The Multiverse: 1895 – 2012. R.I.P.

The atheist’s most recent god, the multiverse, was laid to rest this January at a rather unusual event: the 70^th birthday celebration of Stephen Hawking, which was held at Cambridge. Delivering the eulogy was Dr. Alexander Vilenkin, who had written a recent paper that was presented at the “State of the Universe” meeting of scientists who had gathered to honor Hawking.

After demonstrating the fallacies of the various theories that have attempted to validate a multiverse, Vilenkin summed up his conclusions by saying, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” This, naturally, put every philosophical naturalist and atheist into mourning because Hawking himself has admitted, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”

For those unfamiliar with the idea of a multiverse, the multiple universe theory has postulated the simultaneous existence of many (possibly infinitely many) parallel universes in which almost anything which is theoretically possible will ultimately be actualized.  The multiverse has been used by atheists and materialists as a way of dodging both the cosmological and fine tuning arguments for the existence of God.

On the fine tuning of the universe, physicist Andrei Linde has said, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”[1] Linde stated this in a 2008 Discover article and added that the multiverse theory was a very compelling possibility for answering the question about the universe’s fine tuning, which permits life on earth.

Vilenkin, one of Linde’s peers and co-workers, now seems to have shut the door on that option.

Even before Vilenkin’s address, the multiverse theory had suffered plenty of debilitating blows before its 2012 death. A multiverse has always had the philosophical problem of an infinite regress. Such an issue is not limited to this universe; it applies to any reality. You still must always get back to a first cause – an uncaused cause for everything – and this includes a multiverse.

Scientifically speaking, no evidence has ever been provided for a multiverse. In fact, there has been no model that has supplied any evidence showing any reality that extends into the infinite past. But, surprisingly, many atheists and philosophical naturalists have hailed the multiverse almost as something like a god – describing its beauty, power, etc., with absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever existed. A strange stance to be sure for those who constantly criticize believers in God for having ‘faith’ in something that (supposedly) has no proof for its existence.

Prior to his most recent paper, Vilenkin along with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth had shown there to be strong scientific evidence against a multiverse. Together, they demonstrated that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called multiverse composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

In other words, Hawking’s worries about needing a divine kick-starter for our universe haven’t been squelched. This may be why Hawking made a pre-recorded phone message for his birthday event which said, "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God."

Vilenkin’s recent paper dismantles the three possible options for a multiverse and is in keeping with prior statements he’s made which include the following: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

You can read more about Vilenkin’s findings in an article by Lisa Grossman entitled "Why Scientists Can't Avoid A Creation Event", which is in the January 11th issue of New Scientist.

With the passing of the atheist’s recent god, the multiverse, it’s hard not to think about what in philosophy is called “drowning the fish”. When atheists or materialists propose spontaneous or self-creating universes, multiverses, quantum mechanics hypotheses and other such things to try and explain reality, they use all the water in the oceans in an attempt to drown the animal (God), but in the end, the fish is still there affirming its existence and presence.

John Lennox sums up the somewhat humorous situation this way: “It is rather ironical that in the sixteenth century some people resisted advances in science because they seemed to threaten belief in God; whereas in the twentieth century scientific ideas of a beginning have been resisted because they threatened to increase the plausibility of belief in God.”

Why is our universe here and so fine tuned for life? Why does it look, as some scientists admit, like “a put up job”? St. Augustine gives us the answer: “Out of nothing didst Thou create heaven and earth – a great thing and a small – because Thou are Almighty and Good, to make all things good, even the great heaven and the small earth. Thou wast, and there was nought else from which Thou didst create heaven and earth.”[2]

---

[1] http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

[2] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.xiii.vii.html

Placating Ishmael

The recent unintentional destruction of a number of Qurans on an Afghan American military base have U.S. officials making multiple apologies to the Muslim country, including one coming directly from President Obama himself. At present, the apologies don’t appear to be doing much good to placate those offended - a gunman wearing an Afghan National Army uniform recently murdered two U.S. troops over the incident.

The Taliban have used the event to try and rally all Muslims to their cause and have publicly stated: "We should attack their military bases, their military convoys, we should kill their soldiers, arrest their invading soldiers, beat them up and give a kind of lesson to them that they never dare to insult the holy Quran.”

This isn’t surprising as evil always craves justification and approval. When it thinks it finds both in a religion, it smiles broadly and believes it’s found no better home.

What’s interesting about the situation is the rapid, continuous stream of apologies for the Quran burning, which any rational person can see was completely accidental. By contrast, when the Bible is deliberately trashed or destroyed by a group of people, no such forgiveness-begging ever occurs.

