A Review of _the God Delusion_ (Part 5)

We are still focusing on chapter 3 of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion because he tossed together several complaints against the Scriptures—although he often fails to mention the verses to which he refers. A few more of his criticisms merit answers. At one point, Dawkins (apparently in frustration with those who disagree with him) says of Christians: "Do these people never open the book that they believe is literal truth? Why don't they notice those glaring contradictions?" (120).

Does he really think that Christians don't know the Scriptures? Just because he labels things he does not understand as contradictions by no means requires Christians to agree with his hasty conclusions. He actually thinks that, upon very little slanted information about the Scriptures, people should hurriedly give up the Book, which we know to be true. He ought to offer a blockbuster of a contradiction after making this statement, but it's obvious he knows not of what he speaks.

Of all things, he resorts to the difference of Matthew's genealogy of Jesus and compares it to Luke's. He does not seem to be aware of the following truths.

Matthew provides the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, while Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus through Mary His mother and her ancestors all the way back to Adam. Dawkins complains that "there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists" (120). If they were the same, what would be the point of listing them twice? Does he really not know why there are two lists—that one is Joseph's genealogy and one is Mary's? Has he never picked up a single commentary, which would have explained this fact to him? He concludes that Christians are stupid for not noticing glaring errors? The fact is that he is too lazy to do even minimal research to learn that there is no contradiction.

Matthew wants to have 14 generations from Abraham to David, David to the captivity, and the captivity to the present time. Therefore, he skips certain names in his list. Luke does not say he is listing generations. Besides, Luke does not stop at Abraham, as Matthew did; he goes all the way back to Adam (which obviously means a longer list).

The reader does not expect overlap between the two lists, since one is of Joseph and one is of Mary. Dawkins fails to see, however, that Mary is descended from King David through his son Nathan. Joseph is descended from David through Solomon.

Joseph is descended through the kings, and he is the legal father of Jesus, although not His literal father. As His legal father, it is important that Joseph comes from the line of kings

Jesus is descended from David, through his son, Nathan. Dawkins apparently knows nothing about this matter; he wrote that, "if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfil, on Jesus' behalf, the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah was descended from David" (120). First, Jesus was born of a virgin, as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14. Second, Mary (and therefore Jesus) was descended from David through his son, Nathan. Dawkins needs to quit being sloppy in his research and read the Scriptures before attacking them (Luke 3:31).

Dawkins talks about "the massive fallibility of the scriptures" (120-21), but the fallibility seems to lie on the part of the critics.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

No attack on the Scriptures would be complete without pointing out that there were several "gospels" that were rejected from being part of the New Testament canon: "the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, Philip, Bartholomew and Mary Magdalene." No reason is cited for their omission except that "a council of ecclessiastics" made the decision (121). From a soon-to-be published book, A Brief History of the Bible, comes an answer to those who allege such things.

Some think that the canon of New Testament books was arbitrarily decided by a council, where the church simply threw out the books they didn't like and kept the ones they did…. Of course, this is an extremely inaccurate and over-simplified way of looking at the development of the canon.

The church did not create the New Testament canon; they simply recognized and accepted it over a period of time. …were written at different places and in various decades throughout the first century. Thus, the compilation of this literature developed over time, but the process was not forced. It was not influenced by a government or by a religious council dictating their own preferences. This process was organic, by churches seeking out the truth (i.e., the copies of inspired literature) for themselves (McClintock 81).

It is interesting that atheists keep stressing truth and factual data, but then they make statements without any sources to back up what they claim—except to quote other atheists. Those who seek information on the subject of canonicity should go to historical sources rather than fantasies promoted by atheists. Even Dawkins can see how silly those works are: Jesus turning playmates into goats, creating sparrows out of mud, or miraculously lengthening a piece of wood (121-22). He cannot, however, discern between those fictions and real miracles.

The longer that Dawkins goes, the more that what he says sounds like gibberish. He postulates that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are probably "derived from a common source, either Mark's gospel or a lost work of which Mark is the earliest descendant" (122). How can Mark, one of the four, be derived from Mark? Does that make sense to anyone?

