Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2012 11:37:16 GMT -8
REVIEWS
In Answers to Tough Questions (p.92) McDowell and Steward address the problems associated with the number of animals entering the Ark.
At first reading, the statements appear to be contradictory. First (Gen. 6:19-20) Noah is commanded to bring two of every kind into the ark, then in Gen. 7:2-3 seven of some animals and birds, and later in Gen. 7:8-9, the Scriptures speak of animals going in by two's. However, Gen. 7:8-9 does not speak of the numbers of animals going in, but the manner. Seven of each clean animal (three pairs, with another animal to be used for sacrifice) marched into the ark by two's, and the other animals also went in by pairs.
Several difficulties accompany this explanation. First, Gen. 7:8-9 clearly stated the number of animals entering the ark. They went in by pairs The manner in which they entered is not discussed, the number seven is not mentioned in either verse, and nothing is said about animals to be used for sacrifice. Second, Gen. 7:2-3 (RSV) says, "Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate." Seven pairs of clean animals, not merely seven clean animals, were to enter the Ark. And lastly, regardless of whether the number should be seven or seven pairs, Gen. 7:2-3 still contradicts Gen.6:19-20. The latter says, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark... Two of every sort shall come unto thee,...." They are to enter by pairs with no distinction between clean and unclean. All flesh means all flesh.
In the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties (p. 81) Gleason Archer attempted to reconcile Gen. 6:19 with Gen. 7:2. He stated,
Some have suggested that these diverse numbers, two and seven, involve some sort of contradiction and indicate conflicting traditions later combined by some redactor (an editor or reviser) who didn't notice the difference between the two. It seems strange that this point should ever have been raised, since the reason for having seven of the clean species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the Flood had receded (as indeed they were, according to Gen. 8:20)... Obviously if there had not been more than two of each of these clean species, they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar.
The fallacy in this explanation lies in its avoidance of textual precision. Gen. 6:19 says, "...every living thing of all flesh, two of each sort shalt thou bring into the ark...." The words "all" and"every" are absolutes, allowing no exceptions. If some animals went in by seven's then they didn't go in by twos's. They were an exception, and violated Gen. 6:19.
In the same book Archer attempted to answer another unrelated question on the book of Genesis. On page 77 he turned his attention toward the following query:
Gen.5:4 tells us that during Adam's long lifetime of 930 years (800 after the birth of Seth), he had other sons and daughters...as for Cain and Seth and all the other sons of Adam who married, they must have chosen their sisters as wives.
The problem is that Archer started talking about Gen. 5:4 in order to bring in the subject of daughters and, yet, Cain got his wife in Gen. 4:17 when only he and Abel had been mentioned. There is nothing in Genesis showing Cain married his sister or, indeed, that he even had a sister at the time of his marriage.
One of the most controversial verses in the Bible is Ex. 20:13--Thou shalt not kill. In Answers to Questions About the Bible Robert Mounce attempted to answer the question: "Does the commandment, 'You shall not kill' mean that Christians are not to go to war?" His response was:
That the sixth commandment is to be understood as a prohibition against murder and is not a blanket condemnation of taking life under any circumstances is seen by the fact that God not only authorized capital punishment (Gen. 6:9)...but also sent his people into war (1 Sam. 15:3)....that armed resistance is a permissible ingredient in the unhappy history of man is acknowledged by Scripture.
But the verse said nothing about murder. It said, Thou shalt not kill. Killing is a broader term, encompassing murder. The fact that the biblical God killed and ordered killing only highlights the inconsistency of God ordering man not to do that which he, himself, commits. The societal difficulties that have risen over this verse, especially during wartime, have caused proponents such as Mounce to change the word "kill" to "murder" in many versions. Although the KJV, the RSV, and the Catholic New American Bible use "kill," translators of such versions as the NASB, the NWT, the NIV and the Masoretic text opted for the more expedient term "murder". It would be rather difficult for military and law enforcement agencies to function if their members really believed the KJ maxim, Thou shalt not kill.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #27 from SBJ of Albany, New York (Part A)
Dear Dennis,
I appreciate the time you took to write me in early September. (SBJ was sent a personal letter). I have hesitated to respond, because, unfortunately, I suspect that the gulf which separates our perspectives on the Bible is, perhaps, too great to allow for any reasonable dialogue. For example, in your latest issue (#10, Oct. 1983), you counter several of the arguments I presented regarding your earlier arguments for the "deceitfulness" of Paul. Apparently, you were not swayed in the least by anything I said. Similarly I am not swayed by any of your counter-responses. Aware of the probable futility of my effort, I will, however, briefly address your counter-responses... The simple fact is that a great many of the greatest minds in history of mankind were either devoted Christians or avowed theists: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Hershel, Newton, Plank, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Schweitzer--all of these and countless others fall into this category. The claim that a belief in the Bible, or a creator in the universe, is only for the ignorant or unreasonable is a foundless myth-but one that, due to efforts by people such as yourself, will not die.
