13 Patriarchs, Radio Appearance, Bibli

The Patriarchs

Millions of people throughout the world, especially children, often adopt certain figures as role models to idolize and emulate. This is true not only in sports, politics, and acting, but also in religion and the arena of ideas. And nowhere in religion are role-models more numerous than in the Bible. From Genesis to Revelation, prominent individuals abound. But are they really worthy of respect and admiration? Was their behavior such that you would want to awaken your children on Sunday morning to read about their exploits? What better way to answer this question than by describing the activities of each. First are those figures whose machinations are somewhat limited in scope:

•ABSALOM--ordered killings (2 Sam. 13:28-29 RSV) and had sex in the open (2 Sam. 16:22 RSV);
•AMON--raped his sister, Tamar (2 Sam. 13:11-14 RSV);
•ABIMELECH--killed a city's inhabitants (Jud. 9:45 RSV); and murdered wantonly (Jud. 9:5);
•EHUD--murdered king Eglon (Jud. 3:21-22 RSV);
•ELIJAH--committed murder (1 Kings 18:40);
•ELISHA--lied (2 Kings 6:19), told a man a lie (2 Kings 8:10 RSV), cursed 42 small boys to be torn apart for mocking his bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24 RSV);
•GIDEON--killed (Jud. 8:16:17 the Living Bible), murdered prisoners (Jud. 8:21 RSV), engaged in polygamy (Jud. 8:30);
•ISSAC--lied (Gen. 26:6-7 and attempted to sacrifice his wife to save himself (Gen. 26:9);
•JACOB--swindled Esau out of his birthright (Gen. 25:31-33 RSV), cheated and lied (Gen. 27:19, 30:40-43 RSV) and lied to Rachel (Gen. 29:12);
•JEHOIDA--ordered a murder (2 Kings 11:15-16 RSV);
•JEHU--killed (Kings 9:24, 27, 10:11, 17), ordered killings (2 Kings 10:6-7, 14, 25 RSV), and deceptively lied (2 Kings 10:18-19);
•JEPHTHAH--slaughtered people (Jud. 11:33), and killed his own daughter (Jud. 11:39 RSV);
•JEREMIAH--lied (Jer. 38:24-27 NIV);
•JOAB--killed (2 Sam. 3:27, 18:14, 20:10);
•JONATHAN--killed (1 Sam. 14:13-14 NASB), and lied (1 Sam. 20:28);
•JOSEPH--deceived his brothers (Gen. 42:7 NASB) and committed nepotism (Gen. 47:11 RSV);
•JOSHUA--killed and slaughtered without letup (Joshua 6:21, 8:25-28, 10:1, 20, 26-28, 30, 32-33, 35, 37, 39-41, 17-18, 21, 12:7), murdered prisoners (Josh. 8:29), and hamstrung horses, (Josh. 11:9 RSV);
•LABAN--lied (Gen. 29:15) and deceived (Gen. 29:20-25);
•LOT--offered his virgin daughters to a crowd (Gen. 19:8);
•SAMSON--killed (Jud. 14:19, 15:8, 15), and had sex with a harlot (Jud. 16:1) and lied to Delilah (Jud. 16:10, 13), and
•SAMUEL--murdered (1 Sam. 15:33).

Second are those individuals who are not only well known but committed a wider assortment of nefarious activities:

•ABRAHAM--told his wife to lie (Gen. 12:13), debauched Hagar, his maidservant (Gen. 16:4), sent his maidservant and her child into the wilderness (Gen. 21:14), lied (Gen. 20:2), and married his half-sister (Gen. 20:11-12);
•SAUL--used his daughters as a snare (1 Sam. 8:20-21 NIV), ordered gambling (1 Sam. 14:42), killed (1 Sam. 15:7-8, 20, 22:18-21), stripped himself and acted unstable (1Sam. 19:24), admitted he sinned, played the fool and erred (1 Sam.26:21), gave David's wife to another man (1 Sam. 25:44), and transgressed God by consulting a medium and being unfaithful (1 Chron. 10:13-14 RSV),
•SOLOMON--ordered murders (1 Kings 2:25 RSV, 2:34, 46), tried to kill Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:40), enslaved people (1 Kings 9:21 RSV), did not keep God's statutes or covenant (1 Kings 11:11 RSV), did evil (1 Kings 11:6), and lied to his mother (1 Kings 2:20-21 RSV, 2:25).

