Apparently, casual discourse and refusal to be swayed by propaganda can now be reliably classified as rambling, O Reader. One marvels at this sudden shift in the meaning of a common term, and then a staple of both country music and Celtic folk music.

Apparently the poster is not used to being confronted with the truth. On his blog, he is now reduced to ranting, ramblings, and trying to discredit the sources that exposed his deception. Those that deal in deception often take this course when exposed and confronted by the truth.

Actually, the sources (well, let's be real here: there's only one source, a certain David C. Cloud) discredit themselves. I could launch into any number of criticisms as to why, but the ones that are not form criticisms* basically all amount to the same thing: if you're trying to compose a comprehensive argument against Catholicism that you want to be viewed as a truthful, reasonable analysis, compose your argument from independent sources. If you're going to use an anti-Catholic propagandist to prove an anti-Catholic point, you are not working in the service of truth...you are parroting your pastor and the pamphlets that have been handed out to you, and moreover are demonstrating a failure of critical thinking.

There is an interesting case of projection taking place here. The watcher claims that I am reduced to rambling -- yet he, himself, rarely speaks his own mind save to either offer insult or attempt to maniuplate the emotions of his readers. The watcher claims that I am not used to being confronted with the truth -- and yet he presents no truth save the "truth" of a propagandist, without bothering to do any independent research of his own, or in any other way demonstrate the ability to both think critically and compose his own arguments.

The watcher further claims that "those who deal in deception often take this course" -- and ultimately, the statement is, on his part, self-referential. This is especially true when one considers that the watcher himself, again, rarely offers his own well-researched arguments, preferring to cite the work of others. In spite of this, he will be the first to chastise someone who cites an outside source as being reliant on the "wisdom of men". It's a curious "some for me; none for thee" approach, and again communicates a fundamental insecurity in both his position and beliefs. Evidently, he does not feel that his own capacity for reason is sufficient to the task of arguing with a known deceiver like myself.

It reminds me of a child, caught with their hand in a cookie jar, and the tale upon tale they will fabricate to extricate themselves from the situation, rather than just owning up to the truth.

Life must be "grating", indeed, as the poster expressed on his blog, for one on the wrong side of the truth in an issue.

The Reader is welcome to make of this what he or she will -- suffice to say that I've no use for snake oil in my life. At the end of the day, maybe Catholicism gets some things wrong (from a doctrinal standpoint); personally, I've not encountered anything in Catholic teaching that cannot be defended from Scripture, and I've read the Catechism from end to end...twice.

I will say this, though: at the end of the day, I have Jesus. Moreover, I have Jesus in a very special, very intimate and integral, and very personal way. He is, for me, truly present, and on a weekly basis I stand, but for a moment, in the ante-chamber of Heaven itself.

The watcher offers nothing which exceeds this, and as such I'm not interested in what he has on offer. Let him have his "truth" -- I have Christ, and I'm content with that.

If he is reduced to this state by just the few tidbits I have put forth, I pity him, for I have not even "rolled out the good stuff" yet.

I tremble in anticipation, O Reader. I do believe the watcher thinks he has got me on the rocks, when in fact all he has done is cite the work of a propagandist who has no problem going against some of the most noted preachers and theologians in American Protestantism, to say nothing of his anti-Catholicism. I am sure that such a source as this has churned out no end of entertaining reading. But then, so has Jack Chick. And just because a source is prolific or verbose does not mean that a source is speaking the truth, or any part thereof. For example: why should I trust a source that refers to the Dark Ages, when the majority of historians actually reject the use of this term because it is inaccurate and does not reflect the actual progression of things during the period of history to which it nominally refers?

Truth is waht it is and I feel that truth should be known regardless of whether that bruises our ego or pride.

On this point, I agree with the watcher. I also laugh at the watcher, because he evidently has not been counting the number of times that his own ego has ended up bruised by something I've said...and has acted poorly (and insultingly) as a result. With this statement as well, he is projecting.

But don't take my word for it, O Reader. Simply point out to him that his arguments are almost indistinguishable from those of atheists who likewise seek to undermine the Church, or point out to him that his evidences are sometimes used against Christians by those who would seek to disprove Christ's divinity, and watch how he reacts.

Footnote: if I am just one deceiver mired down in fallacies and rambling incoherently in the face of the truth, the question perhaps has to be raised as to why the watcher is expending so much effort in continuing to give rebuttal to one that he has apparently so soundly defeated? It seems a terrible waste of time on his part.

Perhaps the truth is other? One notes that demons can be quite determined in their efforts.

* * *

* form criticism is usually shallow, but I do sometimes wonder at a curious phenomenon: why is it that all these supposedly great evangelical sources have webpages that are of lower quality than the ones I designed with I was first learning HTML, back in high school?

Predictably, the watcher makes the sweeping claim that I am deceiving you all, without offering a shred of evidence in support of his claim. Indeed, he goes so far as to specifically state that he won't actually be responding to anything I said.

He then throws out a rather large citation from a biased, anti-Catholic, pro-KJV-only Fundamentalist Baptist source, and apparently feels that this sufficiently refutes anything I've said so as to ensure that his readers will not be deceived by my insidious Papist lies.

What's amusing here is that it is the watcher who is ultimately trying to deceive. I take no particular umbrage with the fact that he is a self-described Independent Baptist, but his entire argument against me is prefaced by the fact of my Catholicism. This is emotional manipulation on his part, and it is highly dishonest (it also communicates a fundamental weakness in his position and arguments, but that is another matter entirely).