When a British art gallery a number of years ago put a Bible on display in the open and called upon all visitors to deface it via writings, drawings, etc., many eagerly accepted the invitation. Yet, I can’t recall any British official apologizing to the Christian or Jewish community for the event.

When the Sacramento County Public Law Library displayed a painting called “Moral Values” by San Francisco attorney-artist Jeri Wyrick, which depicted a large Bible with the label “Warning: May Impair Judgment”, I don’t remember the governor of California expressing any regret over it or over the comments made by Wyrick, which were: “I came to the conclusion that there must be something about religious faith which renders people stupid.”

When a Colorado art exhibit showcased Jesus in a homosexual act, I didn’t hear of any apologies from those involved or from any Colorado politician. Instead, the only statement returned to the Christians’ peaceful protests were: "We have to be a country where freedom of expression thrives". I thought it odd, also, that only Christians raised their voices to decry the ‘artwork’; no Muslim outcry came even though Islam supposedly holds Jesus in high regard. I wonder if the same silence would have been experienced if Muhammad had been substituted for Jesus?

Opponents of religion worldwide nearly always try and say that all faiths are the same; that they are all equal in the harm or threat they bring to humanity.

It’s just not true.

You only have to view the contrasts with the recent Quran incident and the aforementioned events that struck out against Christianity and view the differences in how the radical Muslims are appeased and how Christians are left empty handed. The fact is the two faiths are simply instructed to handle opposition differently.

Think not? I invite you to listen to the last words of each founder for the competing faiths on how to treat their enemies. The last words of Muhammad were: "O Lord, perish the Jews and Christians. They made churches of the graves of their prophets. There shall be no two faiths in Arabia" (Hadith Malik 511:1588).

And the last words of Jesus where His enemies were concerned?

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). 

Looking at Whitney Houston’s Death through Atheist Eyes

The Christian Post recently published an article, which was an interview with Trevin Wax, who argued that the deaths of artists like Kurt Cobain, Amy Winehouse, and Whitney Houston were ultimately brought about via the involvement of Satan in their lives. In making his case, Wax wasn’t saying that these celebrities were Satan worshippers or anything close, but rather that they had bought into and followed Satan’s worldly system, and it was the enemy’s poisons in that system which ultimately led to their premature deaths.

It wasn’t Wax’s argument that gave me pause, though, but rather one of the comments made by one of the hatetheist trolls that consistently man the comment boards of Christian Post. Predictably, the hatetheist mocked anyone who would dare to believe in a personal evil such as Satan, but he went on to say that the death of Houston was “tragic”.

It was? From an atheist’s perspective?

How so? Why would an atheist – who takes the atheistic philosophy seriously – say such a thing?

Now, I understand I may be upsetting some who embrace the atheist worldview with my questions, so let me explain why I think the guy’s comment is simply not in keeping with his faith.

Tragedy in Atheism?

If someone wants to define Whitney Houston’s death as “tragic”, then they are going to need a couple of things. First, they’ll need to show that she possessed some innate worth that was marred by the lifestyle that eventually took her life. Second, they must show that the way her life ended was in stark contrast to a far different standard, which instead describes how things ought to be.

Here’s the thing: an atheist who takes his/her faith and philosophy seriously and drives it to its end conclusion will be at a loss to provide an answer for either.

For starters, the atheist cannot look to philosophy for help. The Greek philosopher Epicurus believed humanity was nothing more than atoms, and atoms have no meaning or moral worth.

His partner in crime, Protagoras, believed that man is the measure of all things, which led the famous skeptic Bertrand Russell to say: “This is interpreted as meaning that each man is the measure of all things, and that, when men differ, there is no objective truth in virtue of which one is right and the other wrong.”^[1] In other words, without a real set of immutable moral standards, you can’t really say things like the way Houston died was “tragic”.

But it gets worse. The atheist philosophers who know their craft will tell you that there is no meaning in life, period. Jean Paul Sartre famously remarked that “man's nothingness forms the foundation of existential thinking”. Man, said Sartre, “is an empty bubble floating on a sea of nothingness”.

With such nihilistic instruction, it’s no surprise that Sartre’s study partner, Albert Camus, begins the section “An Absurd Reasoning” in his work The Myth of Sisyphus: And Other Essays with these words: “There is only one really serious philosophical question, and this is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amount so answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”^[2]

I could continue to give examples, but suffice it to say that purely naturalistic philosophy is no help in infusing Whitney Houston or anyone else with any moral value or purpose in life.

But maybe the atheistic scientists can help? Perhaps they can provide humanity with some innate worth or a standard by which to live?

