Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2012 11:35:51 GMT -8
The Flood, an alleged event more cataclysmic than any other natural disaster in history.Anyone believing in the Flood must provide rational answers to the following questions:
•(a) Gen. 6:16 says, "A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finisn it above;...." How could so many creatures breathe with only one small opening which was closed for at least 190 days--150 days plus an additional 40 days (Gen. 8:3-6)?
•(b) Gen. 6:15 says, "The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits(450 feet), the breadth of it 50 cubits (75 feet), and the height of it 30 cubits (45 feet)." How could two of every animal survive for approximately 10 months on a boat encompassing1,518,750 cubic feet? The food alone would absorb tremendous space.
•(c) Gen. 6:17 says, "I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die." Gen. 7:4 reinforces this point, "...and every substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Yet, how would a flood destroy sea animals, such as whales, porpoises, sea snakes, dolphins, amphibians, and all animals entirely underwater?
•(d) Gen. 7:8-9 says, "Of clean beasts, and of beast that are not clean, and fowls of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and female, as God had commanded Noah." The problems associated with this account of the creatures entering the Ark are particularly interesting. How did animals that are restricted to certain parts of the earth get to the Ark? Penguins, kangaroos, polar bears, koala bears, and many others would have to have crossed vast oceans. How animals from other continents managed to cross the seas can only be surmised. How did many of the animals withstand climatic changes? Many of those from polar regions could not have withstood the heat of the Middle East. How were animals prevented from killing their natural prey? Slow animals from other continents--snails, sloths, turtles, and so forth--must have started their journey to the Ark before the earth was created! How did only 8 people feed and water the world's greatest zoo for many months? How was the Ark kept sanitary, since there was only one window and one door? How did the animals know where to go when the time arrived to enter the Ark? After being released, how did they return to their respective regions of the world? The vegetation which many animals eat only grows in certain parts of the world. How was it brought to the Ark for storage? Are we to believe that two of every species--two dogs, two cats, two elephants, two snakes, and so forth--entered the Ark? If so, then are we to also believe, for example, that the tremendous variety of dogs in the world today, from the great dane to the chihuahua, descended from two of the species? This would mark a tremendous evolutionary change in only a few thousand years. Yet, biblicists are the ones who denounce the theory of evolution. And how did the animals know when to seek the Ark? The text implies they just came voluntarily.
•(e) Gen. 7:15 says, "And they went in unto Noah into the Ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." How did water creatures such as whales, porpises, sea snakes, dolphins, and so forth enter the Ark? Moreover, since millions of species of animal exist throughout the world, how could a pair have been taken from each? There are over 500,000 separate species of insects alone.
•(f) Gen. 8:4 states, "And the ark rested in the 7th month on the 17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." How could the Ark have rested upon several mountains at once?
•(g) "Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground (Gen. 8:8)." Why did Noah send a bird to learn what was clearly evident?
•(h) Gen. 8:11 says, "And the dove came in to him in the evening; and lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off." It's difficult to believe a dove could have found an olive leaf to freshly pluck in a world that had been submerged for nearly a year.
•(i) Gen. 8:20 states, "And Noah builded an alter unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the alter." Killing animals of which only two remain after the Flood seems absurd.
•(j) Gen. 7:13 states, "In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Sham, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark." If the human race began anew from Noah and his sons, are we supposed to believe the wide variations among the earth's people developed in short period since the Flood? Are we supposed to believe that the fair-haired Swede, the brown-skinned, dark-haired Indian, and the black-skinned native came from the same ancestors?
•(k) Gen. 7:4 says, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from the face of the earth." But what had the beast and the creeping things done to excite God's anger? They had committed no sin; they had eaten no forbidden fruit, and they had not tried to reach the tree of life.
•(l) Gen. 8:5 and 8:13 state the Flood covered the earth and its mountains. If so, where did all the water go?
•(m) Lastly, the questions raised by Gen. 8:19 must be answered. The verse says, "Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark." How were the animals preserved after leaving the Ark? There was no grass except such as had been submerged for a year. How were the herbivores taken care of until the earth was again clothed with vegetation? There were no animals to be devoured by the carnivores, except those which were on the Ark. From whence came their food?
Still to be analyzed are those contradictions within Genesis with respect to what allegedly happened. The following are prime examples:
•(a) Gen. 6:19 says, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark,...." (Also note Gen. 7:8-9, 14-15). Yet, Gen. 7:2 says, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by twos, the male and his female." Are clean beasts to enter by 2's or by 7's?
•(b) Gen. 6:20 says, "Of fowls after their kind...two of every sort shall come unto thee,...." Yet, Gen. 7:3 says, "Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female;...."
•(c) Gen. 7:2 says "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, male and his female;...." Yet, clean and unclean animals were not delineated until the eleventh chapter of Leviticus. The Mosic law arose 600 years after the Flood. There were no Jews, Israelites, or clean vs. unclean animals in Noah's time.
•(d) Gen. 7:7 says, "And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his son's wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the Flood...." Later, Gen. 7:13 says, "In the same day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark...." In other words, Gen. 7:13-17 recapitulates Gen 7:7-12. Apparently they entered two times for the "take-off."
•(e) Gen. 6:17 says, "all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die." Yet, Gen. 7:21-22 says, "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." Did every living thing die or just those that creepeth on the land?