Although Dawkins does not say so, the common source for the gospel accounts comes from the higher critics, who theorize that a document called Q (for quelle, a German word which means "source") exists. The four writers, according to some "scholars," had to have some common source from which they obtained their information about Jesus. This is theory without proof; they call that fictitious document Q.

Has anybody ever seen Q? No. Has it been discovered in any manuscripts? No. Are there any allusions to it? No. But the "scholars," who are infinitely brighter than us common folk, say that it must have existed at one time—even though no trace of it can be found. This is one of the absurdities of Modernism. Of course, atheists like Dawkins are more than happy to go along with them—despite the total absence of evidence. He blithely continues:

Nobody knows who the four evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus. personally. Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history but was simply rehashed from the Old Testament, because the gospel makers were devoutly convinced that the life of Jesus must fulfill Old Testament prophecies (122).

Is there anyone who does not see that the preceding paragraph is nothing but conjecture? How does Dawkins know that nobody knows who the four evangelists were? And since no one knows who they were (allegedly), how does he know they never met Jesus? Wouldn't that be a bit difficult to determine? Furthermore, how does he know that these unidentifiable authors who never met Jesus weren't trying to write history? Carl Sandburg never met President Lincoln, since he was not born until 13 years after his death. Does that disqualify him from writing a biography of Abraham Lincoln?

Matthew and John were apostles; they knew Jesus. Mark was close to Peter, the apostle. Luke labored with the apostle Paul. But they were all inspired by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13; 2 Tim. 3:16-17); therefore, even if a writer had never met Jesus (nothing indicates that Paul did), it would not diminish one iota the validity of what he wrote.

The zaniest charge against the gospel writers is that they "simply rehashed" the Old Testament. Seriously? Why is it that critics never seem to open the Book that they are trying to destroy? One only needs to read as far as Matthew 5 to discern that the New is far different from the Old. "You have heard that it was said…But I say to you," occurs no less than six times.

If the New Testament was just a rehash of the Old, we would read, "You have heard it said…and it still goes." The New Testament is an entirely different covenant (Heb. 8:6-7). Anyone who had troubled himself to read the New Testament would know that one of the biggest problems in the church involved men who insisted that members of the church keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1, 5). This idea was totally rejected and condemned. Paul went so far as to say that those who insisted that the Law be kept were "estranged from Christ" and "fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4). This topic is the subject of much of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. It is utterly astounding that Dawkins has entirely missed it.

The Prophecies

Did the New Testament writers point out when Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies? Of course. What would be the point of God making those prophecies (since He knows the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10)? If Dawkins had made a prophecy 20 years ago, and it came to pass, would he keep it to himself? Hah! Of course, he would humbly remind everyone of what he had done. And what if he were successful in two, five, or ten predictions? There are over 50 specific prophecies concerning Jesus, beginning in Genesis and ending in Malachi. These prove the Old Testament writers were inspired of God—because they could not have known these things so far in advance, had they not been inspired of God. Certainly, the New Testament writers will call attention to these prophecies.

Jesus Never Lived

Probably there are dozens of university professors that are still telling their students that there is no evidence that Jesus ever lived—though they surely know better. Dawkins takes both sides of the issue. He first says: "It is even possible to mount a serious…historical case that Jesus never lived at all" (122), and he cites a London professor who wrote a book on the subject. But without stating why, his very next words are: "Although Jesus probably existed…" (123). Well, which is it? And why?

The fact is that a number of writers mention Jesus by name, including the Jewish historian Josephus. Some do not believe in Him; they are opposed to Christianity, but they knew He was not a fictional character. The Jewish Talmud denounces Jesus; why vilify someone who never existed? According to Dawkins, reputable Biblical scholars don't regard the New Testament as a reliable account of what happened. So, only Modernists are reputable. How's that for stacking the deck? Second, if we believed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not provide a reliable account, where would we find one? Hmm.

Dawkins thinks that Christians mistranslated the Hebrew word almah as "virgin." Actually, however, the Jewish translators of the Septuagint (LXX) translated almah as parthenos ("virgin") 250 years before Christ was born and Matthew referenced the verse. One could wish that Dawkins had checked to see how valid his claims were. But that would be following the evidence.