Not if you listen to the top spokesman for atheist, biologist Richard Dawkins: “Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”^[3] 

Dawkins isn’t alone in believing there is no purpose to life. Listen to atheistic scientist William Provine describe the naturalist worldview: “When Darwin deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, he knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life”^[4]

We could also listen to atheist biologist Eric Pianka tell us “We’re no better than bacteria!”^[5] or Stephen Jay Gould describe humans origins and their ultimate (non-existent) reference point: “We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer---but none exists.”^[6]

Unfortunately, for the true-to-the-faith atheist, Whitney Houston’s demise was not tragic. To classify it as such demands that she possessed intrinsic moral worth, and that there exists in life a way things ought to be. But making such claims implies design, and a creator-less universe has nothing in that department to offer.

The Christian Perspective

By contrast, the Christian worldview says that Ms. Houston possessed true moral worth and value because she, like all humans, was created in the image of a purposeful God. She is different than pure matter, animals, and every other created thing.

Further, the same God who created her established moral standards that were put in place to ensure that His creation could enjoy life to the fullest and avoid the consequences that come from deviating from those standards (i.e. sin). The writer of Proverbs puts it like this: “The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, that one may avoid the snares of death” (Proverbs 14:27).  

Atheists instinctively know right from wrong and good from bad, because their nature contains the imprint of God and His moral law along with everyone else. This is why they (like the atheist on Christian Post) unconsciously remark that Whitney Houston’s death was tragic, because deep down they believe humans have real moral worth and that there is a standard by which we should live. Of this fact, Dr. Norman Geisler writes, “In essence, much (if not all) of the value of humanism is derived from the Christian character of its premises or presuppositions. In this moral sense, Western humanisms are often in effect non-theistic Christian cults.”^[7]

Is Whitney Houston’s death a tragedy? Absolutely. But only when it’s viewed within the framework of the Christian worldview.

If the truth be told, everyone’s death is tragic, whether they are murdered, die young from a drug overdose, or pass away in their sleep at age 100. The Bible calls death an enemy of humanity, but it’s an enemy that Christ defeated in His resurrection. Personally, I’m so glad that the truth of Christianity proclaims not only Jesus’ victory over death, but His followers triumph as well.

Paul states things this way: “The last enemy that will be abolished is death. . . .But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:26, 54–57).

I say “amen” to that.

---

[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=Ey94E3sOMA0C&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=%E2%80%9CThis+is+interpreted+as+meaning+that+each+man+is+the+measure+of+all+things,+and+that,+when+men+differ,+there+is+no+objective+truth+in+virtue+of+which+one+is+right+and+the+other+wrong.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=Ei3hCG6cFL&sig=EFDzjU7a0pnbKeM44GxNafb9F4Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PxRAT83pFZCUtwft1tyaBQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThis%20is%20interpreted%20as%20meaning%20that%20each%20man%20is%20the%20measure%20of%20all%20things%2C%20and%20that%2C%20when%20men%20differ%2C%20there%20is%20no%20objective%20truth%20in%20virtue%20of%20which%20one%20is%20right%20and%20the%20other%20wrong.%E2%80%9D&f=false

[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/3223928/Albert-Camus-The-Myth-Of-Sisyphus

[3] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

[4] Owen Gingerich, “Dare A Scientist Believe in Design?” in Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover Creativity, ed. John Marks Templeton (New York: Continuum Press, 1994), 30.

[5] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15647

[6] Stephen Jay Gould, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996

[7] Norman Geisler, Introduction to Philosophy, 366-7. 

Proposition 8 and the New Standard of No Standards – Part 2

In Part 1, we looked at the ruling of the Proposition 8 judges and saw that their standard for marriage was really no standard at all. We’ll now continue and see why a real standard and authority are needed to answer the question of if homosexual marriage is “inferior” to traditional marriage and really all moral queries.

Options for a Moral Standard and Authority

To be effectively answered, the ethical question concerning homosexual marriage needs to be bumped up to the larger question of: “Is there anything wrong with anything, and why?” To answer that question requires a source for an absolute moral standard and a moral authority.

A standard is needed because a standard determines how something is measured or determined and/or if something is rejected. If the judges in the Proposition 8 decision claim it is wrong to say homosexual marriage is inferior to traditional marriage, they need to put forward a standard for marriage that can be used as a reference. As C. S. Lewis correctly observed, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

Once a standard is established, a moral authority is then needed too so the question of “says who?” can be answered. An authority is needed because it alone is the entity that has the right to impose the obligation of acceptance for the proposed standard, and therefore enforces that it be adhered to.

