Issue #127-Ten-Year Summation & Plans, JM's Tract

Biblical Errancy Issue #127-Ten-Year Summation & Plans, JM's Tract Concludes: Points 21, 22, 23 & 24, Copyist Error Defense, "Baths" of 1 Kings 7:23

Nov 10, '08 5:50 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 127

July 1993

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June issue of BE marked a milestone in the history of this publication. For all practical purposes, we have exhausted the contents of our 5 large notebooks filled with information on the errors, contradictions, and fallacies of the Bible. Ten and one half years were required, but success has been achieved. Although commentaries will continue to appear in BE, future emphasis will now be upon book reviews, dissecting apologetic literature, answering apologetic defenses, responding to apologetic and sympathetic letters, and generally broadening our focus to include more extrabiblical material. Anyone who has all of our prior issues possesses what is probably the most comprehensive, the most thoroughly researched, the most poignant, the most accurate refutation of the Bible in the entire English-speaking world, if not the entire world. At least, we are not aware of anything more compendious or encyclopedic. But there is a limit to how much can be exposed in the manner we have employed, and that point has been reached. In effect the first phase of our entire effort has been successfully accomplished. A massive, all-inclusive volume of materials devoted to an exposure of the Bible's failings is now available for all to read. Over the years I have been asked by scores of people to write a book, but anyone who has read all of our back issues has, in effect, read several books and, consequently, I have felt little need to engage in what would essentially amount to a duplication of that which has already been produced. Other matters were more pressing. In the future, however, writing a book will be considered.
BE's new area of concentration will be as important as the first and unfortunately is the arena in which so many members of the freethought movement have come up short over the years. Opponents of the Bible have often collected a sizable amount of data but seemed lost as to how it should be employed. An effective and on-going program of debate, discussion, proselytization, education, etc. has been noticeably lacking, and that we intend to address much more extensively. It does no good to gather material that is not going to be employed in an effective and on-going manner. If you don't take it to the other side, almost nothing will be accomplished, because there is almost no chance they are going to come to ideas they have been taught to view as erroneous.

We can also happily announce that, as of last month, we concluded the second phase of our effort. FINALLY, they have arrived; they are here; they made it. After almost two years in the making, we have managed to put the heart, the essence, the nucleus of 10 1/2 years of BE COMMENTARIES onto 24 audio tapes of approximately 90 minutes each. A lot of time and effort went into constructing something that could be used by those who are visually-impaired, want to read as little as possible, want something to hear while driving, have friends, relatives, or acquaintances who refuse to read biblical criticisms, or have special needs of one sort or another. Audio/visual materials have become extremely important in spreading the message, and we have long felt a need to propagate BE by this type of medium. Unlike all prior A/V materials, these were specifically created for distribution and consumption. Because we have always felt an obligation to prove our case as would a lawyer in court, these audio commentaries, like BE commentaries throughout the years, are well supplied with facts and figures gleaned from tremendous research over several decades. So, in effect, the second phase has been successfully concluded also.

Now we are about to enter the third, and probably most challenging, phase of our program--the production and distribution of video tapes for broadcast on public access cable TV. Tentative plans are to create tapes that could then be circulated to supporters who would be willing to play them regularly on their local access station. We plan to call upon those who volunteered several years ago to participate but were never contacted. To them we extend our apologies, but time just wasn't available.

Unfortunately, this will be the most expensive activity undertaken so far. To begin with, we need a studio or place in which to record, volunteers to operate the equipment, an editing machine, someone who knows the intracacies of editing, a video-camcorder, a video tape duplicator, and other accessories needed for an effective presentation. We have been told that start-up equipment alone will total at least $2,000 to $4,000 and that the Sony TR 101 Hi-8 would fit our needs fine. We would appreciate hearing from anyone who can aid in regard to these considerations. Unfortunately, unlike many people, we do not live in an area in which the local cablevision station will provide equipment and facilities for those who seek to create a program. Many factors will have to fall into place for this undertaking to work successfully, not the least of which is getting air-times at sensible hours on a regular basis.

