Book of Eli

[Wordupmybrotha]

In my humble opinion, and please don’t take this as an insult, but I read The Case for Christ as “American” Evangelical Apologetics designed to convince innocent people to “believe” and I think Christian Apologetics is dead and indefensible in light of the historical record. Furthermore, for me personally “Faith” built on apologetic arguments cannot be authentic “Faith”.

Let me explain. I have a very good friend who cheats on his wife. She is both brilliant and beautiful—she speaks five languages: French, Spanish, German, English and Italian. She holds a Ph.D. in Medieval French Literature from an Ivy League University. She is sexy and elegant. And yet, my friend has been cheating on her on a regular basis over and over again for the last 20 years. He is a liar. His stories of where he has been, with whom, for how long, and for what reason never add up. And she’s not an idiot. She knows he’s a liar. She knows he is cheating on her. In fact, she even knows many of the women he’s slept with. In some cases, these other women are her “friends”. She goes to the movies and goes to lunch with them. They are married and have children together.

Despite all this, she also “believes” three other things: 1) He loves her. 2) He will always come home to her. And, 3) in this sense he is loyal to her.

This, in my opinion is true “Faith”. It’s believing in something when all the evidence is against you. She doesn’t need anyone to tell her why he is faithful to her. She “Believes” and that is enough.

By "innocent", I think you meant "naive", but didn't want to offend. I appreciate that.

Saying that true faith is one without apologetics implies that reason and faith are mutually exclusive. To me, "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see", is rooted in apologetics and goes like this:

God said he is good and he always keeps his promises. God has been good to me in the past and he has been good to others in the past. Therfore I will trust him to be good to me in the future even if things don't make sense.

Isn't that faith based on apologetics?

Your friend's wife probably has similar "reasoning" that convinces her that her husband loves her and is loyal to her.

[Wordupmybrotha]

I disagree, I think he was blind. I think it's important because he would not have been able to accomplish what he did on its own.

The 10 commandments came were given to Moses directly by God. We shouldn't limit what God is capable of. Samson was given by God enormous strength to accomplish the tasks God gave him. Jonah was swallowed and spit back up by a whale sent by God to put him back on path.

Ok, if people believe Eli was blind the whole time, like a Sixth Sense bombshell ending about Bruce Willis (don't want to spoil the ending), I can "see" how you might like the movie.

But how did he know that the thing he hid the bible in was a TV? How did he see that single house off in the distance? It appeared that he saw the cemetery in the backyard. It appeared that he saw the old couple's shakes. Didn't he also "recognize" the rapist in the bar?

[MASTERLAB]

If he hid the Bible in the TV, he touched the TV. With your eyes closed a TV has a glass front and the rest is wood, plastic or metal. A random box or piece of furniture usually doesn't have a glass front.

I'll have to double check but I think the girl points out the house first and Eli simply agrees they should go to it

You can hear the old couples shakes when they are being served tea, the clanging of the china.

The old man is telling them about Intruders and what he did to them, it wouldn't be hard to figure out the couple killed them

He recognized the rapist by the sound of his voice (maybe even his smell?)

I agree that if he could see the movie would be pretty stupid. In fact I remember thinking exactly that until seeing the ending and then watching the movie again with the knowledge he was blind.

[vinconco]

If you believe a blind man could cross thousands of miles of apocalyptic terrain in a journey taking years because of God's help.... then just ASSUME that God told him to hide it in the friggin' TV.

After all.... it is a movie for crissake

[vinconco]

If you believe a blind man could cross thousands of miles of apocalyptic terrain in a journey taking years because of God's help.... then just ASSUME that God told him to hide it in the friggin' TV.

After all.... it is a movie for crissake

The real question I have is his recipe for cat oil...

[Arrieta578]

By "innocent", I think you meant "naive", but didn't want to offend. I appreciate that.

Saying that true faith is one without apologetics implies that reason and faith are mutually exclusive. To me, "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see", is rooted in apologetics and goes like this:

God said he is good and he always keeps his promises. God has been good to me in the past and he has been good to others in the past. Therfore I will trust him to be good to me in the future even if things don't make sense.

Isn't that faith based on apologetics?

Your friend's wife probably has similar "reasoning" that convinces her that her husband loves her and is loyal to her.

