Comments on: Reporting on the Kansas Prayer Breakfast, Topeka Capital-Journal Covers David Barton Controversy

By: Bill Fortenberry

Bill Fortenberry — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:08:33 +0000

Richard, I’ve skimmed through the Enns essay that you posted, and it seems to rely very heavily (perhaps exclusively) on subjective speculations of what the author of Genesis may have been thinking about when he wrote certain phrases. All of the objections that Enns listed in his bullet points can be answered with equally subjective and equally valid explanations that are consistent with Mosaic authorship. For example, Bill Fortenberry has often written about himself in the third person and there is no reason to assume that Moses could not have done so as well. I am looking for something more comprehensive that includes archaeological evidence and evidence from other texts as well as internal textual analysis.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:08:33 +0000

@ Bill
Okay. I’ll do some research as time allows.
But you use of the word ‘subjective’ to describe ‘both sides’ views’ is appropriate. Neither side can be sure that their view is ‘correct’. My position (such as it currently is) would be that honest enquiry about the provenance of these texts helps us to understand how we should understand them (the texts). I start from my own belief that God/Jesus is not a ‘magician’ (he stayed on the Cross – no ‘magic tricks’ there!), but uses human agents and human history (and indeed human frailty) in order to communicate with us. We have nothing to fear from the Pentateuch being not written by Moses; if this is the case (as I believe it is – though I’m always ‘open to other suggestions’), then our faith need not be threatened by it. 🙂

By: Bill Fortenberry

Bill Fortenberry — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:08:33 +0000

I’m afraid that you may have misunderstood my previous comment. I am not saying that both sides only have subjective evidence. I am claiming that your position is only supported by subjective speculation whereas my position has subjective answers to those speculations as well as objective evidence to support it. I am trying to find out if you actually do have any objective evidence to support your position.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:08:33 +0000

Evidence unseen. Indeed.
But seriously, I’m not convinced, especially by the responses to some of the ‘objections’. Of course, parts of what became the Torah existed long before the Exile through the oral tradition and probably also in writing, but the actual compilation of the Torah (which I think most agree was written as a single text) is widely judged to have taken place during and after the Exile.
Many bible verses that might be used to ‘claim’ early, Mosaic authorship can also be interpreted in other ways. Remember that the cultures during these periods were probably nothing like as ‘literalists’ about things as us ‘modern westerners’; allegory played an important part in their dialectic, as it does in many cultures to this day.
I find the arguments against early, Mosaic authorship more persuasive than those for it. But, in a sense, Bill, it ultimately doesn’t really matter: it’s a Person (the Word of God) we worship, not a (set of) book(s).

By: Zoe Brain

Zoe Brain — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:07:35 +0000

Bill Fortenbury wrote:

Most of the Bible was written long before the Roman Republic was formed.

The Pentateuch was first written down around the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian Captivity, IIRC
Traditionally, the Roman Republic dates from the overthrow of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (AKA Tarquin the Proud) in 509 BC.
The Senate traditionally dates from before then, from 753 BC, contemporary with the oldest known written works of the prophets.

By: Bill Fortenberry

Bill Fortenberry — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:07:34 +0000

Ken,
The nobles of ancient Israel were not noble by birth but rather by position. They were akin to our senators and representatives in that they were chosen from among the common people. Thus, Ecclesiastes 10:17 is not a command for the king to be of noble blood but rather an observation that the nation benefits when her king has his father’s experience in government to aid him in his decisions.

By: Jon Rowe

Jon Rowe — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:07:34 +0000

Ken,
That’s true. You don’t see the concept of “republicanism” explicitly discussed anywhere in the Bible. You have to “read” it “in” there. The concept of Kingdom on the other hand IS explicitly discussed and seemingly endorsed in the Bible (Jesus has, according to the Bible, a “Kingdom” of Heaven not a “republic” of Heaven). Though, a lot of interesting and notable thinkers and figures of the past who argued the case of republicanism DID try to “find” it in the Bible by reading it in there.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:07:34 +0000

Bill Fortenberry says:
March 29, 2013 at 10:58 am
“Ecclesiastes 10:16 says: “Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child,””
and 10:17 says: “Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles,”
I.e. the king should come from nobility.

