The Evangelical Roots of Our Post-Truth Society

​

The arrival of the “post-truth” political climate came as a shock to many Americans. But to the Christian writer Rachel Held Evans, charges of “fake news” are nothing new. “The deep distrust of the media, of scientific consensus — those were prevalent narratives growing up,” she told me.

Although Ms. Evans, 35, no longer calls herself an evangelical, she attended Bryan College, an evangelical school in Dayton, Tenn. She was taught to distrust information coming from the scientific or media elite because these sources did not hold a “biblical worldview.”

“It was presented as a cohesive worldview that you could maintain if you studied the Bible,” she told me. “Part of that was that climate change isn’t real, that evolution is a myth made up by scientists who hate God, and capitalism is God’s ideal for society.”

Conservative evangelicals are not the only ones who think that an authority trusted by the other side is probably lying. But they believe that their own authority — the inerrant Bible — is both supernatural and scientifically sound, and this conviction gives that natural human aversion to unwelcome facts a special power on the right. This religious tradition of fact denial long predates the rise of the culture wars, social media or President Trump, but it has provoked deep conflict among evangelicals themselves.

That innocuous phrase — “biblical worldview” or “Christian worldview” — is everywhere in the evangelical world. The radio show founded by Chuck Colson, “BreakPoint,” helps listeners “get informed and equipped to live out the Christian worldview.” Focus on the Family devotes a webpage to the implications of a worldview “based on the infallible Word of God.” Betsy DeVos’s supporters praised her as a “committed Christian living out a biblical worldview.”

The phrase is not as straightforward as it seems. Ever since the scientific revolution, two compulsions have guided conservative Protestant intellectual life: the impulse to defend the Bible as a reliable scientific authority and the impulse to place the Bible beyond the claims of science entirely.

The first impulse blossomed into the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Scripture became the irrefutable guide to everything from the meaning of fossils to the interpretation of archaeological findings in the Middle East, a “storehouse of facts,” as the 19th-century theologian Charles Hodge put it.

The second impulse, the one that rejects scientists’ standing to challenge the Bible, evolved by the early 20th century into a school of thought called presuppositionalism. The term is a mouthful, but the idea is simple: We all have presuppositions that frame our understanding of the world. Cornelius Van Til, a theologian who promoted this idea, rejected the premise that all humans have access to objective reality. “We really do not grant that you see any fact in any dimension of life truly,” he wrote in a pamphlet aimed at non-Christians.

If this sounds like a forerunner of modern cultural relativism, in a way it is — with the caveat that one worldview, the one based on faith in an inerrant Bible, does have a claim on universal truth, and everyone else is a myopic relativist.

Nowadays, ministries, schools and media outlets use the term “Christian worldview” to signal their orthodoxy. But its pervasiveness masks significant disagreement over what it means. Many evangelical colleges allow faculty and students to question inerrancy, creationism and the presumption that Jesus would have voted Republican.

Karl Giberson taught biology for many years at Eastern Nazarene College in Quincy, Mass., where freshmen take a course that covers “the Christian worldview” alongside topics like “racial and gender equity” and “cultural diversity.” In the Church of the Nazarene, many leaders have been uneasy about the rationalist claims of biblical inerrancy, and Dr. Giberson openly taught the theory of evolution. “I was completely uncontroversial, for the most part,” he told me. “The problems emerged when I began to publish, when I became a public spokesman for this point of view.”

Nazarene pastors and church members — who absorbed the more fundamentalist worldview of mainstream evangelicalism — put pressure on the school. “The administrators were not upset that I was promoting evolution,” he said. “But now they had a pastor telling the admissions department, ‘we do not want you recruiting in our youth group.’ ” The controversy drove him to resign in 2011.

Dean Nelson, who runs the journalism program at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, told me that he doesn’t see “how you can teach ‘Christian journalism’ any more than you can teach ‘Christian mathematics.’ ” But he acknowledged that “many of the students’ parents were raised on Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and distrust the mainstream news media. So it’s a little bit of a dance with parents who are expecting us to perpetuate that distrust and raise up this tribe of ‘Christian journalists.’ ”

The conservative Christian worldview is not just a posture of mistrust toward the secular world’s “fake news.” It is a network of institutions and experts versed in shadow versions of climate change science, biology and other fields, like Nathaniel Jeanson, a research biologist at the creationist ministry Answers in Genesis, in Petersburg, Ky.

Dr. Jeanson is as important an asset for the ministry as its life-size replica of Noah’s Ark in Williamstown, Ky. He believes the earth was created in six days — and he has a Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard.

Home-schooled until high school, Dr. Jeanson grew up going to “Worldview Weekend” Christian conferences. As an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside, he dutifully studied evolutionary biology during the day and read creationist literature at night.