When pressed, I debate on the history of events, and then from objective sources (rather than propagandists). The watcher is welcome to dispute the facts of history, of course...but that is on his conscience, and not mine. It is quite possible to find sources on the Internet that say all manner of evil things about Catholics, and then from both sides: for every person who claims that the early Church sought to deny the Bible to the common people, there is someone else who will make the claim that the Church has promulgated many false common-language versions of the Bible that it forces its subjugated faithful to read. The truth, of course, is somewhere between the extremes...but why let that get in the way of a good polemic?

It wouldn't be as grating if the watcher could be trusted to use similarly objective sources, but as he seems intent only on parroting the words of propagandists, it seems that we must all suffer his outpourings time and again, and medicate ourselves by immersion in detailed research of the actual facts of the matter, which will (of course) fail to line up with the watcher's wild assertions.

Or, rather, with the wild assertions of the watcher's sources, since the watcher himself rarely thinks for himself, preferring to spew out masses of text written by other hands, or excerpted from Scripture with no attention paid to context.

Which I suppose could be evidence for a charge of intellectual laziness, in addition to the charge of intellectual and moral dishonesty that could be leveled at one who so readily quotes propagandists like Jack Chick.

I particularly enjoy the charge of being a twister of Church history, which I suppose in a sense is true...in the sense that all I really did, in my previous post, was untwist the twisted lie concerning Tyndale et. al. that the watcher had previously put forth. But to untwist something, one must still reply a twisting motion (albeit in reverse), so I suppose that if one takes the perspective that the twisted lie is actually the straight truth, the corrective measure would naturally be seen as the twisting action.

But don't take my word for it, O Reader. I'm a heathen, pseudo-pagan Catholic deceiver, after all.

Update: Subject, having hit bottom of intellectual barrel, has reached for a drill.

Update 2: Subject has drilled through wooden bottom of intellectual barrel, and has encountered granite foundation. Subject last seen reaching for jackhammer.

(or, more seriously: the watcher is still, two posts later, quoting his latest propagandist, and still spreading twisted history to suit his own ends. His source, David Cloud, has a bit of a reputation as well...apparently, he had some association with O Timothy magazine, which notably ran a story lambasting Mother Theresa (hey, didn't Christopher Hitchens do that too?). Cloud evidently isn't picky about who his calumny is directed against, and has in the past put forth scathing articles about such notable figures as Billy Graham, James Dobson, and the Promise Keepers.

I suppose, then, that I should feel kind of honoured that my Church is considered to be in the company of noted heathes such as the aforementioned men and group.)

The watcher has, once again, taken leave of comprehension and logic in his analysis of a recent response of mine to him.

In response to my post regarding the interpretation of Scripture, a Roman Catholic poster made the statement in quoted and colorized below. This is truly sad and is just further conformation, as if any is needed that the Roman Catholic doctrine is unbiblical. I will give his a pass however, since Roman Catholics trust in the Church for their doctrine and path to salvation rather than the revealed Word of God for doctrine, sola Scripture, and faith in Christ alone, sole fide, for salvation as the Bible reveals.

This would be the same person, mind, who once accused me of being a Jesuit.

What is amusing about the watcher is how -- not unlike an idol of his, a certain Mr. Jack Chick -- the author attempts to emotionally maniuplate his readers. It's not unlike some Islamic correspondents that occasionally write in to me via my main blog and the way that they seem bent on theorizing that behind all their follies and pitfalls there is, at work, a vast Jewish conspiracy. By playing up my Catholicism, the watcher is essentially attempting to emotionally maniuplate his readers by playing on their doubts and fears, rather than risk his being shown up in a straightforward exchange of ideas.

Perhaps even more amusingly is the way he rails against Catholicism for how it apparently encourages people to trust in the Church (e.g. the insitution that is the Catholic Church*) rather than in Christ, and then ends his opening statement with an affirmation of some of the doctrines of one Martin Luther. Who, indeed, is following man-made doctrines here?

I've addressed this point in the past, and will only briefly mention it again here: yes, Catholicism rejects sola scriptura, but not because we reject the teaching authority of Scripture. We simply reject the assertion that the Bible is the only means by which God makes His truths known to mankind. We do accept that the Bible is the primary vector by which revelation arrives, and we further accept that nothing which is true can be in contradiction to the truth revealed in Scripture.

I suppose one could say we're not "Bible Christians" and be telling the truth, but only if one were willing to state that we were "Bible plus more Christians". Anyone asserting that we are somehow "less than Biblical" is, frankly, selling snake oil. And the best advice I can give there is: don't buy. Hold out for the offer on the bridge.

The interesting yet sad point is that Roman Catholics fail to understand that God's Word is forever settled and unchanging.

Actually, we understand that just fine. Unlike the watcher, though, Catholics don't usually believe that God has stopped speaking to us simply because the last page of the Bible has been written.

The Holy Spirit that indwells born again, saved Christians, does not change the Word of God, He guides us in our understanding and interpretation of it.

This is the Catholic belief also. It's refreshing to agree with the watcher for once.

Once again though, I will give the poster a pass since his institution, the Roman Catholic Church, believes that the Pope can change, overide the Word of God and that the Roman Catholic Church must interpret Scripture for its members.

Yet more emotional manipulation playing on the fears and misunderstandings of the Reader. I've discussed the issue of papal infallibility before, and at length.

