Reply to nytimes article

Reply to New York Times article: "Believe it, or Not" by Nicholas Kristoff 8/15/03

On August 15, 2003, Nicholas Kristoff wrote an Op-Ed article in the New York Times regarding his view of a growing divide between intellectualism and fundamentalist Christianity in particular. In this interesting piece, he chose to quote from a page on this web site, http://dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm and included a link to that page where it says: ""God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled and hanging chads may also be because of God's intervention on those who were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's choice." Kristoff's article, obtainable here (or here), implies that people who choose to believe the Bible at face value are a growing menace to current increasing intellectualism within the ranks of the enlightened ones who see the fallacy of deeply literal Christian Biblical direction for our lives.

There have been numerous emails to this site with many questions, often recurring questions. This page is an attempt to perhaps preempt some questions with reasonable answers.

The article opens with the comment: "So here's a fact appropriate for the day: Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)." Let us pause and consider the way this is portrayed. In a condescending manner, those who believe in the Virgin Birth are considered foolish whereas those who believe in evolution are enlightened, as are many in other countries. He assumes the Virgin Birth is ridiculous whereas evolution is factual.

Kristoff apparently believes individuals can either be intellectuals or deeply, fundamentally religious. Therefore, these two values must be on completely opposite ends of a continuum, thereby excluding even the remote possibility that one can be a deeply believing Christian and at the same time exhibiting significant traits of intellectualism.

In regard to the virgin birth, intuitively, if one believes in a God that made us, why couldn't one also believe that God could inseminate a chosen virgin without the use of a man? If we assume that these two could occur together, then the question becomes, is there evidence that God did use a virgin? Kristoff's 'forum page' mentioned this concern. The virgin birth becomes important when we consider if the scripture is truly inerrant, as these pages claim, or not. Kristoff contends that the correct definition of the term in Isaiah 7:14 is that of a "young woman" verses a "virgin". There is excellent evidence to the contrary of his opinion, probably enough to tip the scales favoring the idea that the term used did in fact mean a "virgin", confirming the existence of another fulfilled prophecy. Of course, we who believe the New Testament scripture as well, simply enjoy more evidence explaining our presupposition instead of plowing new ground. Even if the original meaning was "young woman", that does not negate that Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's conception. Taken from a truly intellectual friend, "virgin" appears the appropriate conclusion (see below).

The important thing to remember about Isaiah 7:14 is that the LXX (Septuagint) translators, who were themselves rabbinic scholars and linguists, translated the Hebrew word almah as "virgin" in two notable instances (actually, they used the Greek parthenos, which means virgin--remember that the LXX was a translation from Hebrew into Greek) in numerous instances throughout the LXX--and that was at least 200 years before the time of Christ, so it cannot be attributed to any pro-Christian bias on their part.

General comment: LXX translates almah by parthenos twice: Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14.

Genesis 24.43 (mv): "Behold I stand by the well of water, and it will happen: the almah comes forth to draw water, and I say to her...." COMMENT: This is Isaac on way to find a wife. Clearly means "virgin". LXX has parthenos.

Exodus 2.8 (mv): "And the daughter of Pharaoh said to her: Go. And the almah went." COMMENT: This is daughter of Pharaoh speaking to sister of Moses. Seems to be a virgin, since she is still living with her mother. LXX has neanis, another Greek word meaning "young maiden," but could sometimes mean "virgin." Are we forgetting that in some cultures, a young, unmarried individual would be assumed to be a virgin? Another form of the same Greek word means "young man," or "a youth."

Isaiah 7.14 (mv): "Behold the almah will conceive." COMMENT: LXX has parthenos.

Proverbs 30.19 (mv): One of the things the author does not understand is: "the way of a man with an almah." COMMENT: O. Kaiser, p. 155, thinks it doubtful that she is a virgin--gives no reason. Normally a man would want a virgin. LXX has en neotiti.

Psalm 46.1: Superscription includes (RSV) "a song according to Alamoth." LXX has hyper ton kryphion (hidden things).

Psalm 68.26: "the alamoth playing with timbrels". COMMENT: Probably means unmarried, part of procession of victory. LXX has neanides.

Songs 1.3 (mv): "Therefore do the alamoth love you." COMMENT: See Anchor Bible ed. p. 301-considers unclear. LXX has neanides.

Songs 6.8 (mv): "There are 60 queens, 80 concubines, alamoth without number." COMMENT: O. Kaiser, p. 155: "In Prov. 30.19 it is already doubtful that virginity is meant, that is certainly ruled out in Song of Songs 6.8." -But the girls are neither Queens nor concubines, and so most likely virgins. LXX has neanides.

