Critiquing: How Would Persecuted Christians Have Understood Psalms Promising Protection and Rescue?

November 30, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Interpretation of Promises — Alleged Contradictions — Historical Integrity — Scriptural Additions — Textual Criticism

---

Introduction

The content from November 30, 2023, by #STRask – Stand to Reason, examines how persecuted Christians might have understood Psalms that promise protection and rescue. It also addresses potential contradictions in the New Testament and concerns about the historical integrity of the Bible. The analysis aims to critique the logical coherence of the content without referencing religious texts, focusing on logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims.

Interpretation of Promises

Contextual Understanding

The content suggests that persecuted Christians would interpret promises of protection and rescue in Psalms as poetic generalizations rather than literal truths. This perspective attempts to reconcile apparent discrepancies between the promised divine protection and the actual experiences of persecution.

“I have to remind myself the genre of what I’m reading, which is wisdom literature… what we’re not going to get out of this genre… is kind of a literality out of it.”

While it is reasonable to consider genre when interpreting texts, the argument hinges on the presupposition that the intended meaning is non-literal. This interpretation lacks direct evidence from the Psalms themselves that the promises were meant metaphorically, leading to potential confirmation bias—interpreting the text in a way that supports existing beliefs.

Eschatological Perspective

The content posits that the ultimate deliverance promised in the Psalms refers to eschatological salvation rather than immediate rescue.

“In the final measure, we are going to be delivered… it’s a promise of the ultimate end of the righteous.”

This approach resolves immediate contradictions by shifting the fulfillment of promises to an undefined future, which is unfalsifiable and therefore not subject to empirical verification. This leads to the issue of special pleading, where the explanation requires an exemption from the standards of evidence applied to other claims.

Alleged Contradictions

The discussion on whether Jesus’ statements about persecution and safety are contradictory is handled by proposing that the language used is equivocal.

“If what he means there is perishing ultimately… then there’s no contradiction.”

This explanation introduces the concept of equivocal language to resolve the contradiction but does not provide a robust mechanism for determining when language is being used equivocally versus univocally. This reliance on semantic ambiguity undermines the clarity and consistency of the argument.

Historical Integrity

Burden of Proof

When addressing claims that the Bible has been added to over the years, the content asserts that the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

“The person who makes the controversial claim is responsible for giving reasons why I think it’s so.”

This is a sound principle in logical discourse. However, the subsequent discussion reveals an inconsistency when it acknowledges that certain additions, like the extended ending of Mark and the story of the adulterous woman in John, are known to have occurred. This admission weakens the initial stance and introduces a need for greater transparency and consistency in acknowledging textual variations.

Textual Criticism

The content relies on textual criticism to assert the reliability of the Bible, claiming a 99.5% certainty in reproducing the original texts.

“We are able to reproduce the original rendering… to a 99.5% certainty.”

While textual criticism is a valid scholarly practice, the claim of such high certainty requires rigorous substantiation. The content does not provide detailed evidence or sources to support this percentage, making it an unsubstantiated claim. Assertions of such precision should be backed by comprehensive data from multiple independent studies.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content are presented without adequate evidence:

• Divine Protection: The assertion that God provides protection and rescue, interpreted metaphorically or eschatologically, lacks empirical substantiation.
• Textual Reliability: The 99.5% certainty figure in textual reproduction needs more rigorous support.
• Eschatological Assurance: Promises of future deliverance are unfalsifiable and rely on faith rather than evidence.

The obligation to substantiate these claims is crucial, especially when they form the basis of significant theological and existential beliefs. Unsupported assertions can lead to overconfidence bias, where beliefs are held with unjustified certainty.

Testing Alleged Promises

To evaluate the promises of divine protection, one could propose empirical testing methods:

1. Historical Analysis: Examine historical records of persecuted Christians to determine if there is any correlation between faithfulness and miraculous protection.
2. Psychological Studies: Investigate whether belief in divine protection impacts resilience and mental health during persecution.
3. Comparative Analysis: Compare the outcomes of persecuted individuals with different beliefs to see if there is a significant difference attributable to divine intervention.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is essential to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. Claims should be proportional to the strength of their evidential support. For instance, extraordinary claims about divine intervention or textual inerrancy require extraordinary evidence.

---

Conclusion

The content provides a thought-provoking discussion on interpreting biblical promises and addressing potential contradictions and historical integrity. However, it falls short in several areas of logical coherence, relying on ambiguous language, unsubstantiated claims, and biases. For a more robust argument, it is necessary to provide clear evidence, address logical inconsistencies, and apply consistent standards of proof.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section!