Editor's response to Letter #27 (Part a)
Dear SBJ,
I appreciate your letter but take issue with several points. First, you forgot to put Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Al Capone, George Lincoln Rockwell, KKK leaders, and other great minds in your list of devoted Christians. Secondly, you forgot to mention the many great minds who were eliminated because they refused to bow to the biblically-based beliefs of others. Thirdly, when did BE take a position on God's existence or refer to theists as ignorant? Abstract theological discussions should be left to theologians and philosophers. Fourthly, thousands of people have viewed the evidence and accepted the conclusions you denounce. The "effort" of people such as myself weren't the prime factor.
Letter #27 continues (Part B)
In regards to 1 Cor. 2:8 and the issue of who was responsible for Jesus' death, you point to John 19:16 as proof that Pilate did not ever grant his authority for the crucifixion. Actually, this very verse demonstrates exactly what you claim that it doesn't. It reveals that Pilate did, indeed, grant his authority for Jesus' death. Matt. 27:26, Mark 15:15 and Luke 23:24-25 corroborate this detail. The Luke passage is particularly clear: "And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand should be granted. And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will." Furthermore, it was very clearly not the unruly mob that nailed Jesus to the Cross, but the Roman soldiers acting under the authority of Pilate (See Matt 27, Mark 15, etc.). Finally, it was the rulers of the Jews (the Sanhedrin, made up of the "chief priests and elders of the people") that pressed Pilate to sentence Jesus to death: "Now, when morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death; and they bound Him, and led Him away, and delivered Him up to Pilate the governor." (Matt. 27:1-2). That the rulers of the day, both Jewish and Roman, were responsible for Jesus' death is simply and perfectly clear....
Editor's response to Letter #27 (Part B)
You discussed three points, SBJ--Did Pilate grant authority; who killed Jesus, a mob or some soldiers; and did some rulers kill Jesus. In regard to the first, you stated I erred by quoting John 19:16 because it shows "Pilate did, indeed, grant his authority for Jesus' death." But, John 19:16, Matt. 27:26 and Mark 15:15 do not say Pilate granted his authority. They merely say he delivered Jesus to them to be crucified. We don't know if Pilate granted authority. That can only be inferred. Remember, Pilate had just washed his hands of the affair and said, "I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him." According to your interpretation, SBJ, Pilate pronounced a death sentence after just declaring the man innocent. If Pilate did grant authority for an execution, then he did not wash his hands of the affair. You referred to Matt. 27:26, but ignored the prior two verses, which show Pilate felt he was innocent. You quoted Mark 15:15, but ignored the 14th verse, which shows Pilate wasn't convinced Jesus was a wrongdoer. You referred to Luke 23:24-25, which says, "pronounced sentence". If Pilate did sentence Jesus to death, then he acted in opposition to his will and beliefs. He merely yielded to the mob's demands. Consequently, it's misleading to give people the impression, as Paul does in 1 Cor. 2:8, that Jesus was persecuted by the government, and princes of this world crucified him.
Your second point, SBJ, is that Roman soldiers, not an unruly mob, nailed Jesus to the cross. But that's not what I said in the August, 1983 issue on page 4. My words were, "He was killed by a mob and some soldiers." They all participated in the execution. As far as who actually did the nailing, that's immaterial. It probably was done by some soldiers. But everyone in the crowd was an accomplice. Mark 15:11-15, Matt. 27:20-26, and Luke 23:13-25 show the chief priests, rulers, the people, and some soldiers contributed to the execution.
Your third point hinges upon the word "rulers." What does one normally mean by the word "rulers"? Most people think of a king, a queen, a governor, a pharoah, a province chief, or a figure of comparable stature when they hear the word "ruler". And that's precisely the sense given in nearly all the O.T. and such N.T. verses as Mark 13:9 and Luke 21:12 where Jesus says,"...being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake." Here rulers and kings are comparable. However, additional research shows there are other verses which Paul could say he is referring to if he wished to escape his dilemma. Luke 23:13, 24:20 and Acts 4:5 equate rulers with lesser officials such as chief priests, elders, and scribes. If this interpretation is used, then Jesus was indeed, killed by the "rulers" of his day. But, again, Paul is deceiving his readers. Governmental officials such as kings, princes, and rulers weren't really responsible. Biblicists have often exaggerated the extent to which they have been oppressed. You stated that, "it was the rulers of the Jews (the Sanhedrin, made up of the chief priests and the elders of the people) that pressed Pilate...." The word "Sanhedrin" never appears in the Bible. How do you know it was responsible? Moreover, you said the rulers of the Jews were made up of "chief priest and elders of the people." But Luke 23:13 and Acts 4:5 show the "rulers" are separate from the chief priests and elders. They may be equal, but they are not identical, as you claim.
Letter #27 continues (Part C)
(After some additional preaching, SBJ said ) One thing I wonder about: if you are so convinced that the Bible is essentially an overblown book, full of contradictions, half truths, and lies, why in the world do you expend so much energy on it? If I felt the way you do about it, I wouldn't waste my time on it. History is full of people who have been devoted to it, and our present age is no different. You aren't going to change history in any significant way, so why do you bother? Do you believe that the "untruths" of the Bible--or at least people's belief in them--are an obstacle in the way of progress? That the world would be far better off if it was rid of this book once and for all?
