Eichenwald would be a little less offensive, obnoxious, overbearing, and outlandish and almost likable if he showed even a small dose of humility. Alas, he does not. He is at war with me and my kind. Worse, he is at war with God.

He charges that there were “no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian,” a statement that is embarrassingly false. From the early days of the church they recognized their manuscripts as the New Testament that we have today. The churches did not vote on it but generally accepted the use of manuscripts that make up our present canon. But Kurt is an unbeliever using his influence to try to dig out the foundations of the Christian church. He attacks the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, declares that Paul did not write I Timothy, and II Peter is a forgery, “an opinion almost universally shared by biblical scholars today.” No, that is only true of most unbelieving scholars.

Kurt declares that Constantine determined what books made it into the New Testament at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.; however there is no historical support for such a charge, a charge made by many with an axe to grind. I have all the extant writings of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene church leaders and none support that popular fiction.

One of Eichenwald’s sycophants wrote, “Nearly everyone who’s studied the matter agrees the canonical gospels were written no earlier than the early 70s CE (i.e. Mark) making it impossible for them to have been written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.” Not so. Remember, Matthew and John?

One of the main reasons for confidence for the New Testament being completed before 70 A.D. (except the Revelation) is that no New Testament writer refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (and hundreds of villages burned to ashes) and the Temple in 70 A.D. That was one of the most horrific, shocking events in history with the destruction of the famous city and at least a million, one hundred thousand people killed. Plus, the most famous place of worship in the world was destroyed, yet not a word mentioned by the Bible authors! Sure, it is the argument from silence, but it is a silence that is deafening.

Kurt declares that the incident in John 7 and 8 of the woman taken in adultery “simply never happened.” However, Jerome reported on this passage after 400 A.D. and he declares that the Latin and Greek manuscripts did contain the disputed passage, so some manuscripts recorded it and some did not. That is not unusual. Believers believe that God kept His promise and preserved His words.

Many manuscript experts tell us that the passage does not belong there but if that is true why do most modern translations use it? Modern translators know that removing the disputed story would precipitate rebellion, revolution, and ruin in the Bible market. They use the passage because of cowardice and cash. They knowingly use a passage that practically all their experts agree should not be in the Bible! Modern translators have taken a stand like a crippled chicken. If a passage does not belong in the Bible (according to their convictions), they should do the principled thing. Most liberals can’t spell principle but they can spell principal–money!

Conversely, scholars focused on preservation, find the passage in the oldest trusted manuscripts and believe it belongs there. Since God promised to preserve His Words, I believe He did just that. The manuscript issue is about “words.” Jesus said in Mark 13:31, “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” And Jeremiah 23:30 says, “Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbor.”

Kurt then takes his knife and cuts the last 12 verses from Mark 19. He says they were wrongly added much later by an interpolator; however, Dr. C. I. Scofield tells us, “The passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.” Hippolytus in the years from 170-236 A.D. had these passages in his works. Also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 A.D., used these verses in his writings. Since a preacher that close to the Disciples quoted those verses, don’t you think he would have objected if he read corrupt verses in Mark? Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna). Polycarp had been a Christian for eighty-six years, was martyred in 156 A.D., and was a disciple of John the Apostle. No, the last twelve verses belong in Mark as the Bible shows. Bible haters are wrong.

Furthermore, it would be very strange for Mark to end his Gospel of good news without mentioning any of Christ’s post resurrection appearances or His ascension; and to close his book with “for they were afraid” is unimaginable. The Good News of the Gospel is to expel our fears!

Daniel B. Wallace is a New Testament professor at Dallas and during a debate with unbeliever Bart Ehrman, Wallace reported that a first century fragment of Mark had been found in Egypt. The same as our common Mark! The traditional ending of Mark is the true ending.

Eichenwald attacks I John 5:7 telling us that the Trinity does not exist in the Scripture and that verse is an interpolation–added by a fanatical scribe wanting to add the Trinity to the teaching of Scripture. However, this verse is in the oldest manuscripts going back to Vaudois or “Waldensians” in northern Italy who were visited by missionaries from Antioch in the 120s. They translated the Bible into Old Latin in 157 and would not change a letter of their manuscript. There is little doubt that the manuscript used was at least a first generation copy of the original, if not the original, and the Waldensian translation was passed down from generation to generation until the Reformation. When Erasmus added I John 5:7 to his third edition of the Greek New Testament it appeared in the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible.