This is why Tyndale and thousands of others such as the Waldesians and Lollards were burned at the stake, disemboweled, and slaughtered by the thousands under the order and directives of the Roman Catholic Church, for possession of Bibles and for their efforts to bring the Bible to the common man in their native language. When they had temporal power over governments, they kept people in bondage through mass atrocities, now the keep them in bondage through their unbiblical teachings.

The level of emotional manipulation and distortion of truth is quite profound, and I'm of two minds as to how to respond.

I can't deny that some terrible stuff has been perpetrated, throughout history, by Catholics, but neither will I deny that Protestants and others gave as good as they got (so to speak). The Westminster Confession, Elizabeth 1's persecution and execution of Jesuits at Tyburn, the torture and execution of Catholics in Calvinist Scotland, the intense animosity of American anti-Catholicisim that even led, for a time, to anti-Catholic mob violence (and found a welcome home in, amother other places, the KKK), and various other persecutions of Catholics all across Europe during and after the Reformation cry out to heaven for justice as loudly as any Catholic action.

Of course, more ludicrous still is the charge -- a common canard, really -- that Tyndale was executed for his efforts to bring the Bible to the people in common languages. One can't expect much in the way of truth from anti-Catholic bigots on this point, but the truth is indeed far less dramatic than the watcher would have us all believe. Sadly, I fear that more than a few may well be duped by his blatant attempt at maniuplation.

On the face of it, the charge that the Church would execute people for translating or preserving the Word of God is rather spurious and somewhat ridiculous, given the Church's own involvement in a) translating and b) preserving Scripture for over a thousand years by the time of the Reformation. Also, it was not illegal that Tyndale (or others) translated the Bible into other languages, English or something else. Let's repeat that, for reference: the actual act of translating the Bible into a common tongue was not illegal.

One law in the 1400s was passed, but this was in response to the Wycliff translation, which was full of errors and used to justify many heresies; both secular and religious authorities condemned the work. The law given in 1408 prohibited "unauthorized" translations of Scripture, in part because there was an earnest desire on both the part of the Church, and also on the part of the secular authorities of the day, to ensure that any translation of Scripture remained faithful to the original texts and the message therein; it was deemed far too risky to allow spurious translations that might contribute to theological errors and lead people astray from the truth.

Which is, if you think about it, both a reasonable fear and a reasonable response.

What is amusing, if tragically so, is that English translations of the Bible existed prior to Wycliff's version -- these were, and remained, legal. ("Where we Got the Bible", Henry Graham, Chapter 11). And future authorized translations into English (and other common tongues) were likewise legal. The only issue was that the translation be "authorized" -- that is to say, then, that private individuals could not, outside the auspices of the Church, promulgate their own alternative translations. The desire was to reduce or prevent error from being introduced into Scripture.

Tyndale, basically, spurned this law, and set out (without authorization) to promulgate a new translation. The Church in England objected to his initial petitions for authorization for a few reasons, not the least of which was that extant English translations were sufficient. Actually, booksellers were having a hard time selling the existing English editions as it was, so low was demand for them, that a law had to be passed to compel people into buying English-language Bibles. Moreover, Tyndale himself was not exactly a reputable scholar and was a bit of a renegade priest in his day -- a sort of 1500s version of the liberal pastor who goes off the doctrinal rails.

Tyndale left England and found support for his efforts in Martin Luther, and his end product was a horror for the numbers of mistranslations and outright errors it contained. Indeed, Tyndale's preface to his work was basically an anti-Catholic polemic, which should have been a major indication for any of his would-be defenders that his interest was agenda-driven, rather than being driven by a desire for truth and good scholarship. Even if one is not Catholic, one can hopefully see that a polemicist is not the sort of person one should entrust with the responsibility of publishing a definitive translation of the Bible.

And yet this is what Tyndale did.

Of course, Tyndale's translation was condemned in the harshest terms. But the Church itself didn't send Tyndale to his end. King Henry VIII -- the founder of Anglicanism, mind -- decreed that Tyndale's Bible should be "utterly expelled" from England and its people. Henry later decreed, still enraged over the scale of Tyndale's error, that all English translations were to be banned...and this, notably, was after he had broken the English church away from Rome.

Tyndale was arrested, tried, and sentenced to die for heresy on account of the fact that his Bible contained numerous heretical concepts. While we can make a case that execution for hersey is, in and of itself, wrong, it should be noted that Tyndale's crime was not that he provided the words of Scripture to the common people in their own language. That had already been done, and laws had even been passed mandating that the common people should go out and buy a Bible. And a few years after Tyndale's death, the Church produced the Douay-Reims English translation of Scripture.

Again, I don't deny the charge that the Church executed heretics. I can't and I won't.

Equally, I think it's important that the truth behind such actions be known. While I personally don't think it was morally justified to execute people for heresy (we should always desire the reformation and reconciliation of such a one), I find it just as odious that the true history of Tyndale et. al. has been twisted and warped as much as it has. The issue was never that common people could read or own a Bible -- the Church encouraged and endorsed both realities, and even (in England) had to mandate it by law that people should own a Bible translated into English. The issue was one of authorization and preventing error...error which Tyndale promulgated in spades.

And as to the issue of my work: I've got scripts compiling, DVD images rendering, and test processes ticking away as a part of my job today. Gotta do something to kill the time!