Editor's Response to Letter #27
You ask why I spend so much time reading literature I find erroneous. Why do American and Soviet scholars spend so much time reading each others' literature? Is it because they believe the others' writings are truthful and convey the answers to mankind's problems? No, it's because one must understand in order to cope effectively. You falsely stated you wouldn't waste your time. If that were true, why are you writing BE? History has had many people devoted to oppression and tyranny, too. Surely you aren't saying that makes it right. You allege I am not going to change history in any significant way, which is probably correct. But to do nothing is to leave the biblicists without meaningful opposition. Do I believe the Bible is an obstacle to progress? It's difficult to see how any book as flawed as the Bible could promote the advancement of man.
Letter #27 concludes (Part D)
Sadly, I'm well aware that you will probably go to your grave firmly committed to your crusade against the Bible. In the course of your effort, however, I'm sure that you will be confronted with many Christians who try to convince you of the folly of your ways (as I'm sure you already have been)....
Editor's Response to the Conclusion of Letter #27 (Part D)
Unfortunately, SBJ, you will probably go to your grave believing the Bible is the word of God. If I were on a crusade, do you think I would give opponents, such as yourself, a hearing? How many crusaders allow opposing voices a major role in their publications?
Letter #28 from EEB of Amarillo, Texas
I have enjoyed every issue of BE and was especially interested in the latest issue (Aug. 1983) in which you take the apostle Paul to task. It hardly seems fair to hold him responsible for what the author of Acts makes him say. When that "book" was written Paul was long dead. Now concerning who Paul believed crucified Jesus: Paul's epistles do not show any way that he ever heard of Jesus, the star of Bethlehem, the wise men, the slaughter of innocents, the flight into Egypt...or any other things in the gospels.... It seems that Jesus of the gospels was created to combat the belief that the savior was a phantom. The early church saw to it that all "scripture" contrary to the church's doctrine was destroyed.... Paul never heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (they may not have heard of each other) or of the things they relate.... Keep up the good work, but please be careful about equating what the gospels and Acts say with what we know Paul wrote.
Editor's Response to Letter #28
Dear EEB,
Your compliments and observations are appreciated. However, I have a couple of problems with your letter. You stated: "It hardly seems fair to...." I don't see how I'm being unfair. Either Paul did or did not say which is attributed to him by the author of Acts. If he did, there is no problem. If he didn't, then the author of Acts is a deceiver; he is being unfair, not I. I have no idea what Paul said and can only report what the author of Acts attributed to him. If you can prove the author of Acts quoted him incorrectly, then you should rightly hold him responsible. Second, I don't understand why you feel the author of Acts could not have quoted Paul accurately because Paul died years earlier.
Letter #29 from GM of Asheboro, North Carolina
Dear Dennis,
Your emphasis on the errancy of the Bible is interesting and convincing. But let me ask you this. With what would you replace the Christian beliefs of so many people? The ten commandments and golden rule seem like a noble creed. While the abuses, even with noble creeds, seem inherent. While the "errancy" of the Bible is significant, why throw the "baby out with the bathwater?" A replacement not likely any better may be difficult to determine. Enough time is not available to experiment with all the possibilities--one must pick and forge ahead--keeping your eyes wide open. Errors seem to be there--but where do you go from there?
Editor's response to Letter #29
Dear GM,
Your meaningful question merits a thoughtful response. You implied the Bible is the fountain from which morality flows. Yet, I know of no evidence showing those adhering closest to this book are more moral, more decent, more concerned about the welfare of others than those who don't. Nor am I aware of any information proving those attending biblically-oriented schools become better, more honest individuals that those who don't. My experience has been to the contrary. Second, which position is the result of moral teachings--doing that which is right because it's the decent thing to do, or doing that which is right because one expects a reward, a kickback, a payoff, someday? Third, if you are going to teach morality via the Bible, then a substantial portion of the entire book will have to be ignored or soft-peddled. (See next month's issue on the patriarchs and the April 1983 commentary, for example). Fourth, not only are many biblical heroes and role-models disreputable characters at best, but many biblical teachings are certainly not in the tradition of the Ten Commandments and the golden rule. The Bible's support of slavery and denunciation of all opposition to oppressive rule are notable examples. Fifth, many books contain moral teachings. Why adopt the Bible instead of the Koran, for instance? Sixth, do you really need a book to tell you right from wrong, to tell you lying, stealing, and cheating are abhorrent? Contrary to apologetic teachings, the Bible is not holding the immoralists at bay. A book to replace the Bible isn't needed. And lastly, you ask if I have a replacement for Christian beliefs. Are you saying it's better to believe that which is erroneous than to have no position? It's better to believe Jesus is God and the door to salvation, for example, than believe otherwise? As I recently told a caller on a radio station: You don't really care whether the Bible is true or not. As long as it looks good, feels good, and seems to make sense, that's all that matters. Remember, a wide variety of chemicals will provide a comparable euphoria.