Issue #119-GOD (Part 5), JM's Tract Continues: Poi

Biblical Errancy Issue #119-GOD (Part 5), JM's Tract Continues: Points 4-6, Ten Commandments, Readers Use BE in Debates

Nov 10, '08 5:25 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 119


November 1992



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month's commentary will add to the list of reprehensible deeds committed by God that was begun in the June issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOD (Part 5)
•HE DEMANDED 16,000 VIRGINS BE GIVEN TO SOLDIERS AS WAR PLUNDER AND 32 BE SET ASIDE FOR HIMSELF: Num. 31:31-40 says, "Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses. The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.... And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was....16,000 people, of which the tribute for the Lord was 32." Women rank right up there with cattle, donkeys, and sheep. And they have to be virgins, at that! Imagine a righteous and perfect God wanting 32 virgins to be set aside for himself!
•HE ORDERS GAMBLING: Joshua 14:2 says, "Their inheritances were assigned by lot to the nine-and-a-half tribes, as the Lord had commanded through Moses." Num. 26:52-56 says, "The Lord said to Moses, The land is to be allotted to them as an inheritance based on the number of names.... Be sure that the land is distributed by lot.... Each inheritance is to be distributed by lot among the larger and smaller groups."
•HE REQUIRES AN UNBETROTHED VIRGIN TO MARRY HER SEDUCER: Ex. 22:16 says, "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife."
•HE ORDERS HORSES TO BE HAMSTRUNG: Joshua 11:6 says, "The Lord said to Joshua,...You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots."
•HE SANCTIONS THE DEGRADATION OF THE ENEMIES' WOMEN: Deut. 21:10-13 says, "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord you God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.... After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife."
•HE SANCTIONS THE BEATING OF SLAVES AS LONG AS THE SLAVE CAN ARISE AT LEAST A DAY OR TWO AFTER THE BEATING: Ex. 21:20-21 says, "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
•HE REQUIRES A WOMAN TO MARRY HER RAPIST: Deut. 22:28-29 says, "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
•HE TRAINS OTHERS FOR WAR: Psalm 144:1 says, "Praise be to the Lord, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle."
•HE ORDERED THE COOKING OF FOOD WITH HUMAN FECES: Ezek. 4:12 says, "Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement as fuel."
•HE KILLED THE WICKED AND THE RIGHTEOUS: Ezek. 21:3-4 says, "...This is what the Lord says: I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked. Because I am going to cut off the righteous and the wicked, my sword will be unsheathed against everyone from south to north."
•HE INTENTIONALLY GAVE OUT BAD LAWS: Ezek. 20:25 says, "I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by...."
•HE EXCUSED THE SINS OF PROSTITUTES AND ADULTERERS: Hosea 4:14 says, "I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with temple prostitutes...."
•HE EXCUSED A MURDERER AND PROMISED HIM PROTECTION: After Cain killed Abel he was banished from the Garden of Eden and the following dialogue occurred within Gen. 4:13-15. "Cain said to the Lord, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.' But the Lord said to him, 'Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.' Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."
•HE KILLED A MAN WHO REFUSED TO IMPREGNATE HIS WIDOWED SISTER-IN-LAW: Gen. 38:8-10 says, "Then Judah said to Onan, 'Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his seed on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so he put him to death also."
•HE AIDED RATHER THAN PUNISHED A SWINDLER: In Gen. 28:14-15 God promised Jacob that his descendants would be like the dust of the earth and all the families of the earth would be blessed by him and his descendants. God also said he would watch over Jacob wherever he went and would not leave him. Yet, Jacob was the swindler who stole the birthright of his brother, Esau.
•HE DOESN'T SEE ALL: Gen. 4:14 says, "Today you (God--Ed.) are driving me (Adam--Ed.) from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence."
•HE IS INDECISIVE: In Gen. 18:17 the Lord says, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?"



(TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT MONTH)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #508 from JM of Sullivan, Missouri Continues (Part e)
(Point #4 in our pamphlet was: How can Num. 23:19, which says God doesn't repent, be reconciled with Ex. 32:14 which clearly says he does?--ED.)

JM's Defense is: In Exodus 32:14 we have a figure of speech, which Mr. McKinsey ignored, called anthropopatheia which is defined by Bullinger as: "The Ascribing of Human Attributes, etc., to God...REPENTANCE is attributed to God...."

In Num. 23:19 we have the case where it is stated that God cannot repent of wrong doing, because God cannot do wrong. Notice: "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." This clearly shows that the repentance, here, refers to the same kind of repentance made by man when he sins. In Exodus 32:14 we have the case of God merely taking a different course of action. The figure of speech anthropopatheia is employed so that God can condescend to man's level to allow man to know what is taking place. So there is no problem here at all because the word "repent" is used in two totally different ways.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part e)
Where are you getting this figure of speech nonsense, JM? Your forerunners created a word--anthropopatheia--out of nothing concrete, managed to have it put in the dictionary, and now you would have us believe it is applicable in this instance, when there is nothing in the text that would justify such a construct. Where are you getting the idea that there are different kinds of repentance? What do you mean the text "clearly shows"? It clearly shows nothing of the sort. Scripture says God does not repent, period. It doesn't even imply, much less state, that God does not engage in the kind of repenting man does or that there is a distinction between the two.

Secondly, Ex. 32:14 most assuredly does not prove that "repent" means that God was "merely taking a different course of action." The verse states, "the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" and clearly shows that evil behavior was involved. Of course, if words no longer have any meaning or mean whatever any Christian propagandist chooses to apply to them, then the sky is the limit as far as the meanings of "repent" and "evil" are concerned. I operate on the principle that the Bible means what is says and says what it means. Apologists, on the other hand, especially those of a fundamentalist variety, operate on the principle that words say whatever expediency requires.

Letter #508 Continues (Part f)
(Point #5 in our pamphlet was: How can 2 Kings 8:26 which says Ahaziah began to rule at age 22, be reconciled with 2 Chron. 22:2 which says he was 42?--ED.)

JM's Defense is: A co-reign would work very nicely in there. In other words, Ahaziah began to co-reign with his father Jehoram when he was 22 and took full control of the reign when he was 42. Things were often done differently then than they are today.

Immediately someone is going to notice where Jehoram (Ahaziah's father) only reigned for 8 years. However, the text does not say that he reigned only eight years. It says he reigned 8 years in Jerusalem. One possible explanation of this would be that Jehoram reigned 8 years in Jerusalem, and then reigned longer elsewhere....

One might point out that every Judean king was said to reign in Jerusalem. True, but not every Judean king was said to have spent part of that reign elsewhere. It is implied that Jehoram did (2 Chron. 21:11) in showing that he caused Israel to move to the mountains of Judea for their worship, which did not last as ours today does. Their periods were probably long periods of time. And it specifically stated that Ahaziah did in 2 Chron. 22:6-9.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part f)
What gobbledygook! Believe me, my friend, you'll never get an award for reading the Bible with a critical eye. You are so obsessed with defending the book at all costs that you don't hesitate to throw caution to the winds. You shot yourself in the foot right off the bat by saying, "A co-reign would work very nicely in there." How do you "co-reign" with a dead man? Second Kings 8:24 says, "So Joram (Jehoram--Ed.) slept with his fathers, and was buried with his father in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead...." And the 26th verse says, "Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign...." Second Chron. 21:20-21 says, "Jehoram was 32 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 8 years in Jerusalem; and he departed with no one's regret. They buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings." Second Chron. 22:1-2 continues by saying, "the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son their new king.... So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem...." From these verses we can see that both Kings and Chronicles clearly show that Ahaziah's father was dead when Ahaziah began to reign, whether he was 22 or 42. Obviously there could not have been a "co-reign." Second, where on earth are you getting this "co-reign" nonsense anyway? Nothing whatever in the text says anything about a co-reign. Show me one verse that even implies such an arrangement, let alone states as much. Third, where does the text say that Ahaziah took "full control" when he became 42? You have quite an imagination. Moreover, that isn't even relevant. Any kind of co-rulership would still mean that he was ruling. If he reigned he ruled, and if he ruled he reigned. The text says he "began to rule" and that is all that counts. The degree of rule doesn't matter; all that matters is that he reigned and the age at which it began. Fourth, since you created this co-reign gimmick out of nothing, can you provide one other instance of a co-reign in the entire Bible? In fact, can you provide one other instance of a co-reign in all of ancient history, be it biblical or otherwise? Please be specific with names, dates, and places. And lastly, I fail to see the relevance of your argument about Jehoram ruling in some other place besides Jerusalem. Moreover, 2 Chron. 21:11, which you cite as proof, says, "He made high places in the hill country of Judah, and led the inhabitants of Jerusalem into unfaithfulness and made Judah go astray" and certainly doesn't prove Jehoram "caused Israel to move to the mountains of Judea for their worship...." It says he made high places in the hill country and led the people into unfaithfulness. It doesn't say he led all of Israel into the hill country or ruled from that region.

Letter #508 Continues (Part g)
(Point #6 in our pamphlet was: How can Ex. 33:20, which says no man can see God's face and live, be squared with Gen. 32:30, which says a man saw his face and his life was preserved?--ED.)

JM's Defense is: This is a case where Mr. McKinsey did not look at how the words were used in the sentences. Leupold said concerning Genesis 32:30: "But this experience centered in a personal encounter with God, a direct meeting with God, a seeing of him, though not with the eye of the body. Does not the whole experience, then, sum itself up as a seeing of God and living to tell about it...." Jacob did not literally see God's face, but the whole experience is called a face to face meeting because he was in close connection with God in this confrontation.

Moses, however, had asked to literally see God's face with his eyes. He could not do that and live because to be able to see God one would have to be as God is, a spirit. (John 4:24, 1 John 4:l-2)

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part g)
Your problem is that since the literal meaning of the words is not what you want to hear, JM, you simply choose to ignore them and concoct an interpretation more to your liking. What do you mean by saying God was seen "not with the eye of the body" and "Jacob did not literally see God's face"? Of course he did. What does the text say? "I HAVE SEEN GOD FACE TO FACE AND MY LIFE IS PRESERVED." What are you looking for? This is by no means the only verse that says God was literally seen. Num. 14:14 says, "thou Lord art seen face to face." In Job 42:5, while talking to God, Job says, "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now my eye sees thee." And Isaiah 6:5 says, "...for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." How could the text be clearer? You should also read Psalm 63:2, Ex. 33:11, 24:11 and Amos 7:7-8. Are you going to symbolize all of these verses too? Why don't you just allegorize the entire book and be done with it and stop criticizing Christian liberals for practicing the same behavior? You and nearly all of your fundamentalistic compatriots are just like the liberals you decry. You don't hesitate to employ a figurative meaning when boxed into a corner. The only difference between you and they is that you resist more vehemently and have to be dragged kicking and screaming toward the unavoidable. (TO BE CONTINUED)

Letter #519 from JG of Altadena, California
Dennis.
In one of your previous periodicals (June 1990) you gave reference to Jesus saying that the hand of his betrayer was on this table. One reference said Jesus said this during supper and another reference after supper. I checked the KJV to cross-reference these verses; they all seemed to say Jesus made this statement during supper. You were quoting from Craveri who gave a list of NT events chronologically opposite from one book to another.... Matthew, Mark, and Luke all seem to say Jesus made this statement during supper. I debate with Christians over statements in the bible and I like to be accurate. If I am not, then that means I get egg on my face. Anyhow you are doing a Good job.

Editor's Response to Letter #519
Dear JG.
Stated verbatim, the 14th example given in the June 1990 issue is as follows: In Luke 22:14-21 Jesus said during supper that the hand of his betrayer was with him on the table, while in Matt. 26:21 and Mark 14:18 Jesus made this statement after supper. I should have said Jesus made the statement "during" supper in Matt. 26:21 and Mark 14:18 while he made it "after" supper in Luke 22:14-21. Sorry about the mixup but I inadvertently reversed the two key words. Luke 22:20-21 clearly shows that he made the statement after supper in Luke, and the contradiction remains, however.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #520 from HB of Alexandria, Virginia
Dear Mr. McKinsey.
Thank you for filling my order for issues 1 to 46 of Biblical Errancy and for enclosing the index for issues 1 to 115.

The Ten Commandments have apparently been omitted from your publication. This is a surprise because they have been praised and defended loudly, appear in many public places, and are held up by many churches as the finest set of moral principles. But they are terribly deficient.

They do not prohibit anti-Semitism, arson, atomic bombs, bacteriological warfare, beating, bestiality, bigamy, castration, drug addiction, drunkenness, exhibitionism, false advertising, forgery, fornication, fraud, gluttony, incest, pedophilia, poison gas, pollution, prostitution, racial segregation, racism, rape, sexual harassment, sexism, torture, and vagrancy.

The Ten Commandments are appropriate for a primitive group wandering through a wilderness who have no sense of values. They are inadequate for a modern society. You should examine them critically.

Editor's Response to Letter #520
Dear HB.
I can only assume that your final comment arises from the fact that you are not yet thoroughly acquainted with BE. After you complete the first 46 issues we sent, I recommend that you read issues 46 through 118 as well. I think you will then see that we have covered the Ten Commandments rather well. Incidentally, you could add slavery and child abuse to your litany.

Letter #521 from FT of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Dear Dennis.
I have been ordering 12 prior issues of BE every month for several months and have finally read them all. From now on it's back to one BE per month. I hope the withdrawal symptoms will not be too severe. Thank you for your excellent publication.

I, too, like RS of Denton, Texas (Letter #503 in BE #115), have been writing to the producers of tracts when I receive one. I would never have attempted this without the ammunition from BE.

Letter #522 from NS of Richmond, Indiana
Dear Dennis....
Want you to know I have had an on-going written debate with a "preaching minister" from a town near Richmond. It certainly has caused me to delve deeper into what has become an important subject to me. Thanks to BE, and other publications, plus my own research, I am learning! The fellow is a delightful man, for I stopped and met him, but, as I told him, he is awash in the stormy sea of Christianity with a leaky boat and no oars. We have exchanged two or three letters of considerable length, each one debating the other, and I LOVE it! As you well know, there is nothing he can come up with that there isn't an answer to, and nothing gives me more pleasure than to point this out. We are civil, polite and each very committed to the cause that we believe is the truth. Of course, I KNOW mine is, and I can prove it.

Enjoyed your replies to the "Anonymous Dayton Observer" that I finally got to read in the July issue. He's almost, but not quite, as bad as Jim White, who is totally irrational. Nothing is more amusing than a committed Christian explaining away the obvious inconsistencies in the Bible. Keep going at 'em, Slugger: you've got a lot of fans out here.

Letter #523 from RS of Sherman Oaks, California
Dear Dennis.
B.E. is right on the mark for exposing the hundreds, if not thousands of errors, inconsistencies, fallacies and contradictions of the Bible. We need the honest, direct evaluation that B.E. provides. Unfortunately, most Christians seem to prefer apologetic sophistry over honest, direct examination; not only do they fail to apply common sense when it comes to the Bible's innumerable errors, but they also don't follow its advice to "check ye the spirit."

The recent issues of B.E. give chapter and verse evidence of the "spirit" inhabiting the Bible. As B.E. shows, and has clearly shown in the past, the "Biblical" god is lacking in all areas of common decency. Can this be the god Christians want us to love, follow, and admire?.... The contradictions of the Bible stand as monumental testimony to Biblical error and vindication of B.E.'s brave stance against delusory Christian claims. Thank you again for your sanity-saving publication....

Letter #524 from RS of Sherman Oaks, California
Dear Dennis.
I sent a letter earlier, congratulating you for the pluck of B.E. in standing up to the fallacious doctrines of Christian fundamentalism. I have been posting BE pamphlets at college campuses, right next to fliers that advertise campus Bible Study groups; this action helps to balance the perspective of students who see the Christian advertisements, but are as yet unaware of the many errors, contradictions and fictions in the Bible. I think it is working because I don't see as many Christian fliers posted lately. Just knowing that B.E. exists seems to make people look before they leap.

As I see it, the reason why the fallacious ideas of Christian fundamentalists get propagated is because of the lack of accurate, unbiased information. However, once someone is armed with accurate knowledge of the Bible's fallaciousness, Christian distortion loses power, and its promoters slink away like wounded banshees. I think this is the reason why apologists like Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, Gleason Archer, etc. want nothing to do with B.E.; the exposure would be job-threatening.

I was amused by letter #496 from Dayton which accused you of being afraid to go toe to toe with "big name" apologists. One has only to hear a few of your many taped interviews to know this is not the case. I noted with irony that the writer of Letter #496 and his associates make no offer themselves to have an open debate, but passed the buck to their so-called authorities. Wouldn't they be surprised to know that their apologetic mentors are not equal to the task set them? One need only subject their apologetic writings to scrutiny to understand how fallacious most of their arguments are.

For example, in his book Answers to Tough Questions, McDowell offers an explanation for the variance between the Jesus genealogies of Matthew and Luke. According to McDowell, Matthew's genealogy traces Joseph's line, and Luke's traces Mary's; hence, the reason for the variance; he says a literal reading of the Greek text proves his case. Imagine my chagrin when I found McDowell's statement to be pure mallarky! After checking several Greek testaments, including Volume 1, Part 2 of Alford's Exegetical and Critical Commentary, I discovered that a literal reading of the Greek text shows unequivocally that the two genealogies are both the line of Joseph and not of Mary! Alford, himself a believer in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, says: "The two genealogies are both the line of Joseph and not of Mary. Whether Mary was an heiress or not, Luke's words here preclude the idea of the genealogy being hers; for the descent of the Lord is transferred putatively to Joseph...before the genealogy begins." (Page 473)

Imagine my amusement also when I discovered that McDowell had rearranged his quote of Luke's genealogy to persuade his audience; but his quote was in violation of the literal Greek text! The more I read apologists like McDowell and others of his ilk, the more I realize that their defenses of Christianity don't stand up to scrutiny. I have B.E. to thank for showing me the way.

Editor's Response to Letter #524
Dear RS.
Your labors are to be commended and you couldn't be more correct in your assessment of apologetic literature. Anyone who expects to find objective scholarship from those who defend the Bible has embarked upon a journey toward futility. Of that there is no doubt. From the apologetic perspective, the Bible takes precedence over all information to the contrary, regardless of how tangible and persuasive adverse data may be. One can't help but think of the old adage: My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: A BE subscriber whom others can contact is: Roy Smith, l5237 Sutton Street, Sherman Oaks, California 91403 (818) 788-8519\\\\\/////Correction: The proper address for Jim Hopkins, who was mentioned in the September issue as a person who could be contacted, should be 905-E Cloister Rd., Wilmington, Delaware 19809