Although in the planning stage for many years, this third major project has been held in abeyance for several reasons. If I had gone straight to cablevision, viewers would have called or written for additional information, and I had no material available for distribution. Now that body of material exists in abundance. Second, we live in an audio-visual age, and the number of people who read serious material on a regular basis is only a small percentage of the population in general. When people come home from work or school, they turn on the TV and that is where the mass audience is. Preachers and evangelists are well aware of this fact, and don't race to TV just to see their faces on screens. If we produced cablevision programs, people would be far more likely to request additional A/V materials, such as audio tapes, rather than literature. For that reason audio tapes covering the essence of BE had to be available also. Many will listen to what you have to say, but they are not going to put forth any effort to read. Those tapes are now available also. And finally, the amounts of time and money that have to be invested have been a major hindrance.

In any event, the basics are in place. We have the literature and the audio tapes. Now we need videos, public access, a mass audience, speaking engagements, debates, exposure, and expansion. The third phase will be the most difficult because of several factors, over which I have little or no control. It won't get off the ground until every facet is in place, and how long this will take is anyone's guess. Approximately 8 years ago we briefly engaged in a project of this nature and found that even such factors as finding a suitable recording location and appropriate video lighting facilities can be a real challenge.

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


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #508 from JM continues from last month (Part ff)
[Point #21 in our pamphlet was: If God created everything (Col. 1:16, Eph. 3:9, Rev. 4:11, John 1:3), then he created the world's evil (Isa. 45:7, Lam. 3:38). Thus, he should be held responsible--ED.]
JM's Defense is: This gets back to objection #3. God made everything, but he did not make it evil. Satan rebelled against God, and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world through their disobedience. Man uses things that God gave for good, to make evil things. This is hardly God's fault, and it is unfair to blame God with it.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part ff)
Again, JW, we see that logic is not one of your strong suits. Either God created everything or he didn't. There is no in between. Scripture says in Col. 1:16 and Eph. 3:9 that God created everything and you also stated, "God created everything." That settles the matter. In groping for an answer, you say God created everything but he didn't create evil. That's a contradiction. If Satan rebelled against God, and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world, then God did not create everything. But you are drifting off into the secondary consideration of how sin came about according to Christian theology, which is irrelevant. What matters is that God either is or is not the source.

Letter #508 Continues (Part gg)
...There are places in the Bible, however, that seem to indicate that God does do evil.... How can these things be reconciled with the fact that God does not do evil? Simply by realizing that whatever God allows, is attributed to him. God is the ultimate source of power and authority. This being the case, we need to realize that even evil must be allowed by God, or else it would not exist. Thus in that sense God creates evil. When one looks at the overall context of the Bible, there is no problem at all. The figure of speech used here is "anthropopatheia" or the ascribing of human attributes to God....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part gg)
Don't be silly, JM; of course there is a problem and your "God allows" subterfuge just won't fly. You not only said he created everything, which by definition means he must have created evil, but key verses clearly show that God did not just "allow" evil, he created it, he's the source, it's his idea. Through a subtle ruse you are trying to say he didn't create everything. You might want to read our commentary on God in the July 1992 issue of BE. There aren't just places in the Bible that "seem" to indicate that God does evil. There are verses that flatly state he is the source. Biblical readers are not ascribing attributes to God; the Bible is, and it is doing so in no uncertain terms.

Letter #508 Continues (Part hh)
[Point #22 in our pamphlet was: In Psalm 139:7-11 we are told God is everywhere. If so, why would God need to come down to earth to see a city (Gen. 11:5) when he is already here and how could Satan leave the presence of the Lord (Job 1:2, 2:7)?--ED.]

