A Review of the God Delusion (Part 6)

Further elaboration on the atheist’s perspective might be helpful. He does not read the Bible to understand what it says; he reads it only to find some basis on which to attack it. This can be demonstrated in the hundreds of unwarranted attacks they make on the Scriptures. We’ve already shown how even a minimal amount of research would have explained to them the difference in Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies. The former gives the legal, regal line of David (the line of kings) down to Joseph; the latter traces Mary’s genealogy back to David, Abraham, and ultimately Adam. Yet Richard Dawkins found fault with the fact that Luke had more names in his list. That’s scarcely surprising since several generations occurred between Adam and Abraham.

But watch more particularly how Dawkins treats the virgin birth, which is found in a footnote at the bottom of page 122. He argues that the most famous “mistranslation” in the Bible involves Isaiah 7:14, which contains these words: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and shall call His name Immanuel.” The word translated “virgin” in the Hebrew is the word almah. However, the New Testament was written in Greek, and the word that was chosen to be the equivalent of almah by Matthew was parthenos, which means “virgin.”

So, what’s the objection? The word should have been translated “maiden” (rather than “virgin”), insists Dawkins and a flock of modernists. Indeed, the Revised Standard virgin translated almah as “young woman.” Others (NIV, NAS) translate almah as “virgin,” but put “young woman” in the footnote.

There are two questions to ask regarding a correct translation: 1) How does the translation affect the meaning of the text (an internal consideration)? and 2) What does the external, objective evidence say?

Let’s say that Dawkins, atheists, and modernists were correct. The RSV states: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. A young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” So, what’s the sign—that a young woman will conceive and bear a son? How is that a sign? Young women give birth to sons every day. Internally, this translation makes no sense.

But if almah is translated the way the overwhelming majority of translations have it—as “virgin”—then the text makes sense. For a virgin to give birth would be an extraordinary event (except perhaps in mythology).

But what about the definition of the Hebrew word almah. How should it be defined in the Greek? He says that using parthenos was a “mistake.” Based on what? Is Dawkins a Hebrew and Greek expert? Did he cite even one Hebrew or Greek expert? No. He wrote:

…this one translator’s slip was to be wildly inflated and give rise to the whole preposterous legend of Jesus’ mother being a virgin! (122).

Consider what Dawkins has done with respect to Matthew 1:23, which quotes Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son….” It reads the same in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. First, he must conclude that the English translations in both the Hebrew and the Greek are wrong in their use of the word virgin. Second, he offers no proof that these translations are wrong. Numerous scholars have defined these words; why did he not quote some of them—if they support his case?

Third, he says that Matthew, in choosing to translate almah (the Hebrew word) into parthenos (the Greek word) slipped. Fourth, he does admit that parthenos means “virgin”; he simply affirms that Matthew should not have chosen that word. Fifth, he claimed the entire concept of the virgin birth rests upon Matthew choosing one wrong word.

Why is there an assumption that Matthew chose the wrong word? Some of Dawkins’ supporters might say, “Well, what are your Hebrew and Greek credentials?” Your congenial editor humbly admits he has none. But those who translated the Hebrew into the Greek (including Isaiah 7:14) chose parthenos more than 300 years before Matthew wrote down that word. The translators of this Greek version of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint) were Hebrew scholars. Presumably, they knew their own language, which means they knew that parthenos was the right equivalent of almah. Dawkins either knows this fact and chose to “overlook” it, or else he was too lazy to research the subject before accusing Matthew of making a translator’s “slip.” The writer of the gospel of Matthew translated almah correctly, the same as the Hebrew scholars who preceded him.

Ad Hominem Attacks

One of the things a person is taught in Logic is that ad hominem attacks are invalid. This is often an approach taken in politics. “My opponent is a lowdown skunk with the morals of an alley cat.” “If my opponent is elected, it will be like Nazi Germany all over again.” Those who have issues campaign on them; those who don’t speak “against the man,” which is the meaning of ad hominem.

Dawkins spends seven pages denigrating those who do not believe in evolution as having lower IQs. Ostensibly, he is reacting to those who point to scientists identified with Christianity. One of his answers is that these men felt compelled to go along with the prevailing philosophy of the times. Galileo, e.g., was chastised by the Catholic Church for daring to say the earth was not the center of the universe. Bertrand Russell said:

The immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion, but they conceal the fact in public, because they are afraid of losing their incomes (123).

Okay, then, they are cowards, insincere, and hypocrites. Also, how intelligent are they not to be able to come up with a solution to this economic problem where they could maintain their honesty and integrity?

What about Sir Isaac Newton? He is considered one of the greatest scientists of all time; he worked in the fields of Physics, Light, Color, Astronomy, Tides, Gravity, Mathematics, and Calculus. He wrote a scientific work titled, The Principia, saying, that when he did so, he “had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity, and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.”

He also wrote strong papers refuting atheism and defending creation and the Bible. He said, “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” Furthermore, his personal papers showed that he wrote about 1.3 million words on Biblical subjects (about 20 standard-sized text books). He wrote two books: Prophecies of Daniel and History of Ancient Kingdoms as defenses or proofs for the Bible. He also said, “All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.” Is Dawkins aware of these things?

One scientist whom Dawkins ignores completely is Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977), the world’s most famous rocket scientist and mastermind of the Apollo moon rocket. He held 25 honorary doctorate degrees. Incidentally, had he believed in evolution, how exactly would that have made him a better rocket scientist? Perhaps Dawkins omitted his name because von Braun wrote the California school board to get them to include the scientific evidences for creation in their high school science classes. He wrote:

…as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all…. My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?

It is reported that, even as early as 1945 at the end of World War II, when speaking of surrendering his rocket team to the Americans, he said, “We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured.” So far, he has been proven correct.

Does finding a brilliant scientist who believes in God prove that God exists? No, but it contradicts Dawkins’ theory that intelligent scientists believe in evolution. He was only too happy to report on an article published in Mensa Magazine (the high IQ organization) in 2002:

Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or educational level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold “beliefs” of any kind (129).

Failing to hold beliefs of any kind means that one is intelligent? Everyone has beliefs of some kind. Dawkins does, and he is absolutely evangelistic in spreading his views (or non-views, as he might call them).

But let’s grant that these studies are true: the higher the IQ, the less is the likelihood that someone will believe in God. Jesus taught: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3). The very first qualification for entering the kingdom of God is that of humility. The more intelligent one is, the more he is given to pride (1 Cor. 8:1). With his great intelligence, he tends to depend more on his own ability than on the One Who gave him the brain that he has.

The same is true of the wealthy. In many instances, their wealth is their god. They think they deserve the prosperity they have. While it is true that many have worked hard for their fortunes; others were born into it or just happened to be at the right place at the right time. Many (not all) do not feel a need for God because their money can buy them nearly anything they want or need. The rich farmer certainly credited himself with his wealth (Luke 12:15-21).

Paul wrote of this phenomenon almost 2,000 years ago:

For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things that are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things that are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence (1 Cor. 1:26-29).

Pascal’s Wager (130-32)

This is another argument that Christians do not use; we object to it as strongly as an atheist might. Basically, it says that we do not know whether or not God exists. If we obey Him and He does not exist, what have we lost? But if we disobey Him, and He does exist, we have lost everything—forever—and gained eternal punishment. Such obedience would scarcely be heartfelt, which is a requirement (John 4:23-24). Besides, could not a Muslim make the same wager about Allah?

Thus far, Dawkins spends his time refuting bad arguments that some have made for the existence of God. Will he ever get around to compelling evidence?