This “reading double,” as he calls it, equipped him to personify the contradictions that pervade this variety of Christian worldview. At Harvard Medical School, he chose a research topic that steered clear of evolution. “My research question is a present-tense question — how do blood cells function,” he told me. “So perhaps it was easier to compartmentalize.”

Dr. Jeanson rhapsodized about the integrity of the scientific method. Before graduate school, “I held this quack idea of cancer,” he said. “But that idea got corrected. This is the way science works.” Yet when his colleagues refuse to read his creationist papers and data sets, he takes their snub as proof that they can find no flaws in his research. “If people who devote their lives to it can’t point anything out, then I think I may be on to something,” he said.

Dr. Jeanson calls himself a “presuppositionalist evidentialist” — which we might define as someone who accepts evidence when it happens to affirm his nonnegotiable presuppositions. “When it comes to questions of absolute truth, those are things I’ve settled in my own mind and heart,” he told me. “I couldn’t call myself a Christian if I hadn’t.”

We all cling to our own unquestioned assumptions. But in the quest to advance knowledge and broker peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic world, the worldview based on biblical inerrancy gets tangled up in the contradiction between its claims on universalist science and insistence on an exclusive faith.

By contrast, the worldview that has propelled mainstream Western intellectual life and made modern civilization possible is a kind of pragmatism. It is an empirical outlook that continually — if imperfectly — revises its conclusions based on evidence available to everyone, regardless of their beliefs about the supernatural. This worldview clashes with the conservative evangelical war on facts, but it is not necessarily incompatible with Christian faith.

In fact, evangelical colleges themselves may be the best hope for change. Members of traditions historically suspicious of a pseudoscientific view of the Bible, like the Nazarenes, should revive that skepticism. Mr. Nelson encourages his students to be skeptics rather than cynics. “The skeptic looks at something and says, ‘I wonder,’ ” he said. “The cynic says, ‘I know,’ and then stops thinking.”

He pointed out that “cynicism and tribalism are very closely related. You protect your tribe, your way of life and thinking, and you try to annihilate anything that might call that into question.” Cynicism and tribalism are among the gravest human temptations. They are all the more dangerous when they pose as wisdom and righteousness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original article by Molly Worthen - NYT Sunday Review

 

Ever since the scientific revolution, two compulsions have guided conservative Protestant intellectual life: the impulse to defend the Bible as a reliable scientific authority and the impulse to place the Bible beyond the claims of science entirely.​

 

This hate for knowledge is nothing new. When the Church got power in 325 AD it went on a massive knowledge destruction campaign. Centuries old schools of Philosophy were closed, libraries were burned and literacy declined. Ignorant sheep are much easier to control and much more susceptible to sophisticated mind control techniques (be from religious or secular sources).

Even now we still do not teach the "basics" of Philosophy (logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument, critical thought ). It is quite amazing that through 12 years of school.. kids are not taught these basics.

Without the basic tools, how is a kid supposed to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and bad arguments raining down on a daily basis from Politicians and the mainstream media ?

 

If a Bible thumper can't tell you when the Protestant Bible got 66 books or what the real Ten Commandments are that were written on stone tablets and called the Ten Commandments why would you believe anything he says about anything?

 

Christian journalism?

 

you can't either the KJV alone is over 400 years old what was your posting somewhere else? less then 200 years right? now if your claim is because something like the KJV didn't have all 66 books, so what. also the KJV was put together using the Greek Hebrew and Latin (respectively) documents. its amazing just how much you don't understand about something you think you know because you can google it.

 

yes knowledge of the pagan societies in Rome where so great then, they would war against each other to decide who was the next emperor kind of like middle east concepts of change in power or south American methods, real third world stuff to day, even Constantine who cut a deal with the Christians, was warring to establish himself to be emperor. to bad were not retaining that method any more in our Christian dominated western society, right? oh yea don't for get the sacrificing of one's own children to idols, or trading one's own children to pedophile rulers for favors, what philosophies and education may I ask support that crap as socially acceptable? there may have been libraries but libraries of what?

the change of western culture took many, many years do to human nature's stiff neck ways. was the catholic church hostile? yes, with a vengeance. is the results better then the original roman society? yes, go figure, there are still those who would resist such results and say they are in the right.

 

What are you talking about. The Romans did not engage in Child Sacrifice.

Pedophiles ? You mean like the Popes ?

What does this have to do with the destruction mass destruction of knowledge and decrease in literacy under the the Church?

What a bunch of nonsense.

 

"She was taught to distrust information coming from the scientific or media elite because these sources did not hold a “biblical worldview.”

“It was presented as a cohesive worldview that you could maintain if you studied the Bible,” she told me. “Part of that was that climate change isn’t real, that evolution is a myth made up by scientists who hate God, and capitalism is God’s ideal for society.”

