120-GOD6, Annihilationis JM, Poi

Biblical Errancy
Issue #120 December 1992

GOD (Part 6)

GOD DISCOVERS WOMEN'S SECRET PARTS: Isaiah 3:17 says, "the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts."

GOD BREAKS UP FAMILIES: Ex. 21:2-4 says, "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the 7th year, he shall go free.... If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

THE GOD THAT SAYS DO NOT KILL ORDERS THE KILLING OF CHILDREN: Ezek. 9:6 says, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women...." and 1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and woman, infant and suckling...."

GOD KILLED OVER 50,000 PEOPLE BECAUSE A FEW LOOKED INTO AN ARK: 1 Sam. 6:19 says, "the Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the Ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people 50,070: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

GOD MANDATED UNLIMITED PUNISHMENT FOR LIMITED SINS: Matt. 25:46 says, "these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Also note Rev. 14:11 and Mark 9:43-48.

GOD VIOLATED HIS OWN LAWS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS:
(1) In Ex. 20:13 he said thou shalt not kill; yet, in Deut. 32:39 and many other verses he said, "I kill, and I make alive; I wound and I heal...."
(2) John 4:8 and 4:16 say God is love and 1 Cor. 13:4 says love is not jealous or boastful. Yet, Deut. 4:24 says God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. How can God be jealous when several verses say God is love and 1 Cor. says love is not jealous?
(3) In the Ten Commandments God says thou shalt not commit adultery; yet, Matt. 1:18 says, "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Ghost. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly." The Holy Ghost, who is God, impregnated another being's wife. If that is not adultery, what is it?
(4) In Lev. 19:18 God says, "you shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people...." Yet, in Deut. 32:35 God says, "To me belongs vengeance, and recompense." God rules out taking vengeance by others, but relegates it to himself.
(5) In Luke 6:27 God tells us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate you. Yet, in Gen. 19:24 he rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah because they had rejected him.
(6) Prov. 6:16 says, "there are 6 things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him" and the 19th verse says one of these is, "...a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." Yet, Gen. 11:9 says, "That is why it was called Babel--because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world." The Lord hates those who sow dissension even though he is responsible for all the confusion that emerged from his creation of a multitude of languages.
(7) In Matt. 26:52 Jesus said, "Put up thy sword...for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Yet, in Ezek. 21:5 God says, "Then all the people will know that I the Lord have drawn my sword from its scabbard; it will not return again." If what Jesus said is true, why has the Lord not perished?
(8) Deut. 6:16 says, "Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God," while Gen. 22:1 says, "it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham...." God tells us not to tempt, but he does.
(9) In First John 2:15 we are told not to love the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Yet, John 3:16 says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life." We are not supposed to love the world, but God sure does.
(10) Job 5:2 says, "For wrath kills the foolish man, and envy slays the silly one." Displaying wrath is to be considered anathema; yet Psalm 21:9 ("...the Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them"), Ex. 31:10 ("...let me alone that my wrath may wax hot against them"), and Num. 16:46 ("...for there is wrath gone out from the Lord") clearly show wrath is one of the Lord's more prominent traits.


The obvious conclusion to be drawn from all of the above is that God strongly adheres to the maxim, "Do as I say, not as I do," which parents are often condemned for practicing.

In sum and substance, the last six commentaries have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the biblical God is one of the most reprehensible characters to have ever appeared in the annals of literature.

One can readily understand why Robert Ingersoll said on page 237 in Volume 2 of his Works, "It is impossible for me to conceive of a character more utterly detestable than that of the Hebrew god." Two pages later he said, "It is impossible to conceive of a more thoroughly despicable, hateful, and arrogant being, than the Jewish god." And in Some Mistakes of Moses he said, "A false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, a hypocrite, a tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain and revengeful, false in promise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, infamous and hideous--such is the God of the Pentateuch."

