Issue #111-QUOTES (Pt. 9), Debate with White on Be

Biblical Errancy Issue #111-QUOTES (Pt. 9), Debate with White on Being, Person, & Athanasian Creed Concludes, BK Critiques Points 1 & 2 in BE's Pamphlet, Christian Liberalism

Nov 10, '08 5:00 AM
by Loren for everyone





Issue No. 111

March 1992


This month's commentary will conclude the alphabetical listing of notable quotes that was begun long ago and resumed last month.



QUOTATIONS

(PART 9)
TEXTUAL PERVERSION--"The purpose for which the passage is quoted, and the passage itself, are as remote from each other, as nothing from something. But the case is, that people have been so long in the habit of reading the books, called the Bible and the Testament, with their eyes shut, and their senses locked up, that the most stupid inconsistencies have passed on them for truth, and imposition for prophecy. The all-wise Creator has been dishonoured by being made the author of fable, and the human mind degraded by believing it... the name of the person of whom the passage speaks is not given, and we are left in the dark respecting him. It is this defect in the history that bigotry and imposition have laid hold of, to call it prophecy." The Theological Works of Thomas Painep. 241

"Hundreds and hundreds of commentators have obscured and darkened the meaning of the plainest texts, spiritualized dates, names, numbers and even genealogies. They have degraded the poetic, changed parables to history, and imagery to stupid and impossible facts. They have wrestled with rhapsody and prophecy, with visions and dreams, with illusions and delusions, with myths and miracles, with the blunders of ignorance, the ravings of insanity and the ecstasy of hysterics. Millions of priests and preachers have added to the mysteries of the inspired book by explanation, by showing the wisdom of foolishness, the foolishness of wisdom, the mercy of cruelty and the probability of the impossible." "Superstition," Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 334-35

"Not versions, but perversions" St. Jerome

"The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed." The Theological Works of Thomas PaineP. 179

"Every phrase and circumstance are marked with the barbarous hand of superstitious torture, and forced into meanings it was impossible they could have. The head of every chapter, and the top of every page, are blazoned with the names of Christ and the Church, that the unwary reader might suck in the error before he began to read." The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, p. 131

"...to argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead." Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1, p. 127

"Nearly all of the mistranslations have been made to help out the text. It would be much worse, much more contradictory had it been correctly translated. Nearly all of the mistakes...have been made for the purpose of harmony." Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 7, p. 459

"Nothing can exceed the mendacity of the religious press. I have had some little experience with political editors, and am forced to say, that until I read the religious papers, I did not know what malicious and slimy falsehoods could be constricted from ordinary words. The ingenuity with which the real and apparent meaning can be tortured out of language, is simply amazing. The average religious editor is intolerant and insolent...and always accounts for the brave and generous actions of unbelievers, by low, base and unworthy motives." "The Ghosts," Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1, p. 260



THEOLOGY--"The study of theology as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and admits of no conclusion." The Age of Reason, Paine, p. 191

"Follow theological 'reasons' far enough and it always leads to conclusions that are contrary to reason." Anonymous



TRINITY--"...the Pythagorean, as well as the Platonic philosophers, probably concurred in the fabrication of the Christian Trinity." The Life and Works of John Adams, by Charles Francis Adams, Vol. 10, p. 84

"This revelation (human understanding as given to us by God--Ed.) has made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one.... Miracles or prophecies might frighten us out of our wits; might scare us to death; might induce us to lie, to say that we believe that two and two make five. But we should not believe it. We should know the contrary.

Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and been admitted to behold the divine..., and there told that one was three and three one, we might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.

The thunders, and lightnings, and earthquakes, and the transcendant splendors and glories might have overwhelmed us with terror and amazement, but we could not have believed the doctrine." The Life and Works of John Adams By Charles Adams, Vol. 10, p. 66-67

"...Jesus' doctrine of the cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the first three verses of the 1st chapter of John, in these words. "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 by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being...." Which truly translated means, 'In the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made.' Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus, that the world was created by the supreme, intelligence being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism, by a mistranslation of the word.... One of its legitimate meanings, indeed, is 'a word.' But in that sense it makes an unmeaning jargon; while the other meaning, 'reason,' equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal pre-existence of God, and his creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that 'a word,' the mere action or articulation of the organs of speech could create a world, they undertook to make of this articulation a second pre-existing being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe....the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words." Jefferson's Works, by H.A. Washington, Vol. 7, p. 283-84



WOMEN--"The religious superstitions of women perpetuate their bondage more than all other adverse influences." Elizabeth Cady Stanton

"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of women's emancipation." Free Thought Magazine, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Vol 14, p. 1, (Sept. 1896)

"The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to women is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading." Elizabeth Cady Stanton