•(f) Gen. 8:3 says, "And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the 150 days the waters were abated." Yet, two verses later the text says, "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month." According to the third verse the waters had already disappeared after 150 days (5 months).
•(g) Gen. 8:9 says, "...for the waters were on the face of the whole earth:...." Yet, 8:3 already said, "And the waters returned off the earth continually: and after the end of the 150 days the waters were abated." According to the third verse the waters had already vanished. (It should be noted that if "abated" means lessened rather than vanished, then why would the text say, "after the end of 150 days the waters were abated"? In reality, this interpretation would mean the waters were abated the moment they began to recede. They would have been abated at the beginning of the 150 days, not at the end.)
•(h) Gen 8:5 says, "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen." Yet, verse 4 just finished saying, "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." Why would the tops of the mountains not be visible until the tenth month when the ark had already come to rest on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month?
•(i) Gen. 8:13 says, "And it came to pass in the 601st year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth... and behold, the face of the ground was dry." Yet the next verse says, "And in the second month, on the 27th day of the month, was the earth dried." Was the earth dried on Jan.1st or Feb. 27th? If it was dry on Jan 1st, then they stayed in the ark 58 days longer than needed.
(j) The Lord promised Noah in Gen. 8:20, "While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." This promise is contradicted by three subsequent verses: "and the seven years of dearth began to come,... and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread (Gen. 41:54)." "And the famine was over all the face of the earth...(Gen. 41:56)." "For these two years hath the famine been in the land..."
•(k) Gen. 9:3 says, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you (Noah)." Yet Deut. 14:7-19 lists many animals that are not to be eaten. Either God changed his mind (contra. Mal. 3:6), a new code of morality was instituted, or the verses are contradictory.
•(l) In Gen. 9:6 God told Noah, "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God made he man." Yet, God broke his own rule by releasing Cain and providing him protection after he killed Abel. As Gen. 4:15 says, "And the Lord said unto him (Cain). Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
•(m) Gen. 6:7-9 says, "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;.... But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.... Noah was a just man and perfect in his generation, and Noah walked with God." But according to Gen. 7:7, others joined Noah on the Ark. "And Noah went in, and his sons and his wife, and his son's wives with him, into the ark,...." Noah was the only perfect person, yet other people were also spared. If seven imperfect people received special treatment, then why didn't thousands of others?
•(n) And lastly, God made a decidedly inconsistent statement in Gen. 8:21. "...and the Lord said in his heart, 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." God said he would not any more curse the ground for man's sake. His reason is not that man is, or will be good, but because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. God destroyed man because of his wickedness. Now he promises not to destroy him again for the same reason, his wickedness.
Letter #22 continues from Issue #10, page 5 (Part H) You claim that Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15:5 can only be interpreted to mean that either there were13 apostles or Peter was not an apostle. In fact, the explanation for this verse is childishly simple: the Lord appeared first to Peter alone (See: Luke 24:34) and then to the full group of apostles, including Peter.
Editor's Response to Letter #22 (Part H) In 1 Cor. 15:5 Paul stated: "And that he was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve." You claim that Peter was in the group of twelve and quote Luke 24:34 to prove your point. You should have read Luke 24:33-34 which says: "And they (two men on the road to Emmaus) rose up the same hours, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." Verse 34 strongly implies that Peter was not present, because he was the subject of the conversation. But even more importantly, the inaccuracy of Paul's "twelve" in 1 Cor. 15:5 is shown in the fact that Luke 24:33 says eleven, not twelve, apostles were present when Jesus appeared in Luke 24:36. Incidentally, it should be noted that if there were, in fact, twelve apostles as Paul alleged, then Judas must have come back to life. He died before Jesus appeared to the Apostles, and his replacement, Matthias, was not elected to the Apostles until after the Ascension.
Letter #22 Continues (Part I) Finally, you say that Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 10:8 contradicts Num. 25:9. In fact, however, it doesn't. Paul states that 23,000 fell in one day; Numbers 25:9 states that "those who died by the plague were 24,000. It does not state that all of the 24,000 died in one day, as Paul does. Technically, therefore, there is no contradiction. But beyond this, even if Paul had used the number 23,000 to refer to an event in the O.T., specifying 24,000, there would still not really be an error. Paul was simply making a point--whether he recalled the number of people that died perfectly accurately is not really important.
Editor's Response to Letter #22 (Part i) You have given the common response to this problem, but have failed to note that Numbers 25:5-9 is referring to what occurred in a single day. The narrative of events is quick, brief, and consecutive. Moses gave an order to slay the offenders. Immediately thereafter an Israelite took a Midianite woman into his tent and was slain by Phineas for doing so. Immediately following this the plague was stopped, but only after 24,000 had died. The actual verses in Numbers 25:5-9 show the plague was confined to one day: "And Moses said to the judges of Israel, 'Every one of you slay his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.' And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family in sight of all the congregation.... And when Phineas...saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand. And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through.... So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.