Whether it is homosexual marriage or any moral issue, to what standard and authority should we look to answer the question of whether something is ethically “inferior” that therefore should be cast out? Thinking through the question will bring forward four possible answers. The first three are found within the secular humanist worldview and the fourth, the theistic worldview.

The only options available to the secular humanist where a standard and authority are concerned are: (1) the natural universe; (2) culture; (3) the individual. Right from the start, the natural universe can be ruled out because amoral matter cannot produce moral beings nor prescribe moral behavior.

Culture cannot be appealed to as there are many cultures throughout the world, all with different moral standards and practices; there is no way to ascertain which culture is morally ‘correct’. Culture merely displays what “is” with respect to morality. Even the famous skeptic and antagonist of religion David Hume stated that humanity cannot derive an “ought” from an “is” where morals are concerned. 

Moreover, how does one determine what culture dictates? The voters of California thought that with Proposition 8, the majority should dictate whether homosexual marriage should be permitted, but it turns out they thought wrong. If a majority-rules method cannot be used for culture, what can?

The third choice of the individual deciding what’s morally right and wrong is a disastrous alternative as it only takes the problem seen in using cultures as a moral compass and compounds it exponentially.

What about using science as a moral compass? Some atheists say science should dictate moral behavior. However, intellectually honest secular scientists admit that science is a descriptive discipline and not a prescriptive one. In addition, its empirical methods are impotent to answer such moral questions such as if the Nazi’s were evil. Einstein sums up the correct position in this matter when he said, “You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.”

So, in the end, when Cheryl Jacques says polygamy is wrong because “I don’t approve of that”, it really is all she can fall back on.

And that simply won’t do.

The Alternative Source for a Moral Standard and Authority

The theistic worldview says that the Creator God who brought everything into existence is also the immutable source of morals and ethical behavior. His nature is the standard and He alone is the authority, which imposes obligation on His creation. In the case of homosexual marriage, He defined marriage and therefore His definition should not be twisted to be anything other than what He has intended.

Having an unchanging and transcendent source that can be turned to in order to ground morals is the only true way of answering not only the question of if homosexual marriage is morally valid, but if any behavior is ethical or not.

This is something those founding the United States recognized long ago. Our Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Nothing similar can be found in a statement made by any other nation: moral benefits and rights hinged on a creative act. Notice also that the statement echoes the 14^th amendment in the Constitution: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 

This, then, leads to the last questions we need to examine, which are what does it mean to be equal and just how much liberty – morally – should a person really possess from a societal perspective?

Correcting Two Errors

Taking the last question first, if, as the Declaration of Independence says, the rights humans enjoy come from their Creator, then that spawns another question: Does God ever desire the granting of a civil right to do a moral wrong? The answer to that seems as self-evident as the phrase that speaks to all people being created equal.

Which leads to the next issue: are Christians guilty (as the Proposition 8 judges say) of saying homosexuals are “inferior” as people? The answer is not at all. Instead, the Christian worldview makes this argument: there is a distinction between every person being equal from an innate worth perspective and what moral behaviors a person participates in.

There is a clear separation of the two in Scripture, and truth be told, in society. The homosexual activists desperately try, however, to conflate the two into one and so does the liberal media. But they aren’t the same.

Christians strongly defend the human equality of all people and affirm that all have the image of God. But while the Bible verifies that all people are equal in terms of their worth before the Creator, it makes it quite clear that not all moral acts are.

Not Comfortable with the New Standard

Opponents of Proposition 8 know this, so their goal is simple: redefine the standard of marriage so that it includes them. However, if the arguments that homosexuals rely on to make their case are used to create that redefinition, there can be no opposition to any other form of sexual union or marriage. All seven combinations previously covered must be admitted. And it is odd how many homosexuals appear uncomfortable with that. They themselves are not comfortable with the fact that the new standard is fast becoming … there is no standard!

This shouldn’t be surprising. Given that all humans have God’s moral law imprinted on them, all know moral right and wrong and instinctively recognize the need for moral boundaries. When all fences are removed, protests abound, with the understanding, of course, being that when the fences are re-erected their moral practices must be on the inside (i.e. blessed and accepted) and the ones they frown upon on the outside.

How such divisions are handled, well, that’s the sticky issue isn’t it when a person has no ultimate source for a standard or authority?

Trading Truth for Unrighteousness

The concept of redefining truth and standards is covered in the first chapter of Romans where Paul describes how people “exchanged” (i.e. redefined) God’s standard for sexuality for something else that they desired. What they swapped out, Paul says, is God’s truth (cf. Rom. 1:25).