* * *

* When Protestants speak of the Catholic Church, they tend to speak of the institution. When the Church refers to herself by use of the term, she does not mean the institution, but in fact refers to the Body that is Bride, to whom Christ is Bridegrooom.

This produces no small amount of confusion, to be sure, as the watcher clearly evidences.

Well, evidently I'm not sufficiently Christian to join the Christian Writers Union. Something about how I think the Earth is a bit more than 6,000 years old.

I'm only off by a few billion, guys...surely that's small beans!

Anyhow, no Christian Writers Union for me. So...I think I'll set up my own equivalent.

I need officers. Any takers? I promise to keep this one as Pharisee-free as is possible!

Okay, I actually don't know what point my watcher was trying to make there, but...heck, it's funny. Thongs for sale, people...get'em before they're gone! Some people just don't get a joke.

(You know, I used to think it was just militant atheists that were humourless social autists, to use Vox Day's pithy description. It would seem the scope of those afflicted by said same phenomenon is a bit wider than just the "passionately godless" category.)

Still...it's Monday morning, and I need to turn my brain on. Let's fisk.

One thing I didn't mention in my prior post. The poster keeps complaining that he is being "watched" while doing the same thing, "watching". While I could use the word, hypocrite, I won't, I'll just say it is an obvious contradiction.

Hyporcisy would be a charge that could be laid against me had I in fact, perhaps, complained about being watched. I haven't -- I have merely remarked on the phenomenon. I write something. The watcher responds with a combination of poor logic, misrepresentation of other authors, and a copious amount of selected (read: cherry-picked) Scripture verses vomited out at the good Reader in the hopes of rhetorically pumelling him or her into submission to a non-point. I respond. Someone comments. The watcher responds to the comment. I defend my commentor from the gross and undue charges that the watcher brings against him or her. The watcher responds to me again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

And I don't mind the repetition at all; the travesty of theological reasoning is, however, another matter.

Perhaps if the poster would stop spreading unbiblical doctrine and would limit himself to selling thongs, as he does on a blog, posting amateur photography, and racially insensitive photographs, then there would be no need to correct him.

It is true that on my other blog, I am guilty of posting a daily picture of my own taking. I am also embroiled in a massive debate currently taking place in Canada over the human right of freedom of expression, which elements and offices of the Canadian government, working in close proximity to various special interest groups, are actively seeking to destroy. Part of my contribution to that debate has been to re-print, on occasion, the "Muhammed cartoons" that started that uproar in Denmark a few years back.

And yes, I do sell thong underwear (and mugs, t-shirts, teddy bears, and other stuff) from a web-store that I set up at CafePress a few years back. The label on the thongs (and other products) is "THIS MACHINE KILLS JIHADISTS" -- my contribution to a joke shared with another blogger a couple of years ago.

But so what? I also work for a company that uses "Get it up safely!" as its motto -- shall I likewise be condemned for this?

Now, as to the charge that I spread unbiblical doctrine, the watcher very confidently asserts as much...and then fails to provide examples of the charge. That's not really a refutation of his point, mind...but then, without supporting evidence, it could be argued that he has no point. I have, in the past, been more than willing (and able) to defend my views from within Scripture, and will continue to do so. If that is contrary to what is Biblical, in the watcher's view, then so be it. It is more my concern to be right with Christ than with my fellow Gamespotters, anyhow. ;)

One final point, he used two examples, aliens and the Roman Catholic Church's persecution of Galileo, twisted as usual to try and somehow undermine the point that correct doctrine comes only from God's revealed Word, not man's traditions and philosophies.

Note, O Reader, how the examples remain standing; the watcher asserts that they are twisted, but does not bother to address them.

Curious.

This just confirms, once again, that he puts his trust in man's philosophies, and his Church's traditions and philosophies, rather than the revealed Word of God in the Bible.

While I appreciate the implied QED in this statement (if only because I appreciate when people use logical fallacies against me), I must observe that the watcher a) offers no evidence in support of his charge, and that b) he is guilty of the same charge. It must be remembered that the watcher rarely can be counted on to do his own legwork -- he prefers to cite, in defence of his points, whole excerpts from other authors.

Talk about placing trust in man's philosophies!

When one does that, either because they think themselves wiser that the Lord, does not listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or worse yet, may not be indwelt by the Holy Spirit in the first place, it is no small wonder that they will find themselves in one error after another.

I'm not sure who the watcher is addressing here; I think it is me, but it can't be, since (and I have said this many times before) I fully submit and subsume my will to that of the Spirit, to that of the Lord. Having said that, I do acknowledge that the Lord saw fit to create for me a functional brain, with a capacity for reason...and out of respect for the Lord's good work, I see no reason to abstain from the exercise of that part of me, or from the exercise of those faculties.

The watcher's mileage may vary, of course.

In what is perhaps a fitting irony, I see that the watcher's latest post pertains to the issue of interpretation of Scripture. I take this as a sign of progress, since previously the watcher had stated that "[t]he entire Bible is doctrine. It is forever settled. It is unchanging. It is God's truth." This is actually an attitude that is the death of the contept of interpretation, because interpretation necessarily shifts as our understanding of things changes. This is something I alluded to in my previous examples pertaining to Galileo and aliens. In both cases, the assumption was made that Scripture -- God's revelation -- was truthful; the question merely becomes one of by which vector the truth is being sent to us.