Your final statement is little short of amazing, in light of the fact that it's diametrically opposed to the very premise upon which inerrancy is based. In effect, you are stating that if Paul's figure is incorrect, so what. One might just as well say: if Jesus is not God, so what; if salvation does not exist, so what; if Jesus is not the Messiah, so what; if Adam and Eve did not sin, so what. All of these concepts, including the number that died during the plague, came from the same book--the Bible. And if it can be mistaken with repect to one belief, it can be false with respect to all. How do you know what is true when you admit certain parts are false? Surely you must realize that if it's God's book it can't have one scintilla of imperfection. A perfect being can't produce a book with even a minor error. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, said it well: "If there be any mistake in the Bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth." (Journal, Wed., July 24, 1776). It becomes nothing more than another book on the shelf.
Letter #22 concludes (Part J) So, Mr. McKinsey, in one section of your publication that really deals specifically with biblical "inerrancy" your "score" was 0 for 8. Perhaps you will not agree with my position on these issues. I really wouldn't expect you to. But I hope that you have some faint recognition of the fact that I do know whereof I speak on these matters, that I have investigated them more thoroughly than you have, and that your arguments remain completely unconvincing to me. I now have arrived at the purpose of my matter. The section of your publication just prior to "Paul, the Deceptive Disciple" is "Coping with Apologists". It closes with the remarkable statement: What do you do with people who won't engage in any critical discussion of the Bible, whose minds are closed? When Jesus assumes control many seem to enter another dimension, which is not so much a twilight zone as one of pure darkness." I have only been a Christian for less than five years, but I have read through the entire Bible at least three times, and spent countless hours studying it and reading other books about it. I attended seminary at the graduate level for a year, after being out of college for almost 12 years (I received my B.A. from Williams College in 1967), achieving a 4.0 average in the process. The deeper I become involved in Christianity, the clearer it becomes to me that, just as you say, Christians do live in a world that is in many ways radically different from non-Christians. The problem with your perception of this fact is that it is non-Christians that live in the world of darkness. (SBJ then quoted John 3:19-21). I am confused by people such as yourself, Mr. McKinsey. Do you actually know that the so-called "errors" which you point out are actually not errors at all (as I have demonstrated)? (Are you, in other words, simply trying to turn people against the Bible using whatever means are necessary?) Or, do you actually believe that these things which you have alluded to are errors?....
Editor's response to Letter #22 (Part J) You have made several points, SBJ. Let's take them one at a time. In the first place, BE works with biblical errancy, not inerrancy. Whether the latter even exists is a matter of dispute. Second, you said my score was 0 for 8, which reminds me of the polling booth official who told his leading political opponent: "It isn't who has the votes my friend, it's who counts them." Third, you stated you know whereof you speak and have investigated these matters more thoroughly than I. I suggest we leave this determination to the readers. Fourth, it would be difficult to convince someone of anything if he insisted upon leaping to premature conclusions and engaging in braggadocio. You ignored the advice of the book which you defend with such conviction. Proverbs 27:2 says, "Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth." I suggest you hear-out your opposition before drawing conclusions. Fifth, the relationship between your educational background and the Bible's "validity" is difficult to fathom. Higher institutions have hundreds of biblicists with innumerable degrees. Many have devoted not 5 but 50 years to scripture. Yet, I doubt if many would claim their assertions are true because of the years involved. Sixth, I take exception to the comment that I use "whatever means are necessary." You are impugning the integrity of someone about whom you know little. I have not questioned your character and would ask that you respond in kind. Let's restrict ourselves to the issue and let others render the verdicts. Seventh, I don't have to "turn people against the Bible." Many make that choice themselves once they have the data and have heard the arguments. At this point in your letter, SBJ, you proceeded to describe the errors of my ways and urge repentance. You switched from "prover" to "preacher". I only wish you had other issues for BE instead of writing four final pages permeated with premature judgmental comments and a patronizing attitude based on Issue #8 alone. Criticizing points with BE is quite acceptable, but any attempt to summarize to the jury before the opening remarks have been concluded is quite unwise, if not juvenile. Remember your phrase "childishly simple".
Letter #24 from FM of Novato, Claifornia Dear Dennis I've enclosed a page of our local newspaper with your ad. (FM kindly bought an ad for BE in his local town paper). The ad ran twice, but it's a small ad in a small weekly, so you may not get any responses. The city council recently approved having a prayer before council meetings, which I argued against to no avail, so your ad is a last gesture of defiance. Being a 63-year-old printer...I do believe in the value of advertizing. However, as much as I would like to do more, I am still waiting for my ship to come in . When and if she ever does, you can be assured you will get more publicity. I am also enclosing an issue of Basis containing the story on how to make a Shroud of Turin, which may be an answer to letter 21 from BLC in BE issue #9.
Editor's Response to Letter #24 Dear FM, Any advertising you can render BE is certainly appreciated. I have many 3"x3" fliers that can be posted on bulletin boards. Each card says:
BIBLICAL ERRANCY
ONE FREE COPY
23 FAY DRIVE
ENON, OHIO 45323
If you would like to aid the effort by posting some around your area, please let me know how many you want and I'll mail them. Anyone who would be willing to assist BE in this manner need only write. Advertizing: if you know of any publications in which I could advertize effectively, but inexpensively, please let me know. So far I've relied mostly on the Humanist, the Progressive, the Guardian, the Churchman, Free Inquiry and In These Times.
