Christmas — Who gives a rip HOW we came up with the date we use?!?

Every year about this time, anti-Christian individuals and groups make their jabs about Christmas being pagan, celebrated on December 25 by Catholics and Protestants, and January 7 by the Orthodox. They typically bring up this evidence or that regarding Saturnalia, the winter solstice, or what have you, appealing to guilt by association rather than actually trying to understand the Christian mindset — then or now.

The thing is, regardless of whether or not the day chosen was originally pagan, what is important is that the day is set aside, and for the purposes it is set aside.

For just one example, George Washington’s birthday. According to the Julian calendar, which was in use at the time, Washington was born on February 11, 1731. Following the switch to the Gregorian calendar which we use today, his birthday “became” February 22.

Thing is, we don’t observe his birthday on either of those dates. Rather, we observe it — as well as Lincoln’s birthday (February 12, 1809) — on the third Monday in February. What’s important is NOT that we pick the right day, or what else is on the day that we pick, but the fact that we DO pick a day and set it aside for observation.

People throughout church history have been trying to peg down Jesus’ actual birthdate. Through my own research, I’ve come to the conclusion that Christ was most likely born on September 25, 6 BC — Tishri 15 by the Hebrew calendar, the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles. May be right, could be wrong, ultimately it doesn’t matter. What’s important is that when Christmas was “established,” Christians lived among pagans who had oodles of dates to celebrate this or that, whereas Christians had none — not even the Jewish holy days (because of the ignorant “the Jews killed Jesus” hatred that many had), and certainly none of those Jewish holy days recognized the birth of Someone they rejected as Messiah. So while pagans would celebrate their pagan beliefs on their given days, Christians could either choose to celebrate godly things instead or celebrate nothing at all. The church leaders, and through them, the church proper, chose the former.

That’s how Christians got the holidays we have. Just like Washington’s birthday not being observed on his actual birthday, Christmas is a day chosen to celebrate Christ’s birth, and chosen to give Christians something to celebrate instead of what else was being celebrated on that day — the winter solstice. Easter was established similarly as an alternative to the spring equinox, as well as the Jewish Passover. Halloween is the same thing — All Saints Eve (leading into All Saints Day) as an alternative to Samhain.

For non-Christians or anti-Christians to say that Christian holidays are essentially pagan is to completely disregard why people of any faith individually set aside days as holy in the first place. I completely agree that these holidays have been co-opted and commercialized to the point of them no longer being “holy” to many, but they still are to me — not because of the day they may fall on, but because of what they individually mean to me if no one else.

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

Editor's note: One of the main reasons December 25th was chosen has nothing to do with Saturnalia at all.  If it were intended to be a replacement for Saturnalia, why was it not on the same days?  (Roughly December 17-23.)  The choice of the 25th of December comes from an old tradition that Christ's death and conception took place on the same date.  The date for Christ's death, burial, and resurrection was placed around Easter time (around March 25th).  Conception plus nine months gives us December 25th for His birth.  Check out this blog for more info.

Undesigned Coincidences - An Introduction, Part 2

Welcome Back!

Welcome back gentle reader! Welcome to the second part of my Introduction to Undesigned Coincidences in the Bible. In the next few posts we will explore a few types of Undesigned Coincidences and you will see some examples of each using the Bible as a reference.  I picked these because they were less involved than some others that would require the cross-referencing of several passages.

So, without further ado…

Internal Coincidences

The first category we will look at will be coincidences that occur within the text of the Bible itself. These can be separated into several sub-categories including Same Book coincidences, Same Author coincidences, and Different Author coincidences. I have come up with these sub-categories myself simply for the convenience of organizing future blog posts. The only categories I have found in the literature (so far) are the basic internal/external ones.