JM's Defense is: Again the figure of speech "anthropopatheia" is used here, in another one of its aspects. God does not need to come down to see what is going on, but he is said to come down so that man may understand him. Satan cannot literally leave the presence of the Lord, but he is said to be able so that men could understand God.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part hh)
You can bring in more irrelevant verbiage, JM! Who cares why he came down or if he needs to come down at all. That doesn't address the basic problem. How can he come down if he is already here? That's the issue! Don't try to change the focus. And where are you getting this stuff about his coming down "so that man may understand him"? Where is that in Scripture, or is this another concoction? And what do you mean, "Satan cannot literally leave the presence of the Lord"? Don't you believe Job 1:12 ("So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord") or do you prefer to interpret as you see fit? Aren't you fundamentalists the ones who constantly complain about Christian liberals leaving the literal interpretation of Scripture when they're in a bind? And here you are, practicing the same dishonest scholarship. If you spent as much time reading and accepting the book as is, as you do in interpreting and redefining for expediency's sake, you'd be far better off. This "anthropopatheia" nonsense you keep tossing out is nothing more than a subterfuge to escape an impasse.

Letter #508 Continues (Part ii)
[Point #23 in our pamphlet was: For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, hell's punishment is infinite--ED.]

JM's Defense is: The reason that Mr. McKinsey sees a problem here is because he does not understand the nature of sin and of God. There is also a limit to what man can do because he is finite. If man was infinite I have a feeling that the punishment for crimes would be greater than what they are. God is an infinite being, who cannot make allowances for sin. God is of purer eyes than to behold sin, and he cannot allow it. Mr. McKinsey does not see the terrible nature of sin in the eyes of God because he does not think that sin is very bad. To him, and people like him, sin is nothing more than a child's disregard for parental rule. In God's eyes even this is terrible (for children old enough to know right from wrong.)

Yet, hell is infinitely greater than any punishment we as humans could inflict upon evil-doers. However, it needs to be remembered that God does not want any to perish, but all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9). It was terrible enough that God had to give his Son as the only way from sin back to God. If one refuses to accept the gracious gift of God's sacrifice, then God will punish them eternally. Why, because the price paid was infinitely greater than anything we could ever have offered. God gave his sinless Son that we might have life.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part ii)
What a rambling entanglement of vapid gobbledygook! First, you state that, "If man was infinite I have a feeling that the punishment for crimes would be greater than what they are," which is nothing more than speculation on your part and does nothing to excuse God's behavior. Even more important, how could the punishment be any greater, when it's already infinite? For goodness sake, what do you want? How could man's becoming infinite extend the punishment any further, when one's residency in hell is already eternal? Second, you state, "God is an infinite being, who cannot make allowances for sin," when he obviously must; otherwise, everyone will end up in hell forever. Third, the crux of your argument seems to be that God is so pure that all sin is horrific in God's eyes. Consequently, only infinite punishment is justified. Don't be absurd. That's no answer. That has nothing to do with justice. You mean that because God is so offended, infinite punishment is appropriate? God makes no allowances for degrees of culpability? That's a just God! I repeat my original question. How is God fitting the crime to the punishment, and where's the justice? Fourth, I take great exception to your wholly unjustified remark that, "Mr. McKinsey does not think that sin is very bad." Quite the contrary, I find the amount of antisocial behavior prevalent throughout our society to be nothing short of appalling, and I can't help but note that people of the most profound religious convictions are in charge of the political/social/economic/ideological scene while it runs rampant. And I have never looked upon felonious acts such as murder and rape as "nothing more than a child's disregard for parental rule." Are you serious? Where are you getting this poison? Fifth, you state that, "if one refuses to accept the gracious gift of God's sacrifice, then God will punish them eternally." How utterly outrageous! You mean the mere act of simply failing to accept a gift merits as much punishment as if one had committed the most heinous crimes imaginable? If you look upon this whole arrangement as just, I only hope I never enter a courtroom in which you are the judge.

Letter #508 Continues (Part jj)
[The 24th and final point in our pamphlet entitled "THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? was: And lastly, in Acts 20:35 Paul told people to "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn't Paul guilty of deception?--ED.]