Letter #25 from JLC of Madison, Wisconsin
Dear Dennis,
Sample copy of BE received and much appreciated. I would like to know if the following subjects are within your range of consideration--The bullet stopping power of the Bible. I have read much of the WWI literature and have found repeated instances where a bible in a soldier's breast pocket saved his life by stopping a bullet or shell fragment. I have not read the literature of WWII and so do not know if this useful effect has been the same as in the first biggest war, or even if Bibles were carried in WWII. But surely this is a subject of great interest.... And of course there are Bibles and Bibles. I have one published by the U.S. Gov't in 1904--Jefferson Bible and then there is the Koran. Do you limit yourself to one certain edition?
Editor's Response to Letter #25
Dear JLC,
Bibles stopping bullets are not within the normal scope of BE, although I've occasionally fired a volley that has penetrated the Book and struck the heart of the matter. Seriously, I wouldn't put too much credence in the implication of these stories. They rank right up there with witches, visions of God, and bouts with the Devil. A Bible may have stopped a bullet, but why would that be of significance? Did they tell you about other books that did the same? Did they tell you about the instance in which a bullet went through a Bible and caused a death? Did they tell you about the instance in which the bullet completely missed a Bible in a man's breast pocket and he died? Did they tell you about the man who died in a trench because he was reading a Bible rather than staying alert? And did they tell you about the wounded who died because they sought relief in biblical verses rather than adequate medical attention? Bibles were carried in breast pockets during WWII, and no doubt similar results ensued. I didn't know the US Gov't published a Bible in 1904. Are you sure? This would create a church-state issue. I don't restrict myself to any edition or version of the Bible, although the KJV is,paramount.
Letter #26 from JRS of Ambler, Pennsylvania
Dear Dennis,
I've come to the conclusion that many, if not most, Christians preachers structure sermons around specific opinions that they hold in any given week. They then search their bibles for "scripture" that supports those opinions and which provides convincing sermon material. I know that you could produce splendid "sermons" based on any given bible. Would you consider including in your periodical a column devoted to a selected current topic of controversy (such a parents against medical treatment for their children) and supply references to "scripture" in defense, or offence to, those who use "scripture" in support of their actions? I know you are very busy as it is, so you couldn't be expected to give much detail, but just a few sentences would be appreciated. One effective neutralizer of scripture quoters is the counter-quote, even if it is equally out of context. I can't think of anyone as qualified as you to offer such a needed education in the name of objectivity. Here are a few month's supply of topics for your consideration: abortion, euthansia, life support means (or their withdrwal), in vitro conception, genetic engineering, political sermons, prayer in public schools, co-habitation, and creation "science" findings. Perhaps, if you find such material unprofessional or inappropriate for your publication, you might rather not entertain such thoughts. I would understand your reluctance if that be so. Incidentally, I demolished a Jehovah's Witness at my doorstep by recalling several of your back issues. She was so anxious to leave, she didn't wait for a contribution for the magazine. She left.
(In an earlier letter JRS stated) BLC of Wisconsin (See:Letter #21 in the Sept. issue) will find a relevant report on the Shroud mystery in the Summer, 1981 issue of Free Inquiry, Box 5, Central Park Station, New York, New York 14215.
Editor's response to Letter #26
Dear JRS. Your suggestion merits thoughtful consideration; however, I've avoided this approach because of the risks you mentioned. Taking verses out of context and searching scripture for words that buttress a particular opinion or philosophy have been the hallmark of most apologists throughout history. It's a fate I've sought to avoid. However, some verses seem to so clearly bear on current social issues that offering an occasional opinion isn't out of place. For this reason a new heading entitled "The Bible's Influence" could very well appear in some future issues and discuss topics such as the following.
The national news media is currently reporting a case in which a fundamentalist minister will not allow his daughter to receive medical treatment for her cancerous condition because of his interpretation of the Bible. It would be difficult to imagine a more clear-cut example of the deleterious effects which can easily accompany adherence to biblical teachings. A child's life is being threatened because of her father's beliefs. Many Christians taking a more liberal, more flexible approach to biblical interpretation, tend to view the child's father as narrow, dogmatic, childish, and inaccurate. From their perspective, he has misread and misapplied the Bible. In reality, he had done neither, but they have. One need only read James 5:13-15 to see scripture supports his position. The "Commentary" in Issue #9 stated, "Many individuals have died because they put their trust in the biblical injunction to pray (And the prayer of faith shall save the sick-James 5:13-15)." It's interesting to note that CNN news reported this was precisely the verse used by the child's father to justify his position. His belief is thoroughly in line with biblical teaching, and in opposition to his child's continued existence. Depending on the capabilities of medical personnel, a child could very well die because someone got hold of a Bible. Just imagine! Fate could have dealt us such a father. My heart goes out to the child, although I fear the worst.
EDITOR'S NOTE
•(a) Efficient utilization of space is always a concern of this publication. For this reason, abbreviations and contractions are employed and paragraphs are combined, even though grammarians frown on these practices. We apologize for any inconvienience this may cause.
•(b) We are often required to shorten letters to the editor when they are published. Only the essence of many letters can be inserted. Moreover, it just isn't practical to publish every letter sent to BE or send replies to those letters that aren't published. Please don't feel ignored if we don't print or respond to your comments. Rest assured, however, that every letter or piece of literature bearing on the Bible's accuracy is read completely.