It is true that the Earth orbits the Sun. From Scripture, one gets the opposite sense -- the Earth is said, specifically, to be fixed and immovable, and the Sun is said to be moving. But this does not mean geocentrism is true; indeed, geocentrism is false. But we believe Scripture is true, and we believe that heliocentrism is the true way in which our solar system operates; two truths cannot contradict. Therefore, our interpretation of Scripture shifts a little bit -- we re-understand passages pertaining to the "fixedness" of the Earth and the motion of the Sun as being issues not of error, but of frame of reference.

Plainly put, the Earth doesn't feel like it moves, and the Sun very much appears to move. Within the context of the author of Scripture's understanding of the world in which he lived, it made sense to speak of things in such way; the ancient Hebrews did not have access to the sophisticated instruments which made the later discovery of the true arrangement of the solar system possible. We can understand that the author had only the knowledge of his day with which to work; the Spirit did not reveal the deeper secrets of later discoveries.

But that doesn't change the message of Scripture, which is what is important in all of this. The Earth may move through the heavens, but it is still a steady, massive chunk of rock; God is stronger still. The Sun may be fixed in its place in the heavens (relative to Earth), and the motion of the Sun may be a result of Earth's rotation, but God is still Lord and King, and all natural phenomena are His to command -- should He desire to temporarily freeze the Sun at its noonday point in the sky, it will be so, regardless of what orbits what.

As to the bit about thongs, all I can say is that when the watcher grows up, meets a nice (and probably very patient) girl, and gets married...he'll understand.

Strangely, though, I agree with the watcher, when he says the following:

Many Christians today, especially liberal ones, are under the impression that they, not God's revelation in the Bible, determine doctrine. Some think that doctrine must be open to change or reinterpretation based on the changing times, popular opinion, for the sake of unity, or based on their feelings, emotions, and finite thoughts. When one reads blogs written by Christians, they might encounter statements such as these.

Now, leaving aside the "drive by" (in the watcher's own words) attempt to smear a fellow Christian as a liberal, I do agree that many people are entirely too...free with the idea of what could be called "theological license" and the notion that doctrine changes over time. But to be fair, I don't think doctrine is wholly static.

Let's take an example. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that an alien ship lands somewhere in the world, and the pilots make themselves known to us. Okay...we have just seen it conclusively proven that alien life exists, that living beings exist on a planet other than our own.

How does this affect doctrine? Moreover, does this affect doctrine?

Without getting into C.S. Lewis' five points for consideration, the answer is that it does affect doctrine in one sense, but not in another. Obviously, any doctrine which specifically states that e.g. God made life only on the Earth would have to be disacarded as false. But a doctrine that states only that God is the creator of all things -- all life and all the Universe -- would still be entirely valid. Since God is creator, the aliens would be His creation as much as we are His creation also.

The doctrine that says that God is the creator, then, does not change, except in the sense that we would have to understand it as having a somewhat wider scope.

But that's only one example. Let's take another, this time from history.

It might seem odd for a Catholic to make use of Galileo, but there it is: Galileo's big discovery was the final nail in the coffin of a cosmological theory called geocentrism -- the assertion that the Earth is fixed, with the Sun and all the planets in orbit around it. Within a strictly literalist reading of Scripture, geocentrism is the logical theory for Christian doctrine to espouse; numerous passages speak of the Earth being fixed and immovable, and built on solid foundations. The Sun, in contrast, is said to move, halting at the whim of God in its passage through the Heavens.

But we know, from Galileo's discoveries (and those of others before him) that geocentrism is false; our solar system is heliocentric (e.g. the planets orbit the Sun), and the Universe is far more vast than just the expanse of eight planets and a few smaller hangers-on.

Christian doctrine in the early days of the Church was unabashedly geocentric in its view, and through much of the medieval age this remained the case. In the wake of numerous scientific discoveries, including Galileo's (and also Newton's later theories concerning gravity), the doctrinal teachings concerning geocentrism had to be changed to reflect what was understood now to be the reality of how the Earth and the Sun interacted with one another.

Now we see that doctrine sometimes must change, if God imparts revelation to us by some other means that challenges to think about how we interpret a passage of Scripture.

The watcher goes on to at least correctly define "doctrine", in terms of the actual word at least:

Doctrine is a truth, a principle or body of principles, a system of beliefs.

But after this, the watcher makes a bit of a mis-step

Christian doctrine is found in God's revelation to man, the Bible. It is not open for debate, it is not open to change, it is not open to compromise.

This is not wholly accurate. Doctrine is based on God's revelation, and specifically it is based a particular group's understanding of the Bible...but then in the sense that doctrine is drawn out of the teachings and messages contained within Scripture. It starts with the text of Scripture, but only emerges through exegesis and thought.

As an example, think of the way Calvinists teach a doctrine of predestination, while Methodists teach a doctrine of Prevenient Grace. Both doctrines are based on exegesis from the Bible, but the doctrines themselves contradict -- Wesleyian Prevenient Grace rejects Calvinist predestination, and vice versa.

And I think it goes without saying that Calvinists and Wesleyians have been debating this issue for centuries.

The watcher continues, getting another thing exactly correct:

As Christians, we are called to study God's Word and conform our lives in obedience to it.

But then the watcher continues:

Correct doctrine must form the foundation of our faith and take precedent over unity, our feelings and emotions, relationships, etc. We encounter incorrect doctrine, we are commanded by God' Word to rebuke and correct it, not compromise or accept it.

