Errors in AronRa’s “Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism”
YouTube user AronRa has made a wonderful video series called Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. I must commend AronRa for making a well-produced series of brief videos that clearly expose the double standards, bad science, ignorance, and deceit inherent to all forms of Creationism. Great stuff.
But there are a few errors in it, and I’d like to clarify them.
The strange thing is that AronRa could fix or remove all these errors and it wouldn’t affect his argument one bit. They are totally unnecessary errors.
Anyway, here are some errors that jumped out at me.
1. Video 2, at 5:03. “Christianity began with the Gnostic faith, and then the Docetics, and Ebionites, and their completely different perspectives of Jesus were eventually combined into a kind of compromise called Orthodoxy.”
Response: No. The earliest evidence we have for Gnostic Christianity, Docetism, and the Ebionites comes from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Paul’s letters, which represent Orthodox Christianity, come from the mid-first century. And certainly, the later forms were not combined to create Orthodox Christianity. Such a combination would look nothing like Orthodox Christianity.
2. Video 2, at 5:46. “The rest of what became the New Testament was canonized in the 4th century in a series of committee decisions at a convention at Nicea.”
Response: No councils decided the canon. Their main concern was to resolve issues of Christology. The New Testament canon was formed over hundreds of years. Many leaders proposed their own lists of books. Eventually, one proposed by Athanasius became accepted, especially after Augustine endorsed it.
3. Video 2, at 6:37. “[The Christians] opted to remove more than a dozen books from the Bible even though they were still referenced by other books they chose to include.”
Response: There are at least 30 books referenced in the Bible that have since been lost. But that’s not because Christians “removed” them from the Bible. They are simply lost. Indeed, some of the lost books are Christian books. Update: I misinterpreted AronRa’s claim. Nevermind “error” #3.
4. Video 2, at 7:21. “We’re talking about people who believe snakes and donkeys can talk, who believe in incantations, blood sacrifice, ritual spells, enchanted artifacts, pyrotechnic potions, astrology, and the five elements of witchcraft.”
Response: Look up many of the verses cited by AronRa and you’ll find he’s just wrong. Numbers 5:20-26 says nothing about “pyrotechnic potions.” Genesis 1:14-15, Job 38:32, Isaiah 14:12-14, and Luke 21:25 mention seasons, stars, and planets, but they don’t endorse astrology. Matthew 12:32 and 28:20 don’t say anything related to astrology. Leviticus 14 is a strange set of rituals, but it doesn’t illustrate the 5 elements of witchcraft. Etc.
5. Video 2, at 8:10. “As a moral guide, it utterly fails, because much of the original Hebrew scriptures were written by ignorant and bigoted savages who condoned and promoted animal cruelty, incest, slavery, abuse of slaves, spousal abuse, child abuse, child molestation, abortion, pillage, murder, cannibalism, genocide, and prejudice against race, nationality, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.”
Response: Again, look up the verses. 1 Peter 3:17 doesn’t mention spousal abuse. Proverbs 13:10 doesn’t mention child abuse. Etc.
6. Video 3, at 5:43. “Throughout the Bible… Jesus always only ever described himself as separate from, and subordinate to [Yahweh].”
Jesus claims to be God in several places, mostly in the gospel of John. But even more verses testify to the idea that Jesus and God are separate and distinct persons, as AronRa points out.
And that’s about it! Otherwise, AronRa’s video series is great. Go watch it.
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I wish you hadn’t declared all these things to be errors without asking me about them first. I do concede your 5th point, that among all the other citations I gave, there were two that were typos and lead to the wrong verses. But that is the only concession I can make.
I wouldn’t argue your point #1, except to say that this how the professor presented the case in class. He has a Ph.D. in religious studies, and has even shown my video to subsequent classes! So the authority opinion in this case appears to be on my side.
Point #2 would still be correct had I said “BY the 4th century” instead of “IN the 4th century”. I included comments from Paul Meier, one of the foremost authorities on Biblical history, to explain in his own words how the canon was developed.
Point # 3 isn’t an error either, because –while I know that some books have indeed been ‘lost’, I’ve also seen several Biblical scholars commenting on the ways in which various Christians opted to remove, or simply not recognize other books still in the Biblical compilation.
Point # 4 may be a matter of interpretation. In the first case for example, Leviticus 14 details a component spell which must include an EARTHenware bowl, running WATER, a WOODen wand, LIFE/BLOOD taken from one bird and the blood carried by another bird through the AIR. While not universally accepted, these have been described by Wiccans as the five elemental points of the neopagan pentacle.
In the next case, Numbers 5:26 does say the priest must burn the accused wife’s offering on an alter. That is pyrotechnic by definition, and the burnt offering is an ingredient of the potion.
And in the case for Biblical astrology, Genesis 1:14 says the stars are to be “signs”. Job 38:32 further specifies “Mazzaroth” which directly refers to constellations which have no other significance other than zodialogical prophesy. Luke 21:25 further clarifies this by referring to the stars providing “signs” directly relating to, or heralding the distress of nations upon the earth. Matthew 12:32 and 28:20 are apparently mistranslated. The word often taken as “world” seems to have originally “age”, as in the “age of Aquarius” following the “Piscean age”. And Isaiah 14 is literally a criticism of Babylonian mythology wherein the part of Helel bin Shahar is played by the planet, Venus.