•(c) From now on readers will be able to subscribe to BE for a year as well as six months. Many readers seem to prefer this approach.
•(a) Gen. 6:16 says, "A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finisn it above;...." How could so many creatures breathe with only one small opening which was closed for at least 190 days--150 days plus an additional 40 days (Gen. 8:3-6)?
•(b) Gen. 6:15 says, "The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits(450 feet), the breadth of it 50 cubits (75 feet), and the height of it 30 cubits (45 feet)." How could two of every animal survive for approximately 10 months on a boat encompassing1,518,750 cubic feet? The food alone would absorb tremendous space.
•(c) Gen. 6:17 says, "I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die." Gen. 7:4 reinforces this point, "...and every substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Yet, how would a flood destroy sea animals, such as whales, porpoises, sea snakes, dolphins, amphibians, and all animals entirely underwater?
•(d) Gen. 7:8-9 says, "Of clean beasts, and of beast that are not clean, and fowls of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and female, as God had commanded Noah." The problems associated with this account of the creatures entering the Ark are particularly interesting. How did animals that are restricted to certain parts of the earth get to the Ark? Penguins, kangaroos, polar bears, koala bears, and many others would have to have crossed vast oceans. How animals from other continents managed to cross the seas can only be surmised. How did many of the animals withstand climatic changes? Many of those from polar regions could not have withstood the heat of the Middle East. How were animals prevented from killing their natural prey? Slow animals from other continents--snails, sloths, turtles, and so forth--must have started their journey to the Ark before the earth was created! How did only 8 people feed and water the world's greatest zoo for many months? How was the Ark kept sanitary, since there was only one window and one door? How did the animals know where to go when the time arrived to enter the Ark? After being released, how did they return to their respective regions of the world? The vegetation which many animals eat only grows in certain parts of the world. How was it brought to the Ark for storage? Are we to believe that two of every species--two dogs, two cats, two elephants, two snakes, and so forth--entered the Ark? If so, then are we to also believe, for example, that the tremendous variety of dogs in the world today, from the great dane to the chihuahua, descended from two of the species? This would mark a tremendous evolutionary change in only a few thousand years. Yet, biblicists are the ones who denounce the theory of evolution. And how did the animals know when to seek the Ark? The text implies they just came voluntarily.
•(e) Gen. 7:15 says, "And they went in unto Noah into the Ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." How did water creatures such as whales, porpises, sea snakes, dolphins, and so forth enter the Ark? Moreover, since millions of species of animal exist throughout the world, how could a pair have been taken from each? There are over 500,000 separate species of insects alone.
•(f) Gen. 8:4 states, "And the ark rested in the 7th month on the 17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." How could the Ark have rested upon several mountains at once?
•(g) "Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground (Gen. 8:8)." Why did Noah send a bird to learn what was clearly evident?
•(h) Gen. 8:11 says, "And the dove came in to him in the evening; and lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off." It's difficult to believe a dove could have found an olive leaf to freshly pluck in a world that had been submerged for nearly a year.
•(i) Gen. 8:20 states, "And Noah builded an alter unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the alter." Killing animals of which only two remain after the Flood seems absurd.
•(j) Gen. 7:13 states, "In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Sham, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark." If the human race began anew from Noah and his sons, are we supposed to believe the wide variations among the earth's people developed in short period since the Flood? Are we supposed to believe that the fair-haired Swede, the brown-skinned, dark-haired Indian, and the black-skinned native came from the same ancestors?
•(k) Gen. 7:4 says, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from the face of the earth." But what had the beast and the creeping things done to excite God's anger? They had committed no sin; they had eaten no forbidden fruit, and they had not tried to reach the tree of life.
•(l) Gen. 8:5 and 8:13 state the Flood covered the earth and its mountains. If so, where did all the water go?
•(m) Lastly, the questions raised by Gen. 8:19 must be answered. The verse says, "Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark." How were the animals preserved after leaving the Ark? There was no grass except such as had been submerged for a year. How were the herbivores taken care of until the earth was again clothed with vegetation? There were no animals to be devoured by the carnivores, except those which were on the Ark. From whence came their food?
Still to be analyzed are those contradictions within Genesis with respect to what allegedly happened. The following are prime examples:
•(a) Gen. 6:19 says, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark,...." (Also note Gen. 7:8-9, 14-15). Yet, Gen. 7:2 says, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by twos, the male and his female." Are clean beasts to enter by 2's or by 7's?
•(b) Gen. 6:20 says, "Of fowls after their kind...two of every sort shall come unto thee,...." Yet, Gen. 7:3 says, "Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female;...."
•(c) Gen. 7:2 says "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, male and his female;...." Yet, clean and unclean animals were not delineated until the eleventh chapter of Leviticus. The Mosic law arose 600 years after the Flood. There were no Jews, Israelites, or clean vs. unclean animals in Noah's time.
•(d) Gen. 7:7 says, "And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his son's wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the Flood...." Later, Gen. 7:13 says, "In the same day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark...." In other words, Gen. 7:13-17 recapitulates Gen 7:7-12. Apparently they entered two times for the "take-off."
•(e) Gen. 6:17 says, "all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die." Yet, Gen. 7:21-22 says, "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." Did every living thing die or just those that creepeth on the land?
