The Idolatry of Tony Jones and The New Christians

What is this really about?

I must admit to being overwhelmed as I read The New Kierkegaardians Christians. The error and stupidity in the book are staggering. I do well to choose a single battle and fight it, hoping to provoke others to be more discerning as they read the book. The battle I choose to fight is against Jones’ shameful treatment of Judges 11. Tony abuses the story of Jephthah and his daughter (pg. 145-148) in order to paint orthodox readings of it as wrong. Never mind that he uses a phony “orthodox” interpretation to argue against. Tony Jones avoids salient points in the story of Jephthah to avoid the Gospel message there.

I loathe The New Christians, because it presents the basest view of Christianity that I can imagine. To the Emergent sycophants, the book is glorious and Jephthah is base. Theirs is a view that turns proper exegesis on its head. In his rush to deconstruct (tear down) the story of Jephthah, Tony Jones, makes a parody of the Gospel. Like his friend, Brian McLaren, Tony reduces a story of redemption to one of “child abuse”. McLaren sides with the likes of Jeffrey John, Steve Chalke, Alan Jones, J. Denny Weaver, Joel Green and Mark Baker in trying to reinvent Christ’s atoning death and justifying resurrection. Tony Jones sides with all of them when he follows their method.

 

Jephthah, Whom God sets free

Is this about good theology or a matter of taking sides? I submit to you that it is about both. The revisioners embrace bad theology and end up on the side of heresy. Tony Jones is a theological workman who ought to be ashamed. He deals with scripture deceitfully and purposefully avoids the Gospel message of the Old Testament. Let’s consider Jephthah and his daughter.

The story of Jephthah comes out of the Old Testament book of Judges. The Holy Spirit lays down the context for the book of Judges in Chapter Two. Judges is a roller coaster ride of blessing and judgment. God worked through the Judges to deliver the people from oppression, which they brought upon themselves in turning to idolatry. It’s a picture of a God who will save anyone who will turn to Him for salvation. It is also a picture of a sin-cursed earth and fallen humanity, both needing a Savior.

And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died, being a hundred and ten years old. And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-heres, in the mount of Ephraim, on the north side of the hill Gaash. And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim: And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger. And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. (Jdg 2:7-14)

Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed. Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so. And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them. And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way. (Jdg 2:15-19)

We meet Jephthah in Judges 11. He is a Gileadite and the bastard son of a harlot. He wasn’t considered a true Israelite, because his father never married his gentile (strange, other) mother. Jephthah was cast out of his father’s house by his brethren. He went to live in the land of Tob. He became a leader of vain (empty, worthless) men and established a rugged reputation. He led an army. Jephthah was a bloody man without a sacrifice or a way to God (Deu 23:2), as far as the Law was concerned.

The children of Ammon (Gen 19:38) made war against the children of Israel. Jephthah’s brethren came to him and sought his leadership. They fetched (accepted, received) him out of the land of Tob to be their Captain. Jephthah challenged his brethren to acknowledge the irony of their predicament, and he agreed to lead them. He set one condition, that they would follow him after the LORD gave them victory over their oppressors. We are told that Jephthah made a compact before the LORD at Mizpeh (watchtower) of Gilead. This is consistent with the context laid down in Chapter Two, where we are told that God raised up the Judges.

So Jephthah sends messengers to the king of the children of Ammon. The Ammonites claim to seek land that was stolen from them many years earlier by the children of Israel. Jephthah rebukes the Ammonites by reminding them that God was the one who dispossessed them of the land. He preaches to them about the redemptive works of God. He reminds them of God’s deliverance of Israel into the land promised to the seed of Abraham. He even mocks their gods, chiding them to appeal to Chemosh for possessions. Jephthah paints the picture of God’s judgment against those who seek to subvert and destroy God’s message and work of salvation (Num 20-22). This story of Jephthah is a portrait of a bastard who was more faithful than legitimate sons concerning the preaching and teaching of God’s word.

 

Jephthah’s Vow

And then we come to Jephthah’s vow. The battle so far has just been a war of words. Jephthah recognizes that victory is not possible without God. He submits to God’s judgment in the matter of victory against the Ammonites. He pledges, upon his return from battle, to sacrifice whatsoever comes out of his house as a burnt offering unto the LORD.

