Atheistic Apps and Yellow Pencils
The debate over whether or not God exists has been around for a long time. Now there are apps for those who wish to engage in the debate, which usually centers on the idea put forward by atheists that "You can't prove God exists." This in turn usually gets a professed Christian's dander all riled up. The sparks fly from this point forward leading to strife and contention while each participant attempts to prove they are right. It's a bit like debating the outcome of the immovable object versus the irresistible force.
Other times the debate takes a less obvious approach involving the validity of the Biblical record. The point is that it is written by men, and has flaws. Most often, this is put forth by someone, usually second or third hand, supposedly offering up what appears to be a contradiction, and then with flawless knee-jerk reaction, they jump to the conclusion that if they can't explain it, it has to be an error. And if the Biblical record has an error, it must mean nothing can be trusted. But as Sherlock Holmes said, "It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts." [See the Sneakers article, No More Oceans].
It never ceases to amaze me how proclaimed atheists take a quote or quotes out of context from the Biblical record, draw a false conclusion, and then move on with great haste to proclaim they have found an error in the Biblical record. Therefore, they say, as there are falsehoods in this record, nothing can be believed. Of course, if this is a display of their deductive abilities, then no wonder they are atheists. [See the Sneakers article, Do Not Believe Every Spirit].
I bring this up because an app for atheists was released apparently in response to Christian apps used to rebut atheistic claims. Debating and arguing the existence or non-existence of God is, in my opinion, an exercise worthy of pre-school. I've never known these debates to end in conversion of one party or the other. And I'm not sure which party is more insecure about their beliefs in these arguments. Note to Christians: chill out. God doesn't need us to defend him. [2 Sam. 6:6, 7; Rev. 6:15, 16]. And God doesn't need anyone to believe he exists for him to exist. Instead, let our actions speak of our faith.
In a New York Times article, the author of this atheistic app is quoted as saying, "If Jacob saw the face of God (in Genesis 32:30), and God said, "No man shall see me and live" (in Exodus 33:20), then 'which one is the liar?' he asks. His conclusion: If we know the Bible has content that is false, how can we believe any of it?"
From my perspective with decades of study and research as a theologian, this appears to be an embarrassing display of ignorance. It is even more so for Christians if they don't know the answer. First, the NYT article states the author's credentials as being a musician and real estate investor. No disrespect, everyone is entitled to his or her personal opinions, but I do not consider this to be a credible theological source. Too many Christians, however, suffer from this same malady as well, albeit on the other side of the coin. [See the Feature article, What Exactly Is The Gospel?].
Next, taking statements out of context is always dangerous and usually erroneous, which is the case here. The normal mistake made by those not familiar with the English text of the Biblical record is that many different words in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts are translated as one word in English. Or one word in the Hebrew or Greek is translated into many different English words.
For example, the Greek word ethnos in the New Testament is translated into English as heathen, gentiles, nations or people. Taking any one of these translated words out of context and then unequivocally declaring that we know something is the boldness of ignorance.
In the case of the example cited in the Times article, the word God in the Genesis 32:30 verse is the Hebrew word elohiym. Elohiym is a plural noun very much like the word family. In this case, we could say the family name is God. And as in all our families, it consists of more than one person. We can have a father, a mother, a son or a daughter, an uncle, an aunt, a grandfather or niece or nephew. It would be a huge mistake to assume all these family members are the same person even though they may share the same family name. [See the Sneakers article, One, Two, Three More Or Less].
In the Exodus 33:20 example, however, the Hebrew word here for God is not elohiym, rather it is Yehovah. So if we merely look at the two verses, even out of context, with these two words in place, "Jacob saw the face of elohiym" versus "Yehovah said, No man shall see me and live," then the correct logical conclusion would be that possibly there are two different entities involved, and therefore no contradiction exists.
The problem with these verses is in the eye of the beholder and not in the text itself. Thus, a conclusion declaring that these two verses, when contrasted in English, constitute a lie, and saying we know the Bible has content that is false is a wildly reckless and flagrantly erroneous deduction. And then jumping to the conclusion that the entire Biblical record is in doubt based on this faulty information and reasoning, well, this is truly deficient logic to say the least. The prospect that Christians would fall prey to this argument is even scarier.
The next point is that the verse in Exodus is taken out of context. Prior to the quoted verse, Moses, who had conversed with Yehovah up to this point, wanted Yehovah to show himself in all his glory, the Hebrew kabowd. "And he [Moses] said, I beseech you, show me your glory." Yehovah's response was that if he were to reveal himself to Moses in his full spiritual power and majesty, Moses, as a physical being, would not survive.