Here the watcher has contradicted himself somewhat, if we take into consideration his previous assertion that doctrine is unchanging. Why should we work to correct that which cannot be changed, unless doctrine is not unchangeable? Moreover, for what take we might demand in our working to change false doctrine, we must be willing to give in terms of changing incorrect doctrine.

The watcher adds this:

The entire Bible is doctrine. It is forever settled. It is unchanging. It is God's truth.

Is the whole of the Bible "doctrine"? Is Song of Solomon doctrine?

The Bible itself is the source of doctrine, but the watcher has confused the means with the ends. Doctrine emerges from Scripture through exegesis and, in its more intelligent expressions, due consideration of natural revelation as well. Good doctrine should not contradict the message and meaning of Scripture (whereas false doctrine will do so). And I will be the first to agree that God must be the first participant in any promulgation of doctrine.

If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be Catholic, would I? ;)

Let's come back to Song of Solomon. It's a short book, but it serves as a good example here. What is Song of Solomon? At its most basic, it's a few pages of very erotic love poetry. Okay, so perhaps we can infer that it has something to tell us about sex (and indeed, it does). But not directly. Doctrines pertaining to sexuality and marriage will draw upon Song of Solomon as one source (another would be, of course, Jesus' teachings on marriage, and yet another source would be 1 Corinthians 7)...but the point is that the doctrine takes the Scripture as a source and, through some exegesis and comparison against other teachings in the Bible, forms out of Scripture.

more funny fail pictures at FAIL Blog

Watch this video first!

The professor who briefly appears in the segment, Denis O. Lamoureux of the University of Alberta, is a former theology professor whom I still keep in touch with. He was briefly quoted, as the Reader can see, in a discussion with Richard Dawkins on TVOntario's "Agenda" program.

Dawkins has his opinions, and I have mine. What I wanted to remark on in the video is how trapped, how very stuck, Dawkins is in his view of the relationship between science and religion as being a dichotomy. He cannot grasp that an excellent science would believe in God not out of some kind of desperation, but by conscious choice that emerges out of reasoned consideration. Dr. Lamoureux (or Dr. Dr. Dr. Lamoureux -- he holds three PhDs, two of them in scientific fields) was an atheist for no small length of time.

Dawkins is so trapped in this dichotomy that he can't help but attempt to pigeonhole Dr. Lamoureux by essentially declaring that Denis uses his religion to explain away gaps in the evolutionary process. Perhaps Dawkins can be excused for not having gotten to know Dr. Lamoureux as well as he should have -- suffice to say that anyone who knows Denis knows that the last thing he believes is a "God of the Gaps" model of creation.

When Denis talks about God being "behind" the science, he's not talking about a God who simply guides the process past the rocky spots and yet-unexplained gaps in its record. Instead, he's talking about the sort of God I discuss in this article here -- a God who created all things out of His endless love, who continues to pour our His love upon creation, and to whose love creation responds in a multitude of amazing ways...including the emergence of life itself.

My watcher is upset that I equated his claim that the KJV is the "inerrant, inspired, preserved Word of God" to a claim of infallibility on the part of the translators themselves. He suggests that this is a straw-man argument on my part, perhaps in response to the fact that I caught him engaged in same.

He denies that he's talking about infallibility.

But really...is he?

After all, he is asserting that an English-language translation of the original text of Scripture is what is inerrant, inspired, and preserved (this in spite of the fact that even many proponents of the KJV Bible as "the Bible" for the English-speaking Christian can acknowledge that it contains dozens of textual errors). We're not talking about the original texts of Scripture here -- we are talking about a translation of Scripture (since not one word of Scripture was, in its original state, written in English).

Now, some of us know from experience (failing that, we can discover via research) that translation from one language to another, even from one modern language to another, is never perfect. This is certainly also the case, and perhaps much more the case, when we are translating an ancient language into a modern one. It is never entirely possible to bring the full "sense" of the original-language document out in the new language, because different languages operate on different rulesets that are not necessarily universal.

One easy example, and then one relevant to Scripture, is the idea of love. In Greek, the language used by the New Testament authors, there are three distinct concepts of love: eros, filos, and agapos. Translated to English, all three words are rendered in the same way: love. But the meanings are vastly different (the Greek terms refer, respectively, to erotic/sexual love, love between friends and family, and self-sacrificing love ).

This crops up in several places in Scripture -- for example, in Jesus' thrice-asked question to Peter: "Do you love me?" -- and the English language is not entirely adequate to capture the full meaning of the original manuscript (Jesus asks for agapos twice, then filos the third time). I've never encountered an English-language translation of the Bible that fully captures the meaning in this exchange, although some of the annotated RSV editions do at least note the significance of what is said in the Greek source.

So: no translation (at least no translation done by human hands) is perfect.

And yet, what is the watcher's assertion? Nothing other than that one particular version of the Bible, a translation no less, is "inerrant" and "preserved". I don't question the use of the word "inspired", but the use of the word "inerrant" -- and then in the face of the fact that, again, even proponents of the KJV can acknowledge that there are several dozen textual errors within it -- is an especially bold claim. Because the claimant is left with making one of two assertions:

1) either the Spirit itself, which cannot err, was the translator and direct writer of the English-language text of the KJV, or

2) the writers of the KJV must necessarily have made absolutely no errors between them

If the second claim is true, then by the strict definition of the word "infallible", we must conclude that the translators who worked on the KJV were, in fact, infallible -- they made no mistakes.