THIS is one of the reasons I am an atheist.
Religion stifles the advance of science - since before Galileo.
I also believe the above quoted sentences explain the Trump chump - they don't question anything he says, they accept it as dogma, and reject any counter-evidence.
It makes them perfect for exploitation, as by the likes of sleazes like Pat Robertson, or Jim Baker, who made millions off of the gullible pious - or to fall for the lies of a con-man like Trump.
I just don't get why people place such trust in people they shouldn't trust.

 

Do you realize that all of the various Bible versions (Martin Luther's, the various English ones, including the KJV) had all of the books that the original "Catholic" version had? And that continued until 1881-1885.

 

Sorry, I inadvertently posted #10 before I was finished.

To continue...

1. "The Introduction of the Word "Jew" into God's Holy Bible

In 1604, James VI, King of Scotland from his youth, became King James I of England, the first ruler of Britain and Ireland. Because of the growing animosity of James toward the Puritans, a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr. John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honour of the new King. King James saw an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. Completed and published in 1611, the new Bible became known as the "Authorized Version" because its making was authorized by King James. It became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the English church. There have been many revisions of the King James Bible, 1615, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769.

The most important changes occurred in the eighteenth century. In 1762 Dr. Thomas Paris published an extensive revision at Cambridge. In 1769 Dr. Benjamin Blayney, after about four years of work, brought out another at Oxford. The latter work included much modernization of spelling, punctuation, and expression. These changes were due to printing errors and spelling changes in many words. This update represents the exact words in the 1611 Bible first edition, only the spelling is changed. This 1769 update is the basis of the King James Bible of our time and use; the Apocrypha was officially removed in 1885.

Any so-called "1611" King James Version you buy today at the local Christian Bookstore is absolutely NOT the 1611. . . it is the 1769 revision, even though it admits that nowhere, and may even deceivingly say "1611" in the frontpiece to promote sales . . . it is just not true. The spellings have been revised and some words changed in almost every printing done since 1769, and fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features have been removed from almost every printing done since 1885! "
History of God's Holy Bible and the so-called Jews
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jew.htm

2. So who deleted the Apocrypha from the Bible and created the "Protestant" Bible?

It was the Englishmen Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort.

Of course you have never heard of them but they pretty much decided what you believe about the Bible today.

Here's a link to their influence and what they believed in and did. It might open your eyes.
https://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_08a.asp

3. Why?

"So what happened? Where did the Apocrypha go? Why was it taken from the Protestant Bible?
Well, the Apocrypha was a part of every Jew’s Bible, if you will, if I can use that term in the looser sense. It was part of every Jew’s Bible, but it was also a part of every Christian’s Bible all the way up to 1881. In 1881, due to the influence of wildly liberal textual critics, Westcott and Hort, the Apocrypha was removed from non- Catholic Bibles. The Catholics ignored Westcott and Hort, but the Protestants and the Anglicans fell into line, and when the influence of the popular textual critics said, “Well, this should not be in the Bible,” amazingly, everybody just fell like dominoes. And starting in 1881, Bibles that are Protestant or Anglican don’t have the Apocrypha.

Now that’s really modern times. We had electricity in 1881. We had some crude automobiles and internal combustion engines. I mean this is somewhat modern times! The dawn of the Industrial Revolution. We’re not talking about some ancient time or the Crusades or the Dark Ages. This is modern day. Removal of 14 books from God’s Word!

Now, when I encounter a lot of Christians and say, “How many books are in your Bible?” Well, I got 39 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament. We don’t have that Apocrypha, that’s Catholic. And I tell them no it’s not Catholic! The Catholics have nothing to do with it. It was robbed from your Bible. It’s not even something that supports Catholic theology. They say, “Well, hmmm, I’ll have to look into that.”"

http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-books-apocrypha-removed-from-the-bible-in-1881/

In conclusion, it would have made more sense if the first Protestant, Martin Luther, had deleted some books but he didn't when he wrote his Bible.

Just remember, your version of the propaganda is only around 131-135 years old.

 

AMEN.

Religion is one factor that has been training Americans to ignore an evidence based approach to the problems we face.

The result is that there is a significant percent of America that disregards science or even sees its existence as a problem.

 

Interesting article from the NYT religion section.

While I agree that everyone must use a healthy dose of skepticism about the news media, I would not base my own skepticism on any particular translation of the Bible.

If you can read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek you will see that many things written in it are completely mistranslated out of context into other languages.

And your Hebrew and Greek need to be pretty good to decipher what it really says. In Hebrew this is extremely difficult since ancient Hebrew is very hard to understand even in light of knowing modern Hebrew. In Greek this is easier although ancient and modern Greek are also different as day and night.

The Bible is a combination of theology and theocracy mixed in with Philosophy and some Science here and there.

Therefore I apply skepticism to the Bible as well, because it is so difficult to understand, and also because we have no assurance that what we have now is what Moses (Moshe in Hebrew) and Jesus (IESOUS in Greek) actually said originally.