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. (Jdg 11:29-31)

Now let’s just take a few moments to talk about this. Tony Jones relates a foolish interpretation, which he attributes to another pastor, and which frames Jephthah’s vow as a dumb mistake. Such a reading insinuates that Jephthah was hasty and made the vow without thinking. Tony seems to rightly understand that to be a stupid interpretation. When a man vows to give up something that walks out of his house to meet him, he isn’t meaning to offer a toaster or a lamp. He’s obviously thinking of a living object that can move under its own power. So we can agree that Jephthah made a vow to offer a life, right?

But Tony Jones is on a mission to tear down the Bible and promote liberal theology, which majors in a bloodless cross and a Christ who died for social justice. So Tony bypasses illuminating passages of Scripture in order to use the story of Jephthah as way to preach a social-justice gospel. What does the Bible say about burnt offerings, human sacrifice, and the first-born of Israel? What does the New Testament say about Jephthah? Why does Tony Jones pass over those parts of the Bible?

 

Let God defend His servant!

The burnt-offering  (olah, holocaust) is the oldest offering in the Holy Bible. It was offered by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Levites The Mosaic Law confined burnt sacrifices to the LORD as a practice reserved for the Levites. Deuteronomy 12 is especially enlightening here, because God establishes the law of an appointed place for sacrifices in juxtaposition to the abominations and scattered worship of the heathen nations being driven out of the land. The same chapter, that exhorts Israel to worship at the place appointed by God, also warns Israel of destruction if they offer their children as burnt sacrifices.

Human sacrifice was forbidden in Israel (Lev 18 & 20; Deu 12 & 18) . Those prohibitions are always given with reference to Molech, a god of the Ammonites. Only Ahaz (2Ki 16) and Manasseh (2Ki 21) were brazen enough to named by the Holy Spirit as breaking this commandment. They worshiped Molech at Topheth and scripture records their deeds as abominations. Topheth was in the Valley of Hinnom, close to Jerusalem. God pronounced judgment on Jerusalem for it (Jer 7, 19, & 32). Their captivity in Babylon was decreed to rid Israel of that sin.

 
Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. (Num 18:15-16)

The firstborn of Israel were to be set apart for the LORD (Exo 13, 22 & 34; Lev 27; Num 3, 8, 18). Exodus 13 ties the sanctification of the firstborn to God's redemption of the people from Egypt. Numbers 3 ties it to the special status of the Levites. God took the sons of Levi as a special possession and commanded that the Israelites redeem their firstborn. Numbers 18 deals with the dedication and redemption of the firstborn. The redemption price was five shekels. The Jews were commanded to dedicate their firstborn children and redeem them. The firstborn of their cattle and the firstfruits of their fields were to be dedicated to God. The Levites took provision from the animal and botanical offerings, according to Numbers 18. The offering of firstfruits was also bound to a confession of God's mercy, redemption, deliverance, and provision (Deu 26). And don't miss the fact that Deuteronomy 18 connects the sanctification of the Levites, the offerings of first-things, the condemnation of heathen worship, and the messianic hope together!

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deu 18:15-19)

The New Testament speaks well of Jephthah. The Holy Spirit, through the writer to the Hebrews, gives Jephthah a place of honor (Heb 11). Jephthah is listed there with David, Samson, Samuel, Gideon, and Barak. They are said to have "obtained a good report through faith" not having received the promise (gospel).

 

What of Jephthah's Daughter?

The last seven verses of Judges 11 deal with the completion of Jephthah's vow. Did Jephthah slay his daughter? No! He pledged her purity. The emphasis in these verses is on her virginity. She was forbidden to marry. The Hebrew word for burnt offering, “olah”, means wholly consumed and ascending.

Jephthah was in a position to pledge his daughter as a pure offering in service to God. A father had binding authority over a daughter living in his house (Num 30). She could pledge her soul on some matter, and her father could break the vow with the blessing of God. The father could not break his own vow, but he was given special authority to act on behalf of his wife or daughter. A man could also pledge any other person as an offering at the Tabernacle and pay a redemption price (Lev 27) Jephthah was authorized to forbid his daughter to wed and remain pure as a sacrifice to the LORD. He could make that vow before the priest and pay a redemption price to seal it.

She knew no man (v 39). He mourned, because she was his only child. He undoubtedly wanted grandchildren. She mourned, because it was a shame for women in that day to be unwed and childless. The Hebrew word for lament, “tanah”, also means to celebrate. The daughters of Israel celebrated this uncommon act of devotion.

The Idol of Liberation Theology

The reader has a choice here. One can ignore what Hebrews 11 says about the good report obtained by Jephthah. One can also ignore the many reasons cited here to spare the life of Jephthah’s daughter. Or one can follow Tony Jones and kill Jephthah’s daughter for the sake of idolatry. The big question here is, what is your view of the Holy Bible?