A little known fact is that a standard or truth in Scripture is synonymous with righteousness. For example, Paul says there are “those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation” (Rom. 2:8, emphasis added) and that love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6).

The sad fact is, those championing the defeat of Proposition 8 and affirming homosexual marriage are exchanging truth for unrighteousness and are left without any moral ground to stand on or argument to use in denying the same privileges from others who are different from them (e.g. polygamists, etc.)

The Proposition 8 judges don’t seem to believe that homosexual marriage is “inferior” to traditional marriage, although they reference no real standard to validate their pronouncement. It will be interesting how long it takes for them to assert the same thing about a bisexual man, his homosexual brother, and their 15-year old female girlfriend who want to marry because they all love each other.

Because after all, who are you to say their intended family is inferior to yours?

Proposition 8 and the New Standard of No Standards – Part 1

On February 7^th, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 8) violated the U.S. Constitution. Not too many days after that, Washington lawmakers passed their own homosexual marriage bill.

Summing up the rationale behind 2-1 decision against Proposition 8 in California, the judges wrote that Proposition 8, "served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

Thus, the judges said that Proposition 8 was discriminatory and argued that homosexual marriage is not inferior to heterosexual marital unions, but is every bit as “good and right” as traditional marriage.

Question: who says so? Who has the ability to make the call and validate that homosexual and traditional marriage are on the same playing field? The judges? No. While the homosexual movement has had to rely on activist judges for the most part to push their agenda forward, we’ll see when we look at the ruling that the judges aren’t actually offering up any opinion on marriage at all.

So who says homosexual marriage is morally equal to traditional marriage?

Please understand: I’m not being flippant, condescending, or argumentative when I ask “says who?” Instead, this is a critically honest and important question that this issue, and in fact all moral issues, need to have answered.

In Search of a Standard and Authority

Cheryl Jacques, the first openly lesbian member of the Massachusetts state senate and one-time president of the Human Rights Campaign (a group championing homosexual marriage), was once asked why polygamy was wrong. Her response was, “Because I don’t approve of that.”

Is that how it works? Is that how the question of what marriages are in and which are out is answered?

Let’s look at the various marital and sexual options open to human beings (my apologies if the below list offends anyone):

1. Man + Woman (married/unmarried)
2. Man + Man (married/unmarried)
3. Woman + Woman (married/unmarried)
4. Multiple partners/spouses (married/unmarried)
5. Any of the above within same family
6. Man or woman + child
7. Man or woman + animal

Now, Ms. Jacques and many others give thumbs up to options 1-3, but they frown upon and want options 4-7 disallowed.

Why? Why “discriminate” against polygamists, man/boy-love relationships or really any “committed” and “consensual” relationship?

For example, Ms. Jacques and others may not approve of polygamy but the people making up the reality show “Sister Wives” strongly disagree. On February 5^th, a judge in Utah seemed to side with them and has allowed a suit that Kody Brown and his four wives have filed that challenges Utah’s polygamy law to proceed.

"There's a host of constitutional problems when a state goes into a family and says your family has to look like ours. [That] you have to live your life according to our values and our morals," Brown’s attorney said. He continued to say, “The question is, in this country, is whether you can have a family that's different.”

The rhetoric used by Brown’s attorney should hit home with Cheryl Jacques and all homosexual marriage supporters as it’s the exact same language they’ve used in their arguments. Yet Ms. Jacques and many others draw a line in the sand at polygamy and other sexual/marital combinations, and when challenged as to their ethical reasoning, the best they can muster up is “Because I don’t approve of that.”

As strange as it may sound at first, in all actuality, their own individual preference is indeed the only true thing that Ms. Jacques and others like her can appeal to.

The Judge’s Standard

The judges in the Proposition 8 case believed the standard that settles the case is the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Thus, the judges reference no actual standard for marriage, but appeal more broadly to the 14th amendment, which does not address the institution of marriage specifically at all.  However, if that is the standard that will be used, Cheryl Jacques and anyone opposing polygamy must bow to the arguments of Kody Brown and his wives, and accept polygamy as equal to two-person marriage; it cannot be classified as “inferior” in any way.

Nor can any of the other possible sexual/marital options. If “liberty” in the 14th amendment encompasses all desired sexual practices, any argument put forward against any practice or wished-for ‘marriage’ must be cast aside due the standard used by the Proposition 8 judges.

Is there anyone comfortable with that?

In part two, we'll examine the various options for a moral standard and authority for marriage and see which holds up. 

On the Touchy Subject of Bible Translations – Part 2

In part 1 of this post, I covered the basic core approaches to Bible translation and left things dangling with the question of which Bible translation is ‘best’ out of the three translation philosophies – paraphrase, dynamic equivalence, and literal/formal equivalence.

