the life of Jesus Christ separate from the Bible.

Your argument doesn't hold up which is the reason the preachy, I'm-holier-than-thou debate is going to the side of the atheists. By its very definition, faith is the belief in something there is no proof of. If you have faith, then end of story. You should not see any need to debate atheists because they can say "Look, there is no proof that this happened in the Bible," but to the evangelical Christian, the only response should be "I don't need proof." Such is the definition of faith.

Not everyone may have faith; but do we really need to beat a dead horse when it comes to the fact that maybe spirituality isn't important to everyone?

Mike Hardin said...

Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog, Theodore.

First, I didn't say I was proving ANYTHING in the paragraph that you quoted, but simply that those were my reasons for believing the Bible was credible. The Penn and Teller video attacks the credibility and trustworthiness of the Bible. I simply explained why I still find it to be credible and trustworthy.

>>Not everyone may have faith; but do we really need to beat a dead horse when it comes to the fact that maybe spirituality isn't important to everyone?<<

I'm not sure where I'm beating a dead horse here. Did I come to your house and demand you listen while I read this post? Did I post my comments on YOUR blog? No, I posted my thoughts on my blog so that people who wanted to could read what I thought of this video. I'd suggest that if "spirituality" isn't important to you, that you spend your time doing something other than reading a Baptist pastor's blog.

That being said, you are always welcome to read here. And as long as you use clean courteous language, as you did in your last comment, I'll be glad to publish your comments.

Hossrex said...

You said that like you thought it would be justified to ban Penn and Teller from their livelihood, simply because other performers have been censured for "similar" offenses. Its strange that you say "they have the right to be atheist", but then bemoan them prostelatizing their beliefs, which is something you've done several times in this very rebuttal.

They can be atheist, but since Christianity is the "the predominant faith in this country", they shouldn't be allowed to vocally disagree with it? You're allowed to vocally disagree with them, and they'd never say you shouldn't. What does it say about you, that you seem to claim they shouldn't be allowed to do the same?

If you have a problem with the things they've said, dispute them. Show us where they were wrong. You never did that. You never said which parts they were wrong about.

You just said they were wrong.

Clearly you can't dispute a single "FACT" they gave, you just don't like the conclusion they reached.

If thats the case, you can feel free to fall back on your faith, and forget you ever watched the show. No one would care.

Yet to say someone is wrong, their stance is wrong, the things they say are wrong, and they shouldn't be allowed to say it because their wrong... without ever saying why they're wrong, or what they're wrong about...

Well...

Thats exactly the problem Penn and Teller have with your religion.

I hope you realize that you've proven, albeit ironically, everything they set out to say about people of your ilk.

Its always disappointing to see someone who clearly thinks their well educated to spout pure ignorance.

The historicity of your people is again confirmed.

Mike Hardin said...

Hossrex,

Thank you so much for taking time to read my blog and reply to this post. It is very flattering to think someone would still pay attention to something I wrote almost 7 months ago.

For clarity's sake, I'm going to place some of your comments in italics, and if I quote my original post I'll use bold type.

First, I never said that I "thought it would be justified to ban Penn and Teller from their livelihood." I'm not out to put anyone out of work here. Although I found the video offensive, I don't have any desire to deny anyone a living. What I did say was, that if they had attacked any other group other than Christians, that would have been a likely result. Don Imus and Michael Richards come to mind, as does Mel Gibson. I bemoaned the fact that we live in a culture that is quick to pounce on racial, religious, or sexually oriented based hate speech, unless that hate speech is directed toward Christians, in which case free speech rights suddenly become more sacred than the rights of the group being criticized.

Secondly I didn't "just say they were wrong." I did only deal with one area of their criticism however, and that was some of the supposed inconsistencies that they point out. I'm not going to rehash all that here, but the sum of the argument was that those "inconsistencies" are part of what give me confidence in the Bible. If different witnesses are questioned about the same event, one gets different perspectives. But when witnesses collude to lie in advance, they work on getting their "story straight" and often have very few inconsistencies between them.

That said, Penn and Teller raise a lot of issues that I did not deal with. And you are right, I didn't refute them. My puny little brain is probably way too inadequate for that task. And even if my brain were up to the task, I'm frankly not willing to put in the time it would take to go through their arguments line by line and deal with each one. I have a list of priorities, and arguing with Penn and Teller, who haven't heard of me and wouldn't give the the time of day, isn't on the list. What I did do was challenge them to debate a Christian apologist or archeologist. There are plenty of Bible scholars out there who are much smarter than I am and would be glad to take them on in a debate. But rather than subject any of their suppositions (those things you call FACTS just because an insignificant little blogger like me hasn't refuted them) to examination, they chose to present a one sided argument.

You said, "Yet to say someone is wrong, their stance is wrong, the things they say are wrong, and they shouldn't be allowed to say it because their wrong... without ever saying why they're wrong, or what they're wrong about...

1.I didn't say they were wrong. I said I disagreed, and challenged them to include informed scholars with a different opinion in the debate.
"Penn and Teller pride themselves on being intellectuals that would never fall for the silly superstitions of scripture. I believe, however, that if they were as confident in their intellect as they pretend to be, that they would have included prominent Biblical scholars and Christian Archaeologists to provide a rebuttal."
2.Where did I EVER say they shouldn't be allowed to say it? I said I found it offensive. I probably won't ever watch them again, and that's sad, because I think they are funny and I've enjoyed watching them in the past. But I never said they were not entitled to have an opinion and share it. I did point out that other celebrities have been silenced for politically incorrect speech, but I neither condoned the treatment of Imus, Richards and Gibson, nor recommended the same for Penn and Teller. I'm a believer in the first amendment Hossrex. I think your right to voice your opinion trumps my right, or anyone else's right, not to be "offended." I simply asked why they felt the need to do so. I asked why our culture tolerates attacks on Christians but not on other groups. I hope you realize that the tone of your comments proves, albeit ironically, my point on that.

"Well...

Thats exactly the problem Penn and Teller have with your religion."


Since I never said the things this statement is based upon, I'm guessing this is a moot point?

"If thats the case, you can feel free to fall back on your faith, and forget you ever watched the show. No one would care."

Well, I pretty much HAD forgotten about it until today, when your comment showed up in my inbox. Evidently someone cared.

Its always disappointing to see someone who clearly thinks their well educated to spout pure ignorance.

I'll have to plead guilty as charged on that one. Though God has blessed me to be able to receive a good education, I am well aware that my ignorance greatly exceeds my knowledge. If I have boasted in my knowledge or education I apologize. Thank you for keeping me humble. I hope you have a great day, and I thank you once again for taking the time to read and comment on my blog. Thank you also for disagreeing in a civil and respectful manner. You are always welcome here.

Mike