I submit to you that Tony’s view of the Bible isn’t very high. Tony acts very pious, but his chief aim is to promote doubt. Unbelief is an essential ingredient in existentialist theology. Doubt is the leaven that makes Kierkegaardian theology tasty to Tony Jones. That’s why he passes over so many parts of the Bible that speak to the fate of Jephthah’s daughter.  No, Tony wants her to burn so he can promote Jurgen Moltmann’s Liberation Theology. Tony wants her to suffer so he can put God in the fire with her and introduce Bloch’s Marxism into the discussion. Never mind whatever questions it might raise for you about the reliability of the Bible. No, Tony wants your company in the circle of endless questioning at the Emergent church.

You can see God’s holiness and work of redemption here, or you can play the ‘what is truth?’ game with Tony Jones and The New Kierkegaardians.

Drinking Kool-Aide in the New Jonestown

I saw where Tony Jones recently bragged on his weblog about changing his title to Ecclesiologist. Why not? He’s a poor theologian.

While reading “The New Kierkegaardians Christians”, I am reminded of Jim Jones. He was a church leader too. Jim Jones was a sweaty, lecherous, megalomaniac who led his flock to their deaths in a sweaty place called Jonestown. They killed themselves drinking Kool-Aide which Pastor Jones served to them. It was a case of murder by bad theology.

Whenever someone talks about Kool-Aide in a political, sociological, or religious context, it is a reference to Jonestown. And by the way, the Kool-Aide in Jonestown was poisoned. The poison was the lethal part.

Is Tony’s theology poisoned? I think it is.

Having arrived at Chapter 4 – “The Theology Stupid”, I wonder about the people who choose to swallow this drivel. Why don’t they see the flaw in Tony’s theology when he says; “And finally, the world, to which the gospel would be preached was not the planet Earth. The only world known to Jesus was the Roman Empire…” (pg. 98)? Either Tony Jones thinks God is very limited in His knowledge, or he doesn’t think Jesus was God.

Seeing what Mr. Jones says about postmodernism as the ingredient to liberate theology, I have to wonder if Emergers will swallow anything and everything with a “new” label slapped on it.  How can they not perceive his subterfuge when he ties “foundationalism” to biblical faith and declares both wrong (pg. 19 & 103)?  According to Tony, there isn’t an “indubitable foundation” in the Bible, or for knowing God (pg. 19). Tony Jones replaces the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) with existentialism when he speaks about “conceiving” of  being a follower Christ (pg. 103). Tony says his Kierkegaardian theology begets a new way of life!

I‘ve highlighted many such flaws and poisonous contradictions in my copy of the book. I could go on and on, but reading this book is tiresome! Tony and I are worlds apart in what we believe. 

Tony says that theology is defined as "words about God" (pg. 47). How is it that Tony’s three pillars of Emergent theology; it should be local, conversational, and temporary -- are considered by anyone as being consistent with the Holy Bible? Is God not omnipresent, all-knowing, and eternal? Tony Jones doesn’t seem to think so, and his Emergent brethren seem to agree. According to Emergent theology, their words about God don’t have to agree with the Word of God.

How is it that such a man as Tony Jones can be considered fit to define what a church should be?

Watch out for the poison in the theological Kool-aide Mr. Jones is serving! Drink from the fount of Emergent theology at your own peril!

Video Interlude

I saw these on another blog and thought they are worth sharing. The first is a parody of worship music for 'prosperity churches'. The second is for an electronic Bible to replace your iPod. And the third is a parody on Rob Bell's heretic sermon, Bullhorn Guy.

 

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Joh 3:16-18)

Credits to sermonspice.com; Community Christian Church; Timotheus333

The Emergent Confusion

I constantly find myself astonished at the heresies being proclaimed by so-called Christians. I'm beginning to think we could study a different popular heresy every day for the next year and not run out of them. The Emergent Church is the Al-Queda of Christianity. It's an infestation that seems to have the marks of an Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ cult.

A brother by the name of Phil Perkins has been blogging on the Emergent church for some time. I must admit that I had heard the term 'emergent church' many months ago. I didn't pay enough attention then to even find out what the term meant. I first heard of it from a very liberal fellow who claims to be Christian. He is a rather undiscriminating critic of Christianity in general, so I took it as undeserved epithet.