Same-Book Coincidences

Some coincidences are found in different parts of the same book. Needless to say it will be assumed that the same author penned each section. For this category we will be using an example from John James Blunt’s “The Veracity of the Five Books of Moses” pp. 144-147. In this example we see that in Numbers 7:6-8:

6 So Moses took the carts and oxen and gave them to the Levites. 7 He gave the Gershonites two carts and four oxen corresponding to their service, 8 and gave the Merarites four carts and eight oxen corresponding to their service, under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron the priest. (Scripture quotes from HCSB)

Why did the Merarites get twice as many carts and oxen as the Gershonites? No explanation is given.

If we look back to Numbers 4:25, 26 we see the duties of the Gershonites were to:

25 They are to transport the tabernacle curtains, the tent of meeting with its covering and the covering made of manatee skin on top of it, the screen for the entrance to the tent of meeting, 26 the hangings of the courtyard, the screen for the entrance at the gate of the courtyard that surrounds the tabernacle and the altar, along with their ropes and all the equipment for their service.

And the duties of the Merarites:

31 This is what they are responsible to carry as the whole of their service at the tent of meeting: the supports of the tabernacle, with its crossbars, posts, and bases, 32 the posts of the surrounding courtyard with their bases, tent pegs, and ropes, including all their equipment and all the work related to them.

From comparing these two passages you can assume the likely explanation for the different wagon allotments was because the Gershonites were in charge of the lighter elements of the tabernacle, the curtains, canvases and hangings, while the Merarites were in charge of the heavier articles, the posts, bases and crossbars.

Several chapters that deal with various topics like a census, uncleanness, compensations, rituals, vows and blessings separate these two passages. The fact that the reason for the Merarites getting more wagons than the Gershonites was not explained, and that this passage was separated from the earlier passage, implies that the writer felt no need to give a reason, therefore implying common knowledge. A fiction writer would be more likely to want to put these passages together to tie up loose ends and provide an explanation. Though this may not be a wholly convincing example, nevertheless it is another strand in the rope.

Next Post

So, there we have it, short and sweet, but my first example of an Undesigned Coincidence. I know, it probably doesn’t give you “Church Shivers” to think about it, and it isn’t some knock-down argument. It is simply the first straw I am presenting, and you know what happens when you put too many straws on a camel’s back. In my next post we will look at an example of Same Author Coincidences using Paul’s letters in the New Testament.  I am currently reading through William Paley’s "Horae Paulinae" for an appropriate example.

Until next time,

Keep reading!

How Many Coincidences Does It Take?

Although this post is about bias against the Bible, it is not about questions.  Instead this is an attempt to debunk the Bible altogether, so I've decided to respond to it under a title outside of my series called, "Answers To A Few Biased Bible Questions."

I posted the meme below on my wall on Facebook.  The comments that are numbered are from someone (Chrystal, a Facebook user) attempting to debunk the claims in the meme (which is a defense for the scientific reliability of the Bible).  My replies (preceded by a "》") are an attempt to give a reasonable answer to each one (see the original discussion here). 

**Disclaimer: I am not the creator of the following meme that is in the line of debunking.

1. Isaiah 4:20[sic] the circle of the earth. Circles are flat.

》 Isa 40:22 WEB (Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotes will be in World English Bible, mouseover verse reference for NASB.) "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in;"

Yes, circles are flat. Let's look at the Hebrew word used here in this context though: [ḥūḡ - ח֣וּג] According to BibleStudyTools.com the word should be translated: "super sphaeram", Pagninus; "globum", Montanus Vatablus; "super orbem telluris", Vitringa.

As you can see here there are three key words in this definition:
Sphaeram (sphere)
Globum (globe)
Orbem (orb)

I think it's safe to say that the word, "sphere" isn't out of context.

2. Jeremiah 33:22 The host of heaven (God) can not be numbered, does not even say the word stars. 

》 Jer 33:22 "As the army of the sky can’t be counted, and the sand of the sea can’t be measured; so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant and the Levites who minister to me.'"

