When Sammy fell
Lawrence and Nancy’s 3-year-old son fell out of his second-story bedroom window at 5:20 p.m. on August 14.
I sent a card a few days later saying I was praying, offering to do laundry, and leaving my phone number. The other night Nancy phoned and asked me to bring a gallon of 1 percent milk. When I arrived she was sitting calmly and reading a book about ballerinas to 5-year-old Matty, while little Sammy was upstairs more or less bubble-wrapped in a crib, chatting to himself, itching to play, and healing from a tidy crack through his skull—but otherwise expected to be fine.
Nancy walked me to my car and pointed up at his room. This is an old stone house with high ceilings, and the offending window was pretty high. Because I had already heard Sammy was doing well, I expected to see the obstacles that broke his fall and gave him a softer landing than any of us had a right to expect. Nothing. No branches, no dormer or other first floor protrusion, no convenient rhododendron, or even the minimal padding that a lawn affords; Sammy fell on concrete.
It was as if God went out of his way to make it clear that no one gets the glory on this but Him (with a tip of the hat to the angels).
Of course you might ask why, if God is so amazing, He didn’t stop Sammy from falling out in the first place. There you got me. All I know is that people were mobilized to pray and cook and watch Matty, and so it seems that God was giving lots of folks an opportunity to love in ways they wouldn’t have otherwise. And that’s the best I can do with that.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top50 Comments to “When Sammy fell”
But I’m not keen on being a Matty or a Lawrence or a Nancy in order to afford you (or anyone else, so don’t take it personally) “an opportunity to love in ways they wouldn’t have otherwise.”
How about you?
Report comment to moderator
There are so many ways God uses a near-tragic experience just like this one. Yes, it allows people an opportunity to show their love, care, and service. However, God also does incredible things like this for the purpose of his glory and for the strengthening of the people involved. Little Sammy now has an awesome, undeniable testimony of God’s work in his life– one that could be used both to strengthen Sammy’s relationship with his Creator and Savior and to witness to other people about God’s power. That in itself is amazing.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, but as he grows older, will he use it as a springboard for his witness? That remains to be seen.
Report comment to moderator
I was just listening to Eric Clapton singing Tears in Heaven this morning in the car. I read his autobiography over the weekend in which he talks about when this same thing happened to his four-year-old son Conor–only the boy fell 40+ stories and died.
Clapton went through a difficult time, of course, and as a result of that death made some signficant changes in his life–finally cleaning up his addictions, writing glorious music, beginning to pray and getting his life back on a positive course. When people congratulate him on the successful album he recorded that year, he thanks them and then says, “but go see my son’s grave if you want to know how much it cost me.”
Thank you for the reminder–the same one you’ve been giving us all week–to evaluate our lives and relationships in light of eternity. Loving one another and appreciating the people God has put in our lives really is the key to living.
I’ll pray for Sammy when God brings him to mind.
Report comment to moderator
I also hope someone has put window guards on Sammy’s window so it doesn’t happen again.
Report comment to moderator
Of course you might ask why, if God is so amazing, He didn’t stop Sammy from falling out in the first place.
Yeah … or why do only a small number of people — so small it looks like good luck to people who are not already predisposed to see miracles everywhere.
Here’s a question: If the boy’s family were any religion other than Christian, would you be attributing his lack of serious injury to the god or gods or force or whatever they happened to believe in?
Somehow I doubt it.
Report comment to moderator
I think it was Bob Dylan who said, in an interview, “The truth doesn’t need you to make it true.”
God is God and is in control whether or not we believe in him. Sammy’s lack of serious injury is due to God’s intervention, no matter which god or gods or force his family believes in or prays to. It doesn’t matter if their religion is Christian or not – God is still God and is still governing all things for his own glory and for the good of his people.
On a day-to-day basis, it can be very hard to see how things can work that way (i.e., for God’s glory and our good). In many cases, we’ll never know the end of each person’s story, so to speak. But over time it often is possible to see how God is working in people’s lives, even if we can’t understand why he does what he does.
Report comment to moderator
Steve: There is only one true God.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: There is only one true God.
uh huh. Tell that to the billions of people in past, present and future with very different ideas about that, and justify asserting that yours in the one true one and all of theirs are false.
Wave your book around and shout about hell. That usually works.
Report comment to moderator
People (however sincere) have all kinds of false concepts about God, but the God of the Bible has clearly revealed Himself and proven Himself to be the one true God.