But I ran smack up against an Emergent web site tonight while looking at tools for Bible blogging. I could not believe what they were saying about making God's dreams come true. How arrogant can they be? Gee, aren't you glad that somebody has figured out that God is too puny to make his own dreams come true?

Notice that these people fancy themselves as 'kingdom builders'. Osama and Mahmoud are kingdom builders too. They don't like the current order of things either. Emergers have the notion that they are going to evangelize the world through good works while purposely down-playing the Gospel. Their gospel is a social message. They claim that the Church has alienated the rest of the world by proclaiming the message of sin, righteousness, and judgement. Emergers hope to restore Christianity to its 'authentic' form.

I found that Emergent web site through a blog about a new bible translation, The Books of the Bible. It seems to be a version tailored for Emergers. The following bullet points are very interesting;

• chapter and verse numbers are removed from the text (a chapter-and-verse range is at the bottom of each page)
• individual books are presented with the literary divisions that their authors have indicated
• footnotes, section headings and other supplementary materials have been removed from the text (translators’ notes are available at the back of each book)
• the books of the Bible have been placed in an order that provides more help in understanding, based on literary genre, historical circumstance and theological tradition
• single books that later translations or tradition divided
  into two or more books are made whole again
  (example: Luke-Acts)
• single-column setting that clearly and naturally presents the
  literary forms of the Bible’s books

Ah how refreshing! Yes, nominal Christians aren't reading their Bibles, so we have a few tricks to fool them into thinking it's just another book. Who knew that footnotes, verse numbers, and chapters were hindering Christians all along? This will fix everything that is wrong with the church!

It's late and I need to call it a day. There are so many things wrong with this movement that I can't hope to scratch the surface tonight.

God must have a sense of humor.

I have been considering something I read in Chapter 2 of Dowling's heretic gospel. Dowling claimed to have received his false gospel from the Akashic Records. That non-existent "book" is supposed to be in Sanskrit. But when Dowling mimics the Gospel of Luke, he stupidly calls Jesus by the Greek name "Jesus".

I would think that someone translating from Sanskrit to English would not lean on Greek for words to express the original language. Obviously, I don't know Sanskrit, and I don't know any Greek apart from my Bible and Concordance. But I know enough to ask these questions. Isn't there a word in Sanskrit for savior? Why not use that in stead of a Greek word?

Perhaps it is to fool stupid people who don't want to receive the the true Gospel anyway?

Well, the reason I think it's strangely funny is that the fake "book of life", the Akashic Record, is supposed to be in Sanskrit. This book that Dowling's fake gospel claims to have come from does not exist! There are no manuscripts of it. It is supposed to be a book that you read out of thin air through ESP. That alone is quite funny, but the kicker is that it is supposed to be in Sanskrit!

Sanskrit means 'self-made', or 'made up' if you please. How's that for a punch line?

A person would have to be pretty stupid to take that made-up hogwash over the Holy Bible. Even many of the Gospel-mocking liberals recognize that we have ancient manuscripts of the Bible.

Somebody is going to ask, Do you really think that God would laugh at someone being fooled? Why not? He says that the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). Jesus said that we can't do anything without Him (John 15:5). Everybody gets to choose, and if they insist on choosing foolishly, He won't stop them. Friend, you prove God right when you reject Jesus Christ and then want to complain that he allowed you to do it. By doing that you prove yourself to by your own problem. He says you're a problem for yourself. Why don't you listen to Him?

'Self-made'. Get it?

The only trouble is that in proving God right you prove yourself to be wrong. I'll agree, that isn't so good. That's a bitter pill to swallow!

PS: There is a concept of salvation, in the general sense, in Hinduism. Sanskrit words exist to describe it. It's nothing like the concept of salvation in Christianity or Judaism, but it's there nevertheless. So there is good reason to believe that Dowling could have provided a name for Jesus (Savior) from Sanskrit.  It's funny how the simplest things tend to betray a lie for what it is. That is certainly the case for Dowling's phony Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Kugel, a tasty desert or a nauseating stew?

You can read about Kugel as a desert or you can read a little about James Kugel's new book. I prefer the desert.

I don't mean to pick on this guy, but I thought I'd try to find out what he's selling in more detail.  Going by his "Appendix 1: Apologetics and Biblical Criticism Lite”, he doesn't offer much in the way of scholarship.  I grabbed a portion from that appendix wherein he discusses Isaiah's Servant Song prophecies.  This is 'scholarship lite' folks.  I'll defend that comment below.  In the meantime please read what Kugel says...