1 Chron 15.20 (doubtful case; RSV translates): "were to play harps according to Alamoth". LXX has epi alaimoth (no accent on second word).

O.Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, p. 154: "The Septuagint translated it parthenos.... By contrast, the other translations into Greek made in Jewish circles chose the word neanis, perhaps with the intention of thus preventing the church from giving a christological interpretation of the passage."

The ancient Hebrew is best left to others, but the following evidence that the virgin birth occurred, we all could understand, if we care to consider it.

One of the most incredible piece of evidence that the scripture is inerrant is found with the virgin birth. One must absolutely love the way God orchestrated the Davidic covenant through history as seen below.

In this promise given to David, God unconditionally guarantees that David's house and his throne will last forever, obviously speaking of the Messiah to come thousands of years later to usher in rule forever. But we run into a terrible problem a few kings later with a very horrible king named Jehoiachin with whom God was furious because of his sins.

Obviously, it should seem, that God has now painted himself into a corner. Picture yourself as a Jewish scholar in Jeremiah's day trying to square the irrevocable promises given to David with the promise given to Jehoiachin that almost assuredly broke the Davidic promises. This is beyond man. God handled it well.

Another apparent contradiction in the scriptures comes in the Matthew and in the Luke accounts of the linealogy of Christ. By the way it is said in Luke 3, "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph (NIV)", indicating the account is actually Mary's lineage (Joseph's lineage is in Matthew).

So what? Watch this. If you go through the list of names, you find David in each. David's son King Solomon is in Joseph's lineage. David's son Nathan is in Mary's lineage. The Davidic covenant of the house (seed) to be established forever came true through Mary. She gave the chromosomes passed down from David. The 'seed' (house) came through Mary.

Joseph, as the adoptive father, through the lineage of Solomon, had the right to pass on the throne to Christ, his eldest (adopted) son. The virgin birth worked this out. This allows for God's later promise to Jehoachin that seemed to contradict the earlier promise to both be perfectly fulfilled. Only God can do this.

Shall we speak on evolution? As a scientist, there simply is insufficient evidence to consider this theory very reasonable for many different reasons. Evolution is actually losing some ground in the academic community since it is so unfeasable. The idea of "intelligent design" seems to be growing. Just for example, if evolution were true, there should be incredible numbers of the 'missing links' throughout the fossil record. Today, instead of seeing thousands of distinct species, we would find enormous quantities of fossils of inbetween forms, with even more overwhelming numbers of in between species that just couldn't make it. In evolutionary theory, millions of mutations are required to come up with distinct species from another, each requiring many false starts that ultimately would fail. These are not found. Further, mutations are rare and spurious, often lacking the ability to reproduce. We see none 'evolving' in our current existence, although it is a snapshot, but the fossil record contains only very specific species, many of the extinct forms are found side by side many that currently exist..

Perhaps we can consider the source. Darwin's book, commonly named "The Origin of Species" is actually only a part of the title. The full title is "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", first published in 1859. The man was a racist, in search of his own excellence above others. Ideas have consequences. A man who bought into the idea of survival of the fittest was the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietsche (1844-1900), who wrote "The Anti-Christ", pontificating on his extreme hatred of Christianity. He ends his Preface (as translated by H.L. Menchen) saying: "Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest? The rest are merely humanity. One must make one's self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul - in contempt." He goes further to say:

Nietsche was just a philosopher. He could be wrong here or there, it really doesn't matter. Wrong.

One of his fans was a person named Adolph Hitler who soaked up every word, personifying the Darwinian concepts of stonger races and hatred of Christianity and the Jews and embodied it to the peril of the world. Further, Margaret Sanger studied under Nietsche and bought into Darwinian concepts as well, embracing this to justify and endorse her grand concept of Eugenics requiring the need for abortion to save resources for people of her choosing. Yes, Planned Parenthood, and millions of abortions originated from ignoble origins (explored ad nauseum in a book "Grand Illusions" by Dr. George Grant).

Kristoff's contention that we may embrace moral values without a belief in God is worth considering. In a sense, man has been instilled with a conscience by our Creator, whether or not we believe in Him. The founders considered this the "Laws of Nature" as found in the Declaration of Independence. Arguably, though, homosexuality at it's core clearly goes against that which is 'natural'. Passing judgment on such a polarizing activity was not difficult in the past. Nearly everyone believed it was wrong. Today, some choose to perform late term abortions when the fetus/baby would be perfectly viable on it's own and the risk associated with the 'procedure' is perhaps even greater than the risk of delivering the infant would be to the mother's health. Quite a few are becoming more vocal for euthanasia.

