Last year, Truth in the Trenches published a sermon on Luke 2 and “How Atheists get Christmas wrong.” For this article, I want to focus only on Luke 2:2 and follow up with the reason that they get Christmas wrong. Atheistic claims about Luke 2:2 are not obscure, nor are they only found in older sources. Richard Dawkins discusses this point, for example in his major work, The God Delusion. In review, Luke 2:2 is usually mistranslated. The Greek term “Protos” is better translated “before” rather than “first,” John 1:15 is usually translated this way, when it states “Because he was before me…” (http://apologiafides.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/luke-and-quirinius/)

So why don’t atheistic writers know about the problem with their translation? The answer is simply that they don’t spend the time necessary to find the answer to the question. Dawkins will remain our example. The chief criticism of the “The God Delusion” is that Dawkins has not performed the requisite reading or research to write a book of this sort; yet it has been published, regardless. Dawkins largely dismisses that charge by stating that he only needs to read the work of those theists and Christians who have taken the question of God’s existence seriously – yet he has not even performed the requisite research to fulfill this criteria. His citation of Luke 2:2 as an error in the Bible is evidence, if not proof of this point. After all, this type of information has been documented in works by Christian apologists for decades. Presumably, Dawkin’s work was peer reviewed or edited by other atheists (or if it was not, his credentials suggest that he should know about the necessity of peer review). Not only did Dawkins not find the problem with his exegesis on this point, but his reviewers also missed the point. Nor is this an isolated instance, Dawkins’ discussions of CS Lewis’ famous argument, or his assertion that the Nazi’s were Christian, etc. are similarly troubled. It is not simply a matter that a lack of serious work underlies this particular item in the atheist arsenal, but that a lack of research is a major part of the all of the atheistic arsenal. Atheists, in short, get Christmas – and much else – wrong because when they write about the Bible and about Christians, they cannot be bothered to perform the requisite work.   Atheists often claim to be smarter and more erudite than Christians and other theists, but this is mere propaganda.

If there is a flaw among Christians when it comes to answering the allegations of the ignorant, perhaps it comes down to accessibility.   I learned this fact from Nigel Turner’s work, and few atheists read Greek grammarians. Dawkins cannot be excused. In writing a book, he takes on the responsibility to be thorough in his research. But what about those who would rather read a thirteen dollar paperback book written by Dawkins rather than a library worth hundreds or thousands of dollars?   As Christians, then, let us all seek to be better prepared to defend and advance the cause of His truth.

One of the most memorable controversies of the enlightenment period was the Galileo affair. Galileo was accused of heresy because his observations indicated that the sun was the center of the solar system. The key to understanding this controversy is very simple: Thomas Aquinas had married Christian thought with Aristotle during the thirteenth century. When Aristotle’s astronomy was brought into question, Pope Paul V and others within the Western Church chose to ignore the data in favor of Aristotle’s theories.

In the modern days, it is those who claim to favor modern philosophical thinking, however, who operate in terms of Papal decrees. In modern times, atheists will dismiss arguments about the Resurrection, the Flood or anything else involving God’s stepping into history on the grounds of Hume’s argument against miracles: either arguing that because miracles are highly improbable, they cannot happen, or they will argue that the only way a miracle can be accepted is if the evidence is so overwhelming that it would require an infinite amount of evidence to establish, or other rhetorical games.

Throughout history, Christians have recognized numerous failures with the structure of Hume’s argument. The standard answers by believers include the statement that Hume tries to prove “too much”. Pamphlets have been written arguing that, according to David Hume, Alexander the Great could not have conquered the world, or that Napoleon did not exist. Others have noted that Hume’s argument is basically an exercise in begging the question. Hume’s argument is also based on an “overstatement” of the problems with eyewitnesses. Finally, as Hume’s argument has grown, it has mutated into a number of versions, many of which reveal that Hume appears to arise from an artificial dichotomy (belief in miracles is not necessarily contrary to belief in the existence of natural law; since Protestant theologians have long accepted natural law, we only argue that natural law comes from a divine Legislator. All of these approaches are basically correct. Hume’s argument is ultimately incredibly weak and appears to be accepted more for rhetorical reasons than an acceptance based on the facts.

But these approaches fail to address the key similarity I noted above: the practical ramification of the theory is that Hume’s argument against miracles is an argument about ignoring evidence of any specific miracle, on the grounds of a general doctrine (in logical terms, Hume’s argument against miracles in practical terms is an exercise in cherry- picking). In short, to atheists, Hume’s argument is “holy writ.” To avoid the ramifications of a miracle for their system of thought, they will therefore refuse to limit their discussions to the evidence. They invent theories that contradict the data. For example, one atheist has suggested that the tomb had a back door, despite the lack of archeological evidence for tombs with back doors, and despite the fact that the Apostles would not have knowingly endured torture and execution for something they would have known to be a lie. But, those of us who point out the contradictions are labeled as “irrational”.

The more I read of atheists, the more I am convinced: they are the true errors of Pope Paul V.

Richard Dawkins, one of the most recognizable atheists in the world, has recently stated “mild pedophilia” does not cause lasting harm (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/). This is not a new idea from Dawkins, he previously state that he felt that the Roman Catholic Church pedophilia scandals were blown out of proportion and stated it to be so, in his best-known work, The God Delusion.

As many Christians are already aware, there have been a number of issues within conservative Protestantism involving sexual abuse as well. Most recently, in the secular media, Bob Jones University is being questioned about its counseling policies involving sexual abuse, including the question of required reporting, and while the report from their ombudsman is not in, a number of allegations have been featured in the press. Sadly, there are a number of voices that have argued that this is somehow an issue that is intrinsic to Christianity, Fundamentalism or Protestant theology.

Yet, Dawkins’ statements remind me of an earlier series, which I addressed on our more technical site: a series entitled “The moral argument from atrocities” (http://apologiafides.wordpress.com/category/moral-argument-from-atrocities/), where I compared monstrous acts committed by atheists and by Christians (or alleged Christians) to as the question of were those who committed atrocities logically consistent with their beliefs. I would like to make the same comparison between atheists who commit sexual abuse and those who claim to be Christians committing similar actions. While Dawkins is not being accused of Sexual abuse at this time, his statements are analogous in a sense to the current scandals faced by some Christian counselors.

As noted before, if their professions are genuine, Christians who commit sexual assaults are inconsistent monsters. (https://truthinthetrenches.org/2014/03/04/do-sexual-assaults-by-professed-christians-invalidate-christianity/). That is, their monstrous acts are not consistent with their professions of faith (in short, they are hypocrites); the same would be true for those who fail to report sexual abuse (Romans 12). Sadly, this cannot be said for atheists who commit these kinds of atrocities, or the lack of wisdom in Dawkins words. While it would be a logical fallacy to say that atheism leads to sexual abuse (just as it is when people argue that Christianity leads to sexual abuse), it cannot be suggested that atheists are hypocrites on this point. If there is no ultimate morality, if morality is simply a system established by society to preserve the group, then no sin has been committed.

So, if we compare the questions surrounding Bob Jones University with the statements made by Richard Dawkins, then, if the allegations are ultimately proven to be true, Bob Jones, sadly, has not lived up to the beliefs, which they espouse. Richard Dawkins, however, is living up to his.