From a relatively early time, some researchers suggested that the Deutero-Isaiah’s references to the suffering “servant of the Lord” cannot reasonably be taken as prophecies about Jesus (even though they are explained as such in the Gospels). But this was a hard pill for many Christian commentators to swallow. So, while not arguing the Jesus connection directly, many sought to assert that these passage were somehow special, different from the rest of the book of Isaiah. Christened the “Servant Songs” (though truly, there was nothing songlike about them!), they were alleged to have been composed quite separately from their surrounding texts:[14]

The[se] songs represent a special strand within the book of Deutero-Isaiah, and therefore they did not come into being at the same time as their contexts. Nevertheless, they owe their origin to Deutero-Isaiah.[15]

They are marked out not only by a special theme, independent from that of the rest of the work, but also but the fact that they have evidently been interpolated in their present context, from which they can be removed without any resultant damage or interruption.[16]

The text itself offers no real support for such assertions, and most scholars have now come to reject them.[17] Understandably, however, it is still hard for some to let go completely. Thus, even while denying any specific connection to Jesus, commentators have continued to see the “servant of the Lord” as a messianic figure[18] – though again, the text offers no support for this – or at least to evoke the suffering of Jesus and his crucifixion in the process of commenting on Isa. 52:13-53:12.[19] As the very last of apologetic options, the identity of the “servant of the Lord” is alleged to be one of Scripture’s great mysteries:

The reason I say this is 'scholarship lite' is that I expect a lot more from a Harvard Hebrew professor. Kugel leads the reader to think that the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah's suffering servant prophecy (52 & 53) is a Christian invention.  I'd expect a Hebrew scholar to acknowledge the rabbinic writings on this matter and deal with them.  The Babylonian Talmud tells us that rabbis interpreted these passages as being about the Messiah.  There is no excuse for a  biblically literate Jew to say it is a mystery, particularly one who promotes himself as a Hebrew scholar.  I find the man to be a liar on this point.

Permit me to share two snippets from rabbinic sources below.  Bear in mind that these are translations from Hebrew sources, and they are widely available.

The first:

Rab said: The world was created only on David's account (for Psalms).  Samuel said: On Moses account (for Torah);  R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah's] name? -- The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come (Gen_49:10).  The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure for ever (Psa_72:17):  e'er the sun was, his name is Yinnon.  The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah (Jer_16:13).  Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem ['the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, is far (Lam_1:16).  The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isa_53:4). -- [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b (Rodkinson; Sanhedrin, ch 11, p 311)]

Epstein , Rabbi Dr. I. (Ed.) - Babylonian Talmud, (The Soncino Press, London, 1934)

Rodkinson, Rabbi Michael L. - New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, (Boston New Talmud Publishing Co., Boston, 1903)

 The second:

The fourteenth verse in the second chapter of Ruth is thus explained. 'Come thou hither' is the prediction of Messiah's kingdom. 'Dip the morsel in the vinegar,'  (Rth_2:14) foretells the agony through which Messiah will pass, as it is written in Isaiah (cap. 51), 'He was wounded for our sins, He was bruised for our transgressions.' 'And she set herself beside the reapers' predicts the temporary departure of Messiah's kingdom. 'And he reached her a parched corn' means the restoration of His kingdom.--Midrash Ruth 5.

Rapaport, Samuel - Tales And Maxims From The Midrash, (George Routledge & Sons Limited, London, 1907), p. 44

 Friends, why doesn't Kugel deal with all of the Hebrew sources? 

Funny note on the second quote, Samuel Rapaport complained about Christians finding support in the rabbinic writings.  He wrote about this in his introduction to Tales And Maxims From The Midrash. He didn't give any compelling reason other than to imply that it made it hard for him to respect Christians. I'll leave it to the interested reader to look that up.

One Kugel makes me hungry.  The other makes me sick, because his work stinks.

This just in....We've been reading the Bible wrong!

(Harvard Genius Decodes the Bible)...according to his publisher.