Lastly, are two famous or infamous individuals--Moses and David--who occupy special places among Old Testament leaders.

According to 2 Chron. 30:16 Moses was the Man of God; yet, he... •murdered an Egyptian (Ex. 2:12),
•ordered an armed attack (Num. 31:3, 6),
•ordered the murder of prisoners (Num. 31:17),
•ordered the keeping of young female prisoners for several reasons (Num. 31:17),
•led mass killings of women and children (Deut. 2:34, 3:3, 6),
•ordered killings (Deut. 13:15, 20:13),
•blasphemously wrote he was a greater prophet than Jesus (Deut. 34:10 NASB),
•had a son out of wedlock (Ex. 2:21-22),
•and was excluded by God from Canaan for four different reasons:
1. unbelief (Num 20:12),
2. rebellion (Num. 27:12-14 RSV),
3. trespassing (Deut. 13:51-52),
4. rash words (Psalm 106:32-33 NIV).

And, finally, there is David. Despite all of the above, no individual in the Bible had a more disreputable, more scandalous career. Although the recipient of numerous accolades:

never doing evil (1 Sam. 25:28),
following God fully (1 Kings 11:6),
being an angel of God(2 Sam. 19:27),
keeping his commandments of God (1 Kings 3:14), and
having a perfect heart with the Lord (1 Kings 15:3)

David exhibited exceptionally corrupt behavior.
•He killed (1 Sam. 17:50-51 RSV, 18:7, 27, 19:8, 23:5, 30:17, 2 Sam. 8:1, 2, 5, 13),
•ordered murders (2 Sam. 1:15, 4:5-12),
•ordered prisoners to be killed (2 Sam. 12:2931, 1 Chron. 20:3, 2 Sam. 8:1-2),
•committed unprovoked aggression and mass killing (1 Sam. 27:8-11, 2 Sam. 5:20, 25),
•gave up seven of Saul's descendants to be killed (2 Sam. 21:1-6, 9),
•requested that Joab be killed (1 Kings 2:5-6),
•intentionally arranged for Uriah to be killed in order to seize his wife (2 Sam. 11:14-17),
•displeased the Lord (2 Sam. 11:26-27),
•impregnated another man's wife, committing adultery in the process (2 Sam. 11:2-5),
•wasn't allowed to build God's house because he was a man of war and bloodshed (1 Chron. 22:7-8),
•lied (1 Sam. 21:1-2, 27:8-10),
•told Jonathan to lie (1 Sam. 20:5-6),
•admitted he sinned by taking a census (2 Sam. 24:10, 17, 1 Chron. 21: 8, 17)
•committed extortion (1 Sam. 25:2-8),
•prophesied incorrectly in his heart (1 Sam. 27:1),
•sent out a spy (2 Sam. 16:36),
•hamstrung horses (2 Sam. 8:4),
•locked up 10 concubines for life for no apparent reason (2 Sam. 20:3),
•committed bigamy (2 Sam. 3:2-3),
•committed polygamy (2 Sam. 5:12),
•despised the word of the Lord (2 Sam. 12: 9-11),
•admitted he sinned by causing Uriah's death and taking his wife (2 Sam. 12:13-14),
•and exposed himself like a pervert (2 Sam. 6:20).

Yet, despite all of this we are supposed to believe this is a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22). Anyone approaching the Bible for goodness, decency, role models, and morality, enters at his own peril.



On Sunday, July 20, 1983, the editor of BE appeared on radio station WING in Dayton, Ohio, for 2 1/2 hours. The call-in format provided an excellent forum by which the Bible's fallacies could be revealed and discussed before a large audience. Although I don't have space to present everything discussed, one point dominated all others, i.e., the Christian interpretation of the Bible has major philosophical difficulties.

To show an apologist the error of his or her ways one need only ask questions such as:
•(a) If God is just and fair, why is humanity being punished for what one man, Adam, did thousands of years ago?
•(b) If God is perfect and everything he does or creates is perfect, then Adam must have been perfect. How, then, could Adam, a perfect being, have committed sin? Whether or not he had free will is irrelevant. It's impossible for him to have committed an imperfect act. Perfect beings can't commit imperfect acts;
•(c) And if one must have Jesus to be "saved," what about the millions of people who have come and gone and never had any contact whatever with Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity? How could God be just, since they are condemed simply because of where they are bor?. They were provided no opportunity to obtain "salvation". Missionaries have missed millions. Indeed, millions of people died before Jesus was ever born.