The first claim is not directly true, although one might try and argue that the Spirit was the writer through the agency of the human translators. In essence, the human hand held the pen, but the Spirit composed the text. That's a fair evasion...but it is also infallibility, at least according to the Catholic understanding of the idea.

Basically, it comes to this: to assert that a translation is "inerrant" necessarily implies a belief that the translator was, in either the secular or the religious sense of the word, infallible.

Note that this, too, is not the same thing as denying that Scripture, in general, is inerrant. Scripture is indeed inerrant, but we are not talking of Scripture in general. We are talking here about the particular inerrancy of a particular and specific translation of Scripture -- it is, in the watcher's assertion, the KJV (and only the KJV, not any other English-language translation of Scripture) that is solely inerrant. And that means that he is making the claim, in one sense of the word or another, that the translators who composed the KJV were infallible -- they made no errors.

(That they did make errors is a different matter.)

I note, too, that the watcher only bothers to gainsay what I myself have asserted; no formal argumentation is offered. For someone who laments that logic is no longer taught in schools (I have quite a number of cIasses in logic, formal and boolean, under my belt, O Reader), it is rather odd that his own response to me is not so much a logical argument as a "hey, that's not fair!"

No attempt is made to debate my rejection of his source's textual criticism and exegesis. No attempt is made to address my own textual criticism and exegesis. No attempt is made to discuss any of the dozens of other errors in the KJV text listed at the link I provided. No attempt is made to address the majority of my post -- instead, the watcher elects to take a statement of mine, misunderstand and misrepresent it, and then attack that creation instead.

But clearly, O Reader, it is me who is possessed of a deep, fundamental illogic in my very way of thinking, which can be blamed on my poor education. I had not realized this about myself.

He suggests that he did not invoke either the Catholic concept of infallibility directly, nor did he invoke the idea in general. In this he is right, but as the good Reader will note, this is what I said:

What I find rather interesting is that most KJV-only proponents utterly reject the idea of infallibility -- at least as it applies to the Catholic Pope. But note that the above statement essentially suggests that the KJV Bible, and by extension its original translators (and perhaps even King James himself) were infallible, that it was impossible for them to be in error.

At no time did I imply that the watcher invoked infallibility; I pointed out that infallibility is a necessary component of his assumptions. Perhaps I should have stated this more clearly, either prefacing or closing the observation with the phrase "whether he realizes it or not", and if that last point did not come through clearly then I do apologize. It was my meaning

(Also, for reference, I have discussed the concept of papal infallibility before -- it's not as unbiblical as some might claim!)

The watcher concludes thusly:

Here is an illustrtion that graphically shows how the true of the Word of God, is under attack, not only by atheists and non-believers, but within Christianity by those that say they follow Christ.

The watcher has, in the past, chastised those who point out that some of his evidences are sometimes used by atheists and anti-Christians, dismissing the observations as "drive by insults". That he would now make a similar statement to those which he so readily and actively decries smacks of hypocrisy. But moreover, of what utility is his illustration? It does nothing to advance his argument (or, rather, to advance the fragmentary argument he doesn't quite make) and ends his post rather suddenly.

It's an interesting illustration -- a target-board painted on a Bible in the foreground, and brown-clad men with wings, wasp stingers, and scribbles for heads circling Christ in the background. But does it do anything to advance what the watcher is trying to say?

I'm aware that some people -- the watcher included -- have a deep-seated emotional attachment to the KJV, and I am not in any way saying that it is an invalid translation. I am simply saying that it's as valid as e.g. the NAB or the RSV, because no English-language translation is a perfect re-telling of the full "sense" of the original-language manuscripts of the books of Scripture. Does the RSV contain mistakes? Yes, certainly. So does the NAB. So does the KJV. There's textual errors in all of them.

What's important is the message that the text conveys. If I open an RSV or a KJV, am I going to be taught that God created the world (and all other things)? Am I going to be taught that He sent His only Son, Jesus, to be born of the Virgin Mary, to die and rise again on the third day for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of all mankind? Am I going to learn that Christ will return in glory on the last day, to judge the living and the dead? If the answer to all those questions is a resounding "YES!" then does one's personal preference for one edition over another really matter?

I see that someone else is reading this blog. ;)

(Also, were I Yoda, I would complete my title by saying "Away put your weapon! I mean you no harm!")

Anyhow, to said someone, I might remark that for someone who chastised me for "drive by insults" for pointing out that the Jerusalem tomb is sometimes used by non-Christians to attack the divinity of Jesus, it is rather hypocritical to preface an argument with the statement that it is primarily Wiccans and other pagans who argue against the translation of "witch" that iowastate details above.

I should also note two other things: a) whether it says witch or poisoner, modern Christianity is beyond the point where it will not suffer a sinner to live. Or so I would hope. But also, b) I prefer to use the RSV translation, as it is accepted as one of the more scholarly and academically-reliable translations available, and the RSV renders the contested word as "sorceress".

Make of that, O Reader, what you will.

A couple of other notes. The other poster in question made the following remarks:

Don't be deceived, the KJV Bible is the inspired, inerrant, preserved Word of God.

As to whether the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God, I make no particular contest -- the Bible in general is the inspired Word of God. But as to the supposed inerrancy of the KJV in particular, I should point out that even proponents of the KJV and the Masoretic Text acknowledge that there are many translation errors in that particular Bible version.

My personal favourite error is in Acts 12:4, when the word for "Passover" was mis-translated as "Easter".