JM's Defense is: Mr. McKinsey labors to find something wrong with the Bible in bringing up this objection. Who said that if Jesus made such a statement that it would ever have to be recorded? John said: "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book...." (John 20:30). If Jesus did many other signs which were not written, would it not be reasonable to say that Jesus said many things which were not written? Paul was speaking to the Ephesian elders who had no doubt been taught many of the sayings of Jesus (by the apostles) which had not been written down.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part jj)
After all these months, JM, you've finally made a point that has some degree of credibility. As long as you and your compatriots are willing to admit that there is no such statement by Jesus anywhere in the Bible; as long as you and your cohorts are willing to promise that you will never again use this quotation by Paul without telling your listeners that the alleged comment by Jesus is nowhere to be found in the Bible, and as long as you are willing to admit that you are assuming Paul is correctly quoting an extrabiblical comment by Jesus which he managed to come across somehow, I am willing to concede that Paul might be correct. But that is a big "might." Even before placing this problem into my pamphlet, I realized biblicists would probably use your defense. But I inserted it anyway, because I felt the problem was of such importance as to merit consideration, and I knew how I would respond. I think most people will see your transparent defense for what it really is, a rationalization. But if they don't, they have at least been made aware of the problem.

Letter #508 Concludes After Nearly One Year (Part kk)
So where are the great problems that are supposed to make us tremble in our boots? Where are the iron-clad arguments that conclusively destroy the credibility of the Bible? Mr. McKinsey started out by saying that these difficulties could not be solved, only rationalized. Well, he can call it what he wants, but we would like to see him respond, point by point to the responses we have given. Maybe he will write another tract answering these responses. It is our hope and prayer that someone will see the truth by reading this booklet and come to God, or have his faith strengthened. If this is done, we will be paid back a hundred fold.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #508 (Part kk)
If you didn't tremble in your boots, JM, it's probably because you were too busy drowning in them. Your entire pamphlet is anemic, deceptive, and erroneous, and only substantiates the truth of my original comment: These problems can't be solved, only rationalized. You hoped that I would write a reply to your document and respond to your points one by one. I trust you aren't disappointed, in light of the fact that every issue of BE since September 1992 has exposed one or more points in your booklet entitled "Still a Perfect Work of Harmony" which attacked my pamphlet, "The Bible is God's Word?" You ask: Where are the iron-clad arguments that destroy the credibility of the Bible? Take off your Christian blindfold, and you'll see wreckage strewn all about. Like winds from Hurricane Andrew, even if you personally can't see them, objective observers can sure see the results of their force and destruction. Contrary to the title of your publication, if there is one thing the Bible is not, it's a "Perfect Work of Harmony". It's anything but. As I have said so often, the Bible has more holes in it than a backdoor screen.

Letter #533 from NB of Tucson, Arizona (Part a)
Dear Dennis.
I am a loyal subscriber to B.E., but let me say at the outset that I am not a "Biblicist", "Religionist", literalist, or fundamentalist, though I do believe in God....

I wrote this letter in reference to B.E. #120, p. 5, second column, about the "stalls" and "baths". I see no reason why copyists' errors may not have been involved in the former case, as the Hebrew system of writing numbers involved the use of modified forms of Hebrew letters, with little dots written above them to indicate orders of magnitude. Thus, a single omitted dot could make the difference between 4,000 and 40,000.

Editor's Response to Letter #533 (Part a)
Dear NB. The copyist error defense is simply not going to save the day in this instance, or hundreds of others that are often cited. The reasoning in this regard is relatively simple. First, although the alleged originals no longer exist, there are thousands of manuscripts claiming to be accurate copies of the alleged originals. When scholars decided to write the following versions--KJ, RS, ML, AS, NASB, MT, LV, JB, NIV, TEV, NWT, and etc.--they went through either some, many, most, or all of the manuscripts, compared what was said in each, reached a common consensus, and chose to use 40,000 in 1 Kings 4:26 and 4,000 in 2 Chron. 9:25. In order for there to have been a copyist error, the same incorrect figure had to have been copied in scores if not hundreds and thousands of manuscripts, certainly not one or two. Are you saying hundreds, if not thousands, of copyists made precisely the same error when they copied 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chron. 9:25 from the autographs? They not only copied incorrectly but made the same erroneous change? Christians love to talk about odds. What do you think are the odds of that happening? No doubt they are comparable to the figures biblicists throw around when it comes to the precentage possibility of Jesus' fulfilling all the OT messianic prophecies. The attempt by biblicists to pawn this problem off on one lone copyist or scribe in some monastery somewhere who happened to make one simple mistake is rather amusing, in light of the fact that thousands of manuscripts are involved with the same verse. Second, even if there were a copyist mistake, you could never be sure which figure was copied incorrectly. Was it the 40,000 figure that should have been 4,000 or the 4,000 figure that should have been 40,000? Because you could never know for sure, you might just as well expunge these two parts of the Bible. One is definitely incorrect, and you'll never know which. Third, and very important, is the fact that the manuscripts contradict one another, and until the original is produced, the contradiction stands. Biblicists are asking us to ignore a contradiction staring us in the face, in favor of a theory that can in no way be substantiated. The fact is that the contradiction stands, and will continue standing until evidence is produced to the contrary. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Because the contradiction is clear and obvious, I am under no obligation to prove a contradiction exists in manuscripts which biblicists can't even prove existed. Biblicists, on the other hand, are obligated to prove there was no contradiction in the original writings, which they are wholly incapable of doing.

