web site hit counter Hoax of Higher Criticism - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

Hoax of Higher Criticism

Availability: Ready to download

The men who pioneered the "higher criticism" of the Bible did not believe that Jesus was who He sad He was: the promise Messiah, the incarnate Son of God. To transmit their unbelief to their intellectual peers, and from them to the general public, the higher critics did their best to remove people's faith in Moses. If they could prove that the Old Testament is unreliable, The men who pioneered the "higher criticism" of the Bible did not believe that Jesus was who He sad He was: the promise Messiah, the incarnate Son of God. To transmit their unbelief to their intellectual peers, and from them to the general public, the higher critics did their best to remove people's faith in Moses. If they could prove that the Old Testament is unreliable, they could by implication demonstrate that Jesus was misinformed about Moses, and therefore that He was equally unreliable. The two most successful attacks on Christianity in the modern world have been biblical higher criticism and Darwinism. Both views stem from the same source: a view of man as a social creature who lives in an evolving society. Both views substitute a philosophy of autonomous historical process for the biblical philosophy of creation, fall, redemption, and final judgment. Biblical higher criticism affects men's choice of ethics. It especially affects their social ethics. What is seldom understood is that biblical higher criticism arose in England in the late seventeenth century as a reaction to the use of the Old Testament as a guide for civil law. Higher criticism was an important tool in the humanists' war against Christian civilization. They won that phase of the battle. It has taken three centuries for even a handful of Christians to return once again to the Old Testament in search of social guidelines. This quest necessitates a rejection of the techniques of biblical higher criticism. Until Christians abandon higher criticism and its evolutionary social presuppositions (disguised as conclusions), they will remain in cultural bondage.


Compare

The men who pioneered the "higher criticism" of the Bible did not believe that Jesus was who He sad He was: the promise Messiah, the incarnate Son of God. To transmit their unbelief to their intellectual peers, and from them to the general public, the higher critics did their best to remove people's faith in Moses. If they could prove that the Old Testament is unreliable, The men who pioneered the "higher criticism" of the Bible did not believe that Jesus was who He sad He was: the promise Messiah, the incarnate Son of God. To transmit their unbelief to their intellectual peers, and from them to the general public, the higher critics did their best to remove people's faith in Moses. If they could prove that the Old Testament is unreliable, they could by implication demonstrate that Jesus was misinformed about Moses, and therefore that He was equally unreliable. The two most successful attacks on Christianity in the modern world have been biblical higher criticism and Darwinism. Both views stem from the same source: a view of man as a social creature who lives in an evolving society. Both views substitute a philosophy of autonomous historical process for the biblical philosophy of creation, fall, redemption, and final judgment. Biblical higher criticism affects men's choice of ethics. It especially affects their social ethics. What is seldom understood is that biblical higher criticism arose in England in the late seventeenth century as a reaction to the use of the Old Testament as a guide for civil law. Higher criticism was an important tool in the humanists' war against Christian civilization. They won that phase of the battle. It has taken three centuries for even a handful of Christians to return once again to the Old Testament in search of social guidelines. This quest necessitates a rejection of the techniques of biblical higher criticism. Until Christians abandon higher criticism and its evolutionary social presuppositions (disguised as conclusions), they will remain in cultural bondage.

30 review for Hoax of Higher Criticism

  1. 4 out of 5

    Nathan

    "A righteous God who judges men eternally does so only on the basis of a unified ethical system. Only because the ethical standards never change could the punishment never change. If the texts are not ethically unified, then there is no threat to man from the God of the Bible. Thus, the "prime directive" of higher criticism is to affirm the lack of unity in the Bible. This is the "higher" critic's operating presupposition when he begins to study the Bible." -Gary North "A righteous God who judges men eternally does so only on the basis of a unified ethical system. Only because the ethical standards never change could the punishment never change. If the texts are not ethically unified, then there is no threat to man from the God of the Bible. Thus, the "prime directive" of higher criticism is to affirm the lack of unity in the Bible. This is the "higher" critic's operating presupposition when he begins to study the Bible." -Gary North

  2. 5 out of 5

    Jacob Aitken

    This isn’t a detailed analysis and refutation of higher criticism (though such are listed in the bibliography). Rather, it is an examination of the presuppositions behind the higher critics’ methods. Their goal is simple: to show that God is divided. If God cannot give a unified Covenant Word to his people, then his (eternal) sanctions do not imply. North writes: “North: An unknowable god is the only god who is acceptable to modern autonomous man, for an unknowable god presumably will not bring This isn’t a detailed analysis and refutation of higher criticism (though such are listed in the bibliography). Rather, it is an examination of the presuppositions behind the higher critics’ methods. Their goal is simple: to show that God is divided. If God cannot give a unified Covenant Word to his people, then his (eternal) sanctions do not imply. North writes: “North: An unknowable god is the only god who is acceptable to modern autonomous man, for an unknowable god presumably will not bring final judgment to inherently uninformed and uninformable finite mankind. We must never forget: the primary goal of self-proclaimed autonomous man is to escape God's final judgment. So, in order to escape this judgment, the higher critics spin a web of pompous verbiage that they hope and pray - well, at least they hope - will protect them from the eternal consequences of their God-defying rebellion” (31). Problem: how do I know what is true in the bible and what is just symbolic? By what criteria? Circular reasoning: The methods used by higher critics are circular: they use their colleagues' reconstructed literary texts to reconstruct the biblical past, and they use their own newly reconstructed biblical past to further reconstruct the biblical texts (34).

  3. 4 out of 5

    Benjamin Glaser

    Good, short intro to the anti-God presuppositions of the higher critical school and the sometimes unseen effect it has had on the faith of millions. Good read.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Ashley

    Read it for school, was fine. I'm not sure about this Gary North guy though, he was a bit too sarcastic for me. I'd be interested in reading something else from him before confirming any opinions though. Read it for school, was fine. I'm not sure about this Gary North guy though, he was a bit too sarcastic for me. I'd be interested in reading something else from him before confirming any opinions though.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Douglas Wilson

    Good.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Jay D

  7. 4 out of 5

    Pishowi

  8. 4 out of 5

    Brian Holycross

  9. 5 out of 5

    Jafortiori

  10. 4 out of 5

    Ester

  11. 4 out of 5

    Kyle

  12. 4 out of 5

    Aurora Grace

  13. 5 out of 5

    Douglas Hayes

  14. 4 out of 5

    Matthew

  15. 4 out of 5

    Adam Ross

  16. 4 out of 5

    Rory Fry

  17. 5 out of 5

    Andy

  18. 4 out of 5

    Andrew Howard

  19. 4 out of 5

    Joel Stanton

  20. 4 out of 5

    Femke De Vries

  21. 4 out of 5

    Emily

  22. 4 out of 5

    Elise Reich

  23. 5 out of 5

    Leila

  24. 4 out of 5

    Claude

  25. 5 out of 5

    Erik Van

  26. 4 out of 5

    Alan Fuller

  27. 5 out of 5

    Frank Brito

  28. 4 out of 5

    John Barbour

  29. 4 out of 5

    Carl

  30. 4 out of 5

    Phillip G.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.