These are only some of the questions that generate intense, yet productive, dialogue. Try as they may, biblicists can't cope with these problems. All of my radio appearances have been taped, and I've considered making them available. Unfortunately, the time needed to adequately record and edit would probably be prohibitive.

REVIEWS

Biblical Errancy recently received a leaflet entitled, Science, The Bible and God from M.B. of Ohio. The author contends the Bible is not only scientific but "far ahead of its time". The verses employed to prove as much are weak at best. For instance, Job 38:33: "Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven." The author concludes from this: "God asked Job if he knew the numerous laws of nature. Think of it--more than three thousand years ago the inspired Woed was telling man that the universe is operated on natural law. And science today is still investigating the 'ordinance of heaven' or natural law." By what rationale the author reached this conclusion one can only surmise. The O.T. is replete with the ordinances of heaven or God, and almost nothing would lead one to believe they are synonymous with natural law. Most are moral, social, religious, and ceremonial in tone, and of little scientific value. To further make his point, the author related the following biblical verses and the "scientific" facts proven by each. Psalm 19:6 says: "His (the sun) going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it" which allegedly echoes the scientific fact that the sun has its circuit with a circumference of about 338,000 light-years. In the first place, the heaven has no ends from which the sun emerges or to which it is approaching. Secondly, the author, in Paulinist tradition, conveniently omitted the rest of the verse, which says: "and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." How the sun's heat could be reaching every object in an infinite universe is difficult to fathom. Job 26:7 says: "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." If this is scientifically precise and proves the earth is floating freely in space, then how could the earth also have foundations, as alleged in Psalm 104:5, which says: "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever"? Ecclesiastes 1:6 says the winds flow in a circular world pattern which is scientifically correct, although not particularly profound. Why doesn't the author quote the next verse, which says: "All of the rivers run into the sea...." Perhaps because hundreds of the world's rivers flow into lakes and other inland bodies of water. It's important to note that the author, also, relies upon verses that are so nebulous as to allow any interpretation expediency dictates. For example, he contends that Job 38:14 states the earth rotates upon its axis; Job 38:31 teaches the laws of planetary attraction; and Job 28:25 says air has weight. These parts of scripture are just too vague to know what was intended.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #30 from DRM of Wilberforce, Ohio
Dear Dennis, In a response to a letter you stated that the Bible is claiming perfection. Could you document your claim? It would be helpful if you first define "perfection" and then support your statement. Also, I would debate the claim that "two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event cannot be simultaneously accurate." (See: Feb. 1983, p.2). If the event is a ball following the laws of gravity and one person on top of a ten story building claims "I have dropped the ball," and another person on ground level claims "The ball will hit me" one could argue that you have two diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive and simultaneously accurate versions of the same event. These are opposed, "dropped" versus "will hit", since one is past and the other is future. They are mutually exclusive. Try to drop and hit at the same time! They are both accurate descriptions of the event.
Finally, I would speculate that you are asking the wrong questions of scripture. Scripture is a recorded meaning system for a people over a long period of time. For people who find themselves with that tradition of meaning, Scripture continues to be a source of inspiration and truth. Inspiration in terms of what is meaningful in life. Truth in terms of the ultimate questions in life. If we reduce truth to be only verifiable claims advocated by logical positivists, then the Declaration of Independence has lied when it claimed "All men are created equal" and the husband lies to his wife when he says "I love you." Thank you for the free copy of BE.