Alright, let me try and explain why Evangelical Christian Apologetics is dead another way. The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed Biblical scholars now agree on two basic precepts:

1) There are numerous, serious and significant variants in all of the early Christian manuscripts that make up the New Testament. Theses variants are irrefutable.
2) Without some significant new major archeological find (like the Dead Sea Scrolls), it has become impossible to talk about any notion of an “original”, “single” or “standardized” version or the New Testament.

For all practical purposes, the only Biblical scholars that do not agree with these precepts are American Evangelicals and variants thereof. The question is why?

The answer of course has to do with the Evangelical insistence that the Bible is both the inspired and inerrant word of God —and as such, should be understood literally and without exegesis. However, due to the numerous, serious and significant variations of the New Testament, not to mention all the problems with “authorship” and what constitutes an “author,” which verision is the inerrant and inspired word of God? You have many to choose from.

Evangelical scholars have been forced by the physical evidence to accept the reality that there are variations and that there is no single Alexandrian authoritative manuscript. Their apologia lies in the idea that the “authentic text” (inspired and inerrant) lies not in one single manuscript, but in the “manuscript tradition” itself and the variations are not really significant or serious.

Non-Evangelical scholars have pointed out time and time again that these variations are both serious and significant and Evangelical scholars have been forced to quietly concede the point. Nonetheless they continue to attempt to cling to the idea of the “manuscript tradition” itself as justification for an “inspired and inerrant” text. However, in doing so, non-Evangelical scholars point out then that it is the “people” (albeit scholars) who are still making the decisions as to which variation and/or reading is the “correct one” based on context, textual clues, “intended” meaning and yes, doctrine. At this point the Evangelical apologia falls apart because scholars themselves cannot agree on what are the correct variations. And that is why I claim Christian Evangelical Apologetics is dead. It is an indefensible argument.

Catholic scholars on the other hand do not have this problem of “text” to the same degree as Evangelicals do because they do not claim that the Bible is to be understood “literally” as the “inerrant word of God” in the same way as Evangelicals. Their reading is more nuanced, careful, and intellectually cynical. Rather Catholic doctine makes clear that the Bible requires “explanation and interpretation” by properly “trained” (read “inspired”) followers of the Faith. Additionally, from Augustine forward, Catholic scholars have acknowledged that due to the requirement for biblical exegesis multiple readings and interpretations of the Bible are possible, that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and so long as they are orthodoxical and anagogic in accordance with doctrine, then these readings are by nature — and therefore the text itself— “inerrant and the divinely inspired word of God.”

Finally, to be clear, I’m not trying to lay claim that Catholicism is superior to any other form of Christianity. Rather, I am simply trying to point out why Evangelicals get themselves into trouble from a theological and historical perspective and how Catholic scholars, who have had more time to learn the hard lessons of Faith have found theological and doctrinal work-arounds to some of the same problems now confronting Evangelicals. Think the current situation with dinosaurs and Evangelicals and compare that to Galileo’s telescope and the Catholic Church.

Finally, I keep going back to this one point: it’s all about Faith.

I’m reminded of a story I recently heard. A Catholic Priest and a Muslim Cleric were arguing about which religion was the true religion over coffee while in Paris. After much debate, the priest invited the cleric to Rome to see the Vatican, meet the Pope, and see all the artistic wonders contained within The Sistine Chapel — in the hopes that the cleric would convert to Christianity. “If after doing this,” said the priest, “you do not convert to Christianity, then I will pay for your whole trip.” The Muslim, believing he was going to get a free trip to Rome accepted the offer.

Upon arriving in the Rome, the priest told the Muslim “You know what, I’m just going to let you wander around the Vatican and see things for yourself first and then we will meet for coffee in the afternoon.” That afternoon came quickly, and when the priest met the cleric, he asked “well, what did you think?” The Muslim quickly and proudly announced that he had converted to Christianity. Overjoyed, the priest said, “Oh Glory be to God! I knew this would happen! But, I didn’t think it would happen this fast! Please, tell me, what was it that you saw that made you convert so quickly?”

The cleric answered, “after spending the day wandering around the Vatican, where I saw the homeless on the streets begging for food and then all the gold artistic riches inside your church, and after reading about the financial scandals regarding all the Cardinals in the Italian newspaper, and after seeing the police arrest various priests and bishops for child molestation, and after seeing the secret tunnels underneath the Vatican use to smuggle in mistresses and prostitutes.... I realized after all this... for you to continue believing in God... well that is true “Faith.”