After reading the last six commentaries can you imagine anyone, any being, saying, "Yes, that's my book, that represents me, that's the way I am," especially a supposedly perfect being? Is there any figure in history with a worse record, including Adolph Hitler and Ghenghis Khan? In fact, to go even further, one would be hard-pressed to think of one good, decent act god committed in the entire OT, such that you would want to hug him around his neck, kiss him on the cheek and say, "Good job, well done, I am proud of you." The Devil comes out of the Bible looking much better than God. You would almost think the book was written by the Devil about God.

And finally, Thomas Paine appears to have encompassed the entire topic as well as anyone when he said on page 198 in The Age of Reason, "All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes."

ANNIHILATIONISM

Within Christianity are several organizations, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God which deny the existence of hell. They preach, instead, a doctrine known as Annihilationism, according to which the wicked pass into nonexistence, either at death or the resurrection. Essentially, annihilationists are trying to put a more human face on Christianity and attract more followers by modifying the scare tactic of hell-fire and damnation that is so crucial to the NT. As fundamentalist Robert Morey said on page 203 in his book Death and the Afterlife, "As the pressures of liberalism continue, we can expect to see more neo-evangelicals moving either into Universalism or Annihilationism, either of which are acceptable to those who hold a liberal theological position."

Unfortunately for orthodox Christians, such as Southern Baptists, Annihilationism is biblically defensible as the following verses show all too well. Undoubtedly the strongest passage is found in Eccle. 3:19-21 which says, "For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; even one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other; yet they all have one breath; so that man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth." That is about as definitive as one can be. If man has no "preeminence" or "advantage" over the beasts as the RSV and the Modern Language say, then all else is for nought. Another potent verse is found in Eccle. 9:5 which says, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward: for the memory of them is forgotten." If there is no more reward, then it is all over, including the shouting.

As Morey said on page 216 in the same book, "The book of Ecclesiastes has always been a favorite source of proof texts for the doctrine of soul sleep" otherwise known as annihilationism. Less prominent verses are:

Psalm 6:5 ("For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?"),
Psalm 88:10 ("Wilt thou do wonders for the dead? Will the dead rise and praise Thee?"),
Psalm 115:17 ("The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into the silence"), and
Eccle. 9:10 ("Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going").

All of these verses state or strongly imply that once you are dead you are dead and that is that. As far as annihilationism is concerned, Freiling's cartoons summarize the situation as well as any by saying: "That's All, Folks" there isn't any more, at least not for the wicked.

Annihilationists have other arguments in their portfolio as well. For example, they cite

1 Tim. 6:15-16, which says, "...and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality...."

If only Jesus has immortality, then the conclusion is obvious.

One of the annihilationists' strongest arguments against hell is related by Morey on page 218 of his previously quoted book, where he says, "The words 'olam,' 'aion,' and 'aionios' do not mean eternity, because they are used of such temporal things as mountains. Therefore, 'eternal punishment' need not mean that the punishment is eternal in duration, but only in result."

A final argument upon which annihilationists rely is succinctly stated by Morey on page 217, "'Eternal life' means unending physical immortality or existence. Since only the righteous receive 'eternal life' at the resurrection, the wicked must pass into nonexistence. Otherwise, they too would be recipients of 'eternal life'."

So annihilationism is by no means a weak position to assume from a biblical perspective. The problem is that an even larger number of verses can be cited to refute annihilationism and prove punishment awaits the wicked after death. Matt. 25:46, Rev. 20:10, Rev. 14:11, Mark 3:29, 9:43-48, and Luke 3:17 are prime examples. All that is accomplished by citing the verses relied upon by both sides is to expose a major biblical contradiction. What happens to people after death is by no means a clear-cut matter as far as the Bible is concerned, and all protestations to the contrary are doomed to failure. Anyone seeking a definitive description of post-death events should not go to the Bible for assistance, because only despair and disappointment await his arrival.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #508 from JM Continues from Last Month (Part h)
(Point #7 in our pamphlet was: Rom. 3:23 says "All have sinned." All means all. Yet, Gen. 6:9 says Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations. Job 1:1 and 1:8 say Job was perfect. How could these men have been perfect if all have sinned?)

JM's Defense is: This is a case where Mr. McKinsey did not give consideration of the meaning of the words of the original language. According to the Greek Bible the word perfect in Genesis 6:9 is the word "teleos" which does not mean sinless. It means complete, mature, or grown up. Noah was a complete man. He was mature in the faith.

The word for perfect in Job 1:1 and 1:8 is the word amemptos which merely means blameless, irreprehensible or without defect. It is the same word that is used in 1 Thess. 3:13 ("To the end he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God...."). In other words Job was blameless; he was a man that lived an upright life. This does not mean, however, that he never sinned. It simply means that he lived faithfully to God. The words "without defect" do not mean "sinless." Instead the connotation that is given is that one is blameless.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part h)
This is another one of those problems around which you should have taken a wide detour, JM, for several reasons. First, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance the word "perfect" in Gen. 6:9 comes from the Hebrew word "tamiym" which is transliterated as "taw-meen" and means without blemish, complete, perfect, sound, without spot, undefiled, and upright. Complete, mature, or grown-up are by no means the basic meaning. Second, if he was without spot or blemish, undefiled, upright, and perfect, then he was sinless. Either he was a sinner or he wasn't; there is no in between. And if he was spotless and undefiled, then he was without sin. Third, you used a Greek Bible to trace the Hebrew meaning of a biblical term from the OT. What kind of scholarship is that? Do you use a Hebrew Bible to trace the meaning of Greek words in the NT? How do you get the meaning or derivation of Hebrew words in the OT from Greek words like "teleos" and "amemptos"? Fourth, the word "perfect," which is applied to God in Deut. 32:4, comes from the same Hebrew word as the word "perfect" in Gen. 6:9, which is applied to Noah. If God is perfect and morally sinless, then so is Noah. Second Samuel 22:31 and Psalm 18:30 say, "As for God, his way is perfect...," and this "perfect" comes from the same Hebrew word as that applied to Noah. How can God be morally perfect and Noah not be, when the same Hebrew word for perfect is applied to both? Fifth, your case with respect to Job is even weaker. You admit that the word "perfect" in Job 1:1 and 1:8 means "blameless" and without defect. How does that differ from sinless? You state, "Job was blameless; he was a man that lived an upright life. This does not mean, however, that he never sinned." Don't be ridiculous! Of course it does. If he is blameless, then he never sinned. The moment he performed any sin whatever, he would no longer be blameless or upright. He'd be a sinner. There is no in between. You are trying to draw a distinction where none exists. You make the utterly erroneous comment that, "The words without defect does not mean sinless," when, in truth, if he sinned he obviously had a defect. "Without defect" must mean he is sinless, because the instant he sinned he had a defect. You are trying to have it both ways. You want a person who is without defect, blameless, upright, without spot and undefiled, who also sins. It is a good trick if you can do it, but only those of an apologetic mentality would be so foolish as to try. Sixth, if Noah was not sinless, as you state, if he was a sinner, as you allege, then he had no more right to be on the Ark than anyone else. So why was he saved? He should have drowned with all the rest of humanity. Apparently God was playing favorites again, since Noah had done nothing to earn his escape from death. Seventh, those who translated the KJV of the Bible chose to use the word "perfect" in Gen. 6:9, and you are implying that your knowledge of Hebrew is superior to theirs because you could have chosen a more appropriate term. And lastly, could you cite a Hebrew dictionary in which the word "perfect" in Job 1:1 and 1:8 is derived from a Hebrew term which primarily means "living faithfully to God"? Again, where are you getting this conglomeration? As I have said so often, it would be nice from the apologetic standpoint if the Bible spoke as its defenders would like, but alas, the opposite is often the case.

Letter #508 Continues (Part i)
(Point #8 in our pamphlet was: How could Moses have written the first 5 books in the Bible (the Torah), when his own death and burial is described in Deut. 34:5-6, which says, "So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab...and he buried him in a valley....?)

JM's Defense is: Why would Moses' obituary being included in the last chapter of the last book keep the rest of the Pentateuch from being written by Moses? The only reason is because Mr. McKinsey has determined that the Bible cannot be inspired by God and now he must find some excuse to try and prove that it was not. However, his contention falls because the argument does not necessitate the rest of the Pentateuch from excluding Mosaic authorship.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part i)
Oh, so now you are admitting that part of the Torah is not of Mosaic origin. Fundamentalists tell us that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, and now you admit that he did not write the last part of the fifth book. In other words, you have changed your argument from he wrote the first five books of the Bible to, he wrote most of the first 5 books.

Letter #508 Continues (Part j)
(Regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Bible) Gleason Archer said, "Before me lies a copy of Roland de Vaux's excellent volume Archeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is a revised English edition of the Schweich Lectures he delivered at Oxford in 1959, published by Oxford University in 1973. On page vi is a brief foreword signed by Kathleen Kenyon, which opens with the following words: 'It is sad that Roland de Vaux did not live to see the translation of his Schweich Lectures appear.' This then is the kind of obituary notice that is added to the main text of the book. In other terminal works produced by famous authors, the obituary appears in the last chapter of the book. Often that obituary is not signed."

According to McKinsey, Roland de Vaux could not have done the work ascribed to him because his obituary is included in the book. This makes just about as much sense as it does to say that Moses did not write the Pentateuch because his obituary is written in the last chapter of the book.

Editor's Response to letter #508 (Part j)
The situations are not even analogous, JM. First, the sentence from de Vaux's book appears in the foreward of the book, separate from the body of the book itself, and no effort is made to give people the impression that de Vaux was the author. Second, it clearly states another person was the author. Third, the apologetic argument is that Moses wrote the Torah; whereas, no one is arguing that de Vaux wrote all of his book. Fourth, if you want proof that Moses did not write the rest of the Torah either, I strongly suggest you read the commentaries in Issues 19 and 20 of BE. Lastly, and most important, you insidiously shifted the focus from Moses writing all of the Torah to he wrote most of it. That is not what is claimed by fundamentalists.

Letter #508 Continues (Part k)
[Point #9 in our pamphlet was: Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26) or 4,000 (2 Chron. 9:25), and did Solomon's house contain 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26) or 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5)?]

JM's Defense is: The Number of Stalls: There were 40,000 individual horse stalls: and 4,000 in reference to the stalls accommodating horses and chariots. Mr. McKinsey has not considered that many times different methods of calculation are involved which we may or may not use today. In the latter case, there were 10 chariots and 10 horses per stall. Some of these stalls were in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 9:25), but others were scattered out in other cities, as some have been found in Megiddo, Hazor, Ell el Hesi dating back to Solomon's time.

The Baths in Solomon's House: This was a very large container made to hold 2,000 baths, but when filled to the rim, would hold 3,000. Many cars are made to seat 6 passengers, but will carry 8 if needed.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part k)
You should have stuck with the copyist's mistake defense that is standard fare for nearly all apologists, my friend, instead of striking out on your own. First, whoever heard of horses being bedded down with their chariots in the same stall? Secondly, and even more important, you say there were 40,000 individual horse stalls and then turn around and say no, there were actually 4,000 stalls with 10 chariots and 10 horses in each. If the latter is true how could there be 40,000 individual stalls with one horse in each? You are contradicting yourself by trying to have it both ways. Either you have 40,000 stalls with one horse in each, or you have 4,000 stalls with 10 horses in each. But you can't have both simultaneously. We are not involved with different methods of calculating the same situation as you allege, but in calculating two different situations which conflict.

As far as the baths are concerned, you are not even in the ballpark. We are talking about the number of baths, not the capacity of each. What does the capacity have to do with the number in his house? And what container are you talking about? Nothing is said about a container. Where are you getting that idea? Your reasoning is often so far off base that one hardly knows where to begin correcting your "thought processes."