Wave your book around and shout about hell. That usually works.
Steve, you’re all class.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: The God of the Bible is the God believed in by one group of people, who believe the Bible to be what you say. Nothing about that has been “proved.” People choose to believe it, or not.
Tell me what you believe, and I’ll listen respectfully, and when I disagree, I’ll do so respectfully. Tell me that what you believe is proven fact and everybody who disagrees is wrong, and insist that that is not just your belief but some kind of objective fact, and I will be somewhat less respectful. If you’re not going to respect the views of other people, there’s no reason they need to respect yours.
Report comment to moderator
I simply do not find posts such as this one convincing or moving. I do not find any discernable lesson or moral in the sudden death or sudden saving of any individual. Posts such as this come across to me as “heads we win,” “tails we win.”
Do non-believers it resembles believing the coin is standing on edge.
I am glad that Sammy lived and was not injured beyond recovery. I don’t think it had anything to do with God.
#4 I am glad that Clapton “cleaned up his act.” If the death of his son is perceived as God’s way of bringing this about, I am not filled with belief or inspiration.
#5 I agree.
#8 Your post is cogently brief. It makes it no more convincing to me than if it were as long as…say, the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
You got it right with “heads we win, tails we win”. With God, we always have hope and comfort, no matter whether we are currently suffering or not.
I fell 2 stories out of a tower when I was 11 years old. I shattered my arm, and when I regained conciousness everyone was asking me if I could feel my legs. I thought it was a stupid question; “what legs?” I thought, I don’t have legs. I couldn’t feel anything below my waist, but I was totally unconcerned about it. I guess I was still abit out of it.
When the ambulance arrived 40 mins later, I was beginning to regain feeling in my legs much to my Mum’s relief. Fortunately after months in a cast my arm is as strong as before, but bends down further than it used to. A fun trick to gross out the boys at school. Whether you recognise Him or not, I’m glad God watched over me and my spinal cord, looking back I’m even glad for the patience I learned watching all my friends swim all summer while my arm was in the cast.
After the sin of Adam and Eve, bad stuff happens down here to all of us at various times. Sometimes God delights to remind us of His love and sovereignty in cases like this little boy’s.
Report comment to moderator
This column is just more evidence that Christianity is a religion for women, children, and weak minded men.
Report comment to moderator
Contented Joy, I am glad that the results of your accident turned out as well as they did for you. The nature and reason for suffering is a mystery for all of us. I am fortunate (so far,at least) in not experiencing a great deal of suffering in my life. I just don’t find reasons or justifications for suffering that many here do.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G., you say, “Tell me what you believe, and I’ll listen respectfully, and when I disagree, I’ll do so respectfully. Tell me that what you believe is proven fact and everybody who disagrees is wrong, and insist that that is not just your belief but some kind of objective fact, and I will be somewhat less respectful. If you’re not going to respect the views of other people, there’s no reason they need to respect yours.”
So you’ll respect a statement as long as someone only says, “This might sort of, more or less, be true, or at least it’s what I kind of believe right now”? But what point is there in “belief” if it isn’t true?! Honestly, if when I die I find out the Bible isn’t true, then I’ve wasted my life. The Bible isn’t just something nice to “believe,” with “belief” somehow having nothing to do with reality. It’s something to believe in the sense that it is either true or false. Of course I believe it is objectively true, or I’d be an idiot to believe it. And since I do believe it is really and truly true, then I believe those who reject it and make fun of it are doing something more foolish than mocking a mama grizzly bear with newborn cubs.
Why should one “respect” views that are false? Respect the people who hold them, yes, which may mean being careful how I word something. But false views aren’t really worthy of respect. I get the sense that you’re saying, “Yes, OK, that’s true for you, but not really true for anybody else, so let them have the truth that works for them.” Life doesn’t work that way. If the Bible is true, eveyone on this planet will bow before God someday–really and truly. Our real, true Creator will be our real, true Judge–but meanwhile He has offered us a genuine Savior. None of this is mere opinion; it comes from God, who cannot lie.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. Should I “respect” such views as: “Jews should be killed,” “non-Muslims must convert or die,” “it’s OK to steal if you want something that someone else has,” or “black people aren’t fully human”? Of course not–they’re false and not worthy of respect. They are, in fact, evil. What we believe matters, and false views should be uprooted and publicly exposed, even mocked where necessary–never respected, unless you do not respect truth.