I don't claim to know the physics or dynamics involved, but when we consider the existing power and energy in the created physical universe, even in one small black hole, or with the radiation directly emitted by a single neutron star, as relayed to us by credible scientists, this is well within the realm of scientific possibility. After all, we feeble mortals can't even climb Mt. Everest wearing only a t-shirt, shorts and flip-flops and expect to survive. [See Heb. 12:20, 21; also the Sneakers article, To The Moon].
However, the statement in Exodus says nothing about Yehovah revealing himself to man in a form other than his full majesty, which we know from other examples in the Biblical text is perfectly survivable. [See Gen. 17:1; also the Feature article, The Tie That Binds]. Our author of the atheistic app misses this point entirely. It goes to show that any verse in the Biblical record can be taken out of context and turned into something it was not intended to be. To answer the question posed above, then, the liar is the one who misrepresents the facts.
While these two verses may superficially appear to make the point intended by the atheistic app creator, the inaccurate assumptions are not based on fact. As we noted above, "It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts." And this is a prime example of why Mr. Holmes axiom is spot on.
As to the arguments over whether or not God exists, merely because one cannot prove the existence of God does not mean he doesn't exist. To conclude such is faulty logic. For example, let's say we have an "apencilist," that is a blind person who doesn't believe yellow pencils exist much less believe that sighted people miraculously can communicate using them without speaking. If you have a yellow pencil, you cannot prove to this blind person that, indeed, you have a yellow pencil in your hand. No matter what you say, you can't prove it. If you could, then all one needs to do is substitute the word God for yellow pencil in your argument, and voila, God exists. No more philosophical discussions required.
But you can't prove the yellow pencil exists to a blind person. In referring to our classical state of existence, not its quantum state, does this mean the yellow pencil in your hand doesn't exist? No. It merely means the person is blind and can't see it. Would you seriously consider debating a blind person if he or she said they didn't believe a yellow pencil existed? So it is with the existence of God. Some people are blind in the flesh, others are blind in the Spirit. [Rom. 8:5; 1 Cor. 2:14]. And if we were discussing the colors of a sunset as opposed to the colors of pencils, what benefit is there to either party in debating the beauty of a sunset, God's creation?
As the apostle Paul pointed out, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge [atheists], God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate ...." [Rom. 1:28, 29].
Rather than vainly debate the existence of God, stirring up strife and contention, the better course of action is to show our faith in our daily lives by the way we live life. And then when someone truthfully inquires about why we do what we do, be prepared with answers from the Biblical record. Everyone has to walk his or her own path in life whether it is as a non-believer or a believer. And, as we all know, actions speak louder than words.
Paul's advice to Timothy was, "Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word [Greek, logos meaning his speech], in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity." [1 Tim 4:12].
This is good advice for all Christians of all ages today.
P.S. Freedom of Religion vs. Worship
Whether or not the participants realize it, the debate between atheists and Christians is a function of the principle of the freedom of religion, or the freedom to believe or not. It is choice and the freedom to make choices for one's self. In the US, this inalienable right's protection is guaranteed in the Constitution, " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances."
Of course, this just limits the Congress. It says nothing about the Supreme Court nor the Executive branch. Recently, it has been noted in Christian media that the US President and Secretary of State have been using the term "freedom of worship," rather than freedom of religion. The PATRIOT Act has totally abridged some of the Bill of Rights. So where might this not so subtle change lead?
First, freedom of religion is about choosing one's beliefs and being able to follow them. We could say it is pro-choice. The act of worshiping and the freedom to choose who we worship are two different beasts. In North Korea, the people have the freedom to worship, it's just that they have to worship the current dictator or his deceased father. Otherwise, they face death or imprisonment. For the time being, we enjoy the freedom to choose whether to be an atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist or anything else for that matter under the protection of the Constitution.
However, the secular definition of worship can be defined as the honoring of a deity or an idol. When someone tells us who we can worship, we no longer have the freedom of religion, but we have freedom of worship. It would not be surprising that in the future, the US Supreme Court interprets the first amendment establishment of religion as the right to worship.
"He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed." [Rev. 13:5]. Presumably, this includes atheists as well as Christians, who at this point no longer enjoy freedom of religion. [See the Feature article, Christ Against Christians?].
It might be wise to monitor the use of the term "freedom of worship" on the part of government leaders and others. For a look at where this all came from and where it is headed, read chapter six, The Blind Man's Elephant, now a complimentary PDF on our Home page. Also see the Feature article, Revelation 17: Big Brother.
Italics, underline, bold and [ ] are the author's.
© copyrighted material 2007-2025. www.redshoe.com All rights reserved.
Notice to readers. All redshoe generated articles may be hyperlinked or copied to PDF format for use as long as no editing or alteration of content is made. See Menu banner for other terms of use.
It will be for it is written.