Letter #533 Concludes (Part b)
I have far more serious problems with the "baths." You say: "Nothing is said about a container." I almost fell off my chair when I read that. If there was no container, then what held the "molten sea" of 1 Kings 7:23? I seem to recall your having some fun with the fact that the Israelites seemed to think that "pi" is equal to 3, whereas "everybody" knows that it is 3.1416... In fact, they were not very sophisticated mathematically, unlike the Egyptians, who a millenium before Solomon had an approximation to "pi" that was accurate to four decimal places, by far the best in the ancient world.... But where is it said that the "molten sea" was circular? 1 Kings 7:23 says only that it was "round all about, and his height was five cubits."

It appears that you have no idea of what a "bath," in this context, is. Well...a "bath" was an old Hebrew unit of volume equal to approximately 10 U.S. gallons. This leads to a very serious problem, which I will get to in a moment. But first, did you seriously interpret "baths," as "bathtubs"? I find this positively mind-blowing if you did.

Now, suppose that instead of being circular, the container was elliptical in cross-section. (At this point NB went into some mathematical calculations along with a graph--Ed.)....

Editor's Response to Letter #533 (Part b)
Read the text more closely, NB, and you'll see that your elliptical theory won't hold up. First Kings 7:23 says, "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of 30 cubits did compass it round about." If it was round all about, and one brim to the other always measured 10 cubits, then how could it have been anything other than a circle? For all practical purposes that eliminates the elliptical option and renders all your calculations moot. As I said originally, you can't have a circle with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits.

As far as the "container" question is concerned and the accident you nearly had with your chair, I would rewrite the section about the container by simply omitting it. Everything from "And what container are you talking about" to "Even if what you said were relevant, which it isn't" should have been omitted. There was a container, the molten sea, in which the baths were contained, that's true. You are by no means the only reader who wrote a letter to us to express disagreement with what I said in regards to the baths. I stand corrected, and admit I should have read that section more closely. But my original argument and that which follows this omission, are still valid. I've never claimed perfection, but I'm light-years ahead of my competition.

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


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #534 from DM of Supply, NC
Dear Dennis.
Great Issues! I just love them! You are brilliant! I love to see you sock it to em. Keep it up!....
Letter #535 from GS of Clearfield, Penn.
Dear Mr. McKinsey
.... Your publication is very informative and much-needed in our society. I commend you and wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

Letter #536 from JB of Portland, Oregon
Dear Mr. McKinsey.
Your publication has been the subject of much comment on America on Line's bulletin board regarding Bible contradictions. As a militant atheist, I am presently intrigued by the subject of biblical errancy, lies and contradictions. What I have seen of your efforts has impressed me, and I believe that I would like to both subscribe and obtain back copies....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITOR'S NOTE: Because of a significant number of inquiries and new subscribers, we wish to send a special thanks to all those who have been putting extracts from BE on computer bulletin boards around the nation. Apparently this is an excellent means by which to advertise, and all subscribers are free to put any of our material on any computer boards they deem suitable, as long as the name and address of the source is publicized as well.