Good night.
Report comment to moderator
Tell me what you believe, and I’ll listen respectfully, and when I disagree, I’ll do so respectfully.
I make a simple truth claim (that there is only one true God), and in your response you say, “Wave your book around and shout about hell. That usually works.” How is that disagreeing respectfully?
Steve, we’ve been around this bend many times before. Let me ask you
this: When Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”, is He not respecting the views of others? When he says, “If you do not believe that I am the One I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins”, is He being disrespectful? How about when the apostle Peter claims, “There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved”; or when the apostle Paul insists, “For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity – the man Christ Jesus.”
One God, one way to God. If we could have been reconciled to God in any other way, then Jesus wouldn’t have had to die. His death and resurrection clearly reveal the fact that there is no other way to God. So no other religion or religious leader can bring us into a relationship with the one true God.
While it is certainly true that other religions and holy books contain truth, whatever is contradictory to the Bible is false. And only the Bible has been supernaturally confirmed to be the Word of God. It was written by prophets and writers who were supernaturally confirmed by signs and wonders.
When we as believers make such truth claims, we are making the same truth claims that Jesus and the New Testament writers made. As you say, people can choose to believe them or not. But don’t insist that making truth claims is disrespecting the views of others. You yourself make truth claims all the time.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Thank you for your very good thoughts here.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD and Tychicus: Both of your posts above are just what I’m talking about. You are insisting that your beliefs are not just what you believe to be true, but objective truth that everyone should see. And therefore, everyone who does not agree with you is somehow deceived or deceiving.
Spiritual matters are, by definition, unproveable. You’ve both made the choice to believe the Bible is the “word of God.” You believe it is God speaking about himself and therefore, true.
Cheryl, you spoke of things Jesus is recorded as saying, but the only evidence we have that the real Jesus of history ever said anything like that is that the author of the Gospel of John wrote it. Many fine and reputable scholars believe that the book was written decades after the event and the words written to express a specific point of view and put into Jesus’s mouth. Apart from your chosen belief, you have no evidence that that’s not just what happened. (Nor would the ancients have thought of this as lying the way we moderns do; that’s how mythologizing always happens.)
And that’s all fine. I do not share your belief, however. I believe the Bible was written by human beings, who were expressing what they believed or thought about God as best the knew how. And as such, I do not believe it is inspired or necessarily correct.
To me, that view is just as self-evidently true as yours is to you.
Report comment to moderator
Oops: Tyichicus made the statements from John’s gospel, not Cheryl.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: One God, one way to God. If we could have been reconciled to God in any other way, then Jesus wouldn’t have had to die. His death and resurrection clearly reveal the fact that there is no other way to God. So no other religion or religious leader can bring us into a relationship with the one true God.
You believe he died and was resurrected and that this shows there is no other way to God.
You believe. You do not KNOW. Yet you keep insisting that what you believe = fact.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: And only the Bible has been supernaturally confirmed to be the Word of God. It was written by prophets and writers who were supernaturally confirmed by signs and wonders.
Uh huh. How was this supernatural confirmation accomplished?
Warning: If your “proof” is that a New Testament book contains a story that seems to confirm something in an Old Testament book, it is not valid. Anyone can write a story claiming something. The making of the claim does not equal showing it to be true.
Also, if your “proof” is that a particular theological belief seems to conform to another theological belief .. like, Isaiah wrote about a suffering servant bruised for our transgressions and Jesus suffered and was crucified for our transgressions, that is a reading back into the older text and not proof of anything. If you don’t already believe that Jesus was crucified for that reason, it is not convincing, and if you do already believe that, you are not reading Isaiah with any objectivity.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Steve, through the years an awful lot of Jews (who have a bias against Jesus) have been convinced by reading Isaiah 53 and realizing it simply must refer to Jesus. So, basically, if non-objective people who were biased against Jesus tend to come to that same conclusion, it’s pretty safe to accept that interpretation, wouldn’t you say? Have you personally read Isaiah 53? I’d recommend it.
The Bible has been attacked from all possible directions (archaeology, history, textual criticism, and many more) and has always stood firm. Many, many people through the years have been converted in the attempt to disprove it. So again, those of us who believe it can confidently proclaim it to be really and truly true, and not just something we happen to believe that might or might not be true. (And BTW, other religions’ holy books do not measure up on internal consistency or on fitting the real world. I can confidently assert that the Bible is the one and only Word of God.)
