Issue #122-FAITH (Part 1), EXCLUDED LITERATURE, JM

Biblical Errancy Issue #122-FAITH (Part 1), EXCLUDED LITERATURE, JM's Tract Continues: Point 12, Teacher Uses BE in College Class

Nov 10, '08 5:34 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 122

February 1993

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAITH (Part 1)--Last month's commentary focused on the large number of verses stressing a view deemed anathema to most of Christendom, that salvation comes through works rather than faith in Jesus. And although a very strong case can be made in favor of works, an equally strong argument can be made in favor of faith. So many statements, comments, acts, and quotations are available from the Bible, that next month's commentary will be devoted to this vital issue as well.
Generally speaking, verses in support of faith as the road to salvation can be grouped into 2 broad categories: those which allow one path only and those in which faith is deemed a road to salvation but not necessarily the road, or the only road. The first category is undoubtedly composed of the most powerful comments in defense of salvation by faith, and is well represented by such verses as:
•John 14:6 ("I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me"),
•John 3:18 ("He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already"),
•John 3:36 ("He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him"),
•1 John 5:12 ("He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life"),
•John 8:24 ("...ye shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins"),
•Acts 16:30-31 ("What must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"),
•and Acts 4:12 ("Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved").
Notice the employment of the obligatory term must in the last two verses.
These are the 7 most important utterances in favor of faith, because each not only says you are saved by faith but that you are saved by faith alone. There is no other route. There is one route, and one route only, and that route is faith in Jesus Christ. Contrary to the belief of some, one verse that does not belong in this category because of an additional requirement is Mark 16:16 ("He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"). This verse does not qualify for entry, because one must not only believe but be baptized as well. Belief alone is insufficient. Another verse that doesn't quite make the grade is John 6:28-29 ("What must we do, to be doing the works of God? Jesus answered them, This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent"). Even though belief in Jesus is stressed, this verse is disqualified because the key word "must" in the RSV, ASV, NEB, NAB, and NIV is translated as "shall" in the KJV, NWT, and NASB, and "should" in the Modern Language and Living Bible versions. The degree of imprecision and conflict between the various versions of this verse obviate any possibility of it being a definitive statement in favor of salvation by faith only. "Shall" and "should" are not as definitive as "must." Another verse that doesn't qualify is 1 Cor. 3:11 ("For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ"). It's too vague. It doesn't say you have to believe in Jesus or have faith in Jesus. It could very well mean that all you need do is perform good deeds or follow in his footsteps. Another verse that can't be included is Heb. 11:6 ("But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him"). Because of the strong emphasis on faith and employment of the word "must," it would appear to meet the essential requirements for category #1. But wait a minute! Faith in what? Not faith in Jesus as one's savior, but faith in the existence of God. Under that standard a wide assortment of people, including Muslims and Jews, would qualify. And lastly, another citation that is just too nebulous to be included in category #1 is John 15:4-5 ("Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can you except you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing"). The problem in this instance is with the word "abide." What does it mean? Does it mean belief in Jesus as one's savior, or does it mean following in the footsteps of Jesus by practicing his alleged good deeds, as is implied by "bringeth forth much fruit"? Is faith or works the key element? The question remains unresolved.

One of the more interesting conflicts between faith and works adherents arises from the fact that faith-alone adherents allege that prior to the death of Jesus on the cross, one was, indeed, saved by works. But after the cross, salvation became possible only through faith in Jesus Christ as one's savior. Unfortunately for faith-alone proponents, this defense won't stand the strain of critical analysis. A significant number of verses show that people were saved by faith prior to the cross as well. Prime examples are:
•Rom. 4:13 ("The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith"),
•Rom. 4:2-5 ("For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"),
•Gal. 3:14 ("That in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith"),
•Gal. 3:6-7 ("Even as Abraham believed God, it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham"),
•Hebrews 11:31 ("By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believeth not"),
•Heb. 11:7 ("By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith"),
•and Rom. 4:20-24 ("Abraham...grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was 'reckoned to him as righteousness.' But the words, 'it was reckoned to him,' were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,...").
The major weakness in these verses from the perspective of salvation-by-works adherents, however, is that none of them clearly says you are saved by believing in Jesus. Yes, they allude to people being saved by faith prior to the cross. But, faith in what? That's the issue. It could very well be faith in God, which would include millions of non-Christians.

As far as this whole issue is concerned, it is important for freethinkers to not only be aware of key "salvation by faith" verses, but why some verses are too weak to apply. They should take special note of those few verses in which salvation by faith is deemed to be the only route to heaven, because they are the only comments upon which fundamentalists and other faith adherents can rely with any real degree of integrity. Next month's commentary will focus on Category #2, which is composed of all those verses which allege faith is a path to salvation, but not necessarily the only path to salvation. Other options are available.


