Christianity,  Theology/Bible

Michael Kruger’s Christmas Eve take-down of Newsweek’s preposterous cover story attacking the Bible

Three cheers for Michael Kruger for exposing the outlandish Newsweek cover story attacking the integrity of the Bible. Released just two days before Christmas, the Newsweek article is riddled with basic historical errors and the author’s own prejudice against Christianity. I don’t know how this tendentious rubbish got into Newsweek, but there it is. Thanks to Kruger for taking time on Christmas Eve to expose this farce for what it is. He writes:

Of course, this is not the first media article critiquing the Bible that has been short on the facts. However, what is stunning about this particular article is that Kurt Eichenwald begins by scolding evangelical Christians for being unaware of the facts about the Bible, and the[n] proceeds to demonstrate a jaw-dropping ignorance of the fact[s] about the Bible.

Being ignorant of biblical facts is one thing. But being ignorant of biblical facts after chiding one’s opponent for that very thing is a serious breach of journalistic integrity. Saying Eichenwald’s article is an instance of “the pot calling the kettle black” just doesn’t seem to do it justice.

Again, the errors in the Newsweek piece are not just a little bit off. They are epically wrong. And yet the author appears oblivious to the fact that some of his assertions come right out of internet rumor mills and Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code novel. And yet somehow Newsweek thought it was a worthy cover story. It really is quite preposterous.

Paul once warned Timothy about the way that some false teachers operate: “They do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions” (1 Timothy 1:7). That is Newsweek’s cover story in a nutshell, and I am grateful to Kruger for pointing it out. If you need your spine-stiffened for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), then you should read the rest of Kruger’s take-down. It’s worth your time.


  • Don Johnson

    Al Mohler, Daniel Wallace and Christopher Smith have also weighed in.

    I find the Newsweek article to be a mixture of falsehoods, half truths and (a few) insights, but the chaff is predominant. The author is clearly not an insider, rather an outside looking in and not liking what he sees, mostly because he does not understand it.

  • James Harold Thomas

    If any major publisher ran a piece about Islam, or homosexuality, or feminism, or science that was half as hostile to its subject as this one was, they would rightly be chided from all corners.

    Sometimes I think we live in a bizzare mixture of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Alice in Wonderland.

  • Christiane Smith

    should an article in a non-professional publication be taken seriously when the author is not a respected scholar in the subject, nor is his work documented as a serious article would be ?

    • Kenneth Abbott

      There are two main reasons for responding to an article like this:

      1. In obedience to 1 Peter 3:15-16, to give an answer to those asking (especially if they ask with hostility) for a reason for the hope we have in Christ; alternatively, to shut the mouths of the obstreperous, as Calvin counseled.

      2. Pastorally, to guard and strengthen the faith of the sheep, who may be disturbed by the words of false teachers, mockers, and scoffers.

      • Christiane Smith

        Thank you, KENNETH, for your response. I carefully read your reasons and gave them some thought. I would add something to the guarding and strengthening the faith of the sheep who become confused and upset by challenges to their faith, this:

        teach them to keep this in their hearts:
        (from Psalm 27)
        “The Lord is my light and my salvation.
        Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the light of my life.”

        The words of the Psalm 27 are known to offer strong hope to fearful, troubled people by those who ‘pray’ the Psalms through on a regular basis. It is something worth trying for those who need this support.

  • Don Johnson

    Kurt Eichenwald on December 30, 2014 at 12:25 pm said:
    Saying you are failing to understand the message of the piece is hardly stating the piece is wrong. It means you are not reading it carefully or with an open mind. Also, I am preparing a lengthy reply to Michael’s comments, since he is one of the few critics of the piece who is not engaging in name-calling or blatant misrepresentation of what the piece says, and so I think his thoughtful writings are the ones I will address.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.