•(f) Gen. 8:3 says, "And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the 150 days the waters were abated." Yet, two verses later the text says, "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month." According to the third verse the waters had already disappeared after 150 days (5 months).
•(g) Gen. 8:9 says, "...for the waters were on the face of the whole earth:...." Yet, 8:3 already said, "And the waters returned off the earth continually: and after the end of the 150 days the waters were abated." According to the third verse the waters had already vanished. (It should be noted that if "abated" means lessened rather than vanished, then why would the text say, "after the end of 150 days the waters were abated"? In reality, this interpretation would mean the waters were abated the moment they began to recede. They would have been abated at the beginning of the 150 days, not at the end.)
•(h) Gen 8:5 says, "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen." Yet, verse 4 just finished saying, "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." Why would the tops of the mountains not be visible until the tenth month when the ark had already come to rest on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month?
•(i) Gen. 8:13 says, "And it came to pass in the 601st year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth... and behold, the face of the ground was dry." Yet the next verse says, "And in the second month, on the 27th day of the month, was the earth dried." Was the earth dried on Jan.1st or Feb. 27th? If it was dry on Jan 1st, then they stayed in the ark 58 days longer than needed.
(j) The Lord promised Noah in Gen. 8:20, "While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." This promise is contradicted by three subsequent verses: "and the seven years of dearth began to come,... and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread (Gen. 41:54)." "And the famine was over all the face of the earth...(Gen. 41:56)." "For these two years hath the famine been in the land..."
•(k) Gen. 9:3 says, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you (Noah)." Yet Deut. 14:7-19 lists many animals that are not to be eaten. Either God changed his mind (contra. Mal. 3:6), a new code of morality was instituted, or the verses are contradictory.
•(l) In Gen. 9:6 God told Noah, "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God made he man." Yet, God broke his own rule by releasing Cain and providing him protection after he killed Abel. As Gen. 4:15 says, "And the Lord said unto him (Cain). Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
•(m) Gen. 6:7-9 says, "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;.... But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.... Noah was a just man and perfect in his generation, and Noah walked with God." But according to Gen. 7:7, others joined Noah on the Ark. "And Noah went in, and his sons and his wife, and his son's wives with him, into the ark,...." Noah was the only perfect person, yet other people were also spared. If seven imperfect people received special treatment, then why didn't thousands of others?
•(n) And lastly, God made a decidedly inconsistent statement in Gen. 8:21. "...and the Lord said in his heart, 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." God said he would not any more curse the ground for man's sake. His reason is not that man is, or will be good, but because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. God destroyed man because of his wickedness. Now he promises not to destroy him again for the same reason, his wickedness.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #22 continues from Issue #10, page 5 (Part H) You claim that Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15:5 can only be interpreted to mean that either there were13 apostles or Peter was not an apostle. In fact, the explanation for this verse is childishly simple: the Lord appeared first to Peter alone (See: Luke 24:34) and then to the full group of apostles, including Peter.
Editor's Response to Letter #22 (Part H) In 1 Cor. 15:5 Paul stated: "And that he was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve." You claim that Peter was in the group of twelve and quote Luke 24:34 to prove your point. You should have read Luke 24:33-34 which says: "And they (two men on the road to Emmaus) rose up the same hours, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." Verse 34 strongly implies that Peter was not present, because he was the subject of the conversation. But even more importantly, the inaccuracy of Paul's "twelve" in 1 Cor. 15:5 is shown in the fact that Luke 24:33 says eleven, not twelve, apostles were present when Jesus appeared in Luke 24:36. Incidentally, it should be noted that if there were, in fact, twelve apostles as Paul alleged, then Judas must have come back to life. He died before Jesus appeared to the Apostles, and his replacement, Matthias, was not elected to the Apostles until after the Ascension.
Letter #22 Continues (Part I) Finally, you say that Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 10:8 contradicts Num. 25:9. In fact, however, it doesn't. Paul states that 23,000 fell in one day; Numbers 25:9 states that "those who died by the plague were 24,000. It does not state that all of the 24,000 died in one day, as Paul does. Technically, therefore, there is no contradiction. But beyond this, even if Paul had used the number 23,000 to refer to an event in the O.T., specifying 24,000, there would still not really be an error. Paul was simply making a point--whether he recalled the number of people that died perfectly accurately is not really important.
Editor's Response to Letter #22 (Part i) You have given the common response to this problem, but have failed to note that Numbers 25:5-9 is referring to what occurred in a single day. The narrative of events is quick, brief, and consecutive. Moses gave an order to slay the offenders. Immediately thereafter an Israelite took a Midianite woman into his tent and was slain by Phineas for doing so. Immediately following this the plague was stopped, but only after 24,000 had died. The actual verses in Numbers 25:5-9 show the plague was confined to one day: "And Moses said to the judges of Israel, 'Every one of you slay his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.' And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family in sight of all the congregation.... And when Phineas...saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand. And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through.... So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.