I have a more literal translation, and I'm guessing you were reading from the NKJV (New King James Version) because I've searched through several others and that is the only one I found that said, "host" in it.  Nonetheless, even in our English vocabulary today a definition for host is, "a vast multitude" which would make sense since obviously God cannot be numbered and in comparison to, "sand of the sea" stars fits better; not to mention that every other translation/version says, "stars."

3. Job 28:25 to make the weight for the winds (not air). Wind is not air. Other planets have wind, but not air. God would know the difference. 

》 Job 28:25

*BBE* "When he made a weight for the wind, measuring out the waters;"

*EasyEnglish* "He decided the power of the wind. And he decided the size of the seas."

*ISV* “He imparted weight to the wind; he regulated water by his measurement."

*KJV* "To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure."

*NET* "When he made the force of the wind and measured the waters with a gauge."

*NHEB* "He establishes the force of the wind. Yes, he measures out the waters by measure."

*WEB* "He establishes the force of the wind. Yes, he measures out the waters by measure."

Admittedly this doesn't say air.  However, what is wind without air? You argued that on some other planets there is wind but no air.  I've done some research since you've stated this.  Some other planets like Mars do have air that is unlike the air here on earth, and others like Neptune that have wind caused by gas.  There are others that have no atmosphere because they're too hot like Mercury.  There's no wind on Mercury, or any other planet without an atmosphere.

Back to the original statement from Job 28:25 about wind --on earth-- having weight: What is wind without air?

4. Job 38:19 Implies that he is looking for light or asking where the light is. That means he is moving not the light. Verse 20 doesn't even use the word light.

》 1Co 15:41 "There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."

Admittedly again this verse doesn't say what is implied in the meme.  I think the right verse should've been:

Psa 147:4 "He counts the number of the stars. He calls them all by their names."

But I wasn't the maker of this meme.

5. Job 26:7 Does not use the word float or space. And hangeth the earth upon nothing, It's not nothing it's the sun's gravity.

》 Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing."

Let's be real, Chrystal.  We both know what is implied here.  Does the earth hang on anything?  And because of the Sun's gravitational pull, does the earth not float?

6. Ecclesiastes 1:6 Says the wind blows north and south, does not use the word cyclone.

》 Ecc 1:6 "The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north. It turns around continually as it goes, and the wind returns again to its courses."

Again, implications; it doesn't just say that the wind blows, "North and south" it says that it, "... turns around continually as it goes, and the wind returns again to its courses."  As opposed to the wind just blowing straight.  This verse implies that the wind is constantly moving and in different directions.

7. 2 Samuel 22:16 says nothing about valleys or mountains or the ocean floor. Says simply that it's the foundation.

》 2 Sam 22:16 "Then the channels of the sea appeared. The foundations of the world were laid bare by Yahweh’s rebuke, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils."

Yeah, I'm with you on this one Chrystal.  Doesn't mean necessarily that this is incorrect, but, like yourself, I just don't see it either.  (Editor's comment: perhaps the intended reference was Genesis 7:11 referencing "... the fountains of the great deep.")

8. Jonah 2:6 Says nothing about water or oceans. He is simply standing at the foot of a mountain looking up at it.

》 Jon 2:6 "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains. The earth barred me in forever: yet have you brought up my life from the pit, Yahweh my God."

Again I would have to agree with you.

9. Leviticus 17:11 Says the blood is for atonement of the soul, says nothing about health.

》 Lev 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood. I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life."

Yes, the passage of scripture does say life is in the blood; however I do not see where it says anything about health also.

10. Hebrews 11:3 doesn't say anything of the kind. In fact I think it says the opposite. Things which are seen are NOT made of things which do appear. NOT made of things which do appear. If it appears that means it WAS invisible.

》 Heb 11:3 "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible."

You might have confused yourself there, not to be rude but this is what it says:

So that
What is seen
Has not
Been made
Out of
Things which are
Visible

In other words: The things that you can see, they're made out of invisible things.

