Category: One Year Skeptic

Reference links:

Old Testament

Isaiah prophecies against Moab. Isaiah prophecies against Damascus. Isaiah prophecies against Ethiopia. Erika wonders if she is going to be able to get through Isaiah without losing her mind…

Isaiah’s God is a vengeful God. The language of destruction and desolation are repulsive. The violence goes beyond the requirements of justice to the extreme of revenge. These sounds more like the words of Isaiah, the man living in uncertain and fearful times, than any God worthy to be called such.

Also, Eglath-shelishiyah is an awesome place name.

New Testament

We start a new letter today: the letter to the Galatians. According to Harris in Understanding the Bible:

Like the letters to Corinth, this letter to the Galatian churches reflects Paul’s ongoing struggle with opponents who challenged his apostolic authority and his “gospel” that believers must live free of the Mosaic Law. An angry declaration of Christianity’s independence of Judaism, Galatians vigorously defends Paul’s doctrine of salvation through faith. The letter also proclaims Paul’s independence of Jerusalem’s Christian leadership. 

This uniquely Pauline gospel [that only faith in redemption through Christ can obtain salvation] revolutionized the development of Christianity. By sweeping away all Torah requirements, including circumcision and dietary restrictions, Paul opened the church wide to Gentile converts. 

Paul has a twofold purpose: (1) to prove that he is a true apostle, possessing rights equal to those of the Jerusalem “pillars” and (2) to demonstrate the validity of his gospel that Christian faith replaces works of law, including circumcision.

It is important to remind ourselves just how much these ideas about salvation are uniquely Pauline. Many of the standard ideas of Christianity came from Paul’s interpretation of his knowledge of Jesus. Given that the gospels, which were written after Paul’s letters, have very little overlap in things like the finer points of salvation, it seems reasonable to assume that in Paul’s time and after, there were multiple competing Christian traditions (the difference between the gospel of John and the synoptics presents yet another potential competing tradition).

Although Christians like to look at the Bible as having a unified message, it is important to realize that the authors themselves came from diverse backgrounds and would, most likely, often have disagreed with each other, even if you only consider the authors of the New Testament books.

On to today’s content! Paul admonishes the Galatians for following a different gospel than the one he preached (more proof of competing traditions) and defends his authority. Here we see Paul claiming that his authority comes directly from Jesus and is independent of (but approved by) existing authorities.

Psalms and Proverbs

Commit yourself to instruction;
listen carefully to words of knowledge.

Random musings today. People often think they are committing themselves to  knowledge and instruction when, in reality, they are actually only committing themselves to knowledge and instruction that match their preconceived notions.

I have had people reject what I have to say about the Bible just because I am an atheist. That’s just dumb. I may be an atheist, but I am also someone who has spent 8.5 months reading and learning about the Bible. I have under my belt what is probably the equivalent of two semesters of Biblical introduction classes. There is a ton I don’t know, but I have learned a lot, and it disappoints me when people dismiss what I have to say just because they think they only need to listen to those who share their same conclusions.

Reference links:

Old Testament

After a little bit of pleasant poetry of praise, we get prophecies about the destruction of Babylon, Assyria, and the Philistines. Now, some might consider those to be properly fulfilled prophecies. So let’s be generous for a moment and assume that all the specifics which were not fulfilled were poetic license. In that case, Isaiah was just predicting that kingdom he did not like would fall. Guess what, they did! As has pretty much every kingdom that existed at the time. Kingdoms rose and fell all the time back in those days. In other words, despite all of Isaiah’s verbosity, the results come as no surprise to anyone. This is especially true given that there were probably about 200-300 years between the writing of the earliest strata of Isaiah and the fall of Babylon. Even in modern times, a lot of countries have risen and fallen in that amount of time.

New Testament

Paul closes his letter. This statement is interesting:

Examine yourselves to see if your faith is genuine. Test yourselves. Surely you know that Jesus Christ is among you; if not, you have failed the test of genuine faith.

This verse says, essentially, that if you have doubt, you have failed. I wonder how many people on the edge of losing their belief were pushed further because of this verse.

Psalms and Proverbs

Repeat! We already know not to move boundary stones.

Reference links:

Old Testament

Isaiah predicted that the Lord would use Assyria to destroy many nations and then he would destroy Assyria. He would cause most of the people of Israel to be killed off. Now, I know it’s generally considered an auto-fail to invoke Hitler as an analogy, but one cannot help but be reminded of the Holocaust.

