Phill Sacre

Tag: christianity

  • QI and Quirinius’ Census

    I was watching QI XL last night, and the topic of the Bible came up (you can still see it on the iPlayer at the time of writing – at 20 minutes in). Now, it should be pointed out before we start that Stephen Fry has been known to be wrong before – he is not infallible! And on this particular occasion, I think he was wrong.

    Stephen Fry and the panel made a few points about the census described in Luke 2:1-3.

    The points were, broadly speaking:

    1. There was never a census of the entire Roman world;
    2. People didn’t have to return to their home towns in a census.

    So the Lukan account of the census was put in only to account for the Bethlehem prophecy (i.e. Luke made up the gospel in order to account for all the prophecies). He (Stephen Fry) then went on to say “We’ve been cheated of books which should have been in the Bible”, and read an account from an infancy narrative of Jesus which happened to include dragons.

    I have to say, I find this disappointing: QI prides itself on getting its facts right. It’s a shame that such a programme would broadcast what is essentially misinformation. On the two points above, there are plenty of sources (that last one looking particularly at the Greek text and the dating of the census, and – if you read on – coming up with what I believe to be an interesting resolution). In short, what QI said is simply not true.

    This untruthfulness comes across again when they say it was basically a free-for-all when it came to which books were included in the Bible and which ones weren’t. Now this is such an incredible argument to make because it is totally false: It was used in the Da Vinci Code, for goodness’ sake, and we know how accurate that was! There is an article in my ESV Study Bible on the Canon of Scripture  (it’s available online but you have to have an account) which gives an interesting overview of the history of the canon of what we call the Bible. Essentially, the early church didn’t decide what went in and what didn’t in terms of their own agenda, and it wasn’t decided many years after the fact.

    The books of the NT were “self-selecting”, as it were; the books that were ‘chosen’ was simply a ratification of the books that already were in use by the majority of churches as authoritative.

    Anyway, it’s disappointing to see ‘research’ like this make its way onto our screens, especially on a programme which is watched by millions of people. It’s just sloppy. QI, you have gone down a little in my estimation.

  • The Dawkins/Lane Craig non-debate

    Richard Dawkins is stirring things up again. (Surely not! – sorry, I’d better not be sarcastic). In an article on The Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ section, he explains why he isn’t going to debate William Lane Craig. In case you don’t want to read the article, what Prof. Dawkins’ comments come down to is that William Lane Craig defends the God who commanded horrific genocide in the Old Testament. So, in the article, Dawkins quotes Deuteronomy 20 and says: “You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree.”

    Now, I will leave aside Richard’s ‘arguments’ in the article itself (he doesn’t really make any, but still.) The whole thrust of the argument is basically: genocide is bad, I cannot debate with anyone who defends it. (I’d be interested to see what other people Dawkins has debated think about the Old Testament… William Lane Craig is by no means on his own with the view he holds).

    However, in the quote I mentioned above, Dawkins does touch on one thing which I feel hasn’t really been explored, namely: “such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God.” Now, this is an interesting one. How does Dawkins know that genocide is good or bad? Is he drawing on Biblical evidence? If so, what he has ‘proved’ is that the Bible is internally inconsistent.

    However, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. What he seems to think is that the God of the Bible is actually immoral. What I’d love to find out is, on what basis does Dawkins say that God is immoral? Or, to put it more specifically, on what basis does he say that genocide is immoral? Now, don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying anything about the morality of genocide – I’m not questioning whether it’s OK! I’m just saying, how can Dawkins, as an atheist, claim that something is immoral? Or at least objectively immoral?

    As William Lane Craig often says, 1. Without God, objective morals do not exist; 2. Objective morals do exist; 3. Therefore, God exists. What Dawkins seems to be doing in the article is making an appeal to objective morals. If he is, then I believe he is undermining his own position.

    I’d love to hear him actually answer this issue properly, or at least be more precise in his language, but I fear that is simply a pipe dream.