So which is it?

I’ve yet to meet any scholar, theologian, pastor, apologist, etc., who believes that a paraphrase is the best translation to use for Bible reading or study. A paraphrase may be interesting to use from time to time to see how a particular translator might summarize or reword the sacred text for everyday speech, but outside of a textual comparison with more studious translations, the paraphrase should be discarded – at least where methodological Bible study is concerned.

Removing the paraphrase from the mix leaves us with the dynamic vs. formal equivalence approaches. To get an at-a-glance understanding of the key differences between the two methods, Dr. Thomas Howe, in a critique of the dynamic equivalence approach written in an edition of the Christian Apologetics Journal (Vol. 5, No 1, Spring 2006), reproduced the following chart from Dr. Norman Geisler that summarizes the differences between the two:

	Dynamic Equivalence	Literal/Formal Equivalence
Essence of	Thought-for-Thought	Sentence-for-Sentence
Proper Setting	Target Language	Source Language
Interpretation	Thematic Interpretation	Linguistic Interpretation
Meaning/Words	Meaning Expressed without Words (Know Thought Apart from Words)	No Meaning Expressed without Words (Know Thought Through Words)
Locus of Meaning	In the Mind	In the Text
Goal	Reproduce Same Effect	Reproduce Same Meaning
Focus	Response to the Message	Form of the message

Again, the goal of the dynamic equivalence is to produce the same effect in the reader today as the original text did back in its day. The objective of the literal formal is to reproduce the same meaning for the reader today as the original text did back in the first century.

This can seem difficult to grasp at first, so perhaps the best way to see the differences is with a quick example.

The Beginning of the Sermon on the Mount

In Matthew 5, we have the opening lines that kick off Jesus’ most famous discourse, the Sermon on the Mount. Let’s compare the translation differences between a dynamic equivalence and literal/formal translation:

“Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them, saying” (Matthew 5:1–2, NIV – Dynamic Equivalence).

“When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying” (Matthew 5:1–2, NASB – Literal/Formal).

Notice that the key difference between the two translations is found in the phrase “He opened His mouth”, which appears in the literal/formal translation, but not the dynamic equivalence text. The NIV leaves out this phrase because its goal is to produce what the translators believe is the same effect these two verses would have had on their audience back then: Jesus is about to teach a crowd of people on a mountain and how else does someone teach in such a situation other than to open their mouth? Therefore, the dynamic equivalence translators omit this phrase that is found in copies of the original text.

But is there more to the phrase “He opened His mouth” than the NIV translators believe? Many theologians believe there is.

Matthew only uses this phrase one other time in his gospel: to describe the finding of the shekel in the fish’s mouth that Peter is told by Christ to give for payment of temple taxes (cf. Matt 17:27). So why does Matthew use the phrase to begin Chapter 5?

The preceding chapter four describes Jesus’ temptation encounter with Satan in the wilderness. The first temptation of the loaves ends with Christ’s countering Satan’s offer by quoting a passage from Deuteronomy that has Moses giving God’s directives at Sinai: “He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD” (Deuteronomy 8:3, emphasis added).

Some scholars believe that the Sermon on the Mount is a parallel to the Old Testament giving of the law for Israel and the Theocratic kingdom at that time. In the same way that God gave His laws for that time, Matthew is depicting Jesus giving His laws for the Messianic kingdom in chapters 5-7. As God spoke creation into being and sent his law through that which proceeded out of His mouth, Jesus is giving His law by opening His mouth. Matthew is in effect saying we had all better listen because God is opening His mouth and speaking again.

While it is understandable that some may believe too much is being read into the text from this association, it should also be remembered that the Bible is a spiritually inspired work that is richer beyond our capabilities so such linkages in Scripture can certainly not be ruled out. Moreover, even if such a position is not valid, to remove the Matthew phrase from the painstakingly copied texts that we have from the originals seems imprudent at best.

This is just one example of others that can be brought to the witness stand in favor of using a translation that adheres to the literal/formal methodology. Further, when one remembers examples from Scripture such as Paul using the difference between a singular and a plural noun to make a fairly significant theological statement (cf. Gal. 3:16), in my opinion, I believe it wise to use a translation that does everything in its power to preserve the literal words found in the inspired text. To me, this equates to using a literal/formal translation.

Next Steps – Which Literal/Formal?

The natural next question is, which literal/formal translation should I use? There are a number of such translations available and they are certainly not all the same.