Isaiah then goes on to discuss how the remnant that remained would turn back to God. A “new Branch” will initiate a period of justice and peace. It is from this passage that we get the famous vision in which dangerous creatures coexist peacefully with domesticated ones (such as children and lambs).

This section is generally considered a prophecy yet to be fulfilled because world peace for man and nature obviously hasn’t happened yet. Even those Christians that believe Jesus is the “new Branch” mentioned in Isaiah cannot claim that the specific results of that have occurred yet. Combine that with the fact that the prophecy is very geographically limited to the area surrounding Israel, and you can see why religious tension magnifies so much of the political tension in that region today.

New Testament

Paul continues to rant. I continue to not care.

Psalms and Proverbs

Don’t eat with stingy people because it’s not fun.

Reference links:

Old Testament

Isaiah, in his chat’s with the Lord, decides to write Maher-shalal-hash-baz on a signboard. According to the footnote, that means “swift to plunder and quick to carry away”. For some reason, he seems to think this significant that he got two honest men to witness this event. Isaiah the goes on to name his son Maher-shalal-hash-baz as a sign of the impending doom of Damascus and Samaria.

In any case, Isaiah then predicts that Judah will be overwhelmed with a mighty flood, covering the land chin deep. Except for the flood’s not really a flood. It’s a metaphor for the king of Assyria.

Isaiah has been warned to fear the Lord, but for those of Israel and Judah who do not heed that warning, the Lord

will be a stone that makes people stumble,
a rock that makes them fall.
And for the people of Jerusalem
he will be a trap and a snare.

Reference links:

Old Testament

We get something a little different today. That’s nice.

Isaiah tells of his vision of the Lord. In that message, he is charged with delivering a message with the people. The passage is familiar. The Lord says,

“Yes, go, and say to this people,
‘Listen carefully, but do not understand.
Watch closely, but learn nothing.’
Harden the hearts of these people.
Plug their ears and shut their eyes.
That way, they will not see with their eyes,
nor hear with their ears,
nor understand with their hearts
and turn to me for healing.” 

This passage is quoted several times in the New Testament to describe Jesus’ reception by the people of his time. A couple observations about this message. Based on the quoting, only the “Listen carefully” line and the one following are what Isaiah is supposed to say to the people. The rest is God’s commentary to Isaiah.

In that commentary, it sounds as if God is instructing Isaiah to do what he can to prevent people from understanding. Furthermore, he seems to want to prevent people from turning to him for healing. That seems decidedly at odds with the idea of a loving God.

Next interesting bit is this passage:

Later, the Lord sent this message to King Ahaz: “Ask the Lord your God for a sign of confirmation, Ahaz. Make it as difficult as you want—as high as heaven or as deep as the place of the dead.”

But the king refused. “No,” he said, “I will not test the Lord like that.”

Then Isaiah said, “Listen well, you royal family of David! Isn’t it enough to exhaust human patience? Must you exhaust the patience of my God as well? All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign.

Conventional wisdom is that wanting to test the Lord is bad. That the Lord, being tested, will refuse to submit himself to such human weakness and folly. Such conventional wisdom makes sense to an atheist because people need to somehow validate that God never seems to respond in ways that can be objectively verified.

But this passage provides a counter to such conventional wisdom. Ahaz is admonished for not testing God. Now, one could claim extenuating circumstances (he was, after all, asked to test God). But still, it is an intriguing challenge to conventional wisdom.

Immediately following that is a famous passage. The New Living Translation gives it as this:

All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’).

However, as other translations point out and as Joel M. Hoffman’s And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning goes into at length, the word translated as ‘virgin’ almost certainly did not mean virgin in the original Hebrew. The NET Bible site has side-by-side comparisons of several translations and an informative translators note:

Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

In short, the author of Matthew quoted a badly translated version, but he didn’t know that it was badly translated. The fact that a Biblical author failed to quote the Hebrew Scriptures correctly does, however, discount the plausibility of certain forms of Biblical inspiration.

New Testament

Paul continues ranting without substance. I am sure that he feels very strongly about what he is saying, but it sure does not give me much to say.

I do find this bit at the end interesting:

When I was in Damascus, the governor under King Aretas kept guards at the city gates to catch me. I had to be lowered in a basket through a window in the city wall to escape from him.

This is interesting because there seems to be a discrepancy between this version of Paul’s story and the version told in Acts.

After a while some of the Jews plotted together to kill him. They were watching for him day and night at the city gate so they could murder him, but Saul was told about their plot. So during the night, some of the other believers lowered him in a large basket through an opening in the city wall.