Editor's response to Letter #30 Dear DRM.Three of your comments need to be addressed. To begin with, your initial question is directed towards the wrong party. Apologists for the Bible, not I, allege the Book claims perfections. They employ 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:16 and other verses to prove as much. Your quarrel is with them, not me. I merely provide evidence the Bible is not inerrant, as they allege. They define "perfection" as without error or flawless. Secondly, your second comment is permeated with poor logic. After relating two observations about a ball falling you stated: "one could argue...." To begin with, they are neither diametrically opposed nor mutually exclusive. The person on top of the building is not making two statements simultaneously which are in opposition. Any comment by the person on the ground is irrelevant, since his perspective is quite different. He is referring to what will happen while the individual dropping the ball is stating what has happened. In no way are the comments mutually exclusive, Both are correct because the passage of time changed conditions, and two different perspective are involved. The statements are complementary, not opposed. Thirdly, I am not asking any questions of Scripture other than its basis for claiming inerrancy. It may be a source of inspiration for many, but it is by no means a fountain of truth for all. You assert the Bible provides "truth in terms of the ultimate questions of life." If the Bible is really a source of truth, then how do you account for the tremendous number of problems contained therein? Glittering generalities, such as yours, aren't proof; they are merely assertions. The Declaration of Independence would be inaccurate if it contended all men are physically equal. But we both know "equality before the law" is intended.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #31 from FM of Novato, California Dear Mr. McKinsey,
Please send six back issues. We have number 7.... In issue #7, Letter 19, the writer (SS) Mentions human sacrifices in Leviticus, Judges and 2 Samuel. So far, in a hurried reading of the first two books I have not been able to find what SS refers to. Is it possible you could quote chapter and verse?
Editor's response to Letter #31
Dear FM,
References to human sacrifices may be in Judges and 2 Samuel, but I can only find them in Exodus, Leviticus, and Ezekiel. Perhaps SS will aid both of us. BE does not vouch for the accuracy of that which is contained in Letters to the Editor.

Letter #32 from BAY of Cincinnati, Ohio
Dear Mr. Mckinsey,
I am finding your publication to be very educational, but I have one major complaint. Since the title is Biblical Errancy, I feel that topics discussed in your publication, whether your own writings or the letters you print should (only) deal with the Bible. Of course, related topics will naturally enter into discussions, and when this happens, I feel you have an editorial responsiblity to identify non-Biblical concepts when it is not clear. The reason for this letter is Letter #19 from SS of Vienna, Virginia. In the second paragraph, SS talks about the New Testament as "a compendium of both historical and logical contradictions...filled with paganism and old-time superstition. Easter is named after the old goddess of spring. Christmas falls upon the winter soltice which is when Saturnalia was formally celebrated." You and SS are probably both aware that the words "Easter" and "Christmas" do not appear in the New Testament, nor does the date of Jesus' birth. Since the context of the letter strongly implies that these are problems with the Bible, you should have pointed out this false information....

Editor's Response to Letter #32
Dear BAY,
Your point is well taken. Material within BE should be confined to that which is contained within the Bible. But many letters discuss extra-Biblical subjects. They seem to be of great interest to many people and I don't want to exclude information of this nature if there is strong interest. Personally, I agree with you. Easter, Christmas, the Shroud of Turin, the winter solstice, the Saturnalia, and other topics that are not within the Bible are not germane to this publication. I often receive extensive letters on the history of early Christianity, the canon's formation, Free Masonry, the political machinations of popes, and so forth which, although informative and entertaining, are not really relevant to the Bible's "inerrancy." We differ on a couple of points, however. I don't feel I have a responsibility to identify non-Biblical concepts, nor do I feel obligated to tell others these topics are not in the Bible, unless the Bible's inaccuracy would be further exposed. If information about extra-Biblical topics is inaccurate, then I am no better off than the readers of BE. I can't be all-knowing on all topics, and I, like you, read all letters to the editor with a critical eye. If someone feels a letter is inaccurate, I'll try to publish thoughtful rebuttals. As we both know, newspapers can't vouch for the accuracy of that which is contained in letters to the editors.

Letter #33 from RR of Murphy, North Carolina
Dear Mr. McKinsey,
Many thanks for the sample copy of BE you sent me so promptly. Obviously your heart is in the right place, but, if #8(slavery and the degredation of women) was fairly typical of your approach, then I fear you are intellectually barking up the wrong tree. If you wish to demonstrate the errancy of the Bible, merely pointing out that its doctrines and social customs are morally repugnant to modern Americans of enlarged views simply won't work."Repugnant" does not prove "errant." On the contrary, the more repressive, neurotic, and anti-human these doctrines are, the more they appeal to those Moral Majority types whose basic motivation is hatred of human freedom and a ravening desire to condemn, punish and control anyone who is not exactly like themselves.

Editor's Response to Letter #33
Dear RR,
We are in agreement. "Repugnant" does not mean or prove "errancy." That is why BE doesn't concentrate on sex, immorality, or blood and gore in the Bible, as do many critiques. The latter appeal more to the heart than the head. After years of experience, apologists have been able to develop a wide assortment of responses to the "repugnancy approach". Primary reliance on this method is doomed to failure, and that's why BE encompasses a wider variety of problems. You've made an astute observation which merits a thoughtful reply. Issue #8 dwelt on slavery and subservience of women, not out of concern for the deplorable aspects of oppression, but because they are sanctioned by the Bible, in clear violation of such verses as 2 Cor. 3:17. The general tenor of the discussion was based on logic, reason, and evidence, not on emotion or morality. You might want to read other issues, especially numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, as they are decidedly lacking in moral or emotional appeals. It's difficult to form an accurate opinion after having read only one issue.