11. Job 38:16 Ok I'll give you that one. But you need only walk on the earth to see that. It doesn't take god. And may I point out that scientists were very ignorant back then because religion controled everthing [sic]? Do not bear false witness.

》 Job 38:16 “Have you entered into the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in the recesses of the deep?"

You'll only give me one?

No one person knew of these things because deep sea diving didn't exist so when God said this it was pure revelation.

How do you know that science was controlled by religion?  Maybe science relied on religion a lot, but controlled?  No.  Atheists, and free thinking philosophers existed then too.  Maybe not so much in the Hebrew culture, but elsewhere in various other world cultures as well.

I respect your determination for truth, and even I learned something from this.  I hope that others can also take from this to be honest, and do research because honestly I didn't even look up these scriptures before I posted the meme on Facebook.

Thank you Chrystal.

Christianity and the Bible in the Marketplace of Ideas

Introduction

First off, let's talk about what a "marketplace of ideas" is.  It is, as it sounds, a marketplace for ideas.  I know, stick with me here.  Basically, we each have in front of us any number of ideas.  Each person throughout life can pick and choose any of these ideas to live by.  Like any number of worldviews, each person can choose what ideas by which to live life.  Dr. William Lane Craig has said things like this before, something like, one of the main goals of apologetics is to make Christianity a powerful (or at least a viable) option in the marketplace of ideas.

Bible, Science, Repudiation

The inciting event here if you will is a lecture series I've been listening to lately.  The topic of the lecture series is the history of the English language, sounds enthralling, I know.  The lecturer, Dr. Michael Drout, talks about the biblical story of the Tower of Babel as myth.  Then he talks bad about Christian linguists from Medieval times because of their theories of Edenic language.  Basically, even though the topic of the lectures is linguistics he snuck in a way to cast doubt on the Bible and Christianity.  Apologetics is about combating this kind of thing.

Does this mean that we Christians ought to take the Bible as a scientific text?  Eh, I can't say that's a good idea.  I'm not going to get into a debate on biblical inerrancy here, but let's agree that we trust the Bible in all it says is true, is actually true.  This means that when the Bible lumps in bats and birds together Lev. 11:13, 19 and Deut. 14:11, 18, we ought to think bats are birds?  (This is a misunderstanding that can be cleared up fairly easily.)  The same is true with the Bible supposedly saying the earth is flat, Revelation 7:1 and Psalm 75:3, another easily answered.  I'm not trying to say that the Bible isn't scientifically trustworthy, I'm saying let's keep the Bible as the Bible not a science textbook.

Where do we go from here?

Well, this blog is one example!  J Warner Wallace's challenge that we need more one-dollar apologists is part of the inspiration for this blog.  We here at Chicken Fried Apologetics want to encourage you to be one-dollar apologists.  The more voices out there, particularly on the internet, the more we can contradict people like this professor (Drout) who insists on dismissing the Bible as mere myth and taking the bits and pieces out of context and abusing it.

Undesigned Coincidences - An Introduction, Part 1

Background

Recently I posed a question to an online Christian Apologetics group. I asked if there were any areas of apologetics that were deserving of more attention than they were getting. I wanted to develop a specialty in the study and didn’t want to go where the crowds were. I knew that I didn’t have the background or knowledge to add to the major areas of study like The Cosmological Argument or The Problem of Evil, but thought I might be able to bring light to some of the dusty corners of the field.

There were many good ideas brought forth by the online community, all ideas that I wish I had the time and resources to explore, but since both are limited I had to narrow the list. I finally decided, thanks to some very good advice from a knowledgeable and trusted associate, to explore some classical apologetic works that have been all but forgotten. He gave me a respectable list of books in the public domain to start with, and this post is an introduction to an attempt to revive a few of these all-but-forgotten treasures.

After much consideration and online research I have set my sights on the concept of Undesigned Coincidences, developed by authors like William Paley, John James Blunt, Edmund Bennett and Nathaniel Lardner.