Modern Philosophy is my rock and my starting point for deciphering and understanding all things on this Earth and in the world of people(s) which lives upon it.

 

I think skepticism must lead toward examination and acceptance of evidence, not authority.

The Bible is presented as (and believed to be) an absolute. That is an alternative to evidence - an alternative that overrides ALL evidence, in fact.

Looking at multiple translations is simply a matter of identifying a precise absolute - it's not skepticism at all.

 

First @WillReadmore you need to get yourself an avatar, as Johnny Depp would say (about girlfriends) in Pirates Of The Caribbean.

Second, skepticism is a form of Philosophy which starts by doubting everything, even evidence and how it may be perceived.

Once you graduate to Modern British Empiricism (a form or branch of Philosophy) then you can tag certain levels of skepticism as valid or invalid.

Evidence falls within the realm of SCIENCE not Religion nor Philosophy.

Philosophy is pure human though absent any physical evidence.

Science is the collection of data (a plural word) which are then formulated inductively and intuitively into hypotheses, theories, and what are then called principles and laws (although they are not really laws because there is no law-giver like Moses or Caesar or the Congress).

Religion is purely dogmatic. Someone (such as the Pope in Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Archbishop of Canterbury) issues decrees and everyone else claiming to adhere to that particular faith group must follow those decrees unquestioningly.

If you cannot read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek you simply have no idea what it really says.

You can bet your bippy that the Pope and the Patriarch and the Archbishop all know and read Hebrew and Greek. But then THEY are the ones that tell you what to believe.

The Bible does not speak English. Nor German. Nor French, etc.

Q.E.D.

 

Can you share which of the Greek alphabets the Bible was written in?

 

Is this a loaded question ??

 

Did you say that you have read the Bible in Greek? If so, which Greek alphabet was it written in? There are 8.
1. Phoenician
2. Ionia
3. Athens
4. Corinth
5. Argos
6. Crete
7. Euboea
8. Modern

I'll bet it was in the Athens or Corinth alphabet since Paul was in those places. Don't you agree?

 

The Greek New Testament is written in Koine Greek.

That one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek

 

That's a fake. It's written in the Modern Greek alphabet. That's because lower case Greek letters didn't exist in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th Centuries.

 

Let me pull out my Greek New Testament and see what it says about that ... .

 

Yup, it says it's Koine Greek.

Page v of the introduction.

 

Koine Greek was used in the Byzantine Empire until 1453 . It was eventually replaced by Modern Greek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek

I was using these as my sources =

1. http://www.ancientscripts.com/greek.html

2. http://www.pathguy.com/alphabet.htm

3. http://www.brighthubeducation.com/h...21831-where-did-the-greek-alphabet-come-from/.
"Greek Alphabet, Accents and Writing
To make life and pronunciation easier for non-native speakers and readers, Aristophanes of Byzantium introduced the concept of accenting Greek letters. Ancient Greek had 3 different accents (Modern Greek has just one).

Diacritical marks representing stress and breathings appeared around 200 B.C. Breathing marks were used for words starting with a vowel or an r until they were abolished by presidential decree in 1982.

Greek was originally written right to left or vice versa in the boustrophedon way (literally, ‘ox turns’) with successive lines in alternate directions, but by classical times it was written left to right and top to bottom. The minuscule or lowercase letters first appeared after 800 A.D. and developed from the Byzantine minuscule script, which developed from cursive writing. Capital letters of Modern Greek are almost identical to those of the Ionic alphabet."

The main question I haven't been able to find an answer to is "How old is the Modern Greek alphabet"? That seems like a simple question that should have a simple answer but I haven't been able to find the answer.

Now, if the 3rd link is correct = "The minuscule or lowercase letters first appeared after 800 A.D. and developed from the Byzantine minuscule script, which developed from cursive writing" = then any Greek document that has lowercase letters in it was written after 800 A.D. and not in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th Century A.D. Do you agree?

I see lowercase letters on the documented you provided so it must have been written after 800 A.D.

If you see lowercase letters as I do then the document is a fake.

Do you agree with that conclusion?

....

 

My Greek New Testament is the 1550 A.D. Stephens text.

Modern Greek had not had time to evolve yet.

Q.E.D.

 

Thanks for the information. So the conclusion must be that your Greek NT is just a Greek language book of a recent translation and has no real historical value. I hope to be able to find out how old the Modern Greek alphabet is. It seems to be a secret.

My contention, until proven otherwise, is that an English committee wrote the first complete Bible around the year 692 in Latin. That was the original source material for all subsequent Bible versions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus There are allegations that earlier Bibles existed but there's no actual physical evidence of that. It's in everyone's self-interest to push it all back in time as far as possible but there's simply no physical evidence to support those earlier manuscripts (Bibles).