Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 27

Links Mentioned on the 1/15/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: No Discrimination? (0:00)

In New York, You Could Be Fined $250K for Failing to Use a Transgender Person���s ���Preferred��� Pronoun by Kelsey Harkness

Questions:

��� Announcements:

#STRask Podcast with Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner
STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016

1. Can people be saved if they've never heard Jesus' name? (0:23)

Jesus, the Only Way: 100 Verses by Greg Koukl
Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson
, by Greg Koukl

2. What is your view of the flood, and why? (0:42)

No Global Flood? (Video) by Greg Koukl
Commentary: Textual Clues about the Extent of the Flood (Audio) by Greg Koukl (third-hour commentary)

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Jehovah���s Witnesses Can���t Consistently Affirm the Reliability of the New Testament

Jehovah���s Witnesses commonly refer to modern translations of the Bible as ���Lord Bibles.��� It is often used as a pejorative. They claim that so-called ���Lord Bibles��� remove the name of Jehovah more than 7,000 times and replace it with the word Lord. Only they have the true Bible, because their New World Translation (NWT) uses the name Jehovah. All other versions are rejected because they���re thought to be unreliable.

Even though Jehovah���s Witnesses make a big deal out of using the name Jehovah when referring to God, the New Testament writers never once address God as Jehovah. In fact, in the nearly 5,900 Greek New Testament manuscripts that have been discovered, none use the name Jehovah. Now think about this. If the name Jehovah was to be the sole name for God for all generations, why is the name not used a single time in the New Testament?

Jehovah���s Witnesses have a response to this. They assert that the scribes who copied the original New Testament documents deliberately changed the text. On their view, Jehovah���s name was in the originals, but the copyists took it out and replaced it with the word Lord [Greek: kurios]. Please try to understand the implications of this belief. This means that the manuscripts, or copies, that we have to reconstruct the New Testament do not contain what the apostles actually wrote.

What kind of evidence do Jehovah���s Witnesses provide to back up this extraordinary claim? First, they do not have any early textual evidence. As I have already stated, all of the manuscript evidence has the word Lord [Greek: kurios], not Jehovah. Furthermore, the New Testament authors even use the word Lord in their quotations of the Old Testament.

For example, in his letter to the church in Rome, Paul writes,

[I]f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [kurios] and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ���Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.��� For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ���everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [kurios] will be saved.��� (Rom. 10:9-13)

Try to follow the flow of Paul���s argument. Specifically, look at how Paul explicitly uses the term Lord throughout this passage. Paul tells us that one must confess that Jesus is Lord to be saved. Next, he tells us that the same Lord is Lord of all. Paul is explicit that this not a different Lord; it���s the same Lord who is Lord over all. Given that he has just told us that Jesus is Lord, the only rational conclusion is that he is still talking about Jesus.

Furthermore, the Lord bestows riches on all who call on Him. Now he is going to back up this claim by giving a quote from the Old Testament. Paul says, ���For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved��� (Rom. 10:13 ESV).

Jehovah���s Witnesses are quick to point out that this is a quote from the prophet Joel, which says, ���And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved��� (Joel 2:32 NWT). Since Joel used the name Jehovah, they assume Paul must have as well. It is from this assumption that they assert that the early scribes intentionally changed Paul���s original words.

However, this reasoning completely misses the apostle Paul���s point in Romans 10:9-13. Every Greek-speaking Jew would have understood what Paul was doing. He had already said that everyone, whether Greek or Jew, must confess Jesus is kurios to be saved. Consequently, he backs this claim by citing the prophet Joel from the Old Testament. However, when Paul quotes Joel, he says, ���Everyone who calls upon the kurios will be saved.��� Therefore, Paul takes Joel 2:32 and applies it to Jesus. Joel tells people to call on Jehovah to be saved. However, Paul reveals that the name that everyone must call on to be saved is Jesus. There can be no mistake that Paul is intentionally applying a text about Jehovah from the Old Testament to Jesus because he believes that Jesus is Jehovah.

This conclusion is unacceptable to a Jehovah���s Witness. Therefore, the NWT changes Romans 10:13 to say, ���Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.��� But Paul doesn���t actually use the name Jehovah. It turns out that the NWT has inserted the name Jehovah into the New Testament over 270 times without any textual basis for doing so. Many of these unsupported insertions end up distorting the original intention of the biblical authors.

It seems to me that Jehovah���s Witnesses are caught in a dilemma. They cannot both affirm that the earliest scribes changed important texts of the New Testament without leaving any evidence of a change, and affirm the reliability of the New Testament.

