NewsWEAK’s Lies About Christianity and the Bible


Hat tip for graphic:  Bible truth

It is time to write about NewsWEAK’s (Note: not a misspelling of the name of the rag because the author’s writing was very WEAK regarding the truth!) lies regarding Christianity and the Bible.

So…what should a Christian apologist do when faced with such lies?

Hat tip for graphic:


Such lies were handily refuted by Daniel B. Wallace in his excellent piece entitled Predictable Christmas fare: Newsweek’s Tirade against the Bible.

I also found a great rebuttal to the NewsWEAK article over at The Master’s Table.

Upon further research, I found an outstanding two-part  post over at Canon Fodder

The two essays (see part 1 and part 2 at the link) and the comments there (all 176 on the first part and about 64 on the second part) were all quite good and enlightening!

Hat tip for graphic:  Biblical proof 2012


I did share two comments at Canon Fodder, but they have yet to be released from moderation.

One of my comments there was in reply to “David W.” in the following portion of the comment thread:

Michael Kruger on December 27, 2014 at 4:22 pm said:

David, you repeatedly act like issues associated with “textual criticism and canon construction” are of no consequence. If that is the case, then why does Eichenwald spend so much time on them in in his article? Obviously he thinks they matter. Indeed, he thinks they are [a] way to discredit the Bible. More than this, why does Bart Ehrman spend so much time on them? Obviously, he thinks they matter. You seem to be the only one that thinks they don’t.

Your continual dismissal of these issues shows that you are not willing acknowledge the positive historical evidence for the Bible when it is presented to you. Instead, you just wave it aside as if its irrelevant.

Your repeated claim that a “plain reading of the Bible” will reveal obvious inconsistencies is simply false. Most of these so-called contradictions evaporate on closer inspection. Moreover, scholars since the very beginning of Christianity (e.g., Augustine) have provided answers for these things. It is interesting to note that you seem unaware of these answers. Can you cite a single evangelical scholar you have read and show that you have interacted with his explanations?

As for your claim that Jesus said he would return within the lifetime of his disciples, this also reveals a misunderstanding of the way eschatology worked within early Christianity. For a thorough treatment of this issue, see Ben Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World.

David W. on December 27, 2014 at 5:05 pm said:

I never said they don’t matter. I said they matter less than the other points he brings up. And no, scholars have not “provided answers for these things”. Even C.S. Lewis remarked that Mark 13:30 is the most embarrassing verse in the Bible before wrestling with it to an unsatisfactory answer. Scholars twist, speculate, presume, and outright make up explanations for the most difficult questions raised in the Bible. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest and I suspect you and every other Biblical Scholar knows that. Thank you for the link and I will include that in my reading this evening.

Michael Kruger on December 27, 2014 at 6:07 pm said:

But, you have never explained why they matter less. You just declared it to be so. The transmission and canonization of the Bible are very core issues, and scholars have affirmed this for generations. These are the issues both Eichenwald and Ehrman have raised. Again, you are the odd man out.

Your declaration that all scholars who have offered answers to these problems are “intellectually dishonest” and simply “twist” Scripture reveals an amazing amount of hubris. With a wave of the hand, you condemn all the explanations that have been offered for thousands of years of church history. And you do this without having really engaged these explanations on a scholarly level. A bit more modesty would be in order.


Dr. (and Professor) Michael Kruger certainly has the scholarly credentials to refute much of what Kurt Eichenwald (author of the NewsWEAK  article) wrote in his commentary.  Everything that Dr. Kruger wrote in the 2-part article and in the comment section was excellent!  But when I noticed the following claim made by commenter David W.:  “Even C.S. Lewis remarked that Mark 13:30 is the most embarrassing verse in the Bible before wrestling with it to an unsatisfactory answer.” I felt the need to share a little insight with him.

christinewjc on January 9, 2015 at 10:34 pm said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

David W.-
There is nothing “embarrassing” about Mark 13:30. You shouldn’t just take that one verse and claim what you want to perceive it to claim. You should take into account  the verses before and after that one in order to understand the context. In his commentary, David Guzik informs us:

b. This generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place: What generation does Jesus refer to? It cannot be the generation of the disciples, because they did not see the triumphant return of Jesus. It is undoubtedly the generation that sees these signs – especially the abomination of desolation. These events and Jesus’ return won’t be on some 1,000-year timetable, but will happen in succession.

i. It is also possible that the word generation can be understood as a race or people. This may be a promise that the Jewish race will not perish before history comes to a conclusion.

