Lita Cosner of Creation Ministries International has written a detailed article as a rebuttal to an article by Kurt Eichenwald that appears in a recent issue of Newsweek. Eichenwald takes great liberties in attacking the Bible, God, and Christians (what else is new?), spreading many of the same repetitive, unsubstantiated arguments many of us have come across from atheist/agnostic sheeple who flood the Internet with their comments.

In her rebuttal article, Cosner highlights many of Eichenwald’s discrepancies. For example:

  1. Eichenwald claims no one alive today has really read the Bible since no one has the originals. When you examine this argument, it doesn’t really hold water since we can apply it to many books, fiction and nonfiction, that are on the market today. In schools and universities, no teacher or professor or student has the original manuscript of textbooks from which they teach or learn. They have a heavily edited version of what the author(s) originally wrote, whether their copy is in print or an ebook. Does this mean that we automatically dismiss all textbooks? No, because we have ways of verifying the info in them, just as we do with the Bible, to determine accuracy–whether physical, historical, scientific, or spiritual. Furthermore, as Cosner points out, if you don’t have the originals as a comparison, then how can Eichenwald make the claim no one has really read the Bible? At best, it would be more accurate to say “We don’t know if we’ve really read the Bible,” if we were to go along with his assumptions–which brings me to
  2.  Eichenwald ignores the valid manuscript evidence that verifies the Bible’s authenticity. We know the New Testament was completed and in wide circulation by 100 AD and that the New Testament reflects that. How? From the late 1st century to early 2nd century writings of such people as Irenaeus, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, and others that quote heavily from the New Testament (i.e. the Textus Receptus). We also have some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which includes the oldest known manuscript of Daniel and manuscripts pre-dating (and accurately matching) the Masoretic Text from which we get the Old Testament.
  3. Eichenwald displays ignorance of the New Testament’s Koine Greek. Cosner points out his arguments about Koine are inaccurate as to how the language actually works. She also points out that there was editing in some of the Bible manuscripts and then quotes Origen of Alexandria to back that up, which I think was a mistake on her part. The editing errors were discovered specifically in 1% of manuscripts and those manuscripts were from the Alexandrian text, not the Antioch manuscripts. Christian apologist John William Burgon pointed this out in 1883 after an exhaustive examination of the manuscripts available at that time. Professional scribes who were trained correctly destroyed manuscripts with errors because they knew that man lives by “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” But overall, Cosner is spot on with her rebuttal.
  4. Eichenwald wraps up his article with the ever popular “Don’t judge” aimed at Christians. However, his whole article was his personal judgment against God, the Bible, and God’s people. So the hypocrisy is glaring, since if he feels we shouldn’t judge, then he shouldn’t have written his article in the first place. Or maybe he means, like so many other skeptics, that since he as an “intellectual” non-religious person, that makes him superior over all Christians and, therefore, he has the right to judge. In that case, it’s his glaring hubris.

I’ve only given you enough to whet your appetite here, so you might want to read both Eichenwald’s and Cosner’s articles:

Kurt Eichenwald, The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,, December 23, 2014.

Lita Cosner, Newsweek attacks belief in Scripture,, January 8, 2014.

Harry A. Gaylord