(To Be Concluded Next Month)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXCLUDED LITERATURE--One of the least discussed, but most important aspects having to do with biblical history, is the large number of books that vied for entry into what has come to be known as the Canon, but were excluded for one reason or another. Literally scores of books were considered for possible inclusion into the Bible, and nearly every writing had supporters to one degree or another. But, alas, religious politics had far more to do with the selection of what books gained admittance into Scripture than any adherence to divine inspiration or heavenly intervention. This is aptly described in a book entitled The Origin and Growth of the Bible. Because of the book's accuracy and poignancy, we are providing the following extended excerpt found on pages 164 through 169:


...no fewer than sixteen books are wanting from the OT which seemingly ought to be there; at least they are referred to in various places in the Bible as if they were equally authoritative with books which are included in the Canon. So far as we know, all of these books, with one exception, are lost. Their names are: The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), The Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13 and 2 Sam. 1:18), The Book of the Manner of the Kingdom written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25), The Books of Nathan and Gad concerning King David (1 Chron. 29:29), The Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), The Book of Enoch (Jude 14 and 15), The Books of Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo concerning King Solomon (2 Chron. 9:29), Solomon's Songs, Parables, and Treatises on Natural History (1 Kings 4:32), The Book of Shemaiah concerning King Rehoboam (2 Chron. 12:15), The Book of Jehu concerning Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20:34), The Book of Isaiah concerning King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:22), The Words of the Seers to King Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:18-19), The Book of Lamentations over King Josiah (2 Chron. 35:25), The Volume of Jeremiah burned by Jehudi (Jer. 36:2, 6, 23), The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (mentioned repeatedly in Kings), and The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (mentioned repeatedly in Kings). Why were these books allowed to perish? Why were they left out of the OT? If scripture writers themselves referred to them as of equal authority with their own writings, how can a line be drawn between them and genuine scripture? Indeed, what is it that constitutes genuine scripture? But these sixteen books are not all that we get traces of.
A second list of 18 writings, still existing and generally known as the OT 'Pseudepigraphal' books, must also be noticed. Their names are as follows: The Testament of Solomon, The History of Asenath, Joseph's wife, The Apocalypse of Baruch, The Book of Elias the Prophet, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Ascension of Isaiah, The Book Jubilees, 'Little Genesis,' The Testament of Job, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees, The Fifth Book of Maccabees, The Assumption of Moses, The Preaching of Noah to the Antediluvians, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Psalter of Solomon, and the Testament of Adam. According to our standards today, the value of these books is not great. Some of them, however, we know exerted a good deal of influence upon early Christian thought, and were held in high esteem even by scholars like Origen.

Of much higher value is a third list of 14 books known as the OT Apocrypha. These are: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasseh, 1st Maccabees, and 2nd Maccabees. These OT apocryphal books are all extant, and are more or less familiar to the public. They are found in the Septuagint, the translation of the OT into Greek, made a century or two before Christ. The Roman Catholic Church claims that they are true scripture, and prints them as a part of her Bible. Protestants, however, take the responsibility of casting them out; though now and then a Protestant Bible (generally a large one for family or pulpit use)...contains them. Whether these fourteen apocryphal books ought to be in the Bible or not is a question upon which scholars have never agreed, and upon which the Christian world today is about evenly divided. That some of them are superior not only as literature, but in respect to their moral and religious teachings, to several of the books that are now in the Bible, is certain. For example, no unprejudiced mind can hesitate for a moment to place the religious value of the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus above that of the canonical Esther or Ecclesiastes.

Passing now from the OT to the New, what do we find? Are the books that appear in our NT Canon all that were written in connection with the origin of the Christian movement? Or, if others were written, how many others? And was there any clear line by which the two classes were separated?

The number of NT apocryphal books or fragments that we know to have existed during the early centuries is very large. The names of no fewer than 109 such works (41 extant and 68 lost) are in our possession. A translation into English of the whole or a part of the 41 NT apocryphal writings that are extant is often seen printed in a volume, and circulated under the title of the NT Apocrypha. A partial list of these writings is as follows: The Protevangelium of James, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of the Infancy, The Gospel of Nicodemus, The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea, The Acts of Pilate, The General Epistle of Barnabas, The First and Second Epistles of Clement, The Apostolic Constitutions, and The First and Second Books of Hermas. We have knowledge of these lost writings through quotations from them, or references to them, found in Christian authors of the first four centuries. The names of a few of these, with the writers who mention them, are as follows: The Acts of Andrew (mentioned by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Gelasius), The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles (Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome), The Gospel of Barnabas (Gelasius), The Gospel of Balilides (Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome),...The Gospel of Matthias (Origen, Ambrose, Eusebius, and Jerome), and the Acts of John (Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine).