The above-mentioned someone goes on to say:

All modern Bible versions are corrupted versions that undermine the preserved Word of God. When you a find a Church that sticks with the KJV, you will find a Church that is seeking the truth.

What I find rather interesting is that most KJV-only proponents utterly reject the idea of infallibility -- at least as it applies to the Catholic Pope. But note that the above statement essentially suggests that the KJV Bible, and by extension its original translators (and perhaps even King James himself) were infallible, that it was impossible for them to be in error.

That's a rather curious shifting of frame, isn't it? Why is it that a dead English king and his appointed team of scholars should be considered infallible, and then most often by American Christians, while said same Christians at the same time deny any possibility that the Spirit might occasionally stoop so low as to allow the Vicar of Christ to speak without error?

Update: Still being watched, I see.

What's hilarious about the watcher is how I can link to the website of a KJV proponent who nevertheless points out not one but several dozen errors in the text of the KJV, and yet the only point the watcher can think to respond to is the phrase I note as being my favourite example of error. Would that he had perhaps clicked through to the provided link and observed that Acts 12:4 was but one of, again, dozens of examples of textual errors within the KJV.

The watcher remarks thusly:

This is further evidence of when one spends their time trying to "find errors" in the preserved Word of God and leans on their own finite understanding, rather that trusting in faith in what His revealed Word says, they will pile error upon error.

The good Reader should note that I'm not trying to find errors in God's Word -- rather, I am trying to find errors in one English-language translation of said Word, in much the same way as the watcher has doubtless, in the past, devoted considerable time and effort to finding errors in other English-language translations. This is basically, then, a straw-man argument; as I stated, I have no particular quarrel with God's Word, and in fact rather love it.

Where my quarrel lies is in the assertion that the KJV is the only legitimate English-language translation, and the implications of that statement -- essentially, it suggests that the good King himself, and his translators and scholars, are infallible, which (given the tendency of e.g. the watcher to denounce the Catholic concept of infallibility in harsh terms) is a rather hypocritical stance indeed!

The watcher questions my faith in God's Word; to this, I can only respond with a remark about motes and logs, and would politely suggest to the watcher that he hasn't the first clue as to exactly how much trust I place in God's Word. My criticism of the KJV has nothing at all to do with my doubts in the veracity of the Word of God; it has everything to do with my doubts concerning a dead English king and various scholars in his employ.

The watcher goes on to state:

Textual criticism is based on man's finite thinking and I believe is tool that Satan uses to attack the truth of God's Word. Rather than trust in man and his finite mind, we should trust in the Lord.

This is mostly true (although note how the watcher confidently asserts that those who disagree with him are, almost by definition, dupes of Satan's), although to it I might point out that God gifted unto humanity a funcitonal brain with an (albeit under-utilized) capacity for reason and intellectual inquiry. It is both an affront to our creator, and a diminishment of our nature, if we do not at least occasionally exercise said capacity.

I do not trust my mind above and beyond the trust I place in the Lord, but I do trust that He gave me a mind with the intent that I use it occasionally, and I am willing to believe that that aspect of His creation, like all of His creation, is "very good" -- basically, God made me to think, and in service to God I desire to think.

Not everyone shares this stance, of course.

At any rate, the watcher then launches into a lengthy citation from...someone (it doesn't really matter who) offering their exegesis of the passage in question, in light of the history of the languages used in the writing of the books of the Bible, and in light of historical events. I observe, in passing, that the watcher himself rarely if ever engages in exegesis of his own, preferring to rely on the work of others. And while I do confess a measure of disappointment in his choice in this regard, since it means that any exchange of ideas is between me and those he cites rather than between myself and him directly, I can also appreciate (somewhat) a mentality that doesn't want to re-invent the wheel.

At any rate, the watcher's source remarks thusly:

Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.
After the passover (Exodus 12:13,14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!

This is not an entirely correct understanding of the foundation of the Passover, for (as is noted in the cited article) Exodus 12:15 notes that even on the first day (e.g. the actual day of Passover) shall leaven be put out of the homes of the faithful of Israel. This can be confirmed by stepping back a few verses in the Book of Exodus:

[5] Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats;
[6] and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening.
[7] Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them.
[8] They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.

So later, when the watcher's source remarks that in "verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of unleavened bread," we see that he has missed this earlier verse, and so has missed that even on the actual night of Passover, unleavened bread is eaten, as it must be for the following days as well.

The watcher's source, after some more textual analysis (note: interestingly, the watcher has already condemned textual criticism as flawed -- why he is now citing an argument that depends heavily on textual criticism is thus something of a hypocrisy! Or is the quoted source likewise doing Satan's work?) concludes thusly:

We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:
(1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.

This is what happens when one's desire to be hyper-literal in one's textual criticism falls on the twin swords of poetry and metaphor; it would certainly come as news to anyone who is a practitioner of the faith called Judaism that only the first day of the festival is the one called "passover" -- in Judaism, the Passover is the name that can also be used interchangably with the more formal name for the same time period, the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Which doesn't really come as a surprise, given that the commandment to eat unleavened bread takes effect on the date marking the actual "passing over" -- unleavened bread is an important component of the Seder Meal.

The textual criticism and exegesis of the watcher's source falls apart at that point. For when it says in Acts 12 that:

[3] ...when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread.
[4] And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people.

...it must be understood that the Passover festival is here being referred to by both of its accepted names, according to how the Jews themselves would have made reference to it.