By: Bill Fortenberry

Bill Fortenberry — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:07:34 +0000

Jim,
I have never claimed that the Constitution was transliterated from the Bible, nor have I ever claimed that the founders only considered the teachings of the Bible in their deliberations. I agree with you that the founders consulted many other sources of information such as the Greek and Roman histories as well as the histories of dozens of other civilizations. Where I disagree with you is in your claim that they consulted these histories independently of the Bible. This claim is not supported by the writings of the founders. Consider the following example from John Adams as an example:
“I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.” [Adams, Charles Francis, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 10, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1856, pg 45]
According to Adams, the general principles of Christianity can only be supported and never disproven even through the study of writings intentionally written in opposition to those principles. Thus, when we find Adams quoting from these sources, we cannot take those quotes as evidence that he consulted them independently of the Scriptures. Adams himself has assured us that he believed the principles of Christianity to be eternal and immutable. In fact, he later wrote:
“I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my Straitened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have Seen: and Such Parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future Investigation.” [Adams, Charles Francis, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 10, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1856, pg 85]
Obviously Adams did not consult the histories of other nations independently of his study of the Bible, but can we conclude that this practice was adopted by other founders? According to Adams, we can. In the preface to his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, he wrote:
“It can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol 1, Philadelphia, 1797, pg xv]
As part of his defence of the American form of government, Adams made reference to many passages of Scripture and drew conclusions such as:
“To expect self-denial from men, when they have a majority in their favour, and consequently power to gratify themselves, is to disbelieve all history and universal experience; it is to disbelieve Revelation and the Word of God, which informs us, the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 289]
And:
“In the institution of government it must be remembered, that although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 363]
These and many other statements from Adams reveal that he recognized a biblical foundation upon which the American legal system was built. But we need not focus only on Adams. We could turn to a number of other founders and find similar statements. James Madison, for example, wrote that:
“The belief in a God, all powerful, wise, and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world, and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources, nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it.” [Madison, James, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. 3, J. B. Lippincott &Co., 1865, pg 503-504]
And a few days later he also wrote:
“I concur with you at once in rejecting the idea maintained by some divines, of more zeal than discretion, that there is no road from nature up to nature’s God, and that all the knowledge of his existence and attributes which preceded the written revelation of them was derived from oral tradition. The doctrine is the more extraordinary, as it so directly contradicts the declarations you have cited from the written authority itself.” [Madison, James, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. 3, J. B. Lippincott &Co., 1865, pg 505]
These statements reveal to us that Madison, like John Adams, understood that studying multiple sources of information would only serve to strengthen the validity of the teachings found in the Bible.
One of the clearest examples of Madison’s recognition of the Christian principles undergirding our government can be seen in his statement regarding religious freedom. There we find him writing:
“The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S. They have the noble merit of first unshackling the conscience from persecuting laws, and of establishing among religious sects a legal equality. If some of the States have not embraced this just and this truly Xn principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened States of the old world may be instructed … Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Ceasar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put assunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.” [Alley, Robert S., James Madison on Religious Liberty, Prometheus Books, New York, 1985, pg 89-90]
It is clear from this statement that Madison, like the Baptists who influenced him, based his concept of religious freedom on the teachings of the Bible. This sentiment is repeated in his Memorial and Remonstrance where we read:
“Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we believe to be of Divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man.” [Madison, James, A Memorial and Remonstrance on the Religious Rights of Man, S. C. Ustick, Washington, 1828, pg 5-6]
And later in that same Remonstrance, he argued that a particular bill should be voted down because:
“The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity.”
Once again, we find an example of one of our founders basing his position in regards to proper government on the teachings of the Bible rather than on a mere examination of history. We could go on. I have already mentioned Benjamin Franklin’s statement regarding the scriptural requirements for rulers, but let me provide a little more detail of the context of that statement.
Addording to Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention, Mr. Pinckney proposed that there be a minimum property requirement for elected officials. Madison recorded Dr. Franklin rising up in strong opposition to this idea. He wrote:
“Doctor Franklin expressed his dislike to everything that tended to debase the spirit of the common people. If honesty was often the companion of wealth, and if poverty was exposed to peculiar temptation, it was not less true that the possession of property increased the desire of more property. Some of the greatest rogues he was ever acquainted with were the richest rogues. We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness. [This statement actually is a direct quote from Exodus 18:21] This Constitution will be much read and attended to in Europe; and if it should betray a great partiality to the rich, will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men there, but discourage the common people from removing to this country.”
After Franklin was finished, Madison tells us that “The motion of Mr. Pinckney was rejected by so general a no, that the States were not called.” Dr. Franklin specifically chose to rely on a reference to Scripture to prove his point, and when he did so, he very effectively ended the debate on that subject.
We could go on again and consider the claim of Gouverneur Morris that:
“This hour of distress will come. It comes to all, and the moment of affliction is known to Him alone, whose divine providence exalts or depresses states and kingdoms. Not by the blind dictates of arbitrary will. Not by a tyrannous and despotic mandate. But in proportion to their obedience or disobedience of his just and holy laws. It is he who commands us that we abstain from wrong. It is he who tells us, ‘do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you.'” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 465]
Clearly, this founder understood that the fate of our nation was dependent upon our obedience to the “just and holy laws” of God. And this was not an isolated sentiment of Mr. Morris. He expressed it often in his writings stating at one time that:
“It is justice, says the book of wisdom, which establisheth a nation. A view of Europe would naturally lead a pietist to apprehend, that the Almighty had prepared a scourge for the abominations, which prevailed among the people.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 236]
And in another place:
“You may perhaps take a wider range, and ask whether this principle would not operate injuriously, by depriving the government of pecuniary resource, when engaged hereafter in a war not only just but unavoidable. to this I reply, in the language of Holy Writ, ‘thou shalt not do evil that good only just may come of it.'” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 286-288]
And yet again we find him writing:
“I do, not, my dear Sir, look westward for the sunrise of freedom. My eyes are turned to, and steadily fixed on the east. My trust is not in a President, Senate, and house of Representatives, but in Him who governs empires, the world, the universe.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 302]
The veneration which Mr. Morris had for the Christian religion can be seen in his comments on the failures of other governments such as this statement about Frederick the Great:
“Frederick the Great was, in one respect, a very little and shortsighted politician. His vanity led him to sacrifice the power and safety of his successors to purchase the incense of a few wits, who had undertaken to destroy the Christian religion; and here that has happened which is written; ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, which have set the children’s teeth on edge.’ The destruction of religion has loosened the bonds of duty, and those of allegiance must ever be weak, where there is a defect both of piety and morality.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 214]
And in reference to the French Revolution, he wrote:
“Lastly, it is a duty to God. It is to his high Tribunal, that the monarchs of the earth must render a solemn account of their conduct; and he requires of them, that it be regulated by the principles of truth and justice, which alone endure forever, and which forever establish the peace and prosperity of empires.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 2, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 523]
I could go on and on and on. Time does not permit me to delve into Hamilton’s statements regarding Christianity and the French Revolution. I will simply point out that his view was identical to that which we have just read from Morris. And I will have to wait until a later time to give even a brief overview of James Wilson’s statements regarding the Christian foundations of our nation. I will merely content myself for now with conveying his emphatic statement that “Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.” And of course, I cannot mention that statement without also pointing out his claim that: “Christianity is part of the common law.” This meager posting will have to suffice for now, but let me assure you that there is much, much more that could be presented.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:07:34 +0000

FTR, Tom Paine argues in Common Sense that God was quite insulted when the Hebrews asked for a King. What am I? Chopped Liver?
“In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion…Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom…
…
“”…your fields and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shell have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY.””
—Paine is quoting 1 Samuel 8 in the second part there. That the Americans used the Bible against monarchy is a supportable claim.
“by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin…”
No kidding. The impious and impudent deist Tom Paine likening the Hebrew call for a king to original sin. Those were funky times.
The Reformation was preceded by the discovery of America: As if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.

Tom Paine arguing God Hisself may have designed America to be a Christian nation, a Protestant one at that. No folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
[We actually you can, but I didn’t.]
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/01/by-tom-van-dyke-perhaps-most-amazing.html