They want to stress the importance of using God���s correct name. However, when you point out that the name Jehovah is never used in the New Testament, they are forced to assert that the name was actually in the originals, but removed from all copies. This is a direct attack on the reliability of the New Testament. Think about it. This means that all of the scribes were not faithful copyists. All were willing to allow their own bias to determine which words could and could not be in the text. Furthermore, all of the scribes conspired to deliberately change the name of God without leaving any trace of the original wording. But if this is true, what else could they have changed without leaving any trace of the original wording?

The Jehovah���s Witnesses��� unsubstantiated assertion is a double-edged sword. Consider the following illustration. What if I merely asserted that Romans 10:9 originally said, ���If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Jehovah and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.��� My Jehovah���s Witness friend is likely to protest that we have no textual evidence that Paul wrote, ���Jesus is Jehovah��� in Roman 10:9. On the contrary, every manuscript says, ���Jesus is Lord.��� However, using the same logic as the Jehovah���s Witnesses, I could reply that the copyist deliberately conspired to change the text without leaving any trace of the original ���Jesus is Jehovah��� wording. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Given their outlandish understanding of the transmission of the New Testament, Jehovah���s Witnesses cannot consistently affirm the reliability of the New Testament. Obviously, the Jehovah���s Witnesses��� ultimate authority is not Scripture. Instead, the Watchtower dictates what Scripture says, even to the point where they will make up what it says by inserting and replacing words that are not in any manuscript.

Finally, when I���m derided for using a so-called ���Lord Bible,��� I point out that it was the New Testament writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who chose to use the term Lord [kurios] for Jesus and Jehovah. Modern translators didn���t make this stuff up. So their complaint is not with modern Bible translators, but with the New Testament authors and God Himself.

Challenge Response: The Gospel Writers Were Just Educated Storytellers

Here's my response to this week's challenge: 

Links Mentioned on the 1/13/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: David Bowie's Death and Trading Eternity (0:00)

Questions:

1. How do you answer the challenge that the Old Testament condones genocide and slavery? (0:18)

Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan
Did God Condone Slavery? by Amy Hall
The Canaanites: Genocide or Judgment? by Greg Koukl
Sign up to receive Solid Ground every other month
Not Genocide, but Capital Punishment by Amy Hall (quoting Clay Jones)
The New Atheists and the Old Testament by Amy Hall (includes video of a lecture by Peter J. Williams)

2. What situation is Timothy referring to when he says women should not teach or have authority over men in the church? (0:40)

Should Women Teach in Church? by Greg Koukl
Do You Use Bible Commentaries Written by Women? by John Piper
Some of Amy's thoughts on women, men, and authority

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Challenge: The Gospel Writers Were Just Educated Storytellers

How would you respond to this challenge?

It is widely understood that the persons who wrote the gospels were not eyewitnesses to Jesus��� ministry and were not historians as we would define the term today. Rather, they were educated storytellers who used material from both mostly oral and some written sources while at the same time adding in some embellishments and myths at their own discretion. There was no fact checking available (i.e. no contradicting information sources) and no one alive who could testify that any given story was untrue.

Can you offer any reasons as to why he���s incorrect about this? Tell us what you think in the comments below, and be sure to visit the blog on Thursday to see Brett���s response.

[Explore past challenges here and here.]

The Voice of God and 1 Corinthians 14

When it comes to hearing the voice of God, how do we interpret 1 Corinthians 14 that says we should eagerly desire prophecy?

Where Do Jehovah���s Witnesses Get Their Name?

Jehovah���s Witnesses believe that they alone are God���s chosen witnesses to the world. As justification for their self-designation, they cite Isaiah 43:10. It says:

���You are my witnesses,��� declares the Lord,
   ���and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
    and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
    nor shall there be any after me.���

By applying this verse to themselves, Jehovah���s Witnesses testify that they are the only true witnesses of Jehovah. But is that what this verse is really communicating? Is Jehovah speaking about Jehovah���s Witnesses in this passage?

At Stand to Reason, we have a principle: never read a Bible verse. Simply put, every verse must be interpreted in light of the context. In this instance, the context is clear. Isaiah 43:10 is referring to Israel, not Jehovah���s Witnesses. Jehovah declares, ���You are my witnesses.��� Who is the ���you��� being addressed? Isaiah tells us in verse 1. He writes,

But now thus says the Lord,
   he who created you, O Jacob,
he who formed you, O Israel....