It could be that Paul was escaping from both the governor and the Jews, but it seems odd that neither passage mentioned both groups.

Psalms and Proverbs

Kings’ dinners cannot be trusted.

Reference links:

Old Testament

Isaiah continues on about the sins of Israel and the punishments that will be brought upon Jerusalem. There are some interesting metaphors, including one comparing Jerusalem to a woman who has her beauty stripped away and another comparing Israel to a vineyard which only yields bitter grapes.

However, it seems to me that what is most interesting is how generic this prophecy is so far. This is pretty much a generic prediction of punishment. Especially once you go down the road of interpret metaphorically, it could apply to almost any country or city that has fallen. Examples like this are why non-believers are unimpressed by arguments from fulfilled prophecy. For reference, here are some criteria for what would make a good prophecy as determined by Richard Carrier in Sense and Goodness Without God and stated by Luke at Common Sense Atheism:

1. The prophetic text clearly envisions the sort of event alleged to be the fulfillment. (The prediction should not be so vague that a wide range of events would “fit” the prediction.)
2. The prophecy was made well in advance of the event predicted.
3. The event actually happened.
4. The event predicted could not have been staged by mere humans.
5. The event should be so unusual that its apparent fulfillment could not be explained as a good guess, and could not have been inevitable.
6. The source of the prophecy should not have been edited to produce a selection bias. (That is, we should be fairly confident that compilers didn’t just make a hundred predictions and throw away their 99 documents which made false predictions and keep the one that came true.)

By these criteria, Isaiah clearly fails to provide a convincing prophecy. So far in Isaiah, (1) clearly does not hold. We do not have data to judge on (2) and (3). Isaiah’s prophecies, if they came true, probably would fulfill (4). Countries rise and fall relatively frequently, especially in the ancient world, so no points on (5). Since we know Isaiah was edited, we can not judge either way on (6).

Of course, it could be unfair to interpret this as prophecy as all. Maybe Isaiah actually intended this to be a rhetorical warning about all that would happen if the people of Israel failed to follow the ways of God. That makes the passage more reasonable, but, in a way, less interesting. It becomes little more than rhetoric. Good fiery rhetoric, but rhetoric all the same.

New Testament

Paul talks about false apostles or, as my translation would have it “super apostles”. What a great phrase! Super apostles! You can almost hear the fanfare and the cheers.

I find it interesting that, in today’s reading at least, Paul makes no attempt to convince the readers why these apostles are false. He seems to take it as good enough that they preach a message he considers incorrect. Paul could provide reasoning showing why his preaching is right and theirs is wrong. Instead, he just states that they are deceitful and wicked. This is just an argument from authority, and such arguments are fallacious.

Psalms and Proverbs

Don’t move ancient boundary markers. I know you’re thinking about it. But don’t do it. It’s bad. Also, competent workers will rise to high positions.

Reference links:

Old Testament

We start Isaiah today. It’s been hard reading up on background on a new book everyday, but fortunately Isaiah, at 66 chapters, will last us awhile. We may even end up having to review background info!

Although traditionally regarded as the work of a single prophet, scholars believe that the Book of Isaiah is an anthology of prophetic literature that spans almost the entire era of Israelite prophecy, from the mid-eight to the early fifth century BCE. Most scholars divide the book into three different parts, each representing a different historical period and a different author.

…

Scholars have long wondered what principle guided ancient biblical editors when they combined the work of three different prophets from three different periods of Israel’s history onto a single scroll. Some recent commentators suggest that the editors wished to illustrate the entire spectrum of Israelite prophecy in a book that they placed at the head of the prophetic collection. In its edited form, the Book of Isaiah represents and incorporates the three principal themes or concerns of Israel’s prophets: warnings of divine judgment, promises of forgiveness and reconciliation, and responsibilities of restoration. … The book as a whole thus served as a pattern or model for future generations, illustrating the nature and consequences of covenant-breaking, as well as the willingness of Israel’s God to save and redeem a repentant people.

Let’s just cover the first part for tonight:

Most of Isaiah’s genuine sayings, embedded amid later prophetic and editorial additions, express advice to Davidic kings during the Assyrian threat and warning of judgment against Judah for its sins.

Harris reminds us of the historical context of this part of Isaiah. The historical Isaiah was active during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.  Assyria was powerful. They had taken over much of the region. During Isaiah’s lifetime, Assyria would conquer the kingdom of Israel.