"It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible." George W. Foote



World's End--"Christ never wrote a solitary word of the NT--not one word.... He never told anybody to write a word.... Is it not strange that he gave no orders to have his words preserved--words upon which hung the salvation of a world?.... Why was nothing written? I will tell you. In my judgment they expected the end of the world in a few days." "What Must We Do To Be Saved?" Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1. p. 455

That concludes 9 commentaries that were wholly devoted to notable quotes from notable people which have been gleaned by BE from a myriad of sources over the last 15 years. Many others are in our repertoire but were not included because they are all contained somewhere within past issues.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #477 from James White Continues from Last Month (Part f)
So, all that is left for me to do is demonstrate that the distinction of being and person is one that is fundamental and logically coherent. We utilize this very distinction every day. We recognize that all things that exist have being. A rock has the being of a rock. A dog has the being of a dog. A human we call a "human being." Yet, we do not think of a rock as personal--we know it has no feelings, no will, no ability to view itself as one of a community of rocks. In the same way, while we may think our dog has "personality," we know that it is not personal in the way that we are (certainly a few radical animal-rights activists might disagree). A dog does not view itself, for example, as but one of the community of "dog-kind" nor do we find any dogs working for the betterment of "dog-kind." Human beings, however, are personal. We have wills, emotion, and recognize our existence within mankind.



Editor's Response to Letter #477 (Part f)

In the first place, James, you have made a distinction based on variances in intellect. Because animals are not capable of higher thought, are we to believe they are beings without personalities? If that were true, then everyone with very low IQ's would rank no higher than the animals because they, too, would not recognize their "existence within mankind" and would not be working for the betterment of mankind. By your definition they would be beings without personalities. Secondly, you constantly talk about the words, "Being" and "Person," without ever defining them. For you to say that dogs don't have wills or emotions is ridiculous. I had a couple of emotional dogs that had wills varying greatly in intensity and whose different reactions to the same situation were predictable. Some dogs are very friendly while others are anything but. People with pet cats and chimpanzees can provide similar testimony. What do you mean by person, personal, or having a personality? Moreover, in a prior issue I asked you for a distinction between biblical "beings" and "persons," both of which are alive, and you gave me a distinction between animals and rocks which have no life whatever.



Letter #477 Continues (Part g)

The Bible teaches that man is created in the image and likeness of God. God has being, of course, and God is personal, for He speaks, wills, acts, and reveals Himself to His creature, man. God has being, and the Bible clearly teaches us that there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, who share that being. The Bible differentiates between the Father and the Son and the Spirit--they are never said to be the same person. We see the Father speaking to the Son and the Son speaking to the Father, as well as the Father and the Son sending the Spirit. Yet, the Bible describes each as God, attributing to them the activities, names, titles, and prerogatives of deity. Therefore we have the Bible teaching that there is but one God (Isaiah 43:10), yet three Persons who are described as God. Here is the distinction you deny exists, Mr. McKinsey.

So, in closing, you may deny the distinction all you wish, and on that basis deny the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals do the same. But the fact remains that your original attack upon John 5:37 is based upon your own rejection of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. You assume what you wish to prove, and this is clearly a circular argument.



Editor's Response to Letter #477 (Part g)

James, you have come full circle. All you are doing now is rehashing the tired old Christian refrain as if you never heard a thing I have said about the Trinity over the years. First, you say that, "the Bible clearly teaches us that there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." There is nothing clear about it. Would you please cite chapter and verse to show me where the Bible ever calls the Father or the Spirit a "person" by name. Where are you getting this? You say they are "never said to be the same person" when they are never called a person, period. Anytime you send me a letter from now on, I want to see documentation, not pontification. Otherwise, don't bother. Second, like most apologists, you surreptitiously slip in metaphysical comments like "God has being, and the Bible clearly teaches us that there are three Persons...who share that being." Is this the God that "is personal, for He speaks, wills, acts, and reveals Himself" or is this the God known as the Godhead, the Godhood, the general term encompassing the Trinity? If it is the former, then how on earth do three beings exist within a fourth being all of whom are separate from one another? If it is the latter, then how could it speak, act, and have a will to begin with? Third, you say, "we have the Bible teaching that there is but one God, yet three Persons who are described as God." If each of these persons is God, then you have 3 gods within God and that means you have 4 gods. Fourth, failure lies not in my denial of your distinctions but in your failure, which is encompassed in a distinct aura of intentional avoidance, to adequately define what you are even talking about. Fifth, if there is anyone who assumes what they wish to prove, you are that person. You assume a lot, prove little, preach to excess, and don't even cite the Bible or one of the most well-known creeds in Christendom, the Athanasian, for support. As is true with nearly all Christian apologists, precision, clear-cut distinctions, and conciseness are not your forte. Like typical politicians, you and other Christian spokesmen have learned over the centuries that if you keep it nebulous, avoid specifics, employ a lot of grandiloquent rhetoric, and rely on glittering generalities and metaphysical doubletalk at crucial moments, you attract more and alienate less. As greater precision is employed, more conceptions and theories are removed as options and more people drift away dissatisfied.