[Arrieta578]

Redundant post... not sure why...

[RAMCLAP]

Sorry friend. The more manuscripts we find the more it is clear that there is no variation. We have enough first and second century scripts to make an entire new testament that translated to exactly what we have now.

[Arrieta578]

Sorry friend. The more manuscripts we find the more it is clear that there is no variation. We have enough first and second century scripts to make an entire new testament that translated to exactly what we have now.

Not according to James White...

“James Robert White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, an Evangelical Reformed Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of more than twenty books. He received a BA from Grand Canyon College, and an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary. He was also a critical consultant for the Lockman Foundation's New American Standard Bible.“

In this debate, White claims their are 12 First and Second Century fragments and gets called on it, as the number is high.
WSee for yourself...

[Arrieta578]

Sorry friend. The more manuscripts we find the more it is clear that there is no variation. We have enough first and second century scripts to make an entire new testament that translated to exactly what we have now.

Furthermore, there are no 1st Century fragmentary manuscripts of the New Testament (0-100 AD). The earliest fragmentary manuscript is P52 which dates to the first half of the 2nd Century. There are a total of 4 fragmentary manuscripts that can be securely dated to the 2nd Century (100-200 AD). The other 7 fragmentary manuscripts dates are contested and dated 2-3rd Century. It is not until the 3rd Century where we have portions large enough of fragmentary texts to even put a story together. That is to say, a conglomeration of just 2nd Century fragments strung together without the context of later date texts would be meaningless.

The oldest complete version of the New Testament of course is the Septuagint and is from the 4th Century (300-400 AD).

None of this should be new, contested, or surprising. Evangelical scholars have known about this issue for YEARS.

[RAMCLAP]

My bad. You are correct. It turns out the Mark fragment is not first century. There still is not enough variation to change meaning. We certainly don't have any that say something completely different. Though not New Teatament, the Dead Seas Scroll show conclusively that there is little to no variation from what we use now.

[The War Wagon]

We know for example that the Gospels were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

You IMAGINE... they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John.


And that's only the START of YOUR problems...

[Arrieta578]

My bad. You are correct. It turns out the Mark fragment is not first century. There still is not enough variation to change meaning. We certainly don't have any that say something completely different. Though not New Teatament, the Dead Seas Scroll show conclusively that there is little to no variation from what we use now.

The DSSs only deal with the Old Testament. There is nothing in them that deals with Jesus, early Christianity, or the New Testament and while it is true that the variant of Isaiah is very similar to the Masoretic text from the year 1000 AD, the version of Jeremiah in the DSSs was 15% shorter than the current Jeremiah in use today.

As to the differences, the story of the woman accused of adultery who is to be stoned to death and Jesus’ subsequent statement that “those without sin may cast the first stone” is a glaring example of the problems we face in attempting to “fix” (i.e. establish or solidify) the New Testament. That story does not appear in any of the versions of the New Testament prior to the 10th Century. While this is an egregious example of a variations amongst the texts, it clearly demonstrates that such variants simply cannot be ignored.

James White makes an excellent point in his closing remarks while debating Bart Ehrman. He says (I am paraphrasing) that “as Christians, we must recognize and deal with these issues of textual variants and inconsistencies head-on in an open, educational and honest manner —especially when it comes to our youth. Better that they learn about them from those in the Faith than from those who wish destroy our Faith, because if we do not, when our children grow up and enter the world and learn about these issues from others, our attempt to cover them up and ignore them will only serve to ask the question ‘what else have we been covering up and ignoring?’ And it is at that moment, when our young will call into question all of the tenets that we profess and have taught them about our Faith.”

[Arrieta578]

You IMAGINE... they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John.


And that's only the START of YOUR problems...

Dr. Mr. War Wagon;

It is clear by your comments that my commentary on the historicity of the New Testament has deeply offended you and your sensibilities.

For that I sincerely apologize.

Yours Truely and May God be With You,

Arrieta578

[omgwtfbbq]

I don't think he was blind

There seems to be some contention over that. Some say that the character was blind before finding the Bible and hearing the words of God, but was granted sight until his task of saving the word was finished. This would explain why he could read braille, but also why he could do things that sighted people could.

However, I think there are a lot of cinematographic clues that show that at least the film makers want us to believe he is blind. For instance, his heightened sense of smell/hearing. Also in one scene they show a close up of his eyes and they appear milky like some people with blindness.