And that’s probably enough for now. On to today’s reading! Since it’s poetry, there’s a pretty low content to word ratio, but I am okay with that. 😉

The content in the first chapter of today’s reading boils down to this: the people of Israel/Judah/Jerusalem have rebelled against God. They live sinful lives and disgust God by donning the clothing of tradition without following its deeper meaning. Isaiah says that the people should:

Learn to do good.
Seek justice.
Help the oppressed.
Defend the cause of orphans.
Fight for the rights of widows.

If the people turn to God and live righteously, he will make them clean again.

The second chapter presents a vision of future judgment and world peace.

New Testament

Paul defends himself and his authority.

Psalms and Proverbs

Another proverb about not securing other people’s debts.

Everyone wants their life to have meaning. That much is obvious. 

I promised some thoughts on Ecclesiastes and the idea of everything being meaningless. I now present them to you.

First, let’s look at the way different translations deal with what was, in the New Living Translation, communicated as “meaningless”. We will take Ecclesiastes 1:2 which lays out this idea. Here’s what we get from our comparisons:

• NET: “Futile! Futile!” laments the Teacher, “Absolutely futile! Everything is futile!
• NIV: “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”
• NLT: “Everything is meaningless,” says the Teacher, “utterly meaningless!”
• BBE: All is to no purpose, said the Preacher, all the ways of man are to no purpose.
• NASB: “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
• NRSV: Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
• NKJV: “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher; “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”
• MSG: Smoke, nothing but smoke. [[That’s what the Quester says.]] There’s nothing to anything–it’s all smoke.

The noun הֶבֶל is the key word in Ecclesiastes. The root is used in two ways in the OT, literally and figuratively. The literal, concrete sense is used in reference to the wind, man’s transitory breath, evanescent vapor. In this sense, it is often a synonym for “breath” or “wind”. The literal sense lent itself to metaphorical senses: (1) breath/vapor/wind is nonphysical, evanescent, and lacks concrete substance thus, the connotation “unsubstantial”, “profitless” or “fruitless”, “worthless”, “pointless”, “futile”, (2) breath/vapor/wind is transitory and fleeting – thus, the connotation “fleeting” or “transitory” and (3) breath/vapor/wind cannot be seen thus, the idea of “obscure,” “dark,” “difficult to understand,” “enigmatic”.

I bring this up to point out that, while “meaningless” is a perfectly acceptable translation, it seems to me the author is really trying to emphasize that everything is impermanent. The world is ever changing. Everything you work for in this world will someday be gone. It is futile to grasp it, to try to hold it in place.

Another aspect of this is that the world is uncertain. The future, like the wind, cannot be controlled. Attempts to control the future will result in failure and unhappiness. We do not know which way the wind will blow, so we should not make plans that depend on it behaving in the way we wish.

So where does that leave us. Everything is transitory, uncertain, changing, you could even say meaningless (in so far as meaning implies some sort of absoluteness and stability). But joy can still be found in the present moment. There is joy in what life is even if that is disappearing even as you enjoy it. But that joy comes from seeing things as they are, not as they could be.

When looked at this way, the message of Ecclesiastes is no longer that life is meaningless, in the sense that there it has no value and is not worth living. Instead, the message is much more akin to Buddhist ideas of impermanence and mindfulness. While still not satisfying to those who want their lives to have some sort of fixed cosmic meaning, this interpretation of Ecclesiastes presents its message as liberating rather than depressing.

Reference links:

Old Testament

We finish Song of Songs today. We read more descriptions of love and descriptions of the lovers. Some of this is quite overtly sexual.

One line that stood out to me was this:

But my vineyard is mine to give

Given the context of the line and the subject of the poem as a whole, this line seems like a clear declaration that women have the freedom to choose their love. That choice is not to be made lightly

Promise me, O women of Jerusalem,
not to awaken love until the time is right.

But the love and sexuality of a woman are her property. This is a welcome counter to those who would claim that women cannot be trusted with their own sexuality.

New Testament

Paul continues to encourage the Corinthian church to give money to the church in Jerusalem. What makes that church so much more needy, I wonder. Paul then goes on to talk about how giving generously results in a greater harvest than giving less. I certainly can get behind the concept.

Psalms and Proverbs

This proverb struck a cord. There have certainly been people I have cut out of my life because, despite my best efforts, they consistently brought out the worst in me.

Don’t befriend angry people
or associate with hot-tempered people,
or you will learn to be like them
and endanger your soul.