Issue #129-Biblicist O'Brien Backs BE, Is Resurrec

Biblical Errancy Issue #129-Biblicist O'Brien Backs BE, Is Resurrection Important, Should BE's Caption Be Modified, Should We Debate Biblicists Extensively & With What Strategy

Nov 10, '08 5:57 AM
by Loren for everyone




Issue No. 129

September 1993



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence to substantiate BE's position on a myriad of topics can be found not only in sympathetic literature but that of fundamentalist writers as well. In 1990 Bethany House Publishers, a conservative Christian organization based in Minneapolis, Minnesota published a voluminous text of 500 pages, entitled Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties by David E. O'Brien. The author received his M. Div. from Bethel Theological Seminary, his M.A. in OT from Wheaton Graduate School, and a B.A. in history. In addition, he has taught Bible College classes on the OT and seminar workshops on hermeneutics, and was a Consulting Editor of Today's Bible Dictionary and Today's Handbook of Bible Times and Customs. Although he says on page 217, "I believe in an infallible Bible," and his text is unabashedly apologetic in tone, many comments are worthy of note. In regard to translations of the Bible he says on page 45, "If the question is, do our present versions of the Bible contain mistakes, I'm afraid the answer is yes. When it comes to numbers, the ancient texts have suffered a great deal.... I could list numerous places where numbers have gotten changed, omitted, enlarged, or shrunk.... There are numerous places where the precise reading of a particular text is uncertain. That's particularly true when it comes to numbers." Another revealing comment on translating is found on page 114 where O'Brien says, "Translation is an incredibly complicated process. That beloved phrase of some preachers, 'If you could only read it in the original language....' contains a kernel of truth. (Most of us preachers can't actually read it in the original language, either, but we like our congregations to think we can!)." And still another translating confession is found on page 281 where he says in regard to the free will versus determinism problem, "Using one of the basic rules of interpretation, the clearest, simplest reading of Romans 9 is that God predestines and those who are predestined play no active part in the Divine decree. As a lifelong Arminian (one who stresses man's free will as opposed to Calvinistic predestination--Ed.), it grieves me to admit this, but that's the simplest reading of the text. Read in this way, Paul is presenting a picture of the sovereign God of the universe making such decisions as please Him, for reasons that only He can know or understand, and carrying out those decisions without the consent, cooperation, or resistance of the people involved." And that's the same good and just God we are supposed to love and adore.

When asked why the sexually salacious book entitled The Song of Solomon is in the Bible, O'Brien said on pages 146-48, "...the rabbis looked beneath the surface of the literal text and discovered a powerful and uplifting allegory.... This was a spiritual song about the love of God for His people Israel.... (For the early fathers of the church--Ed.)...it became an allegory of the love of Christ for His church. Both of these (are--Ed.) efforts to slide out from under the burden of a book that no one was willing to accept as literal.... There is absolutely no evidence the Song of Songs is an allegory.... By allegorizing our interpretation, we can make anything say anything.... And there's the rub. Such a text, when subjected to the imaginations of allegorizing interpreters, can indeed taste after each man's liking. There is no truth if our understanding is as subjective as that. The form of the text must shape the interpretation of the text, or there is no control outside the interpreter for what the text might be made to say." On the next page he pins down his friends even further by saying, "It means that we're not free to take a NT idea back to the Old and reinterpret the OT to teach the NT idea." As he says on page 213, "It's a mistake to sink footings and build a skyscraper on the swamp of speculation." If only more apologists were as frank!

In answer to someone who asked what was Paul's thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7-9), he says on page 64, "Because Paul never actually described the thorn in the flesh, any attempt to identify it must rely on a lot of deduction and will never establish its identity with certainty."

In answer to Christians who try to excuse Noah's drunkenness by saying it was the innocent result of drinking what he thought was wholesome grape juice, O'Brien says on page 185, "It does Scripture no honor to invent ways to make offensive events palatable to us when Scripture itself records them and makes no effort to sanitize them."

On page 365 O'Brien is asked: If the Bible teaches that drinking is a sin, why did Jesus turn water into wine (John 2:1-11), and why did Paul tell Timothy to drink wine for his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23)? His answer represents a marked departure from the common apologetic rationalizations one can expect to hear in response to this inquiry. He states, "I've read all the arguments about unfermented grape juice and how fermentation doesn't take place naturally in the climate of Palestine, and I have to tell you--they're based more on wishful thinking than on linguistic study or scientific understanding. Jesus turned the water into real wine. I know this makes some believers nervous. I know it makes some hostile. 'How can I counsel alcoholics not to drink if you're telling them drinking isn't a sin?' they ask. I wish the Bible did teach that drinking is a sin, but it doesn't. It contains numerous warnings against the abuse of alcohol, but nowhere does it say it's a sin. And we are not free to make the Bible say what it doesn't say just to make our decisions easier. For me there is a profound principle at work here." And on the next page he relates Principle Number 37 which is: 'Don't bend and twist the meaning of the biblical text to avoid an unpleasant conclusion.' Too bad few apologists follow his advice. On page 366 he states, "the Bible does not say that drinking of alcohol is a sin.... Did the overseer at the banquet think mere grape juice would dull the wedding guests' taste buds? Did Paul warn against overindulgence in grape juice (Eph. 5:18)? Did Noah drink too much grape juice (Gen. 9:21)? Is grape juice a mocker (Prov. 20:1)? Did Jeremiah liken himself to a man overtaken by grape juice (Jer. 23:9)?"