Incidentally, I can't help but notice that you cited the Athanasian creed as your source when the very first sentence says, "Whosoever earnestly desires to be saved must above all hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish in eternity" And approximately 30% of the way through we find a reference to the Catholic Religion. As a protestant, aren't you worried if not panicked? And since you no doubt believe in the Nicene Creed as do nearly all Christians, how do you reconcile your protestantism with the line near the end that says, "And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church." And while we are at it, you might confront the line in the Apostles creed, which you no doubt accept, that says, "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church...." Apparently it is not just the Bible that is ensnared in contradictions.



Letter #477 Concludes (Part h)

Now, in the July, 1991 issue of BE, you addressed my comments regarding the inclusion of letters from Jeff Frankel and John Sikos in the December, 1990 issue. Both of these letters contained nothing but personal ad hominem attacks upon me--they did not have anything to do with "proving" anything about the Bible's supposed fallibility. In responding to my questions about why you included these letters, you wrote, "For you to talk about character assassination is rather incongruous, James, when your letters are nearly always liberally sprinkled with pejoratives and disparaging personal attacks. You repeatedly denounce ad hominem comments while remaining one of their staunchest proponents." While I claim no perfection for myself, Mr. McKinsey, I would like to challenge you publicly to provide from any of my letters to you anything even remotely similar to the following comments culled from Mr. Frankel's and Mr. Sikos' letters as they appear in the 12/90 issue of BE: (a listing follows--ED.). You see, Mr. McKinsey, you allege that my letters contain "pejoratives" and "personal attacks." You seem to confuse direct rebuttals of error on your part, including the exposure of ignorance, with pejoratives and personal attacks, as we see in the quotations from Frankel and Sikos. Quite simply, Mr. McKinsey, the letters were published for no purpose other than to give vent to their hatred with reference to myself. The letters served no purpose for BE. I believe this is plain for anyone to see.



Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #477 (Part h)

Don't try to shift the focus to the letters from others, James. We are talking about correspondence between you and me. And, as far as that correspondence is concerned, anyone who has read what has transpired between us over the years knows that you have leveled far more pejoratives and personal attacks against me than vice versa. In this letter, alone, you accuse me of being unfamiliar with the issues and showing ignorance. In an accompanying letter, which you do not want published in BE, you said I was not well suited to review one of your pamphlets, that I was unfamiliar with basic presuppositional apologetics, that I show a lack of understanding of the Trinity, and that I am unfamiliar with the issues. To me those are personal attacks on my knowledge and capabilities, the kinds of attacks that I have tried to avoid over the years. Lately, however, I've begun to reevaluate that position. I am not responsible for what others say nor do I intend to speak for those who are quite capable of answering your charges. My original comments referred to what you had to say about me compared to what I said about you. What others say about you is between you and them.



Letter #485 from BK of Victoria, British Columbia in Canada (Part a)

(Apparently someone gave BK copies of our pamphlets and he decided to send us the following extensive amateurish refutation--ED.)

Dear Atheists. I write this to reprove and correct and to answer your questions under the title of a pamphlet entitled: "JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER?" The Bible states: "The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them." You write as a natural man.



Editor's Response to Letter #485 (Part a)

Dear BK. After having read your letter which is to follow, I can only repeat what I told one of our critics many moons ago. Before you embark upon a program to "correct" BE, read what knowledgeable apologists in the field of biblical contradictions have to say. Instead of putting your toe into the water to test the temperature, you jumped headfirst into a boiling kettle with some of the most inane defenses I have ever encountered. Secondly, your final comment should have been, "You write naturally as a rational man." Preceded by a presentation of the problem and followed by our critique, each of your points will now be stated.



Letter #485 Continues (Part b)

[Point #1 on BE's Pamphlet -- While on the Cross Jesus said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" (Mark 15:34). How could Jesus be our savior when he couldn't even save himself--ED.]

You ask: "How could Jesus be our Savior when He couldn't even save Himself?" Jesus could have saved Himself, but if He did there would be no hope for you or I.... He was forsaken so that we might be accepted.



Editor's Response to Letter #485 (Part b)

My friend, you completely ignored the question posed and what the man said. You have an image of someone dying for your salvation and nothing he says seems to affect your predetermined notions. Those aren't the words of someone dying for you or anyone else. Those are the words of someone who can think of a hundred places he would rather be. Are we going to go by what he actually said or what you "believe" he is doing? What would he have to do to convince you he intensely dislikes the chain of events in which he is currently embroiled? What do you want him to say, "Get me out of here for Christ's sake!" What are you looking for?