Jehovah is speaking to Israel. The nation of Israel was to be a witness to God���s faithfulness, authority, power, and truth to the surrounding pagan cultures who worshipped false gods. Therefore, Israel is a witness to the only true Jehovah God. This is why Jehovah adds, ���Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.���

Theologian and cult apologist Ron Rhodes says, ���It is a wild, wild leap to take a verse referring to Israel as God���s witness to the pagan nations in the Old Testament times (over seven centuries before the time of Christ) and claim its fulfillment in a modern-day religious group some nineteen centuries after the time of Christ.���* Rhodes is right. Jehovah���s Witnesses must rely on a gross misinterpretation of this text to derive their name.

Furthermore, we must ask our Jehovah���s Witness friends, if they are the only true witnesses of Jehovah, does that mean God was without a witness for over eighteen centuries before The Watchtower came along? Who was representing the true God during that time period? In addition, why would Jehovah wait over 1800 years before sending his only true witnesses? All of these questions demand an adequate response.

There is another issue that needs to be resolved. The Israelites were to be witnesses of Jehovah in the Old Testament, but the New Testament believers were to be witnesses of Jesus. In fact, Jesus said, ���But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth��� (Acts 1:8). Christians today continue to be witnesses of Christ and his bodily resurrection from the dead. When Christians bear witness to the deity and bodily resurrection of Christ (Romans 10:9-10), they are bearing witness to Jehovah since Jesus is Jehovah. Ironically, by denying the deity and bodily resurrection of Jesus, Jehovah���s Witnesses fail to be the true witnesses of Jesus, who is Jehovah.

_____________________

*Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah���s Witnesses (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers), 29-30.

Links Mentioned on the 1/08/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Remembering Greg's Mom (0:00)

Questions:

��� Announcements:

#STRask Podcast with Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner
STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016

1. What���s the definition of faith? (0:18)

Getting Faith Right by Tim Barnett
, by Greg Koukl
Acts 10

2. Should I attend my stepdaughter's same-sex wedding? (0:45)

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert by Rosaria Butterfield

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Letting You Know About a Great Resource: Credo Courses

One of the marks of a good ambassador for Christ is an accurately informed mind. The mind must be informed with knowledge adequate for its task. For instance, a Christian ambassador must understand the gospel of Jesus Christ in order to communicate and defend it. Therefore, Christians have the responsibility of educating themselves.

There are a number of ways to get yourself informed. Resources abound. There are books, articles, blogs, podcasts, videos, and conferences. However, this past Christmas break I discovered a resource that I think every Christian ambassador needs to know about. It���s called Credo Courses.

Most people don���t have the time or the money to go back to school to get a master's degree in apologetics or theology. Yet, these same people want to go deeper into theological topics like the reliability of the New Testament or the resurrection of Jesus. For them, a one-hour lecture isn���t enough. They want more.

There is now a way to get yourself equipped by some of the top scholars in the world on some of the most important topics without enrolling in a seminary to do it. Imagine learning textual criticism from Dr. Daniel Wallace, one of the leading New Testament textual critics in the world. Or, imagine taking a course on the resurrection from Dr. Gary Habermas, one of the leading resurrection scholars in the world. With Credo Courses, you can do just that.

Each course has about 30 lessons, and each lesson is about 30 minutes long. You are free to watch videos or listen to the audio at your own pace. The videos have a ���classroom feel��� to them since they were recorded in front of an audience.

At this point, I���ve gone through Dr. Wallace���s course on New Testament Textual Criticism and Dr. Habermas���s course on The Resurrection of Jesus. I would highly recommend both. Not only are these brilliant men who are teaching in their specific area of expertise, but they are also great communicators who are easy to listen to. This is a combination I have come to really appreciate after many years of post-secondary education.

I would even recommend these courses to high school students. In fact, I know high school Bible teachers who have even used these courses in their classrooms, and the students loved it.

I���m looking forward to continuing through more of these courses as time allows, and I cannot wait to see what courses they will add in the future.

Links Mentioned on the 1/06/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Christmas Vacation (0:00)

The Nativity Story film
Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me lyrics

Questions:

��� Announcements:

STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016

1. Should a Christian attend a baby shower for his not-yet-divorced brother-in-law���s pregnant girlfriend? (0:17)

2. Could God have created the universe with the appearance of age? (0:41)

Star Light and the Age of the Universe by Greg Koukl

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.