Today our consciences have been seared such that more agree the above activities are acceptable. Further, as we have discarded the Bible as an anchor of truth, we discover ourselves struggling to find reasons to condemn such behavior (not indicating we should condemn the individual). Kristoff's belief is untenable in an ordered society that supposedly protects freedoms, especially those of the weak. Without the Biblical anchor, we find shifting values that have eroded our safety and have cost us with additional tax dollars to try to better protect us from evolving enterprising evils. It is a more dangerous country than when we were children. Man's morality without God's standard is greatly limited and fatally flawed when we factor in our natural tendency to sin.

Our founders knew this. Consider their own words, not what has been recently written by revisionist historians about what they thought.

Our nation was founded as a "Christian Nation" and because of this fact, it has enjoyed welcoming other faiths to come to our land. We welcome opportunities to reason with others regarding why we believe what we believe. Try to worship Christ in Saudi Arabia (penalty of hanging) or many other nations in this world. Many Christians are being martyred today for doing just that in Sudan, Indonesia, and elsewhere. True Christianity has no such hatred of others. Christ showed love and true Christians do so as well. What was so wrong with the founder's approach to the moral issues?

What we should be concerned with is not that the Christians would gain political power (GW Bush was God's choice according to the referenced scriptures, even though he was not the candidate with the most "Christian" values). Our votes for Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party - #1 issue was to end legalized abortion and who stood firmly on "Christian" values would best please God from His people as explored in these pages. God's reasons for President Bush are likely complex and include punishment, possibly some blessing, and/or turning us over to our own sins. These pages clearly do not seek political power since they point out the value of choosing someone who 'couldn't possibly win' and who 'doesn't have a seat at the table'

If you want to understand a reason why we should be concerned, then consider this.

Yes, if our nation doesn't repent, we are calling Almighty God to chastize us so that we quit exporting sin and claim Him at the same time. We are asking for terrible judgment upon us. This compels us to go to this effort to help awaken us (primarily the Christians) before our nation has completely fallen to God's correction. He often has allowed evil nations to punish His people when they stray.

Since Kristoff exposed these thoughts as ludicrous, perhaps it is of interest to know that there are many intellectuals who are Christians. For example, Phillip Johnson, the Professor at Berkeley's Law School and Dr. Ravi Zacharias are a couple of mental heavy hitters. The author of these pages? A Medical Doctor currently in private practice, trained in science, medicine, and public health with double board certification and fellowship training at a prestigious institution and some scientific publications as author. But the most pleasing thing is that I am "Born Again", something absolutely not deserved through my own merits but for which I have overwhelming gratitude.

The scriptures show tremendous consistency and truth through specific and detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled perfectly, including Daniel's prophecy hundreds of years before Christ that predicts the exact day Christ would be crucified. Faith is not simply emotional, it is based on the overwhelming evidence of God through His Creation, scriptural consistency, and predictions that are beyond man.

Finally, scripture does claim God's role in setting up and deposing the rulers. As mentioned before, this can be for punishment of a people who stray. Dr. Erwin Lutzer's book, "Hitler's Cross", explores why God would have allowed Hitler to rise to power, at least partially as punishment for the German people embracing the tyrant who promised, and partially delivered, economic prosperity in exchange for control over the churches who had such a great heritage.

In fact, the most horrific abuse of power in the history of the world was when the loving, perfect, sinless, Jesus Christ was wrongfully hung on the cross. This was God's will. It was God's way to save us, since He loves us. Therefore, God put Herod, the Jewish leaders, Pilate and Judas in the right place at the right time to fulfill His will and to allow for our salvation. Isn't it good to know that when we are punished it is because He loves us?

Unfortunately, there is some truth with Kristoff's very succinct point regarding a growing divide between religion and those who believe that scholarship and Christianity do not go hand in hand. It isn't so much that basic Christianity has changed, indeed God keeps a remnant. It is more that, in general, the American Christians today accept a weak faith and at the same time, anti-Christian individuals become more aggressive to those values that made this country what it is. When it comes to Islam, though, the Koran and Hadith teaches Jihad so the more moderate Muslims have no scriptural basis to stop their fellow believers from their hatred of others. This is a major problem when we find that Christians are told by Christ Himself to love.