And Jesus’ words were absolutely startling to the people to whom He spoke–no one would have made them up. Read the second part of G. K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man for a good look at Jesus through non-religious eyes. (But be warned that it isn’t an easy read; Chesterton is pretty deep at times.)
As Peter said to Jesus, “Where else can we go? You alone have the words of eternal life.”
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Cheryl…Jews are anti-Jesus? Better watch it before you get banned.
This nonsensical discussion following Adnree’s post reminded me of an old song they used to play on Dr. Demento.
Our baby fell out of the window
We feared that her head would be split
But luck was with her that morning
She fell in a bucket of shaving cream
Be nice and clean shave every day and you’ll always look keen
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Steve, when you say, “Spiritual matters are, by definition, unproveable,” I know of no orthodox theologian, apologist, or wordsmith who would accept such a “definition.” Spiritual matters aren’t some mysterious other category of life from everyday matters. Read Francis Schaeffer, Nancy Pearcey, or Ravi Zacharias to see thorough explanations of why one simply cannot say that religious truth is in some different realm separate from the real world.
Either Jesus really was born of a virgin, really did die for our sins, and really did rise again, or He didn’t. It makes all the difference in the world whether it really happened.
You keep trying to act as though we have one standard of “proof” for knowable things and a different standard of proof for spiritual things. NO. It doesn’t work. Granted, there’s poetry in the Bible. There’s figurative language. But when the Bible says Jesus rose from the dead, we are meant to understand it as a statement of truth, of genuine history. People can deny the history (though again, many have tried it and failed), but what people cannot say is that it’s “spiritual truth” and thus it doesn’t really matter whether it’s true in the same way as two plus two equals four. If Jesus didn’t really die, and really rise, there’s no “spiritual truth” about it, but a deceit and a lie.
Yes, we prove historical truth in a different way than we prove something in the lab. We have to have “faith” that George Washington existed. But history simply doesn’t struggle with whether people named Plato, or Jesus, or Moses really existed–these people are not historically debatable, but historically accepted. Real history–the same type that deals with other flesh-and-blood people like George Washington and Ronald Reagan.
I know that postmodernism wants to divide into different levels of truth. But it cannot be done. Historical information is either true or false, not “spiritual truth.”
Report comment to moderator
Yep, Night Train, the majority of Jews refuse to accept Jesus as their Messiah. You really didn’t know that? But Jesus Himself is Jewish, and indeed He did come as the Messiah and Savior–not only for the Jews, but for us Gentiles too.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I don’t think you get SteveG’s point at all. He’s not saying the resurrection story is “true for you”, or “spiritually true” and that’s meaningful.
He’s saying that “the Bible says so” is not proof, or evidence of truth.
If anyone is making the claim that there are different levels of truth, it’s you and Tychicus, who believe that because you believe the Bible is true, then the Bible is true.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, Cheryl and Tychichus, speaking of Jews, just yesterday The Village Voice published a long piece about the growing number of Jews in New York City and around the world who believe that their Rabbi Schneerson is the Messiah. He died in 1994, but they insist he didn’t. Before going into the synagogue the crowd parts so the Messiah can get to his favorite seat. They pray to him, and he answers their prayers. And they can show you from the Old Testament how he fits the prophecies of the Messiah to a T. In fact, that’s what they do – they go around evangelizing other Jews with the Good News that the Messiah has come. How is this any different from your Jesus story? They have “proof” – it’s right there in the Old Testament, plain as day, according to them. And they swear he hears and answers their prayers. I don’t see much difference at all. In fact, I’d say that this is pretty much how the Jesus story got started.
http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/586011
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, he is saying the Bible isn’t sufficient proof, and on some level that’s valid–although the Bible has been proven to be reliable and thus can’t be simply discarded as meaningless in the evidence game.
But he’s taking a step beyond that, and I’m addressing that as well. He’s saying spiritual truth is by definition unprovable–meaning it’s in a totally different category altogether (Francis Schaeffer’s “two stories” if you happen to be familiar with that). He’s saying it doesn’t even matter if the Bible is true, because it’s spiritual and thus not under the same laws. I’m saying that biblical truth is real history and does need to be held on the same level as anything else we study–if we can show it to be wrong, we discard it; if we recognize it to be true, we have to submit to it.