Your final statement is little short of amazing, in light of the fact that it's diametrically opposed to the very premise upon which inerrancy is based. In effect, you are stating that if Paul's figure is incorrect, so what. One might just as well say: if Jesus is not God, so what; if salvation does not exist, so what; if Jesus is not the Messiah, so what; if Adam and Eve did not sin, so what. All of these concepts, including the number that died during the plague, came from the same book--the Bible. And if it can be mistaken with repect to one belief, it can be false with respect to all. How do you know what is true when you admit certain parts are false? Surely you must realize that if it's God's book it can't have one scintilla of imperfection. A perfect being can't produce a book with even a minor error. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, said it well: "If there be any mistake in the Bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth." (Journal, Wed., July 24, 1776). It becomes nothing more than another book on the shelf.
Letter #22 concludes (Part J) So, Mr. McKinsey, in one section of your publication that really deals specifically with biblical "inerrancy" your "score" was 0 for 8. Perhaps you will not agree with my position on these issues. I really wouldn't expect you to. But I hope that you have some faint recognition of the fact that I do know whereof I speak on these matters, that I have investigated them more thoroughly than you have, and that your arguments remain completely unconvincing to me. I now have arrived at the purpose of my matter. The section of your publication just prior to "Paul, the Deceptive Disciple" is "Coping with Apologists". It closes with the remarkable statement: What do you do with people who won't engage in any critical discussion of the Bible, whose minds are closed? When Jesus assumes control many seem to enter another dimension, which is not so much a twilight zone as one of pure darkness." I have only been a Christian for less than five years, but I have read through the entire Bible at least three times, and spent countless hours studying it and reading other books about it. I attended seminary at the graduate level for a year, after being out of college for almost 12 years (I received my B.A. from Williams College in 1967), achieving a 4.0 average in the process. The deeper I become involved in Christianity, the clearer it becomes to me that, just as you say, Christians do live in a world that is in many ways radically different from non-Christians. The problem with your perception of this fact is that it is non-Christians that live in the world of darkness. (SBJ then quoted John 3:19-21). I am confused by people such as yourself, Mr. McKinsey. Do you actually know that the so-called "errors" which you point out are actually not errors at all (as I have demonstrated)? (Are you, in other words, simply trying to turn people against the Bible using whatever means are necessary?) Or, do you actually believe that these things which you have alluded to are errors?....
Editor's response to Letter #22 (Part J) You have made several points, SBJ. Let's take them one at a time. In the first place, BE works with biblical errancy, not inerrancy. Whether the latter even exists is a matter of dispute. Second, you said my score was 0 for 8, which reminds me of the polling booth official who told his leading political opponent: "It isn't who has the votes my friend, it's who counts them." Third, you stated you know whereof you speak and have investigated these matters more thoroughly than I. I suggest we leave this determination to the readers. Fourth, it would be difficult to convince someone of anything if he insisted upon leaping to premature conclusions and engaging in braggadocio. You ignored the advice of the book which you defend with such conviction. Proverbs 27:2 says, "Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth." I suggest you hear-out your opposition before drawing conclusions. Fifth, the relationship between your educational background and the Bible's "validity" is difficult to fathom. Higher institutions have hundreds of biblicists with innumerable degrees. Many have devoted not 5 but 50 years to scripture. Yet, I doubt if many would claim their assertions are true because of the years involved. Sixth, I take exception to the comment that I use "whatever means are necessary." You are impugning the integrity of someone about whom you know little. I have not questioned your character and would ask that you respond in kind. Let's restrict ourselves to the issue and let others render the verdicts. Seventh, I don't have to "turn people against the Bible." Many make that choice themselves once they have the data and have heard the arguments. At this point in your letter, SBJ, you proceeded to describe the errors of my ways and urge repentance. You switched from "prover" to "preacher". I only wish you had other issues for BE instead of writing four final pages permeated with premature judgmental comments and a patronizing attitude based on Issue #8 alone. Criticizing points with BE is quite acceptable, but any attempt to summarize to the jury before the opening remarks have been concluded is quite unwise, if not juvenile. Remember your phrase "childishly simple".
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #24 from FM of Novato, Claifornia Dear Dennis I've enclosed a page of our local newspaper with your ad. (FM kindly bought an ad for BE in his local town paper). The ad ran twice, but it's a small ad in a small weekly, so you may not get any responses. The city council recently approved having a prayer before council meetings, which I argued against to no avail, so your ad is a last gesture of defiance. Being a 63-year-old printer...I do believe in the value of advertizing. However, as much as I would like to do more, I am still waiting for my ship to come in . When and if she ever does, you can be assured you will get more publicity. I am also enclosing an issue of Basis containing the story on how to make a Shroud of Turin, which may be an answer to letter 21 from BLC in BE issue #9.
Editor's Response to Letter #24 Dear FM, Any advertising you can render BE is certainly appreciated. I have many 3"x3" fliers that can be posted on bulletin boards. Each card says:
BIBLICAL ERRANCY
ONE FREE COPY
23 FAY DRIVE
ENON, OHIO 45323
If you would like to aid the effort by posting some around your area, please let me know how many you want and I'll mail them. Anyone who would be willing to assist BE in this manner need only write. Advertizing: if you know of any publications in which I could advertize effectively, but inexpensively, please let me know. So far I've relied mostly on the Humanist, the Progressive, the Guardian, the Churchman, Free Inquiry and In These Times.