Oh…and just for the heck of it I will include this portion:

c. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away: Jesus’ makes the amazing claim of uttering eternal words. Is this not enough to establish His claim to deity?


The usual and typical arguments of those who object to the tenets of Christian faith, morality,  the need to repent of one’s sins at the foot of the Cross of Christ, asking Christ into the heart in order to be saved, and the judgment against those who reject Christ are heavily discussed.

Hat tip for graphic:  Words wall


Further down in the comment thread, I shared the following:

christinewjc on January 9, 2015 at 9:55 pm said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

As a “little Christian apologist fish” in a big pond of wonderful and highly educated and influential Christian scholars here, I must say that the discussion has been quite enlightening!

I plan to be back here to read all of the comments in this thread, but limited time tonight only permitted me to read through to Mr. Eichenwald’s and Mr. Kruger’s rebuttal comments. I must say that Mr. Kruger did a fabulous job of pointing out exactly why Mr. Eichenwald’s commentary was perceived as insulting and offensive to most biblically-based Christian believers in the Messiah – Jesus Christ.

Someone here may have already stated this in their comment(s), but I wanted to know whether or not Mr. Eichenwald understands that being a born again Christian – first and foremost – requires repentance of sins.

John the Baptist paved the way:

Mat 3:1

In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,

Mat 3:2

and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

Mat 3:3

For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying:

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the LORD;
Make His paths straight.’ ” [fn]

Also, notice the connection between the prophesy of Isaiah – written hundreds of years before John the Baptist and Jesus Christ were born.

After the forty days and nights in the wilderness (and satan’s ploys to tempt Jesus from His mission), Jesus declared:

Mat 4:17

From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Repentance is not a popular doctrine with the secular world, and telling people -“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” is even more unpopular these days.

Jesus told his disciples:

Mar 16:15

And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Most people are OK with the above verse. But the very next one showed that Jesus was not “politically correct” – as many people try to be today – regarding condemnation. This is often why Christian belief is often disdained, ridiculed, and labeled in a negative way.

Mar 16:16

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Even people who actually witnessed the risen Christ, refused to believe in Him.

Mat 28:17

When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

Therefore, as Christians we realize that not everyone will be willing to believe in Jesus Christ. All that we can do is share the Gospel – the rest is up to the Holy Spirit of God; knocking on the door of the hearts of the unsaved.

There will always be those who take offense at Christians for honestly sharing the true Gospel of Christ. However, we need to continue to heed what Jesus said after His Resurrection and just prior to His Ascension back to the Father in heaven:

Mat 28:18

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Mat 28:19

“Go therefore [fn] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mat 28:20

“teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. [fn]


I hope that my comments weren’t outrightly rejected. I hope that the blog administrator just has not had the time to release new comments today.

It would take a lot of time, but reading through all (or most) of the comments there (and the two additional links shared at top of page) will provide quite a Christian apologetics lesson for readers!

Hat tips:

  1. Daniel B. Wallace
  2. The Master’s Table
  3. Canon Fodder

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “NewsWEAK’s Lies About Christianity and the Bible”

  1. Clark Bunch Says:

    Some bloggers will automatically reject extremely lengthy comments. Now if all the other comments were wordy I wouldn’t worry about it. Here’s some good advice I was given by Michael Spencer, the original Internet Monk: if you have a lot to say write a blog post. He preferred a few words and a link to several paragraphs in the comment section.

    And thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. christinewjc Says:

    Hi Clark!

    Thanks for coming over here and commenting! My two comments over at Canon Fodder were not as long as many of the ones within the thread. Just checked and the comments were finally approved!

    Good advice from Michael Spencer. I do admit to being a bit “wordy” at times here. That is why I would not be a candidate for Twitter! LOL

    You’re welcome!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: