The Inerrancy of Scripture

I found it needful to write this essay on the inerrancy of scripture as many individuals who identify themselves as Christians are being taken captive by “empty deception” (Colossians 2:8). Clearly one of the most important things these individuals don’t believe is the inerrancy of the Bible, or they are truly ignorant to the Bible’s teachings.
First and foremost, if you take away the doctrine of inerrancy from the Bible all you get are some fantastic stories and some morals that give you good ethics in a world that doesn’t practice good ethics.
If you just want to learn good ethics, you can read the teaching of Confucius. If you want to read a good story, read some classic work of fiction. In other words, if you take away the inerrancy of the Bible, there really is no point in reading it, to believe in it, or to teach it to anyone else. Without the doctrine of inerrancy, the Bible just becomes a museum piece. The doctrine of inerrancy may be the most important doctrine to keep within the Christian faith; without it how can we believe anything else that the Bible says?
If we can’t trust anything the Bible says, we don’t need to take the commands within the Bible seriously. When our society doesn’t have morals to adhere to, evil runs rampant. Here are just three examples of what happens in a society without morals:
1. What is considered as truth is now relative to the situation we find ourselves in, there is no absolute truth to guide our decisions by.
2. The devaluing of human life resulting in the murder of millions of unborn children in America alone.
3. And the proliferation of sex in our society, causing family break ups, addictions, and has made millions of American to be afflicted with sexually transmitted diseases.
These three major problems in our society, and many more, can be linked directly and indirectly to not taking the Bible as the holy, inspired, word of God. I think it is high time to make a case for believing in the inerrancy of the Bible.

First things first, in order for there to be holy, inspired, words of God there first has to be a God. Genesis 1:1 says that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” God thus proves his existence by creating our existence. John further substances this in his gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” (John 1:1-3) The “Word” described by John is Jesus, who is the word of God incarnate. Paul also makes this argument in Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” God reveals his existence through his creation, so much so that Paul says that no one is without excuse for not accepting God’s existence.
The Bible firmly shows that God exists, but how can we take what the Bible says as fact? That is an excellent question and one that must be answered, for the foundation of the Bible’s inerrancy rests upon the holiness of God.

Before we go to substantiate God’s holiness in the Bible, we must first know what the word means in the original Hebrew.
The Hebrew word for holiness comes from a root meaning “to separate or cut off.” (1) This separation means separation from all sin and evil. Noah Webster defines holiness “Applied to the Supreme Being” as denoting “perfect purity or integrity of moral character, one of his essential attributes.” (2)
The King James Study Bible from Thomas Nelson Publishers further adds, “The Primary meaning of holiness implies God’s positive quality of self-affirming purity; the secondary meaning implies separation, particularly separation from sin. The holiness of God means He is absolutely pure and absolutely separate from (and above) all His creatures, and also separate from sin and evil.” (3) God also states His holiness within the Bible (Leviticus 11:44-45, 19:2, 20:26, 1 Peter 1:16).
Since God is holy and absolutely pure, for Him to lie is completely and utterly incompatible with His nature; thus we can trust what God says in His holy word.
Now the argument that the scripture verses quoted two paragraphs ago applies only to God the Father and not to the other two members of the Trinity could come up. This argument must be answered in order to build a case for the inerrancy of the words of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit-inspired writings of the prophets, disciples, Apostle Paul, etc…

The best way to prove the infallibility of Jesus Christ’s words is to show that He is, and is equal to, God the Father.
Jesus states rather plainly that He and God the Father are one several times within the Bible (John 10:38, 14:11, 20). The most blunt and straightforward declaration Jesus makes is in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”
Also by calling God the Father as His father, Jesus is claiming equality with God the Father. Jesus calls God the Father His father twenty times alone in Matthew: 7:21, 10:32-33, 11:25-27, 12:50, 15:13, 16:17, 27, 18:10, 19, 35, 20:23, 24:36, 25:34, 26:29, 39, 42, 53. Jesus seems fairly confident that God the Father is His father (of course if you are God and perfect then I think you can be completely confident in anything you say).
Now if you think that no one got Jesus’ not so subtle hints, you are wrong. Jesus is called “Son of God” (a title that confirms Jesus’ deity) by: the people in the ship when Jesus walks on water to (Matthew 14:33), demons (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, Luke 4:41, 8:28), the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:35), Nathaniel the disciple (John 1:49), and Martha (John 11:27). Peter confessed that Jesus was the messiah (Mark 8:29). The Pharisees and scribes also recognized that Jesus claimed equality with God the Father, otherwise they wouldn’t have had such a strong desire to stone (John 5:18) and crucify (John 19:17) Jesus.
The Jews at the Temple in Jerusalem understood Jesus’ claim well enough to desire to stone him, to which Jesus asks for what good work is He going to get stoned for. The Jews respond in John 10:33: “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
However anyone can call themselves anything, ranging from the ‘son of god’ to ‘mashed potatoes’, so it must be established that God the Father calls Jesus His son.
God the Father does call Jesus His son on two occasions, during Jesus’ baptism and during Jesus’ transfiguration.
Matthew 3:16-17 speaks of God the Father’s affirmation of Jesus’ divine sonship: “After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, ‘This is My Beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased’”
The Greek for ‘voice’ (phone) in that passage denotes that an audible voice, noise, or sound could be heard. In Strong Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible it says that the word ‘voice’ we are looking at is “probably akin to” a Greek word (phaino) that means to “to lighten (shine), i.e. show (transitive or intransitive, literally or figuratively):- appear, seem, be seen, shine, think.” Strong’s Concordance also says that phaino has a base in it (phos) which means “to shine or make manifest.” (4)
So clearly God the Father’s voice was audible enough for everyone present at Jesus’ baptism could hear Him. There were also things that were visible at Jesus’ baptism, e.g. the sky opening up and the dove descending upon Jesus. These events made manifest that Jesus was the Son of God.
Likewise during Jesus’ Transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36), God the Father calls Jesus His son in the presence of three of Jesus’ disciple, Peter, John, and James. “While he (Peter) was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them (Peter, John, and James); and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!’” (Luke 9:34-35, notes added)
Again the same Greek word, phone, is used to describe God the Father’s voice when He speaks to Peter, John, and James during the Transfiguration of Jesus.
God the Father thus calls Jesus His son on two occasions, and during both occasions there were witnesses to the Father’s voice. By calling Jesus His son, God the Father is saying that Jesus is equal to Him; thus the attributes of holiness and complete perfection are inherent in Jesus, and we can trust His word just as completely as God the Father’s words.

We are now left with the last member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Jesus shows the equality, and thus perfection, of the Holy Spirit to God the Father and God the Son in chapters 15 and 16 of the Gospel of John.
Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit in John 15:26 “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:” (KJV).
The King James Study Bible by Thomas Nelson Publishers explains this verse excellently. “The action of the word translated ‘proceedeth’ is ‘in the process’ — ‘continually proceeds.’ The eternal procession of the Spirit means that He continually proceeds from beside, not out of, the Father. If the Holy Spirit came out of God, He would be less than God. To be more specific, the Holy Spirit not only proceeds from the Father, but also from the Son. This means the Father and the Son continually send the Holy Spirit. This in no way suggests the [Holy] Spirit is less in deity than are the Father or Son. Instead it explains the relationship among the three eternal persons of the Trinity.” (Note added) (5) Since the Holy Spirit proceeds beside God, this also proves that the Holy Spirit is equal to God the Father and Jesus.
Jesus further clarifies the equality of the Holy Spirit in John 16:13-15. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak on his own authority; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive what is mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father has are mine: therefore said I, that he (the Holy Spirit) shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.” (KJV, note added)
Jesus says that “All things that the Father has are Mine.” (John 16:15a) The verse further establishes the equality of Jesus Christ and God the Father as well as builds the foundation for the equality of the Holy Spirit.
In verse 14 Jesus says that the Holy Spirit, “shall receive what is mine,” thus implying that everything of God the Father’s and Jesus Christ’s is also the Holy Spirit’s. If the Holy Spirit has everything that God the Father and Jesus Christ have, then that includes their perfection and holiness.

It is of the utmost importance that we established the Holy Spirit’s equality and holiness as the Holy Spirit is responsible for the formation of the Bible. As Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary says of the classical (read: Biblical/Orthodox) interpretation of the inspiration of the Bible, “The Bible is divinely inspired because God concurrently worked with human authors to produce the very written message He desired. This classical view teaches the Holy Spirit superintended more than 40 authors from widely divergent backgrounds (shepherds, kings, prophets, fishermen, etc.), spanning a period of approximately a millennium and a half, to produce with supernatural congruity not just the thoughts but the very words of God to mankind.” (6)
Now you may not completely understand the importance of the previous statement, so let me clarify it for you. You see the Holy Spirit is directly responsible for every word within the Bible. Even in the cases when God the Father and Jesus Christ were speaking directly to people, the Holy Spirit is responsible for the writers of the Bible being able to remember, and thus enabling them to write, the words spoken to them.
It was import to show that all the members of the Triune Godhead are holy and to show that for any member of the Trinity to lie is completely against their nature. Restating what has already been mentioned, we can completely trust what is said within the Bible as true and infallible.

However another issue needs to be addressed: Since the original writings of both the New and Old Testament are now either lost or destroyed, can we trust that the scribes who copied the originals copied them correctly, without any alteration to the original meaning of the text?
Most of the heat in this question has been directed towards the New, rather than the Old, Testament; however we shall look at both of the Testaments to see if the integrity of the original writings have been preserved. For simplicities sake we shall start with the New Testament.

While the question on the integrity of the New Testament is something that needs to be answered, it must be realized that most who raise this question are seeking to debunk Biblical Christianity and not to see if the meaning of the original writings have been preserved in the copies we presently possess.
Bart Ehrman, a textual critic, says in his book Misquoting Jesus, “We could go on nearly forever talking about specific places in which the texts of the New Testament came to be changed, either accidentally or intentionally…The examples are not just in the hundreds but in the thousands.” (7)
That is a very intriguing statement and one that carries significant implications with it; however let’s look at what the evidence indicates.
If one looks at the copies of the New Testament, it can be rather easily discerned that there are thousands of different textual variations in the copies because there are thousands of copies. (8) The real question then is if the changes in the copies have implications on Christian doctrine?
Bart Ehrman asserts so. “It would be wrong…to say—as people sometimes do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws form them…In some instances, the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem.” (9) However, the truth is quite the opposite of what Mr. Ehrman says.
Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace show in their excellent book, Misquoting Jesus, that most textual variations in the copies are due to spelling differences, synonyms, and meaningful but not viable differences. They show that less than one percent of all textual variations fall under the category of “meaningful and viable differences.” (10) Mr. Bock and Mr. Wallace further show that no core/central/Salvational doctrine in Christianity is questioned or negated by such passages. (11) It is therefore established that the copied manuscripts of the New Testament do indeed retain the original writings’ meaning. (If you wish to find out more about the subject, read “claim one” [e.g. chapter one] of Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ.)

With the textual correctness of the New Testament established, it is easy to determine if the integrity of the Old Testament has been preserved.
Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary says of Scripture, “Historic Judeo-Christian name for the specific literature that the church receives as divine instruction. Scripture means ‘a writing,’ rendering the Latin scriptura and the Greek graphe. The term is used some 50 times in the NT for some or all of the OT.” (Italics in original) (12)
The New Testament writers use approximately 250 complete verses from the Old Testament, and if you include indirect and partial quotations, the number is raised to over 1,000. (13)
Jesus also calls the Old Testament ‘scripture’ (Mark 12:10, Luke 4:21, John 7:38, 42, 10:35, 13:18, 17:12).
Since the New Testament has been established to still possess the meaning of the original writings, and if Jesus and the writers of the New Testament call the Old Testament ‘scripture’, we can be certain that the original meaning of the Old Testament has been preserved in the copies we posses.
In summary, if one studies the evidence with a mind willing to accept the possibility of the Trinity creating everything, it is almost assured that they will be convinced of the accuracy of the Bible. One needs to look no further than the cases of C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel to see that the above statement is true. When given a fair chance God’s truth, the ONLY truth, will always win out.

Be not conformed,
OutcastWriter.

Citations and Notes


1. The King James Study Bible, pg. 203, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers.
2. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language.
3. The King James Study Bible, pg. 203, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers.
4. To find these Greek words look up G5456 (phone), G5316 (phaino), and G5457 (phos), in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
5. The King James Study Bible, pg. 1643, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers.
6. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pg. 825.
7. Bart Ehrman, pg. 98, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.
8. Darrel L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace, pgs. 49-52, Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ. To further impress on how rock solid a foundation the NT has on its copies here are some numbers: there are about 5700 Greek copies of the NT, the oldest of which are only 50-100 years away from the originals. Including the Greek copies, there are more than 10,000 Latin copies. Including the Latin and Greek copies there are over a million quotations from the NT by the church fathers, so impressive is it that even Bart Ehrman said in The Text of the New Testament: “Besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic compares numerous scriptural quotations used in commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.” (pg. 126) One final note is that Homer's works come in second with only 2500 hundred copies, and that for other works of ancient literature there is often hundreds of years between the original and the nearest copy.
9. Bart Ehrman, pg. 208, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.
10. Darrel L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace, pgs. 55-58, Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ.
11. Ibid, pgs. 57-58 & 60-76.
12. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pgs. 1452-53.
13. Ibid, pg. 1216.

The Return of the King: Book Review

The Return of the King
A Book Review of the Third Book of Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

"There never was much hope...just a fool's hope.” - Gandalf The White

And so came the closing of the Third Age. The Great Tower of Minas Tirith, a fortress besieged, stands as a small island with storms raging on all sides. There the fading hopes of Middle Earth holds its breath before the bitter darkness of their end.

The clouds are lifted and the jaws of his forces draw forth. From the land of the Shadow, the Dark Lord Sauron brings all to him; from the southern kingdoms, men march into his lands, and from the sea, Corsairs sail to break the final defenses of Osgiliath; all have been brought together to strike the final knell upon Gondor and cover the land, at last, in darkness. Under a desperate alliance of Men, they will fight upon the plains of Pelennor and from the walls of Minas Tirith, fortress of the Kings, the future of Middle Earth will be decided.

In the last of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, we are given a great treasure. They say that man is willing to change only at its precipice - just before all is destroyed -, it his here, the unfolding of the troubles of Middle Earth, that J.R.R. Tolkien writes with a passion I believe was withheld.

This story has been long told and ever praised - the great and final clash between Good and Evil. A time where all force is amassed to the crushing destruction of each other. It has been told and been blunted time and time again, but this is not our case. Our story shimmers in the sun and under the shadow of darkness not a virtue is lost.

J.R.R. Tolkien's Characters, by far and wide, brought into this last chapter their hopes and dreams, their struggles and fears, and most importantly, their desires. From the Witch King of Angmar to King Theoden, the unquenchable malice of Sauron to the unrelenting hope of Gladriel, every character's story was brought forth unbound by any secret. All characters in a story can only be weighed by what you feel about them in the in end, and when you find yourself among the peoples of weightless pages, among the sounds of a silent night, you have crossed a great chasm and walked into the land of wonder; always to be remembered.

When we speak of the bones of a story, we can only knock against their moral foundations. To this, I cannot speak about them without joy and excitement - especially in this tale, without attachment. From the least of peoples came the greatest of triumphs. Each man is born into a world of unknowns, of difficulties, and sorrows, but it is to him to choose what he shall do in the time he has been given. We were not asked for our choice to life or death, but we are demanded to choose what we shall live for and what we will be remembered by.

Our story does not end bitterly, but beautifully; completed to the last sentence in justice, virtue, and wonder. As a trilogy of books leaves a trilogy of reviews, everything will rest upon my final memories:

From the Fires of Mount Doom the helm of Sauron, enemy of Middle Earth, fell to its ashes. All the glory and splendor of years forgotten began to blossom under the coming of spring and welcomed, with a bright morning, “The Return of the King”.

And so came the beginning of the Fourth Age.... And my enjoyment of The Lord of the Rings.

First Cause Argument: Finite Universe

A Finite Universe: A Premise for a First Cause 

There are two main schools of thought regarding the origins of the universe: Either the universe has always existed with an infinite past, or the universe was at one point created and thus finite. I will contain my response as another essay to support the premise of a finite universe in linear form and why the universe could not have always existed in a state of actual infinity. This essay will not address causal loops - that is addressed here.

Before we even dive into the why's and why not's of an infinite universe, we need to understand a basic idea of Mathematical Set Theory. Below are two mathematical sets, labeled "A" and "A1", and we will use them to explain the basic ideas of what we will be discussing later:

A - {0,1,2,3,4 ...}

A1 - {0,2,4,6,8 ...}

As you can see set "A" contains all numbers up to infinity, while set "A1", a sub set of "A", contains all the even numbers up to infinity. What has been presented is one Mathematical Set and one Mathematical Subset. For anything to be a subset every member in that subset must be contained in the parent set. So if subset "A1" has the letter "a", then "A1" could not be a subset of "A" because set "A", the parent set, does not have the letter "a" as a member.

Now here is a question. If set "A" and subset "A1" are actual infinity, which is larger? The answer is that they are equal. This conclusion is derived from the fact that each member of both sets can be evenly paired.

A -   { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ...}

A1 - { 0 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 ...}

Since these two sets continue on for infinity they would continue to be paired equally.

On the other hand, outside of actual Infinity, there is potential infinity. A potential infinity designates a set of numbers which can be continually added, but is unlike actual infinity in that the subsets are not equal to the parent set. The latter is seen in every day life, the prior, I will contend, does not exist.

The first argument is that actual infinity cannot exist in our universe. In actual Infinity, the old saying, "The whole is greater than its parts", is false because the parts are equal to the whole. I am going to give a couple of examples to show the nature of actual infinity:

Imagine a library that contains an infinite amount of red books and an infinite amount of black books. Each book contains an infinite amount of pages. There are two specific assertions that we will be taking note of. First, the total combined amount of infinite red and black books would equal the amount of infinite red books. Secondly, if we read every page in the library, consisting of an infinite amount of pages, it would be equal to reading only one book with the infinite amount of pages. As you can see, actual infinite decimates addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

Another example of a part being equal to its whole is in the affirmation that one-billionth of an inch would have an equal amount of points as the universe does in its totality. Again, every part, in actual infinity, is equal to the whole. This again is not possible because in our universe we have accumulation (ie. added parts equals a whole, not every part equaling a whole).

The second argument against an actual infinite universe is noting that infinity is Non-Transversal. What this means is that if our universe always existed, the universe should have an infinite past. With the premise established, we can say that, if the past could not be transversed, then we do not have the present; for the present equals the past transversed.

When we see a plane flying over head we can assume a chain of past causes had to be tansversed to the point of the present state. For the plane to be flying we could assume that the pilot got into the plane. Perhaps we could also assume that the plane needed fuel before departing the airport. In any assumption we make, we can assume that there has been a series of past events which were transversed and lead up to the present plane flying over head.

The next thing we must consider is the idea of counting to infinity. You may have pulled this one out during a game of hide-and-seek where you tell the counter to count up to infinity so you have enough time to find the awesome hiding spot everyone knows about. The problem is if you count for the duration of your life you will never reach infinity. Why? This is what we call potential infinity. The mathematical set we deal with in this equation is concerning the possibility of continual addition. Meaning the numbers are finite, but can always be continually added by 'x' number. An easy rule is if you can state the number it is finite because you can always add 1 to it; which you cannot add 1 to infinity and change its nature. You cannot count up to infinity and likewise you cannot count down from it.

With these two premises, that you have chained events and that you cannot count up or down from infinity, tells us one thing. If the past was infinite, an infinite chain, you cannot transverse the infinite as you similarly could not do so in counting. The conclusion is that the past could not have been transversed and thus we could not have the present. The past would still be continuing and we would not have a present state (Remembering that the present is equal to the past transversed). Of course this is not so and another reason why the universe is not infinite.

As Blaise Pascal stated, "The finite are annihilated in the presence of the infinite." Whenever the actual infinite are applied to the finite application of our day-to-day universe, we find not only no ability to tend the actual infinite, but if it were applicable, time itself would cease to exist. The most classic example is Zeno's puzzle. If actual infinity did exist, we could not even declare motion as being real because we would have to transverse infinity in each step we took - again 1) we know motion does exist and 2) it isn't possible for actual infinity to exist.

Hope this helps.

Dracula: A Book Review

A Midnight Terror
(A Book review of Dracula by Bram Stoker)

"No man knows till he experiences it, what it is like to feel his own life-blood drawn away into the woman he loves." – Dr. Seward’s Diary

What would you do? What do you hope? When darkness grimaces above and the endless sea crashes below. From the silent halls you answer with speed. From the desolate you run to stop the coming tide. Beneath the bowing walls and rushing swords you find your friend, your greatest companion, your lovely wife, holding open wide your soul - death is within and not without.

From deep within Transylvania, Bram Stoker reveals the horrors of a nameless evil, an evil that shadows every dream and steals from every soul. Fused with superstition, religion and sacrifice, these collections of diary entries would become known as Dracula and has survived the destruction of time for one reason: This is not about a vampire, but the vampire.

We all know his name, but few know why this book has survived as a timeless classic; beyond the blood filled movies lays a moving story – a Perl deep in the ocean. It may be true for Dracula, however, this book has not continued to survive by blood alone, but by the seeming unerring loyalty of friendship.

From start to finish, all are Personal Diary entries, newspaper clippings and sparse Journal fragments. This may allude as incompetent in horror and suspense, but in all writing styles, I have never found a more passionate way to write such a tale as this. In ever touching fashion, Bram Stoker depicts the horrifying nightmares and grotesque visages from the people who saw it themselves. But more importantly, the shimmering Perl, is the revealing of the characters’ personal journal entries as they struggle to stand against such an evil; for better or worse, for happiness or sorrow, for death or life, they stood by the friends they knew, the wives they loved, to fight an enemy they feared.

We all understand that honourable sacrifice: to perish for the ones you love. But would one knowingly sacrifice himself to a war one could not believe – ever to be forgotten? Are you willing to sacrifice yourself for the things you believe in, or for the things that will be written down? As the sea of a passing storm may begin to crumble our stronghold, when evil takes the form of the ones we love, Hope is only lost when the lost stop hoping. This Perl is as bright as the morning ere after the passing night and a responsibility that cannot be ignored.

This is true: there is a price that must be paid in the end for the things we want most. The moral of this story, as afraid as I am to say, is perhaps one that comes at too high a cost. I could never recommend this book except for one who already wishes to read it. The mountains are high in the sun, but so the valley plunges deep into the dark.

If all is lost in Stokers' journals, there is one thing to grasp. When death is within and not without, what are we to do but smile back? Act upon what we have already chosen, for to choose our path when it comes, is to be destined to fail before we start.

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery Pt. 2

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery
Rom 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God.

Atheistic Assertions:
1) Morality: simply acting with the intention to minimize harm. To minimize unnecessary harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral
2) Endorsement: in support of
3) Jesus Christ supported the Old Testament. This is relevant because the Old Testament endorses and encourages slavery

Response:

Due to the inherent complexity of this argument, I will divide my response into three main categories: the argument of definitions, the argument of contextualization, and, what would be considered, the refutation of your argument.

When it comes to definitions, it is imperative to not only be correct in our affirmation, but to define these words in such a way that they could be applied in our context with homogeneous application.

The three crucial definitions are Morality, Endorsement, and Slavery. You defined them as follows:

Morality: simply acting with the intention to minimize harm. To minimize unnecessary harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral

Endorsement: in support of

Slavery: is immoral because it causes harm to another {without consent}

First, I will contend that your definition of Morality is insufficient because the base principle is “intent of minimizing harm”. The contention is derived from two basic principles. First, you are affirming that our improvement to society comes as the hands of lesser evils, which by-passes the necessity of any good actions; or that good actions are actions that are lesser evils – good being inherently evil. Either way, you do not uphold inherent “good”, but only gradations of evil. Secondly, as I did, you failed to apply a definition as to why your morality would have any objective validity. If you cannot prove why any other person should ratify your beliefs then you strike down the whole discussion in itself; at least in its absolutist form. I do not intend to incorporate a debate here in itself, but adequate definitions are required.

 Next, the definition of endorsement, and further how you apply it in your argument, is both invalid. To support or advocate something is not at all the same to have a level of permissibility for it. As an example we could use the following side-by-side comparison:

“If you go to the store, please get a gallon of milk.”

or

“When you go to the store, please get a gallon of milk.”

What is the main difference between these two ideas? The level of permissibility. The term “if” designates permissibility in going to the store, while the term “when” only allow permissibility as to “what time” you go to the store and does not question if you are going to the store – you are assumed in going. Thus, my argument that the Bible does not condone slavery is correct because “if” allows for permissibility. Your mistake when you assert a “When” ideology over the stated “If” (Exodus 21:2).

And lastly, I will contend the loose definition of slavery. The problem is that you assume that all slavery is immoral, or at least it should be. However, slavery, in some forms, is still in use in America today and acceptable; we could argue the necessity or inherent barrier of debt slavery or wage slavery. Are these also immoral under your definition? My assumed definition of slavery, when I opposed your statements, was the grotesque extremities and violations of morality that I underlined when I defined love. If slavery, in its form, violates the ethical and meta-ethical definitions that I had provided, then I would assume it to be immoral, if not, then we would assume it to be moral – that is the whole point in providing definitions.

This next piece will be used to contextualize my previous argument and assert my desired implications. I am not rewriting my previous statements, but will provide a more clear application to its uses and why it still stands superior.

When we began our discussion, I established that the teachings of Jesus Christ are foundational to our faith, in both the New and Old Testament doctrines. You rightly recognized his authority in the Old Testament by quoting Matt 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”, however, again, you misunderstand a very important implication. Jesus Christ did not come to preach the Law, but to fulfill the law. What is the difference? Christians do not uphold a majority of the Jewish or Mosaic Laws because they were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. For example, we do not follow the Levitical laws which include Temple ceremonies, animal sacrifices, priesthood authorities, etc. So first in our understanding, there is a difference between Mosaic Laws and Christians obeying of those laws; this distinction should be kept.

After, you quoted extensively from Exodus concerning the Slave laws. The slave laws are also found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and I will be using the entirety of the slave laws to prove its morality.

The argument of a slave should be broken down into three main points: slaves when they are received, slaves when they are under their master’s rule, and slaves when they are released.

First, slavery was introduced under several basic conditions. You could sell yourself as a slave either because you had nothing (you were poor), or because of debt settlement; war was not a major income of slaves. A slave can only be bought, they cannot be stolen – that is a capital offense – and there is no requirement to own slaves; it is optional. If slaves are bought and have a family (including wives and children), they must be kept together; you cannot separate slave families. In other words, your characterizing of inducting slaves is not proportionate to actuality.

The life of the slave, in agreement to my prior point regarding your remarks, is equally out of proportion. If you read the complete extent of the laws, you will understand the full rights of the slaves and the restrictions of their masters. The slave masters had capital offenses because they were still governed by the Ten Commandments and other Jewish laws; there was no partiality under the laws because both, free and slave, were governed by the same laws. Even the extent of marriage and punishment of the slaves were of equal value. It was not uncommon in their day to choose the husband of their daughters, so it was equal that slave daughters could be chosen a husband (punishment was dealt in a similar fashion). The only arguable extent that the slaves were different from their free counter-parts was forced labor. But of course this would revisit my prior argument of debt and wage slavery – is forced labor inherently evil?

And lastly, the release of the slaves. Every slave was required to be released upon the seventh year without compensation; with their whole family if this slave had a family. Further, you could not just release them, but were required to give them food and livestock when they left; you couldn’t just “kick’em to the curb”. Another interesting fact is that people were not required to return runaway slaves; if they got away from their former masters and were found, they were essentially free without hassle. Alternatively, slaves could, if they wanted to, commit themselves as slaves for life to their owner – interesting to note, if your assumption that slavery was such an abominable act of injustice why would slaves ever want to remain with their masters?

So what is slavery? Slavery is many things, and you have picked the lowest denominator and said this is what the Bible is. If anything could be said, the Bible has put forth the highest moral treatment of slaves that has ever existed in human history. Even in later times when the wealthy would own doctors (they didn’t have medical hospitals) were slaves (like Luke). Because the title of slave was attributed to them, it did not mean they didn’t hold a place of honour or dignity in the area they practiced. Of course, there are bad masters and acts of immorality to slaves, but equally there are bad governments and brutalized civilians. Should we abolish them too? If you wage war against the term slavery, you will undoubtedly be required to answer to the Butler or Maid. What about debt slavery or wage slavery? You may declare it immoral, but through the eyes of the people it was not always.

In the finality of this response I will make one last assertion. This is sort of back tracking, however, I will revisit my ethical and meta-ethical arguments through Jesus Christ. When I spoke that the Biblical doctrines have always spoke upon human equality I used Christian men as examples and Christ as my definition. You agreed to Christ’s authority upon the Old Testament, but do not advocate His authority in its interpretation. The Jews were required to uphold the Mosaic laws in their act towards their Slaves, so are we, in Christ’s fulfillment of the laws, required to uphold the Old Testament as Christ states in the New Testament:

“And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Luke 10:25-28”

The entirety of my definitions, of Biblical equality and love as stated in my previous remarks, are upheld because Christ’s authority is still commended – His commands still hold to what our actions are to be. If Slavery is defined and upheld under actions of Love, then it is not immoral. If you are permitted to have slaves and treat them under the sole definitions of Biblical doctrine then it is not immoral because, as you stated, “they are truly beautiful passages that characterized the virtues of Christian obedience.”

The First Cause Argument: Causal Loop

The Causal Loop: An Argument against an Infinite Universe
Further Information about the First Cause Argument

In the First Cause Argument (FCA), I made the statement that an overall defense of the argument would be written in Part 2 and would help address the main challenges against it. Well, as you know it hasn't been written and the reasons are why I am writing this now - along with a few more articles. Simply put, to defend something you must know what you are defending. Without knowing the details of the argument I would serve an injustice instead of helping you understand the argument itself; supplying pithy statements over informed assessments. These following articles are written with a more in-depth look at each of the main arguments for the First Cause - starting with the Causal Loop.

An important point was made that something could not be prior to itself: an effect could not cause itself because it must be prior to itself– being false. Why is this false? Why does it matter? This is called the causal loop argument.

A Causal loop, as by its name, is based upon causations; that for each cause there is an effect, however, the difference lies within the idea of it being looped. For the older folks, you may remember in the Atari games once you achieved a certain level the game ‘flips or goes back to level zero and you start the whole process over. Lets take a circle as our example and specify a particular point on the circumference. The circle represents the infinite loop of causations and the specific point on the circle represents any specific cause or group of causes. What you will immediately notice is either way you go about the circle you come back to the same point – nothing is added and nothing is taken away.

This idea is not as complex as it may first seem, but a short story should clarify this. If you have seen any movies or read any books that consist of Time Travel you have heard these type of theories. A young man as he was growing up witnesses an assassination. His desire is to save this person, thus, in his future he desires to travel back in time. When he is sent back into time he walks into the room where the assignation plot were to happen. Instead of saving him, the person was killed because his entrance was believed to be by an intruder; thus being the inspiration of him traveling back in time.

What does this mean? Each cause or causes that that specified point represents must always be prior and later than its self at the same time – remember this is a circle and all direction is bent back to itself. The infinite causal loop defines that each effect caused itself and each cause affects itself simultaneously. The problem with this argument is there are no known, or possibly known, objects that are prior to itself – I was not alive before I lived, nor did I type this letter before it was typed.

For this idea to be correct, that there is a causal loop, the universe would have to have existed before it existed and exist after it existed at the same time. This cannot be so because there would be no origin, no causes, and no effects; all which are observable. Thus, our first substantiated premise for the First Cause Argument is that time arrows in one direction and is not looped.

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery
Rom 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God.

The Atheist Assertions:
  1) The Bible condones slavery because the Bible doesn't specifically speak against it.
  2) Jesus, the Moral Teacher of Christianity, also did not speak against slavery.

Response:

The single greatest atrocity to plague human rights has held captive our past, gives strife to our present, and casts a veiled shadow to our future - Serfdom, Human Trafficking, Peonage, all are called Slavery. 

Since our discussion will mainly focus on Ethics, morality and value judgments, I will begin by explaining those three terms.

Ethics, the philosophic study of morality, values, motives, characters, and conducts, can be divided into two main sub-groups: Ethics and Meta-Ethics. Ethics, though possibly subjective, makes assertions based on objective Meta-Ethical statements. For example, we could argue that lying is Ethically wrong, but perhaps permissible if we saved the life of another, however, the term “wrong” is Meta-Ethically objective in its assertion of what “wrong” is; for it does not change in either decision.

My definitions for Meta-Ethics would be of Love:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 - Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

My definition of the objective validity of Meta-Ethical Standards, I would quote:

Romans 2:12-15 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

In following suite, my Ethical definition would be a specific application of love:

Mark 12:30-31 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Thus morality, or the proper behavior, would be defined only if there was agreement and correctness in my Ethical and Meta-Ethical statements, and my Value Judgment would be defined correctly by my assertion of what Slavery is.

My objective, by upholding both my Ethical and Meta-Ethical claims, is to counter-factually provide evidence that the Bible creates a strong case by labeling slavery as immoral. This, of course, could only be justified if Morality and Value Judgment would be in support of my Ethical and Meta-Ethical definitions and if the opposite could not be tenable under Biblical assertions.

Our conversation does not deal with the morality of Slavery, as we agree to its immorality – so no definition of that is needed- , but whether the Bible supports slavery either in practice or application. Your support for this claim amounts to two points. First, the Bible does not explicitly condemn slavery and, secondly, Jesus Christ, the Christian Moral Teacher, did not speak against it himself.

Your latter point, concerning Jesus Christ, is about as valid as citing that H.G. Wells, the father of the SciFi Genre and Scientist, must have wanted an iPad. Your warrant, that if someone does not speak upon a certain subject in his field he must support it, is altogether invalid and, as known prior, unsubstantiated.

This point also ties into your accusations against the Bible. If your evidence for Biblical slavery is concerned with no evidence against slavery then you have started with a faulty premise. However, the Bible does speak against slavery in the terms of moral application.

My definitions, as noted above, could not be upheld if Slavery were permitted. Slavery does not only violate both of my definitions because it is not love or doing unto others as done unto you– for if Slavery was love of another, there would be no issue –, but further, by upholding the objectivity stance of Meta-Ethics, slavery would be a direct argument against the whole of Christendom and philosophical thinking; being untenable to the contrary.

Whenever I study philosophy, or if you study any subject, one thing to remember is the difference between theoretical and practical applications. Thus, to show the practical or substantiated claims to my arguments, I will give a reference to four Christians, William Wilberforce, John Newton, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and Rev. Jessie Jackson, who fought against slavery entirely on Biblical Principles.

“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?” - Wilberforce

“God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.” - Wilberforce

In conclusion, in the Ethical manner we have approached this topic on slavery, we could not substantiate the support of slavery by Biblical moral assertions, the absent of specific words do not uphold an idea when the idea is condemned by other means, and, by the Christians themselves, we know they held pivotal parts in abolishing slavery. If anything could be noted, if anything could be taken away from our conversation, it is this: the Bible has always spoken upon the social justice of mankind, to do unto others as done unto you, and that all men are equal, indifferent, in the sight of God – this is not slavery but human equality.

The First Cause by St. Aquinas Pt.1/2

Argument for the First Cause - Part 1:2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1 (KJV)

After reviewing some recent debates with respectable atheists, I found it necessary to bring the First Cause Argument onto this blog and give it some much-needed explanation.  (Besides – First Cause Argument -> First Topic post)

The First Cause Argument (FCA) was originally penned by St. Aquinas * in the Summa Theologica. This would later be the second of the Quinquae Viae (Latin, Five Ways) and is one of the most cited and, consequently, debated topic for the existence of God.  The FCA attempts to establish the idea that the universe, composed of contingent objects, must have a first cause that is not reliant upon other contingent objects.

While I wish to clarify FCA’s definitions, arguments, and conclusions, I am more concerned with providing the necessary tools to effectively combat the debate in favour of God’s existence and strengthen our faith. I will not defend against the counter-arguments towards the FCA; they will be addressed in part 2:2.

*Other variations have been written by Plato and Aristotle

Definitions:
Def 1: Cause – Something that brings an effect
Def 2: Efficient Cause - A prior condition, entity, or event considered to have caused the thing in question
Def 3: Intermediate Cause – A cause that exists between the efficient and ultimate cause.
Def 4: Effect – Something that is produced by a cause
Def 5: Ultimate Effect – The future effect
Def 6: Causation – Is the act or process of causing

The Cosmological Argument for the First Cause by St. Aquinas

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.   – St. Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Pt.1, Q2, Art.3; pg 13)*, Quinquae Viae (Latin: Five Ways)

The Cosmological Argument Explained:

We are who we are, because we are what we were. This historical cliché states that civilizations and their people are conditioned by their predecessors in some way. A nation of war could have been a nation of defeat, or perhaps a nation of religious freedom was founded because of a prior nation’s religious suppression. Even technological advancements by prior minds affect generations to come.  You may not be familiar with a scythe nor a Beta Tape, but perhaps you use a tractor or Blu-ray device.
 
You may be wondering how this applies to the Argument for the First cause. To believe that we are who we were, is to believe that what we are today is attributed to times past; or our reliance upon prior beings. We have all heard of time marching forward, but we never speak of it as jumping up or diving below; even back-pedalling is contrary to what we understand.  In this, we see that time moves in one direction; if we are to trace contingent beings, we must start by going backwards. The Argument of the first cause, in other words, is the argument of reverse-sequence of all contingent objects (human and nonhuman).

We begin by addressing the dilemma of contingency.  In the universe, every object is finite and thus contingent, or reliant, upon prior objects.  There are no known objects, or possibilities of objects, who could be the cause of themselves – to be the cause of yourself would imply being prior to yourself, which is false.

Similarly, the cause of an effect cannot be the effect itself. For example, if I asked you why your ball is bouncing, you may respond, “Because it is red.”  But if I then asked, “Why is it red?” and your reply was, “Because it is bouncing,” your argument is invalid because of self-substantiating.

This begs the question, “Can there be an infinite regress of contingent beings?” We know that a cause can have an effect, and that effect, in turn, can cause another effect until the Ultimate effect, in a seemingly infinite future. However, does this concept apply to the past? The simple answer is no.

St. Aquinas, and later Modern Mathematical Set Theory, supported this answer by asking, “Is Infinity + 1 greater or lesser than infinity?” The answer is, “They are equal”. As Blaise Pascal, a French Mathematician, once stated, “The finite are annihilated in the presence of the infinite.” The impact of this argument is that if you remove the efficient cause – which an infinite past asserts - you lose all intermediate causes, which eventually would deny an ultimate effect.
  

If I said that turning on your car caused you to drive to the store, and driving to the store caused you to buy something to eat, the ultimate effect would consist of you no longer being hungry. In this chain of causations if I took away starting the car, then you couldn’t go to the store, which then you wouldn’t get something to eat, and thus the ultimate effect would be denied; you would still be hungry. The chain depends upon whether or not there is a first cause; this is where the infinite regression of dependent causes fail. You cannot maintain a necessary cause – a first cause - by adding a large group of contingent causes to already contingent causes.  It is similar to adding an infinite pile of apples to a box of apples to get an orange.

The finite is contingent, the contingent necessitates a non-contingent cause, and the non-contingent cause is God. This is the argument and its conclusion. Outside of all contingency there must have been a necessary cause that began our road. In the Beginning we are who we were because something began. And that beginning was created by God.
  

I hope this article provided more help than confusion, that you faith would be strengthen in understanding that God’s existence can be known and proven. Also, below I attached another example to further explain the relations of causes and effects.