One one level, it’s “giving a pass” to religious truth to say it doesn’t even have to be proven, because it’s spiritual and therefore unprovable. So the unbeliever is being kind and letting the believer believe it, even though it can’t be proven. But it’s really saying, “It’s spiritual, and it’s your thing and not mine. So go ahead and believe it, but don’t ask me to.”
But Jesus claims to be the only Savior of everybody. He claims authority over everybody. “That stuff is spiritual and unprovable, and I won’t bother with it” is no excuse whatsoever. A person needs to grapple with whether it is true or false, not whether it is “spiritual” and off in some other world of unprovability.
Report comment to moderator
Have you grappled with the claims of Orthodox Jews that Rabbi Schneerson is the real Messiah?
Have you looked at their claims?
How can two groups with radically different beliefs both find the “proof” in the OT that their guy is the Messiah? And, given that, just how reliable can the OT be for that matter?
Report comment to moderator
NT, you posted this on another thread, and it’s being addressed over there. It’s not something to take seriously, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
When I was in high school I passed a class in Euclidean geometry. We had to construct “proofs” (for the “Pythagorean theorem, for example), using axioms and postulates. There was some rigor and discipline in the process that was appealing and perhaps useful. On the other hand, how useful the process was to finding meaning in life and to living one’s life in a decent way was unclear to me.
The use of the word “proof” in forums such as this seem quite a lot less rigorous than the procedures I encountered in my old geometry class.
I suppose I could have told my old math teacher, Mr. Dustman, that the Bible provided all the axioms and postulates I needed, but I doubt it would have gotten me a passing grade.
Report comment to moderator
#14 Night Train
This column is just more evidence that Christianity is a religion for women, children, and weak minded men.
I am reading an interesting book called Blood and Soil: A History of Genocide.
The author covers a lot of bases and a lot of belief systems, starting with the Greeks (Spartans) and the Romans (who did a number on Carthage).
As he gets into modern times, he visits Christians, both Catholics and Protestants. The Protestants worked over the Irish pretty well. The Catholics worked over the “Indians” in the Caribbean and Central and South America. Then the Protestants got going again in America and Australia.
Later on we get some Zen Buddhists in Asia. There’s Hitler (whatever kind of pagan he was) getting his ya yas out on the Jews.
He doesn’t leave the atheists out (at least the Communist brand of atheism) who did themselves proud in Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and finally Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
Just in time for recent times he drops in on Rwanda and (don’t want to leave Islam out) Darfur.
So, seriously, given Christianity’s excellent record in this regard (pretty thoroughly documented if not “proven” in this book) are you being properly unfair to Christianity? Some Christians may indeed be “girly men,” but some get their hands bloody enough to hold their own.
Report comment to moderator
What in God’s name are you babbling about?
Report comment to moderator
Schneerson wasn’t born in Bethlehem, as needed to fulfill the Old Testament prophesies… Jesus was.
Report comment to moderator
CJ: Schneerson wasn’t born in Bethlehem, as needed to fulfill the Old Testament prophesies… Jesus was.
There’s really no such prophecy.
Matthew (and later Luke) got the idea that the older scriptures made such a prediction from Micah 5:1-6.
It starts out promisingly enough: Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting….And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this man shall be the peace.
Sounds Messianic enough … until you read the next few words.
When the Assyrians invade our land
and break through our defenses,
we will appoint seven rulers to watch over us,
eight princes to lead us.
6 They will rule Assyria with drawn swords
and enter the gates of the land of Nimrod.
He will rescue us from the Assyrians
when they pour over the borders to invade our land.
Well, we’re certainly NOT talking about Jesus, then. The Assyrians were long gone by Jesus’s time. This is clearly an encouragement from the prophet that a leader will emerge IN THE TIME OF THE PEOPLE TO WHOM HE SPOKE who would deliver them from the enemy of their time … not of Jesus’s time.
This is like the Isaiah 7:14 “prediction” of a virgin birth which, even above the mistranslation of the Hebrew almah, describes a child born in the the time of the prophet and the King, and events that would happen while the child was still very young.
But since passages like this are the supposed “fulfilled prophecies” that Christian apologists often appeal to, we are told to pretend that they actually don’t mean what they say.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, per Isaiah 53: I’m well familiar with it. I think it is Isaiah’s idea of the Messiah. But what you keep not getting is that whether it refers to Jesus, and whether there’s even any truth to it all beyond the beliefs of people, is purely a matter of faith.
The passage talks about the servant bearing the sin of many, and of course that informed later Jewish thinkers among the early Christians as they sought to understand Jesus and concluded that that was what he did.
That is a faith statement, not a fact statement. If you believe that, then the Isaiah passage may be said to foretell it. If you do not believe it, then the Isaiah passage merely explains where the early church drew some of its ideas from.
Night Train is exactly right in #28: I am “saying that ‘the Bible says so’ is not proof, or evidence of truth.”
In #24 you say: The Bible has been attacked from all possible directions (archaeology, history, textual criticism, and many more) and has always stood firm. Many, many people through the years have been converted in the attempt to disprove it. So again, those of us who believe it can confidently proclaim it to be really and truly true, and not just something we happen to believe that might or might not be true. (And BTW, other religions’ holy books do not measure up on internal consistency or on fitting the real world. I can confidently assert that the Bible is the one and only Word of God.)
You have a history of confidently asserting things that are completely wrong, and this is no exception. In fact, those “attacks” you refer to (which scholars consider investigation, not attack) have revealed that the Bible is NOT historically accurate, archaeology has NOT supported all of its accounts and textual criticism HAS revealed a lot about the composition of some of its books, particularly in the Old Testament.
I expect you to deny it … your entire MO is to close your eyes and chant “is not” whenever confronted with an uncomfortable fact … but it is true nonetheless. The Bible is reasonably accurate about some things, completely inaccurate about others and in-between on the rest.
At #30 you say:
But he’s taking a step beyond that, and I’m addressing that as well. He’s saying spiritual truth is by definition unprovable–meaning it’s in a totally different category altogether (Francis Schaeffer’s “two stories” if you happen to be familiar with that).
The Christian says, Jesus is the Son of God. The Muslim says, Jesus was a great prophet of God, but Mohammed is the greater.
Both have books to support their claims. Both insist their books are shown to be reliable.
Go ahead show me how you prove that you are right and the Muslim is wrong. Not by saying “The Bible says…” because he’ll just counter with “The Koran says … ” and you’re back at square one.
He’s saying it doesn’t even matter if the Bible is true, because it’s spiritual and thus not under the same laws.
No, I’m not. I’m saying the Bible is not true, at least not all through. That does not mean the spiritual ideas within it might not be right, but it means the fact that they’re in the Bible does not give them automatically more weight than others.
I’m saying that biblical truth is real history and does need to be held on the same level as anything else we study–if we can show it to be wrong, we discard it; if we recognize it to be true, we have to submit to it.
You don’t do that though. You say, if it’s in the Bible it’s true, period. You may actually believe you can analyze it objectively, but your level of understanding seems to begin and end with Josh MacDowell. And if not him specifically, other pseudo-scholars of the same ilk.
You said: And Jesus’ words were absolutely startling to the people to whom He spoke–no one would have made them up. Read the second part of G. K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man for a good look at Jesus through non-religious eyes. (But be warned that it isn’t an easy read; Chesterton is pretty deep at times.)
Yes, I occasionally hear people say this. But it doesn’t wash. Jesus was a religious reformer and in fact, a lot of what he said is not so different from a long line of prophets before him who preached against religious formality and hypocrisy and in favor of the poor and downcast. Jeremiah and Isaiah sound a good bit like Jesus in places.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
So you don’t think Isaiah 53 prophesied the crucifixion, which was startlingly against anything the Jews expected to happen to their Messiah? The details of it (especially since it was written before crucifixion was invented) are quite staggering, and it has nothing to do with Christian predisposition to believe.
No prophet had ever said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” No prophet had ever said, “I and my Father are One.” No mere prophet would ever say, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” No, He was nothing like the prophets. The prophets said, “God says,” and Jesus said, “I say to you…” Very different indeed. The difference was enough to get Him crucified for blasphemy. But praise God, His Father disagreed that He was guilty of blasphemy, so we have a happy ending three days later…and this execution for blasphemy was turned by God (as prophesied) into the greatest sacrifice of all time. No, this was no mere prophet. This was God Almighty come to earth in human flesh and turning human history inside out and upside down.
I do indeed believe the Bible is true, and am thoroughly convinced of its trustworthiness. But no, I don’t expect anyone simply to hear that the Bible said it and thus it has to be true–but I expect an honest person, once convinced of its trustworthiness, to accept it as true. And I believe honest investigation will invariably lead one to that conclusion.