Even if what you said were relevant, which it isn't, nothing is said about the baths being filled to the rim. You state, "This was a very large container made to hold 2,000 baths, but when filled to the rim, would hold 3,000" which is ridiculous. If it could hold 3,000 baths, then it was built to hold 3,000, not 2,000. Why not say it was built to hold 1,000 or 1,500 or 1,900 or 2,100? Why arbitrarily stop at 2,000? As I said, you should have stuck with the copyist error defense, instead of wandering into an area in which you are ill-equipped to navigate.
(To be Continued Next Month)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #525 from AS of Chicago, Illinois Dear Dennis....I have had a lot of trouble finding people who will debate me. There was a lady at work who was shocked to find out I was an atheist, but once I told her water doesn't come from rocks, donkey's don't talk, and maybe one or two other points, she just backed down. Her attitude seems to be "He's intelligent, don't hassle him, don't take him on." She still clearly believes in the Bible, but doesn't want to take me on over it....

I have had some contact with some Jehovah's Witnesses that's getting nowhere. When they recently came to my door, we started talking about the character of God. I got into his murderous nature and she ran away like a whipped puppy dog. She told me she would write with some questions; I've heard nothing. Her partner came back one other time, and, upon recognizing me, said he would check to see why she hadn't written. I haven't heard from him since either. I wrote a letter to their kingdom hall and, again, have heard nothing.

I saw a preacher's name in another publication, wrote him a letter and sent him a copy of my "Jesus Lied" file. He told me he would not engage in a written debate, only face to face. Since he lives in Oklahoma and I'm not rich, that won't happen. He's a grandstander.

If anything does happen and I end up in a good debate situation, I'll be happy to let you know.

Editor's Response to Letter #525 Dear AS.
Every knowledgeable critic of the Bible has experienced the same kind of problems. People avoid us for several reasons. First, they are obviously afraid we might bring up something they have never heard and weaken their faith in the process. Debates reek with insecurity and uncertainty. You never know what the other side might toss out. Second, Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that all critics of the Bible in general, and of Jesus in particular, are satanic agents who are incapable of being honest, sincere and accurate. Third, all religions, especially Christianity and its Bible, are confidence schemes, and what does a confidence man fear as much as anything?--EXPOSURE. You can't sell a bogus product or a fraudulent philosophy when somebody is present to reveal the truth, and does. Fourth, look at it from the apologetic perspective. Why waste time on someone who is clearly better informed than the average citizen and far more difficult to deceive, when there are millions of suckers out there, more than willing to gobble up anything that can be made to look appetizing? Most people operate far more on emotion than intellect, and for that reason are vulnerable and easy to manipulate. The methodology of religionists is no different from that of all other con artists. Fifth, religionists know it is far easier to give an uninterrupted speech before a group of neutrals and sympathizers than contend with those who are not sufficiently brainwashed to fall into lockstep. Why spend time with those with whom you feel little success will be forthcoming? And lastly, knowing they are in the majority, religionists conclude that there is nothing in it for them to jeopardize their superiority in numbers. Why risk an uncertain encounter, when you have far more to lose than gain? Ministers, priests, and rabbis are not anxious to debate knowledgeable critics of the Bible when they know that most of the observers will be of a religious persuasion before the encounter begins. Why engage in debate before a sympathetic audience, when you could very easily lose more adherents than you gain?

The philosophy I follow in regard to this whole issue is the exact opposite of that used by biblicists. Most religionists seek to avoid those who want to discuss the validity of the Bible, while I will not spend much time with those who won't discuss the Book's validity. I won't be preached to or lectured by those who seek only a one-sided presentation with no cross-examination. If they want to debate it, then I'm their man. But if all they want is prejudiced pontification, like TV preachers--if all they seek is a biased monologue, like a radio evangelist--forget it. My time is far too valuable and my concerns far too extensive for such indolence.