Finite Chain Example:

Imagine sitting at a table with ten dominos standing, right up next to each other, upon the table’s surface  – we will call them D1, D2, D3… D10 – and I hit D1 over. What will happen? D1 will knock over D2, D2 will knock over D3, and this will continue until they knock over D10. This action, of all the dominos falling over, is our chain of causations (it began with me and ended with D10; our chain does not go on for infinity). Within this chain of causations (Def. 6), we have contained all the prior definitions. I was the cause (Def. 1) for D1 falling over, D1 falling over was the effect (Def. 4) of me pushing D1 over. The cause of D2 falling over was D1 falling over and the effect of D2 falling over is D3 falling over.  This system would continue until D10 fell over, completing our chain of causation. Now every cause (as we listed prior) from D1 – D9 are called intermediate causes (Def. 3) because they are neither the first cause nor the ultimate effect; the first cause is me, the ultimate effect is D10 falling over. Now here is the hard part. We would call everything falling over from D1 to D10, the Ultimate effect (Def. 5) of my pushing D1. Also all causes prior to D10 are efficient causes to D10 falling over (Def. 2 - so you would have 9 efficient causes including me because we are counting all causes before D10). This system can be calculated from any Domino. D9 would have 9 causes including me -you don’t count D9 as a cause of itself falling over – and 1 effect (the ultimate effect of D10 falling over). Likewise, D8 would have 8 causes and 1 effect ( the effect of D9 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over ), D7 would have 7 causes and 1 effect (the effect of D8 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over), D6 would have 6 causes and 1 effect (the effect of D7 falling over and the ultimate effect of D10 falling over), etc… This would continue until every domino was labeled properly.

*Summa Theologica - Copyright 1948 by Benziger Bros., New York, NY; Inquiries send to: Christian Classics, P.O. Box 428, Notre Dame, IN 46556

The Hobbit: Book Review

There and Back Again.... By Bilbo Baggins
(A Book Review of The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien)

"So snow comes after fire and even dragons have their ending! I wish now only to be in my own arm-chair!" - Bilbo Baggins   Mr. Bilbo Baggins, taking to the usual smoking of his pipe and blowing rings in the bright early morning, believed life couldn't get any better. Between eating the many hobbit meals, six to be exact, collecting gossip about the, supposedly, private business of others, and enjoying the splendid gift giving and merry making, nothing seemed better. This is the story of Mr. Bilbo Baggins - or at least it was. For just down the road where he sat, a wizard, whose eyebrows bristled out past his wide brimmed hat and his staff which thudded along, was coming to give happy Bilbo a visit. Being the first book by J.R.R. Tolkien that I have read, I was very well pleased. The style was simple and the story fantastic. Though it was not such a labyrinth as other mysterious phantasy books, The Hobbit delivered an adventure as written through the eyes of a friend; and more closely the adventures of living as one. With a book of this sort, one must begin with the Title and storyline itself. J.R.R. Tolkien's title, "The Hobbit", and Bilbo's "There and Back Again..." are perfectly suited to tell the reader what to expect; the adventure of a Hobbit going There and Back again. However, soon before the closing pages, you will find that the letters, "There and Back Again..", were written with a heavy laden pen. It all began with twelve dwarves and an old grey wizard, at tea, pushing Bilbo out of his house and upon the road to retrieve the old dwarven treasures - Of course guarded by the evil dragon Smaug. Though his twelve dwarvish companions prove to be much more a problem than help, Gandalf, the wizard, played the guiding hand and ultimately the more mysterious of the characters. As they travel through thick and thin, mysterious and wondrous, to the last safe haven of Rivendell and to the more hostile Mirkwood Forest, Bilbo fights the idea of going back to the Shire and at every turn wishing to be in the comfort of his home. This constant fight to go home proves to be the bases of the story and moral: That an adventure worth going on always makes for a better story. Once Bilbo had finished his adventure, he struggled with accepting the idea of going home again. My remarks to the story and language are but short. The story was precise, easy to understand, and always kept you "in the know". Tolkien’s language was nothing short of praiseworthy of E.B. White and his belief in brevity and the use of simple language. But on the flipside, the story at times seemed too predictable and repetitive; a trouble came and a trouble went with almost no consequence and no surprise. Additionally, his use of the English language, I felt, though precise and understandable, were too constrained for the fantasy genre and may have limited some of Tolkien’s fantastic ideas and conceptions. These remarks hold a bit less value when being compared to the characters. Between Bilbo, the dwarves, and Gandalf, they were loveable, humours, and at most times very convincing. If Tolkien's idea was to keep your love for Bilbo, he did just that at the expense of the others. Gandalf was constantly leaving just before trouble and arriving just in time to save them, and the dwarves seemed too numerous and not enough character development to tell between any of them. As for the moral of the story. What more could a book be without a reason to read it? A boat without a captain seems unreasonable enough, but too many people seem to find a modern book without a moral necessary. They used to call them "children’s" books, which were devastating at best, but now they have got into being called "The Adult Section". If modern moral standards were to succeed, The Hobbit would be relocated to the philosophy and ethical section of any local bookstore. The story's moral hinges on a variety of levels – I will list a few. From Bilbo you are given the glimpse of everybody that has lived; to always want to be great and adventurous but never looking far enough (or in this case, close enough) and after, upon completing your task, wondering why it was hard to begin at all. The dwarves gave incite of what numbness of the mind could do, what working hard could accomplish, and how treasures can corrupt a just cause. Even Gandalf, as removed as he was, always proved to show what should be happening; if he was pushing Bilbo to continue, showing them the route best walked (though perhaps not the safest) or counseling the civilizations of others in courses of action. This book would have won my favour on this topic alone; most other books either lack morals or attempt to twist a farce into something profound. In all, the story and language kept this book distinct from all others and gave the reader a taste of things to come. The Hobbit, though it was known prior, doesn't act as the best stand-alone story - it is a wonderful and vast stage to give The Lord of the Rings. In all my personal taste, this is a wonderful book for all ages. I believe if you love The Chronicles of Narnia, the cherishing of simplicity, fantasy, and loveable characters, you will never stop reading The Lord of the Rings - And I loved The Chronicles of Narnia.