Moreover, leading early church leaders such as Tertullian wrote “which three are one” in 200 AD and Cyprian of Carthage wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One.” Sounds as if they were quoting I John 5:7.

Kurt makes the silly assertion that “The New Testament doesn’t proclaim homosexuality the most heinous of all sins. No, every sin is equal in its significance to God.” He wrote that statement to deflect from sodomy, known today as homosexuality or by those unconcerned with accuracy as “being gay.” Kurt declares that homosexuality is no worse sin than lying, greed, and other sins thereby making perversion, pride, prejudice, and prayerlessness the same in God’s eyes! What insanity! He did not get that from Scripture even with his ability to twist Bible verses like a pretzel. Another thought: while this is no defense of pride, you won’t get AIDS from pride.

Yes, sin is sin as far as eternity is concerned; however, there are present life consequences that are deadly. Non thinkers say that one might as well commit adultery as to think about committing it but that is stupid. Thinking about adultery does not impact others while physical adultery divides families, devastates children, and may destroy health.

The pitiful prose of Eichenwald easily demonstrates a writer who is desperate to prove the impossible. His writing screams desperation: “I have to find some of those Bible contradictions, after all I have to crank out 8,539 words for Newsweek.” He even says the Bible forbids debates so Congress is disobeying God! Christians can’t wear pearls or gold. Public prayer is wrong. He equates criticism of government to resistance to government. The writer evidently knows nothing about proper research, especially biblical research: Who wrote it? When was it written? To whom was it written? What were the circumstances? There are many more examples of his egregious perversion of Scripture.

Eichenwald declares that his missive was not an attack upon the Bible or Christians but it is exactly that. A poor attack to be sure but an attack without any doubt. And to think they killed a bunch of trees to print such tripe!

An honest, liberal journalist should be willing to look at all sides of an issue. Kurt refused to do so as do most radical leftists.

But then, it’s in their genes!

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Wiping the foam from his lips he wrote his first paragraph depicting evangelical Christians as nuts, jerks, and flakes comparing us to the Westboro Baptists in Kansas. From this inauspicious beginning it is obvious that he is dishonest or totally uninformed; either reason would be justification for yanking his journalist credentials.

Eichenwald’s untrue, unfair, unkind characterization of Christians would be like my suggesting that all journalists are wild, woozy, and wicked people who get to work at 10:00, have a three hour lunch break consisting of three shots of cheap gin, stagger back to the office to work a couple hours then buy a quart of wine from the local grocery and go home where they cause havoc in the neighborhood, beat their wives and knock their children around until bed time. Now, I’m sure that is true of a few journalists but it is irresponsible to suggest that is true of most of them. Kurt was irresponsible.

He spends much ink dealing with snake handling as if that is normal in real Christianity! Some leftists are dumb as a box of rocks or are so short of arguments that they depict Christians as carrying a sack of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday.

Eichenwald makes a very silly statement when he declares that “evangelicals are always talking about family values. But to Jesus, family was an “impediment to reaching God.” He took that position because of a naïve misinterpretation of Matthew 19:29 where Christ spoke about forsaking father, mother, brother, and sister for His sake and their inheritance of eternal life. Of course even Christian neophytes are aware that the Bible clearly commands us to love and support family and to honor father and mother.

Kurt further shows his immaturity or dishonesty when he charges that all female Christians in political life should quit (or remain hypocrites!) because of 1 Timothy 2:12 that commands a woman not to teach and have authority over a man. This is a much discussed verse and theologians in various denominational groups take various interpretations but everyone knows it specifically deals with women in the local church. Kurt doesn’t know that.

There is no way Eichenwald could have done any research without knowing about I Timothy 2:12 yet he was way out in left field and gave no indication of objectivity. Of course, true objectivity is as hard to find in Newsweek and all liberal media as white dinosaurs in Kentucky.

Eichenwald is out of his league in this article. In paragraph after paragraph I cringed in embarrassment for him and Newsweek. He was like a 12-year old kid making an appearance at the Major League Training Camp in Florida with a desire to play in the big leagues. The kid would be told to come back in a few years. I’m afraid it would be many years before Eichenwald could qualify for the Theological Big League. Mainly because Kurt seems to be blind (or keeps his eyes shut) therefore can’t read the Bible he accuses us of not reading!

He continues to prove his lack of knowledge (or honesty) when he charges that fundamentalists “twist phrases and modify translations” to prove some of our “biases and beliefs.” The fact is most fundamentalists may be guilty of a little twisting (always wrong) now and then but we never “modify translations.” We would rather be caught naked in subzero weather on Fifth Avenue  during rush hour than mess with the King James Bible. We take it as it is–inspired, inerrant, and infallible.

Kurt then charges that Christians believe “Mosaic law from the Old Testament directs American government.” Gasp, does he mean that we believe that our basic judicial system is based on the original Ten Commandants? If so, then everyone knows that is true: From Israel, to Rome, to England to America. You know, don’t bare false witness, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery.

He further charges us with Bible illiteracy but with his litany of mistakes, mishmash, and misrepresentation, that is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath. Our “illiteracy” allegedly causes parents to “banish children from their homes.” No doubt this refers to parents who require children to live decently, get a job, not fornicate, not use vile language and no pornography if they want to live at home. How dare they!

Because of our alleged “Biblical illiteracy” he charges that we believe that climate change (remember when it used to be global warming?) is impossible because of God’s promise to Noah! Hey, only an uninformed fool would use such an argument when there is no evidence of man-made climate change. Of course, the climate changes every day!

His also charges us with “imped[ing] science” and undermining “intellectual advancement” which, of course, refers to the creation/evolution controversy. He and others will discuss how evolution happened but not if it happened. Such people talk about being open minded but their minds are as closed as a miser’s wallet.

His diatribe is based on “scores of theologians and scholars” but he did not interview or quote one evangelical, let alone a fundamentalist, but three–count them, one, two, three leftists. And he only names one–Bart Ehrman, an apostate New Testament professor at the University of North Carolina. Bart grew up a fundamentalist, went to Moody (after me), then to Princeton where he lost whatever faith he had. Kurt calls him a “groundbreaking Biblical scholar” when he is really an apostate. I could have chosen a kinder term but I’m committed to honesty and accuracy.

Dr. Michael Kruger, an expert in early Christianity wrote of Eichenwald’s “jaw-dropping ignorance of the facts about the Bible.” Kruger declared that Eichenwald’s article “is short on the facts, it has little understanding of interpretive principles, it assumes that it knows more about theology than it really does, and it pours out scorn and contempt on the average believer.” Right!

Dr. Daniel Wallace, commented on Eichenwald’s “numerous factual errors and misleading statements, his lack of concern for any semblance of objectivity, his apparent disdain for and lack of interaction with genuine evangelical scholarship, and his uber-confidence about more than a few suspect viewpoints.” Wallace is Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary.

Eichenwald charges that none of us have ever read a reliable Bible–that we have translations of translations of translations of bad translations that have been altered hundreds of times. The fact is that we have over 6,000 good Greek manuscripts going back as far as the second century! When Kurt writes about corrupt manuscripts he gives the impression that he knows what is corrupt and what is not corrupt. Neither he nor anyone else has read the original autographs. Kurt is a charlatan.

Kurt shows his shallowness with his antiquated charges: there are two (or even four) creation stories; Christ’s geologies are contradictory; the events around His birth are in conflict; the resurrection stories are in conflict; Moses did not write Deuteronomy; Noah taking two or seven kinds of animals on the ark and the number of days the water was upon the earth; the question of David killing Goliath and many others.

Kurt tells us that unicorns did not exist even though the Bible mentions them ten times. It is really humorous to hear liberals deal with this subject. They seem to be clueless about the extinction of species since the beginning of time and all evolutionists agree with that. Unicorns could have existed and like the dodo bird disappeared long ago. Furthermore, a whole herd of unicorns could be found tomorrow grazing on a Peruvian mountainside!

Eichenwald may not believe much of the Bible but like all humanists, hedonists, and homosexuals he believes Jesus when He said, “Don’t judge” in Matt. 7:1. However, we are not to judge unfairly or without judging ourselves first. In fact, we are commanded to judge righteous judgment in John 7:24. Kurt is very careless with the context of his criticism.

Wonder if Eichenwald, in all fairness, will do a hatchet job on the Koran as he has the Bible. No, because he is a coward. He knows Christians are taught to turn the other cheek while Koranic Muslims are taught to behead critics.

(Next column: “Newsweek’s Hatchet Job on the Bible!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”