I want to take this opportunity to make it understood that I am attempting to use my meager skills to do justice to the insights of some honored thinkers. I take the blame for any distortion or misrepresentation of the thoughts found in these distinguished works. I do not take credit for any light of truth that shines through.

The Concept in a Nutshell

An Undesigned Coincidence can be described as two or more different sources fitting together like puzzle pieces, together managing to explain questions that arise from one or more of the individual sources. For instance let’s say that there was a robbery at your local convenience store, and that there were two independent witnesses at the scene.

Witness number one was inside the store when it happened and reports how she saw the robber run to the right as he exited the store, then a moment later run back past the front of the store, going the other way, with a half dozen dogs of various shapes and sizes in hot pursuit, leaving everyone in the store with quizzical expressions.

Witness number two was approaching the store from the rear, following a dog-walker who was leading a group of dogs. Suddenly a man rounds the corner of the building, running full speed, and plows headlong into the dog-walker. Both people hit the ground. Amidst a clamor of whines, barks and howls the robber jumps up, turns and runs back the way he came, with the dogs close on his heels.

Taken separately the witness reports would leave interesting unanswered questions, but when they are put side by side they lock together like puzzle pieces and give a more complete picture of the incident, providing validation for both accounts, and giving more credibility to other parts of the eye witness testimonies.

Cumulative Case Argument

Undesigned Coincidences is a cumulative case argument. This means that while each instance may not be convincing in itself, the sheer volume of instances, taken together, makes the case more likely to be true than not. It is like the fibers in a rope. Each individual fiber may not be very strong, but by weaving hundreds of them together you end up with something of amazing strength.

As John James Blunt puts it:

“... if the instances which I can offer are so numerous and of such a kind as to preclude the possibility of their being the effect of accident, it is enough. It does not require many circumstantial coincidences to determine the mind of a jury as to the credibility of a witness in our courts, even where the life of a fellow-creature is at stake. I say this, not as a matter of charge, but as a matter of fact, indicating the authority which attaches to this species of evidence, and the confidence universally entertained that it cannot deceive.”

-The Veracity of the Gospels & Acts, pp1,2

James Warner Wallace is a celebrated cold-case homicide detective and proponent of evidential apologetics. When talking about cumulative evidence he states:

“The nature of circumstantial evidence is such that any one piece may be interpreted in more than one way. For this reason, jurors have to be careful not to infer something from a single piece of evidence. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a powerful collection, however, and each additional piece corroborates those that came before until, together, they strongly support one inference over another.”

-Cold Case Christianity, insert titled “The Cumulative Nature of Circumstantial Evidence” p58

Inductive Reasoning

This evidence for the accuracy of the Bible also fits into the category of Inductive Reasoning. Unlike deductive reasoning which gives a definite conclusion to a question, inductive reasoning provides a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain. It works from the bottom up. If you can show accuracy in the parts you can imply accuracy in the whole.  Whatis.com has a nice, concise definition;

“Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion.”

Written out in syllogism form you can see the argument like this:

1) Each instance of an Undesigned Coincidence adds credibility to a body of work
2) The Bible has hundreds of examples of Undesigned Coincidences
3) I conclude that the Bible has credibility

Conclusion

I do not claim this to be some kind of slam-dunk for the veracity of the Bible, but it does add to the evidence for it. It is an argument that has been relegated to the back shelf and forgotten until recently. During my research the only current proponent I could find was Timothy McGrew, Professor and Department Chair in the Philosophy School at Western Michigan University. It is a rather subtle argument and needs an investment of time in order to see its use. Those are two things that people in today’s world have little care for.

In my next post I will explain the different types of Undesigned Coincidences with biblical examples of each. That will conclude my introduction to this topic, and from then on I will begin this series in earnest. With as many examples as I have found I’m sure to be able to share many examples in the future.

Happy reading!