Letter #485 Continues (Part c)

[Point #2 on BE's Pamphlet -- Jesus said, "whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt. 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly as Matt. 23:17, 19 and Luke 11:40 and 12:20 show. Shouldn't he be in danger of hell too?--ED.]

The context of Matt. 5:22 indicates it is calling a brother a fool which is wrong. Jesus was calling the self-righteous, the hypocrites and the wicked, fools; such as: "The fool has said in his heart there is no God (Psalm 14:1) also (Matt. 15:15-17). The believer (brother) is no fool....



Editor's Response to Letter #485 (Part c)

Jesus said, "whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." He did not say, "whoever shall say, Thou fool, to his brother is in danger of hell fire." Your attempt to prove that it was permissible for Jesus to call people fools who were not brothers isn't scripturally sound. Where is that in Matt. 5:22? Moreover, where does the Bible say that those who are self-righteous, hypocritical, and wicked are not your brothers? You need to restudy Christian theology, my friend. If those who are self-righteous, hypocritical, and wicked are not your brothers, then you don't have any brothers, because everyone exhibits these qualities according to verses such as Romans 3:23 which says, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." And where does it say that only believers are your brothers? Upon what textual basis are you making a distinction between the two? (TO BE CONTINUED)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #486 from AWL of Terre Haute, Indiana
Dear Dennis. When I read the Bible a long time ago, I recall reading a verse or verses which, in effect, say, "You can lie and cheat if it further's the Lord's work." Have you written on this? If so, in which 'Errancy'?



Editor's Response to Letter #486

Dear AWL. I think you are referring to Paul's comment in Rom. 3:7 RSV in which he says, "But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?" I have read this verse scores of times and after consulting many apologetic rationalizations I keep returning to the same conclusion. It means what it says and it says what it means. Or perhaps you are referring to Paul's comment in 1 Cor. 10:23 to the effect that, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."



Letter #487 from LFB of Richmond, Virginia

Dear Dennis. The advice you gave to one of your readers I realized also applied to me. Although it is important to read criticisms of the Bible by freethinking biblical scholars, it is particularly important for us to read and know the Bible first hand. So, I have acquired THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF THE OXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE WITH THE APOCRYPHA--AN ECUMENICAL STUDY BIBLE COMPLETELY REVISED AND ENLARGED.... Appearing in the annotation before Genesis 1, I found this amazing statement: "The primeval history reflects a 'prehistorical' or mythical view of the movement from creation to the return of chaos in the catastrophic flood and the new beginning afterwards...." The mythical view also included the Adam and Eve story and the fall into sin. The Judeo-Christian religion is premised upon sin, redemption and salvation. Doesn't that alone cause both the OT and the NT to fall apart? I am anxious to know your reaction to this surprising statement found in the Bible.



Editor's Response to Letter #487

Dear LFB. Ecumenical Bibles are generally produced by the liberal wing of Christianity and reflect a more pragmatic approach to the clash between Christianity and the Bible on one side and science and reason on the other. Liberals will often admit that many biblical miracles and stories are little more than myth and folklore which is not surprising. What is surprising is their belief in such equally ridiculous myths as the Resurrection, the Ascension, and Heaven. Their theology is as inconsistent as the fundamentalists, although they are often incapable of realizing that fact. They reject sticks turning into snakes and a woman springing from a man's rib, but they accept a man rising from the dead and some of the miracles performed by Jesus. They reject creationism and accept evolution, while contending that man has a soul and his ancient ancestors do not. They don't believe the earth ever stood still or Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt but they believe in a Day of Judgment and eternal happiness in Heaven. They firmly believe that the Bible is the word of a perfect being, but they admit that it has many contradictions, errors, and falsehoods. While accepting Jesus as the perfect and divine savior, who said in John 14:4 that only those who accept him can be saved, they contend that people in other religions can be saved too. Liberals are a hard group to corral because they are so diverse in their biblical views and so vague and inconsistent in their theology. They try very hard to reconcile the findings of science and rationality with the superstition of religion in general and the Bible in particular. To the very marrow of their being they want so much to keep the false sense of security provided by religion, while adopting the obvious findings of science and logic. But as one would expect, they only end up with a schizoid philosophy that is little more than a mish-mash of inconsistencies, vagueries, generalities, and metaphysical ambiguities. They have their feet firmly planted in the quicksand of both camps, while astride the vertical razor blade of trying to serve two masters at once, two masters that detest one another. The National Council of Churches is a prime example of an organization composed of liberal Christian denominations. BE does not usually discuss this wing of Christianity because the number of roads down which people can travel once having rejected the inerrancy of the Bible are too numerous to count, too vague to define, too vacillating to anchor and too individualized to warrant attention. Talk about trying to nail jello to the wall! There are almost as many theologies as there are proponents.