What biblical evidence has been disproven by any of those fields of study? I’ve heard of many times that skeptics have been astounded when Scripture has been proven, and certainly haven’t heard anything that brings the Bible into doubt. I mean, honestly, what I keep hearing is silly stuff like “Oooh, we found the bones of Jesus,” with no credible evidence whatsoever, splashed everywhere without peer review (and then quietly discredited). Field after field has done that nonsense (pre-human ancestors, the age of the Bible disputed, archaeological or historical points questioned)…yet in detail after detail, the Bible triumphs. If you have some stunning news you’re sitting on, I would be interested in hearing it, because in every dispute in my lifetime (and many I’ve heard of before that) the Bible has won.
And no, Muslims and Christians don’t have this neat little debate where everything is tied. For one thing, the Koran has definite falsehoods about Jesus. And the very fact that it claims Muhammad was greater is enough reason to call it false–Jesus changed all of history. Muahammad was a prophet who mattered only to followers of his own religion–less significant than Moses by far, and certainly less significant than Christ. It’s a religion that broke away from more or less Judeo-Christian roots, but it doesn’t teach truth. To be honest, I don’t know as much about it as I should, but it is a demonstrably false religion, and only its violence makes it any threat at all to Christianity. But this discussion isn’t about Islam, and I haven’t studied it in detail, so that’s enough on that.
Where have you or anyone proven the Bible wrong (and I don’t mean a petty little translation detail like how many soldiers were in a given battle, I mean faith-shaking stuff)?
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: And no, Muslims and Christians don’t have this neat little debate where everything is tied. For one thing, the Koran has definite falsehoods about Jesus. And the very fact that it claims Muhammad was greater is enough reason to call it false–Jesus changed all of history. Muahammad was a prophet who mattered only to followers of his own religion–less significant than Moses by far, and certainly less significant than Christ.
Oh, so the Muslim is proved wrong because he doesn’t agree with what you believe about Jesus.
Have you ever taken a course in elementary logic?
As far as changing all of history, have you not noticed that Islam has become a major world religion that has also been changing history since it started?
You just are not willing to see this objectively. Everything that gets brought up to you, you twist through your “the Bible is always true” filter. Of course nothing can disprove any part of the Bible to you because you’ll just continue to insist you’ve never seen anything that does.
“is not is not is not”
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: Not that I expect it to make a dent in your stubborn belief, but here is one good article about archaeological finds that disprove some stories in the Bible.
An excerpt:
As Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a journalist who specializes in biblical and religious subjects, point out in their recent book, The Bible Unearthed, the patriarchal tales make frequent mention of camel caravans. When, for example, Abraham sent one of his servants to look for a wife for Abraham’s son, Isaac, Genesis 24 says that the emissary “took ten of his master’s camels and left, taking with him all kinds of good things from his master.” Yet analysis of ancient animal bones confirms that camels were not widely used for transport in the region until well after 1000 B.C. Genesis 26 tells of Isaac seeking help from a certain “Abimelech, king of the Philistines.” Yet archaeological research has confirmed that the Philistines were not a presence in the area until after 1200 B.C. The wealth of detail concerning people, goods, and cities that makes the patriarchal tales so vivid and lifelike, archaeologists discovered, were reflective of a period long after the one that Albright had pinpointed. They were reflective of the mid-first millennium, not the early second.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
Interesting that (apparently) you believe I have more “stubborn belief” than you do. Unfounded, but interesting. I copied the article to read after I finish my deadline–it’s 12:30 and my workday isn’t done yet, so I have no time tonight. I subscribed to Harper’s for many years–very good magazine (or at least it was, haven’t read it in years other than an issue or two), but hardly unbiased.
“Oh, so the Muslim is proved wrong because he doesn’t agree with what you believe about Jesus.” Nope, didn’t say that. But the Muslim is proved wrong by his assertion that Jesus didn’t die and come back to life, because that is vindicated by history, and by his assertion that Muhammad is greater than Jesus, because that is denied by history. If I were an expert, and had any desire at all to discuss another religion, I could name multiple additional points, but those two are enough to rest my case without relying on the Bible.
No, I’ve never actually taken a course in logic–have you?