And finally, you presented a link arguing a few places where a strained interpretation might be misconstrued as a subtle indication that Jesus could be hinting that he was an avatar of God and thus the same essence as YHWH manifest in the flesh. While I admit that human authors of subsequent books certainly share your interpretation, Jesus himself neither said nor even implied that at any time anywhere. As I said in the video, Lord Krishna did claim to be an avatar of the Hindu Trimurti, and the “supreme personality of the god-head, an incarnation of Vishnu, thus unambiguously “god-in-the-flesh”. But I maintain that Jesus always only ever described himself as separate from, and subordinate to El/Abbah/Allah/YHWH. So Krishna definitely did claim to “be” the human form of the the very same god who created the universe, but Jesus not only never ever said anything like that, he actively denied any such association, and even warned his followers not to confuse him with YHWH! I won’t repeat that whole argument here as I think I had adequately presented my case in the video. I only wish you had paid more attention to that before declaring your judgement that I am “simply wrong”. AronRa
AronRa,
I appreciate your defenses. Also, please remember how great I think your videos are.
I’m sorry you wish I had contacted you first. I think of blogging itself as a conversation, so posting this WAS my way of contacting you. That’s how I feel about it, but I understand where you’re coming from.
Okay, about the points:
1. I’m not interested in arguments from authority. Show me some evidence for Gnostic Christianity that precedes evidence for Pauline Christianity and I will change my mind. But… there is none.
2. Your error was not in the timeline, but the process. The canon was not chosen by a “show of hands” at various Councils. Paul Meier says nothing about Councils deciding the Canon, or a show of hands. A simple glance at Wikipedia would fix this.
3. I think I misunderstood your claim. If you mean “failed to recognize,” then it is certainly true. Also, some early canons include books that were later rejected by the mainstream consensus. I thought you were claiming that there was a single Biblical canon around 300 C.E., from which certain books were later removed – like what would have happened had Luther succeeded in removing Hebrews and James.
4. I think your interpretations here are massive, unnecessary stretches, but we could argue about interpretation for days…
6. Again, it takes a bit of stretching to interpret “I and the Father are one” as meaning something other than a claim of divinity. For John, Jesus is divine – every scholar knows that.
AronRa, I’m not trying to pick a fight! I loved your videos and I’m surprised there weren’t more mistakes, because they’re quite dense with material. lukeprog
You’re quite right that blogging would be an adequate forum to address any errors found in my videos. I just wasn’t made aware of the blog. Neither am I upset by that. Unfortunately the tone of voice in which I write is rarely the one others read.
I also thought the Nag Hamadi library was adequate evidence that Gnostic/Docetic, and Ebionite forms Christianity preceded the Pauline version whjch seems not to have formed until several decades later. I have no desire to argue this point, nor to compare scriptural ‘interpretations’, for the same reasons you would rather not also. I will only say that while Christian doctrine may not have literally been canonized by counting the “ayes” versus the “nays”, that is the impression I got from the way Paul Meier described the actual “process”, in which the council largely followed common practice rather than the other way around. Whether it was democratic or not, the Canon still seems to have formed as an act of Congress.
However, once again, as I said in the video, there is one point where Jesus says that he and the father are “one”. But he also clarifies that he is referring only to their common mission, and that any of us could become “one” with the father just as he is. There are also many times when Jesus repeatedly warns his followers not to confuse him with the Hebrew god whom even Jesus worshipped and pleaded with in prayer. He even tells other Jews that they are gods too, and that they could do even greater miracles than he does, and that they should also do as he does and call no man father but YHWH, whom he describes as someone else, somewhere else, who knows things Jesus doesn’t know, and can do things Jesus can’t do. John and Timothy both seem to disregard what was otherwise a consistent position that Jesus himself maintained. As I said, in other earlier scriptures, Lord Krishna clearly and obviously did claim to be the supreme personality of the god-head, the source of all divinity incarnate, an avatar, and the self-same creator of the universe. But I am confident that no scholar can produce even one citation wherein Jesus says any of these same things. Further I would say that any interpretation to that effect from within the gospels would be directly contradicted by Jesus himself within a few verses both fore and aft. AronRa
Your comparison between Jesus and Krishna re: claims of divinity is interesting. Sounds like a great idea for a post, if I have time to do the relevant research! lukeprog
I agree. Have you thought about having a discussion with somebody like J.P. Holding(@ Tekton Apologetics) over that? It may be worthwhile. Yos
Hmmm… I dunno… lukeprog
The five elemental points in pagan rituals is air earth spirit water and fire.. The verse Aron Ra is referring to does not include Fire. Never-the-less it does talk about burnt sacrifices many many many times in the bible. atreestump
That was the most enlightened disagreement i have seen in quite some time. Polite, productive and a joy to follow. I can’t help wondering why those who claim to represent a moral high ground (many Christians) seem unable to represent their positions with such clarity and decorum. Rand