Letter #34 from AIC of San Francisco, California (Part a)
Dear Mr. McKinsey,
I have very much appreciated the 5 issues of BE you have sent me.... May I make some comments on this issue received so far? In the first page of Issue #6 you write: "An egg can easily be taken from a virgin, united with a sperm in a test-tube, and reinserted into the uterus without any physical contact being involved." This a very recent technique and couldn't have been considered in Biblical times....

Editor's Response to Letter #34 (Part a)
Dear AIC,
I appreciate your scientific approach, but you missed my point. The question is: Is a virgin birth a miracle? Is it an event contrary to natural law, i.e., supernatural and worthy of awe? Science has shown that it's not a miracle. And if it isn't a miracle now, it wasn't a miracle then. Women can have children without ever having had contact with a male. Sticks turning into snakes and women turning into salt are miracles because they can't occur at any time. But if a woman can have children now, without contact, then they could have done so then. The mechanics by which it occurred are quite secondary. The fact is it could have happened. It is possible.

Letter #34 concludes (Part b)
(After an extensive analysis of pregnancy and reproduction AIC continued). On page 4 of issue # 7 you write: "If they believe this (the 4 versions of the Resurrection agree), then I challenge them to write one consistent narrative incorporating all four gospel accounts." This has been done. It is a big book called "The Nazarene Gospel" by Robert Groves and Joshua Podro.... It is a work of scholarship and not just a wild theory. Look it up and get a copy for your library if you can. But the challenge you flung out in the sentence quoted at the beginning of this paragraph was met before you made it. Other than this I have no criticism of the 5 issues I have seen.... All in all, I must say that you have produced an ACHIEVEMENT. You are entitled to feel very proud of "Biblical Errancy".... I have never heard of Enon, Ohio. What part of the state is it in?

Editor's Response to Letter #34 (Part b)
Dear AIC. Defenders of the Bible often recommend books I should read, and I've never found one that lived up to its billing. I thank you for your compliments and realize you are trying to be of assistance, but no book can reconcile the gospel accounts. The chronologies, the prophecies with respect to when the cock should crow, and the time the women arrived at the tomb are only some of the problems that no amount of rationalization and justification can reconcile. Thomas Paine said it well: "...it is, I believe, impossible to find in any story upon record with so many and glaring absurdities, contradictions and falsehoods, as are in those books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). They are more numerous and striking than I had any expectation of finding, when I began this examination,...." (The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, p. 67). If you will send me some specific reconciliations of gospel contradiction that BE has mentioned, I will gladly discuss them in future issues. Biblicists never cease assuring their critics that all problems have been resolved and future assaults on Biblical inerrancy are futile. It's a common ploy and only deceives those who aren't sufficiently versed in scripture. Anyone who does not know the Book is obviously not going to know its weaknesses. Enon, Ohio is northeast of Dayton near Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Letter #35 from MJG of Ottawa, Canada
Dear Dennis.
Thanks for the sample copy. I enjoyed reading it, though it did not shake my faith in the Scripture. You seem to be quite level-headed, unlike some agnostic/atheists, whose material I have read. Therefore, I would be interested in a subscription; enclosed is my money order. I feel one should not be afraid of the truth, even if it is not what you would like it to be. I hope you feel the same way. We have all got a lot to learn and understand.

Editor's Response to Letter #35
Dear MJG.
If only all believers in scriptures were as open-minded as you! All BE asks is a fair hearing in an open form. I couldn't agree with you more. We all make mistakes; we all have a lot to learn, and I am no exception. But what better way to proceed than through an open dialog, encompassing all points of view. Preaching to the converted--witness most religious meetings, from fundamentalist to atheist--may "soothe," but it doesn't "solve." One doesn't convert people from the Bible overnight. A long, slow, methodical process of re-education is required. People accept the Bible as God's word after months, even years, of teaching; and equally long period is required to reverse the process.

EDITOR'S NOTE: If your comments on BE have not been addressed, we apologize. The volume of mail--pro and con--far exceed what can be published. Many people have a lot to say.