Letter #25 from JLC of Madison, Wisconsin
Dear Dennis,
Sample copy of BE received and much appreciated. I would like to know if the following subjects are within your range of consideration--The bullet stopping power of the Bible. I have read much of the WWI literature and have found repeated instances where a bible in a soldier's breast pocket saved his life by stopping a bullet or shell fragment. I have not read the literature of WWII and so do not know if this useful effect has been the same as in the first biggest war, or even if Bibles were carried in WWII. But surely this is a subject of great interest.... And of course there are Bibles and Bibles. I have one published by the U.S. Gov't in 1904--Jefferson Bible and then there is the Koran. Do you limit yourself to one certain edition?
Editor's Response to Letter #25
Dear JLC,
Bibles stopping bullets are not within the normal scope of BE, although I've occasionally fired a volley that has penetrated the Book and struck the heart of the matter. Seriously, I wouldn't put too much credence in the implication of these stories. They rank right up there with witches, visions of God, and bouts with the Devil. A Bible may have stopped a bullet, but why would that be of significance? Did they tell you about other books that did the same? Did they tell you about the instance in which a bullet went through a Bible and caused a death? Did they tell you about the instance in which the bullet completely missed a Bible in a man's breast pocket and he died? Did they tell you about the man who died in a trench because he was reading a Bible rather than staying alert? And did they tell you about the wounded who died because they sought relief in biblical verses rather than adequate medical attention? Bibles were carried in breast pockets during WWII, and no doubt similar results ensued. I didn't know the US Gov't published a Bible in 1904. Are you sure? This would create a church-state issue. I don't restrict myself to any edition or version of the Bible, although the KJV is,paramount.
Letter #26 from JRS of Ambler, Pennsylvania
Dear Dennis,
I've come to the conclusion that many, if not most, Christians preachers structure sermons around specific opinions that they hold in any given week. They then search their bibles for "scripture" that supports those opinions and which provides convincing sermon material. I know that you could produce splendid "sermons" based on any given bible. Would you consider including in your periodical a column devoted to a selected current topic of controversy (such a parents against medical treatment for their children) and supply references to "scripture" in defense, or offence to, those who use "scripture" in support of their actions? I know you are very busy as it is, so you couldn't be expected to give much detail, but just a few sentences would be appreciated. One effective neutralizer of scripture quoters is the counter-quote, even if it is equally out of context. I can't think of anyone as qualified as you to offer such a needed education in the name of objectivity. Here are a few month's supply of topics for your consideration: abortion, euthansia, life support means (or their withdrwal), in vitro conception, genetic engineering, political sermons, prayer in public schools, co-habitation, and creation "science" findings. Perhaps, if you find such material unprofessional or inappropriate for your publication, you might rather not entertain such thoughts. I would understand your reluctance if that be so. Incidentally, I demolished a Jehovah's Witness at my doorstep by recalling several of your back issues. She was so anxious to leave, she didn't wait for a contribution for the magazine. She left.
(In an earlier letter JRS stated) BLC of Wisconsin (See:Letter #21 in the Sept. issue) will find a relevant report on the Shroud mystery in the Summer, 1981 issue of Free Inquiry, Box 5, Central Park Station, New York, New York 14215.
Editor's response to Letter #26
Dear JRS. Your suggestion merits thoughtful consideration; however, I've avoided this approach because of the risks you mentioned. Taking verses out of context and searching scripture for words that buttress a particular opinion or philosophy have been the hallmark of most apologists throughout history. It's a fate I've sought to avoid. However, some verses seem to so clearly bear on current social issues that offering an occasional opinion isn't out of place. For this reason a new heading entitled "The Bible's Influence" could very well appear in some future issues and discuss topics such as the following.
The national news media is currently reporting a case in which a fundamentalist minister will not allow his daughter to receive medical treatment for her cancerous condition because of his interpretation of the Bible. It would be difficult to imagine a more clear-cut example of the deleterious effects which can easily accompany adherence to biblical teachings. A child's life is being threatened because of her father's beliefs. Many Christians taking a more liberal, more flexible approach to biblical interpretation, tend to view the child's father as narrow, dogmatic, childish, and inaccurate. From their perspective, he has misread and misapplied the Bible. In reality, he had done neither, but they have. One need only read James 5:13-15 to see scripture supports his position. The "Commentary" in Issue #9 stated, "Many individuals have died because they put their trust in the biblical injunction to pray (And the prayer of faith shall save the sick-James 5:13-15)." It's interesting to note that CNN news reported this was precisely the verse used by the child's father to justify his position. His belief is thoroughly in line with biblical teaching, and in opposition to his child's continued existence. Depending on the capabilities of medical personnel, a child could very well die because someone got hold of a Bible. Just imagine! Fate could have dealt us such a father. My heart goes out to the child, although I fear the worst.
EDITOR'S NOTE
•(a) Efficient utilization of space is always a concern of this publication. For this reason, abbreviations and contractions are employed and paragraphs are combined, even though grammarians frown on these practices. We apologize for any inconvienience this may cause.
•(b) We are often required to shorten letters to the editor when they are published. Only the essence of many letters can be inserted. Moreover, it just isn't practical to publish every letter sent to BE or send replies to those letters that aren't published. Please don't feel ignored if we don't print or respond to your comments. Rest assured, however, that every letter or piece of literature bearing on the Bible's accuracy is read completely.
•(c) From now on readers will be able to subscribe to BE for a year as well as six months. Many readers seem to prefer this approach.