In reference to the same topic, another work entitled The Freethinker's Textbook states on page 240,

The number of books that claim admission to the canon is very considerable.... The following list will give some idea of the number of the apocryphal writings from which the four Gospels, and other books of the NT, finally emerge as canonical: Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel written by Judas Iscariot, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Basilides, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Tatian,..., Letter to Agbarus by Christ (extant), Epistle to Peter and Paul by Christ (extant), Hymn by Christ (extant), Magical Book by Christ (extant), Prayer by Christ (extant), Preaching by Peter, Revelation by Peter, Acts of Peter (and so on--Ed.).

And finally, on page 167 in a third work entitled The Twilight of Christianity Harry Barnes summarized the situation rather well when he said,

...it is quite possible that in the extant OT and nonbiblical writings of the Jews we have but a few fragments of the total literary product of the Hebrew peoples in the centuries preceding the Christian era. This matter of the free editing, alteration, rearrangement, fabrication, and even complete loss of books originally in the Bible, raises very important implications relative to the hypothesis of the divine dictation of the Bible. If God had taken the time which he is assumed by the Fundamentalists to have devoted to the dictation of his word, it is scarcely likely that he would have allowed his earthly subjects to distort and even to lose these precious products of divine revelation.
We have pointed out that the traditional religionists hold that the Bible solely expresses the will of God, thus allowing no place for the intervention and interference of human subjectivity. In reality, however, there are few books in the Bible which have not been written to advance the cause of some specific race, class, dynasty, sect, or philosophy. The Pentateuch is devoted to a large extent to propaganda in behalf of the Jewish race and their tribal God, Yahweh. Deuteronomy embodied the effort at a great moral reconstruction among the Jews, as likewise did the books of Amos and other leading prophets.... If some of the books of the OT represent propaganda for the prophetic view of the Hebrew religion, others expound the interest and viewpoint of the priestly class. The same tendencies appear in the NT....

Thus, the point has been made. An extremely large number of ancient writings could easily have been included in the Canon, were it not for the politics involved. Many more books considered for entry could have been mentioned but, like bombs on a destroyed city, they would only bounce the rubble. Protracted lists of books often bearing esoteric titles are rather burdensome to navigate, to be sure, but this is one of those extrabiblical topics that can't be allowed to pass unnoticed in any responsible study of the Bible's validity, reliability, and alleged divinity.

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


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #508 Continues from Last Month (Part q)
[Point #12 in our pamphlet was: How could we follow the 6th Commandment, even if we wanted to, when the authors of the various versions of the Bible can't even agree on whether the key word is "kill" or "murder." Surely they recognize a difference--ED.]
JM's Defense is:
In this objection Mr. McKinsey overlooks the original language and complains because the translators cannot agree on the meaning of the word. Well, if they cannot agree on what the word means, that does not alleviate Mr. McKinsey from the responsibility he has to go to the original language and/or other texts in the Bible which will explain this passage.... When the evidence is in, it can be seen that this commandment forbade murder.
The first piece of evidence that shows that this commandment forbids murder is the fact that Jesus, himself, interpreted this commandment to mean murder. In Matt. 19:16-18 one came to him and asked him what to do in order to inherit eternal life, and his answer was to keep the commandments which God gave to Moses. The person asked him which ones were to be kept, and Jesus replied: Thou shalt do no murder..." (v. 18). Jesus was giving the commandment that said: Thou shalt not kill..." (Ex. 20:13). Thus "kill" and "murder" are one and the same here.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part q)
"Kill" and "murder" are most assuredly not the same here or anywhere else, JM. All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders. Second, you chose the version that provided the interpretation you desired, and ignored all contrary data. If you had done your homework, instead of focusing on mine, you would have noticed that the RSV, the NAB, the ASV, the JB, the LB, and the Lamsa Version of Matt. 19:18 say "kill" not "murder". As far as these versions are concerned, there is no reason to conclude Jesus is referring to murder rather than killing. Third, your slanted scholarship really comes to the fore when one realizes that you chose the only instance in the KJV in which Jesus used the word "murder." In all of the parallel accounts in Matt. 5:21, Mark 10:19, and Luke 18:20 Jesus says "kill." So, it is by no means true that Jesus is prohibiting "murder" rather than killing. In fact, in every Old and New Testament reference to the 6th Commandment, several key versions--the RSV, the ASV, the JB, and the Lamsa Version--always use the word "kill". At no time is the word "murder" employed. The King James Version, which you apparently prefer, refers to the 6th Commandment on 8 different occasions, and in only one verse, the one you cited for expediency's sake, does it mention "murder." Heavy reliance upon tactics of this kind by you and your religious cohorts explains in large measure why religious scholarship is so deceptive and unreliable. Tendentious reasoning permeates biblical apologetics and scriptural defenses throughout, as your strategy vividly illustrates.