Let me be up front and say I have no intention of touching on the “King James only” debate or set of arguments that accompany that crowd in this brief article. If you love and value the KJV or NKJV, then by all means, enjoy. For myself, after some exploratory research and chronicling what translations the expository teaching pastors who I listen to on a regular basis use, I’ve come to restrict myself to the NASB and ESV, in that order.

Few scholars disagree that the NASB is above other literal formal translations where the key litmus test is how closely the translation adheres to the words in the inspired text. Any knock it receives is usually in the area of readability, although I personally have never had a problem with how the NASB structures its sentences.

Without a doubt, the ESV has the most recent momentum in recent years, with heavy hitters such as Dr. John Piper (among many others) championing the translation. I greatly enjoy reading from the ESV, however when push comes to shove, I prefer the NASB for some small, but meaningful reasons.

First, I like that the NASB (like the KJV) has the words that the translators have inserted for readability in italics so it’s easy to know what words are from the inspired text and what words have come from the translation committee. The ESV does not do this.

I also like the fact that the NASB capitalizes pronouns (e.g. Him, He) when they are used for God or Jesus. The respect that such capitalization shows for the person of God sits well with me.

Finally, while the ESV is certainly an excellent translation, even its proponents admit it falls below the NASB in a word-for-word/sentence-for-sentence translation. So, for these reasons, in my own personal Bible study, I rely on the NASB.

What about Study Bibles?

A couple of years ago, my wife was serving as a counselor at a Christian youth retreat. She took along her NASB MacArthur Study Bible, but was told by the person heading up the retreat that she should not use a study Bible, but instead use a Bible with no commentary and just let the Spirit of God speak to her through the text. While I understand the spirit behind what the guy was saying to my wife, I don’t agree with his position.

Paul tells us in Ephesians, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11–12). Now my question is – what is the difference in a gifted expository teacher explaining the Scriptures from the pulpit and a gifted expository teacher explaining the Scriptures with notes inside a Bible? To me, there is no difference.

I personally have many different study Bibles that I use and refer to, and have greatly benefited from the commentary and other information contained within them. Of course, not all study Bibles are created equal and some definitely pack more of a punch than others. Here are the ones I routinely use for study ranked in order of which I believe contain the most beneficial information:

1. The MacArthur Study Bible. This is the Mac-Daddy (pun intended) of study Bibles. To me, the thing I look for most in a study Bible is one that doesn’t skip over the tough parts of Scripture and contains commentary for most every verse that’s meaningful on the page. I haven’t found a study Bible that equals MacArthur’s in that respect. I have to smile at some pages in his study Bible like the first page of John where 85% of the page is his commentary and 15% is the actual text, but I appreciate MacArthur’s attention to detail and the deep insight he provides.
2. The ESV Study Bible. This study Bible should come with wheels so you can pull it behind you when you go into church. It’s a whopper. But, that’s good in that the scholars commissioned to provide commentary took their job seriously and supply lots of good information including competing views on difficult passages. Plus, there’s a plethora of articles and other help aids that add to the weight of this monster.
3. The Ryrie Study Bible. My Old Testament and Hermeneutics professor in seminary was perhaps the most exacting individual (in a good way) I’ve ever encountered, and I watched him time after time pull his completely worn out Ryrie study Bible from his briefcase. I also listen to Chuck Swindoll from time to time and hear him say on various occasions “My Ryrie study Bible says…” Both those testimonies were good enough for me. Ryrie constantly provides good insight and historical information for many passages that really help take the reader deeper into the text.
4. The Life Application Bible. When teaching through a passage, good Bible teachers always follow the three key steps for Biblical exposition: (1) Observation – what do I see? (2) Interpretation – what does it mean? (3) Application – how does it apply to life? What I like about this study Bible is it reminds you to not forget the third step.
5. The Apologetics Study Bible. Not only do you get good commentary on various passages in this study Bible, but there are solid articles throughout the work that answer critical questions about the Christian faith and give evidence for why what you’re reading is true.
6. The Reformation Study Bible. I enjoy Dr. R. C. Sproul’s teaching, so I purchased this study Bible primarily because of the linkage to him. However, it has the least about of commentary of all my study Bibles. What I do like, though, are the various historical articles and commentaries on reformed theology that run throughout the Bible.