In How to Read the Bible, Harvard professor James Kugel leads the reader chapter by chapter through the "quiet revolution" of recent biblical scholarship, showing time and again how radically the interpretations of today's researchers differ from what people have always thought. The story of Adam and Eve, it turns out, was not originally about the "Fall of Man," but about the move from a primitive, hunter-gatherer society to a settled, agricultural one. As for the stories of Cain and Abel, Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob and Esau, these narratives were not, at their origin, about individual people at all but, rather, explanations of some feature of Israelite society as it existed centuries after these figures were said to have lived. Dinah was never raped -- her story was created by an editor to solve a certain problem in Genesis. In the earliest version of the Exodus story, Moses probably did not divide the Red Sea in half; instead, the Egyptians perished in a storm at sea. Whatever the original Ten Commandments might have been, scholars are quite sure they were different from the ones we have today. What's more, the people long supposed to have written various books of the Bible were not, in the current consensus, their real authors: David did not write the Psalms, Solomon did not write Proverbs or Ecclesiastes; indeed, there is scarcely a book in the Bible that is not the product of different, anonymous authors and editors working in different periods.

Such findings pose a serious problem for adherents of traditional, Bible-based faiths. Hiding from the discoveries of modern scholars seems dishonest, but accepting them means undermining much of the Bible's reliability and authority as the word of God. What to do? In his search for a solution, Kugel leads the reader back to a group of ancient biblical interpreters who flourished at the end of the biblical period. Far from naïve, these interpreters consciously set out to depart from the original meaning of the Bible's various stories, laws, and prophecies -- and they, Kugel argues, hold the key to solving the dilemma of reading the Bible today.

How to Read the Bible is, quite simply, the best, most original book about the Bible in decades. It offers an unflinching, insider's look at the work of today's scholars, together with a sustained consideration of what the Bible was for most of its history -- before the rise of modern scholarship. Readable, clear, often funny but deeply serious in its purpose, this is a book for Christians and Jews, believers and secularists alike. It offers nothing less than a whole new way of thinking about sacred Scripture.

Apparently the poor soul who wrote this blurb has never heard of the Graf-Wellhausen theory or the Jesus Seminar. The book will appeal to liberals and posers who think it is better to just throw in the proverbial towel on inerrancy. It's "dishonest" not to cave into this so-called scholarship?

The guy who wrote this must be one of Kugel's underlings, or perhaps he is the shoeshine boy who grovels at Kugel's feet. Why he talks like they recently dug up a witness from Shechem to interview about the whole Genesis 34 incident. Dinah never raped? Really? Being scholars they must have video tape or something solid, don't you think so? Well, I'd better chuck my theology! This changes everything!

It changes nothing. This is older than Moses. This goes back to Eden. Hunter-gatherers indeed!

Crazy Feminism

I lean on Dr. Albert Mohler to keep me informed of cultural phenomena of interest to Christians. His web log is invaluable to me. I recommend it highly to all.

Dr. Mohler's July 23rd blog entry deals with some nutty commentary by Nona Willis-Aronowitz. She rejoices over the her observation that casual sex is "certifiably pop culture". Willis-Aronowitz suggest that one of the goals of feminism is to empower women by enabling them to feel good about themselves via taking the guilt out of "nonmarital sex". It's almost laughable, if not for the fact that it is tragically sad, how feminism has sown the rotten seeds of fatherlessness and marital dysfunction that seem to plague our nation today. Is feminism entirely to blame for the harvest of bastardization and sexual immorality in America? Perhaps not entirely, but it certainly led the way.

On May 31st, Mohler wrote about a UK study done on teenage boys from fatherless households. It turns out that boys without fathers generally grow to be men who have a low regard for women. They become users and fixers in there relationships with women, and develop a penchant for petty crime. It seems that single mothers stand a greater chance of raising males to be abusers and deadbeat dads, than they do in raising men who will love women and care for children. According to another article by Mohler, medical researchers are helping to further this Orwellian madness by developing sperm from bone marrow. What, we don't have enough already?

Another notable blog post from Dr. Mohler deals with insane logic used by loony liberals at the United Nations. The killing of baby girls is apparently a serious problem in some parts of the world. Some leaders are concerned that perhaps as many as 100-million baby girls have been killed through practices like sex-selective abortion. The United States introduced a resolution calling for condemnation of the practice of female infanticide, but liberals in the European Union blocked the measure. Our EU friends say that it would be wrong of us to tell women not to kill their baby girls, because we'd be intruding on the reproductive rights of those women. How ridiculous its that? It goes against the feminist ideology to protect the lives of girls if it means taking a stand against abortion!

The movement that is supposed to advance the cause of women is the worst thing for them.  Feminists want to turn women into soulless sluts who raise up men that abuse women. They think it is better to decimate the female population of the world than preserve the lives of girls. It's not a liberation movement after all.  Feminism is an experiment in eugenics, Nazi style.

Ye blind guides!