Letter #508 Continues (Part r)
The second piece of evidence that shows that this commandment forbids murder is the fact that the meaning of the original word is murder. According to Strong, the word for "kill" in Exodus 20:13 is the word "ratsach" which means: "...to dash to pieces, i.e., kill (a human being) especially to murder:--put to death, kill, slay, murder."....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part r)
Wrong again, JM. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance does not say that "ratsach" means to murder. It says that "murder" is only one of the options available. And the Hebraic experts translating the KJV, the RSV, the NAB, the ASV, and the Lamsa Versions felt the most appropriate and accurate term to employ was "kill" not "murder," because that is the word they used in Ex. 20:13 for the 6th Commandment. Apparently you feel your translators are more proficient. Upon what basis do you make that judgment?

Letter #508 Continues (Part s)
The third piece of evidence that shows that this commandment forbids murder is the overall context of the Bible. In both the old and new testaments, murder was what was condemned.... God forbids the taking of innocent human life without the proper authorization. There were times when God would order his people to wipe out whole nations of people, even though there were innocent people in those nations at the time, in order to keep the evil from growing worse and to give the Israelites the land they lived on. However, God was giving the order. Since God gave the life, he could take it away. Exodus 20:13 forbids the unlawful taking of human life. Since man did not give it, man has no right to determine when and where human life should end. Only God has that right, and he can empower man to take human life....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part s)
Since your paragraph reeks with problems, JM, let's take them one at a time. First, as we have already demonstrated, killing is condemned in Ex. 20:13, not murder. The commandment says Thou shalt not kill, not thou shalt not murder. Second, you claim that Ex. 20:13 forbids the unlawful taking of human life. Where is anything said about the "unlawful" taking of life? There are no qualifiers attached. It says don't kill, period. It does not say don't kill unlawfully. Please don't insert gratuitous provisos just to elude an imbroglio. Third, you admit that God killed innocent people, and if that is not grounds for condemnation and rejection, what is? Fourth, you say that God ordered the killing of innocent people "in order to keep the evil from growing worse." What kind of justice is that? Operating on that principle, we might just as well kill everyone in prison today in order to restrict the expansion of evil tomorrow. Fifth, how does the evil of innocent people become worse, when by definition they are innocent and have done no evil? Sixth, what right did the Israelites have to the land of those they conquered? God is fostering imperialistic aggression. Seventh, as far as you are concerned God can do anything he desires, whether immoral or not. In effect, you are worshipping a being that is above morality and decency. He is a law unto himself. As far as you are concerned, no act of God, no matter how heinous or appalling, is worthy of condemnation. Your allegiance, my friend, is not to right and wrong, good and bad, but power and domination. Eighth, you say that "man has no right to determine when and where human life should end." Then I assume you are a pacifist and/or a conscientious objector, and you are firmly opposed to the death penalty. If man has no right to determine when human life should end, then you must be for the abolishment of all military spending. After all, why spend a fortune on material and equipment you would never employ? And lastly, as far as God's empowering people to take the lives of others is concerned, do you know of any soldiers or law enforcement officials who would claim they were informed by God or received a revelation from on high that they could kill other individuals? I sure don't. (To Be Continued Next Month)

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


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #522 from BY of Seminole, Florida
Dear Dennis.
I must commend you on your publication. I find it interesting, enlightening, and useful. For example, in my classroom discussions at the University of South Florida, where I am currently a graduate assistant who teaches freshman English, I have many students who think of the Bible in only the most innocuous and positive terms. Most are entirely unaware of their religion's history in our country. When we discussed current discrimination and the history of Biblical support for slavery, many of my students thought I was merely misinformed, until I quoted them chapter and verse directly from your publication!....
Editor's Response to Letter #522
Dear BY.
Letters like yours help make it all worthwhile. You are using BE commensurate with the original purpose for which it was created. As we have said so often, if people like you don't show Christians the errors of their ways, who will?

Letter # 523 from DM of San Diego, California
Dear Mr. McKinsey,
I am subscribing to your "BIBLE ERRANCY" newsletter. I am certainly looking forward to it. I am relatively new to Freethought, but I began to see the errors in the Bible while a fundamentalist in 1988. Furthermore, I am living Disproof of the Bible. For if I was once "saved" by Faith and truly "born again" - "a new creature" - then could I have "fallen away"? Well, I did, so those who believe in Eternal Security have a problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: BE subscribers whom others can contact are: Louis W. Cable, 102 Spyglass Drive, Lufkin, Texas 7590l-7450
Marcella A. Comanda, 122 Muir Ave., Santa Clara, California 9505l