My Primary Bible

Today, my primary Bible is an NASB Ryrie study Bible that I’ve had rebound in a premium calf skin exterior (resists marring extremely well and doesn’t dry out). Although I believe the MacArthur and ESV study Bibles contain more commentary, the Ryrie Bible contains plenty of good commentary too, plus I like the follow attributes that it offers:

• The print is very clear and bold.
• Having the cross-references for each verse positioned on the outside vs. middle of the page works very well.
• The page margins are wide enough to allow for good note taking (this is the one knock I have of the MacArthur study Bible – the margins are very narrow)
• The pages hold my dry highlighting well (yellow for the Trinity or deity of Christ; green for salvation by grace and original sin; blue for Christ’s resurrection references)

Conclusions

It’s sometimes said that the best Bible is the one that you read. Maybe that’s true, but why not make the Bible that you read one that takes pains to faithfully reproduce the text from the original languages in the most accurate way possible? In my opinion, that equates to using a good literal/formal translation, with my personal favorite being the NASB. 

On the Touchy Subject of Bible Translations – Part 1

The recent decision by Houston’s First Baptist church to formally discontinue the use of the New International Version (NIV) Bible resurfaced the sometimes very touchy subject of Bible translations. Despite the fact that many Christians have never given thought as to how the Bible they were given/bought/use was produced for their native language, emotions can surprisingly and quickly run very hot when someone questions the veracity of a particular Bible translation.

Recently I’ve been asked by a number of other believers my opinion on what the “best” Bible translation is, so I thought I’d cover some ground here that can hopefully be used to answer the question in the future for those who wonder about the same thing.

Honoring those who honored the Bible

The Bible has continued to be the bestselling Book year after year, and in America, we’re surrounded by Bibles. That’s a good and bad thing. It’s good in that nearly everyone has unrestricted access to God’s Word. It’s bad in that we forget the costly price that great men of God paid to give us such freedom.

Some in the Church recognize the name Jerome, and know that he was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of various old Latin translations of the Bible that existed at the time. Jerome’s Vulgate was the result – an early fifth century version of the Bible in Latin.

However, Jerome’s efforts didn’t change the fact that the Bible still wasn’t available in the language of the common people. That tide began to turn with John Wycliffe (ca. A.D. 1330-1384) who is normally credited with creating the first English translation of the entire Bible from the Vulgate.

Then, a little more than a century later, William Tyndale (ca. 1492 – 1536) created the first English translation of the Bible that drew directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts. His work was also the first to benefit from the then new medium of print, which allowed for its wide distribution.

Because Tyndale’s believed that the Bible belonged to everyone – and because he opposed Henry VIII’s divorce on the grounds that it violated Scripture – the king had Tyndale arrested and confined to the castle of Vilvoorde, which is outside of Brussels, for over a year. Tyndale was then strangled, impaled, and burned at the stake.

Men like Wycliffe and Tyndale humble me greatly. In my study and throughout my home, I have many different Bibles. I also have Bible software on my computer, iPad, and Smartphone. If you’re a Christian, maybe the same can be said of you. The next time you pick up any copy of God’s Word on whatever media you happen to be using at the time, bow your head, and thank God for men like Wycliffe and Tyndale who sacrificed much so we can enjoy such easy access to the Truth.

A Jet Tour through Bible Translation Philosophies

Although some could argue there are more, I believe there to be three general philosophies or methodologies that are used to translate the Scriptures.

The first is the free translation or paraphrase approach. As its name implies, a paraphrase attempts to translate the ideas from the original text without being constrained by the original words or language. The end result is something that is very readable, but certainly not exact or true to the original texts because the author is focused on restating and either elongating or summarizing what the actual inspired texts say. An example of a popular paraphrase is Eugene Peterson’s “The Message”.

The next two Bible translation methods can be summarized by Friedrich Schleiermacher who wrote, “Either the translator leaves the writer alone as much as possible and moves the reader toward the writer, or he leaves the reader alone as much as possible and moves the writer toward the reader.”

The second Bible translation method is the dynamic or functional equivalence approach. It does not translate by structural units or words but by “meaningful mouthfuls” or “thought by thought” with the goal being to reproduce a response in the reader that is equivalent to the response the original readers of that time would have had. The most popular example of the dynamic equivalent translation method is the New International Version (NIV).

The third Bible translation philosophy is known as either the literal equivalence method or is sometimes called the literal/formal method. It starts with a word for word translation, but will conform to the target language grammar by adding words to assist in readability. However, it still remains lexically a word-for-word or sentence-for-sentence translation. The most common literal formal translations are The King James Version (KJV) and New King James (NKJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the semi-recent English Standard Version (ESV).

Which Translation is ‘Best’?

I doubt any Christian would disagree on the importance of having a Bible in their hand that accurately reflects the very words God gave to the inspired writers of Scripture. Therefore, every believer should commit themselves to using a text whose goal is to accurately and faithfully communicate the meaning of the original text.

But which translation should that be?

I’ll attempt to answer that question in the part two of this blog post.