Report comment to moderator
Steve and NT,
I find it difficult to fathom how anyone can seriously read and study the Bible and not conclude that it is the inspired Word of God. However, I Cor 2:14 helps me to understand why that might be:
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
When I think of what you guys share concerning spiritual issues on this blog, I often think of the words of Jesus at the end of the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:31):
“If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.”
In other words, if they won’t listen to the Word of God, even a miracle as dramatic as a resurrection will not stir their hearts.
Report comment to moderator
I won’t speak for SteveG, but when it comes to me, you’re way out of line. I was a fervent evangelical believer for well over a decade. I was persuaded. I did receive the things of the Spirit of God. My faith was strong, real, and fervent.
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
Report comment to moderator
NT: I know that you’ve shared that before. I’m speaking about your attitude toward spiritual things now that comes through in what you write to people on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
See Cheryl, that’d just what I mean. History can show that many people believe Jesus died and returned to life, and that they did so relatively early on, but that’s it.
You state your belief as if it were proven fact, then argue that someone with another belief is proveably wrong based on your belief.
There are two reasons why the standard of proof is important:
1. Adherents of Christianity insist that the fate of everyone’s soul rests on their believing in Christ’s resurrection, while adherents of other, conflicting, religions make the opposite argument. (It’s not true that you necessarily lose nothing if you believe and are wrong, as Pascal erroneously argued. If you believe and are wrong and the Muslims are right, your soul is in serious peril.. precisely the same claim you’d make regarding them.)
Because the stakes are so high, at least according to believers in exclusion, the standard of proof must be as high as possible.
Secondly, Christ’s resurrection is a miraculous event. Pleas that it is as well attested to as Ceaser’s crossing the Rubicon or other more mundane events fail because there’s nothing extraordinary about those claims. People cross rivers every day. They don’t come back from the dead very often. So if you claim it, it’s perfectly reasonable for those who are skeptical to want more proof than they’d demand for a more ordinary claim.
Report comment to moderator
Secondly, Christ’s resurrection is a miraculous event. Pleas that it is as well attested to as Ceaser’s crossing the Rubicon or other more mundane events fail because there’s nothing extraordinary about those claims. People cross rivers every day. They don’t come back from the dead very often. So if you claim it, it’s perfectly reasonable for those who are skeptical to want more proof than they’d demand for a more ordinary claim.
Completely fair. But clearly something completely extraordinary did happen two thousand years ago, and clearly it changed all of history. And many, many people have been converted as they’ve attempted to disprove the resurrection. As I’ve stated, I’m not a historian and cannot begin to prove it. But if you study it yourself, you will find that the evidence is generally seen as overwhelming. That’s enough for me. More than that is between you and God, not you and me. The stakes are high indeed.
Report comment to moderator
#14 NT
This column is just more evidence that Christianity is a religion for women, children, and weak minded men.
#34 RN
Assorted babble about mass killing, some done on Irish, Indians, and Australian aborigines by Christians, evidently demonstrating they were not “women, children, and weak-minded men,” or at least no more so than other groups who do mass killings. I just didn’t think you were being fair to Christians. Sometimes they whine; sometimes they kill; sometimes they do good.
Though I am not sure (#35) what God’s name has to do with it.
Report comment to moderator
The stakes are very high indeed.
Indeed. If I were going to invent a religion, I would be inclined to tell adherents that everyone in the world is being held hostage because of a crime committed long ago. Everyone is guilty, but a sacrificial lamb died to free everyone from their guilt, and the price is not that high: just believe and ceaselessy worship the sacrificial lamb. Of course, every hostage who doesn’t pay the price burns in Hell forever and forever. So every believer has to become a salesman and saleswoman and desperately save as many hostages as they can.
As you can see here, there are no more dedicated sales people than the ones who believe this sales pitch.
Unlike Night Train, I wasn’t raised from an early age being basted constantly in this basting sauce, so I don’t spout it very well. Perhaps he can state it better than I do. But that’s the way it comes across to me.
I think Steve has done a pretty good job on desconstructing the “Bible proves the Bible is true” sales pitch, so I don’t have much to add to what he said.
I will say that the idea that existence continues after our death strikes me as completely incoherent and nonsenical. It’s another terrific sales pitch because no one ever returns to say, “I want my money back” or “I want my life I spent Bible thumping” back.
Report comment to moderator
Hey Andree,
Have you received an update on Sammy’s condition? I hope that he is fully recovered, please let us know how he’s doing.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!