Taking down Newsweek’s anti-Christian screed

2015_01 Newsweek's latest anti-Christian edition

The following is my ad-libbed excerpt from “Newsweek on the Bible — So Misrepresented It’s a Sin.” The author, Dr. Mohler, is one of the nation’s leading evangelicals and president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The author opens with the most crude caricature of evangelical Christians, then in a predictable move, claims to have based his research on “works of scores of theologians and scholars, some of which dates back centuries.” Except the sources he cites are all from the far, far left of biblical studies and he doesn’t even quote them accurately.

For example, he claims we cannot really read the Bible, for it does not actually exist and never has. According to him, all we have is “a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.” That just isn’t so — not even close.

While grossly misrepresenting Christian history, he presents tired old arguments that would not trouble any first-year seminarian. Despite his presenting them as blockbuster discoveries, nothing he says is ground-breaking in any sense. His arguments have been around for centuries and Christians have long had scholarly explanations for them.

Source:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/12/29/newsweek-on-the-bible-so-misrepresented-its-a-sin/

3 Comments

Filed under Media Bias

3 responses to “Taking down Newsweek’s anti-Christian screed

  1. Newsweek would have published another hit piece on Mother Theresa, but the original author, Christopher Hitchens, is in Hell now, so he couldn’t be reached. Luckily, they found an idiot willing to critique the most researched document on the planet. Obviously, the fact that there are over a billion people around who know it better than he does, in over 200 languages, didn’t intimidate him at all, so at least he doesn’t have any humility issues.

    Like

  2. “While grossly misrepresenting Christian history, he presents tired old arguments that would not trouble any first-year seminarian. Despite his presenting them as blockbuster discoveries, nothing he says is ground-breaking in any sense. His arguments have been around for centuries and Christians have long had scholarly explanations for them.”

    This should be the standard answer to all the shallow-minded critics who think they know better than the wisest theologians.

    If you run across some critic whose arguments are deeper than “Can God make a rock bigger than God can lift? Hah! Gotcha!” then you might actually be able to lead them to think theologically.

    Like