In regard to famous OT biblical figures O'Brien makes the following candid statement on page 233, "When we read the Bible, we assume that all the great people of Scripture would make wonderful deacons or elders in our American church. But in fact, there's hardly a person in the OT who would even be allowed to join most of our churches without some major modifications in behavior." Later on page 260 he says, "Keep in mind the fact that very few of God's chosen instruments were without fault, or even serious sin. Moses was a murderer. David was an adulterer and a murderer. Jacob was a con-man and Abraham was a liar. Jonah was a racist who rebelled at the idea that God would forgive the Assyrians. And what about Peter's impulsiveness and the contentious spirits displayed by James and John?"

In regard to the impossibility of rich people entering the kingdom of heaven as related in Luke 18:23-25, O'Brien said on page 138, "Some teach that Jesus was talking about the small door in the city gate of Jerusalem called the 'needle's eye.' This is a common explanation of Jesus' saying. That's not what he was getting at though.... there's never been any evidence, either textual or archeological, that such a gate ever existed. There were smaller gates, each with its own name. But none of those names was 'the needle's eye'."

So, in summary, it's apparent that we are by no means alone in our critique of biblical comments and defenses. Sometimes even the Bible's staunchest proponents are willing to concede the obvious.




DIALOGUE AND DEBATE



Letter #537 Continues from Last Month (Part e)

While commenting on 1 Cor. 15:14 you ask "Why should [Jesus'] Resurrection be of such significance?" and "Why, then, attribute so much importance to the Resurrection?" ...as if the Bible didn't say why! And yet Paul is quite clear: only three verses later he says that the reason why Jesus' resurrection is vital to Christianity is that if it did not take place Christians are still in their sins (1 Cor. 15:17). This seems to me an eminent reason for considering the Resurrection a vital doctrine for Christianity--whose central message is that sinners can have their sins forgiven. This is Paul's answer to your question. Now you may believe or disbelieve what Paul says, but you have no right in suggesting that in the Bible the Resurrection is given so much importance without a reason, and that therefore Paul's statement is fallacious. Your argument is not only invalid: it is misleading for a reader of Biblical Errancy not acquainted with the Bible (like BY of Seminole, Florida, who trusts your Periodical when he/she quotes the Bible--BE #122).



Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part e)

Some how or other, GM, you don't seem to understand the problem. Despite having been stated many times in different ways, it has apparently eluded your grasp. So let me reiterate the dilemma in no uncertain terms. You say Jesus was resurrected. I say, SO WHAT, BIG DEAL. Why make a big case out of an accomplishment that was performed by many in earlier biblical accounts? So he rose from the dead! From a biblical perspective that hardly merits an applause, much less a standing ovation. You still haven't shown how this was an achievement exceeded by none. And if it wasn't truly unique, why should the validity of Christianity or the fate of millions rest on its occurrence? My argument is neither invalid nor misleading. Quite the contrary, BY is well within the bounds of wisdom and propriety to rely on our analysis.



Letter #537 Continues (Part f)

At this point I fail to see how Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15 can be proved at all to be an error or a contradiction or a fallacy. What proofs can you offer that would deny the truth of Paul's statement that if the resurrection did not take place Christians are still in their sins and that their faith is vain?



Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part f)

You are trying to shift the burden of proof, my friend. I am asking you to demonstrate why he would attribute so much importance to a relatively innocuous event. Biblically speaking, rising from the dead was nothing to shout about. You ask me to provide proofs that would deny the truth of Paul's statement that if the resurrection did not take place Christians are still in their sins and their faith is vain, when that isn't the dilemma at all. You keep hitting a strawman. I agree, that is what Paul said. I'm asking you to show why that event is a turning point in history and should merit the importance Paul attributes to it. The burden of proof lies on you.



Letter #537 Continues (Part g)

To this please don't answer that the burden of proof is for Christians, for 1 Cor. 15:14 and 17 are statements, just like "Jesus died for our sins", "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", or even "God does not exist" that CANNOT be proved or disproved, but only believed or disbelieved.

Your Periodical's stated aim, on the other hand, is to focus "on Biblical ERRORS, CONTRADICTIONS, and FALLACIES". If you don't find proofs for your opinion that 1 Cor. 14:14 is an error or a fallacy or a contradiction, please remove that entire paragraph from your Sample Periodical. As an alternative I suggest that you either change the aim of your Periodical, or that you include in it all biblical statements that imply God exists, and claim that they are all fallacies until a Christian proves them.



Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part g)

Biblical Errancy focuses on ANY AND ALL PROBLEMS having to do with the validity of the Bible, which would include errors, contradictions, and fallacies. We are by no means narrowly focused on contradictions alone as some people erroneously believe. In this particular instance, we ask how the Bible be can a book of logic and reason as its adherents proclaim, when it attributes unique importance to an event performed by one individual that had been performed by many others years earlier. In effect, we are dealing with a fallacy, namely, the assertion that the Bible is consistent. It attributes importance to one resurrection while denying equal importance to other resurrections performed previously. The statement to which you refer regarding God creating the heavens and the earth is not analogous because it is a mere assertion based upon nothing other than faith. The comment regarding Jesus dying for our sins is analogous and was covered in prior issues, because it is contradicted by other biblical comments demonstrating the opposite. While on the cross Jesus certainly did not exhibit behavior that would lead one to believe he was willingly dying for our sins.

The essence of your argument, which you feel compelled to repeat in different ways, appears to be that our subcaption should read: The only national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, fallacies, and problems in general.... We have always looked upon the word "fallacies" as a general term encompassing just about everything not included in errors and contradictions and that would include problems in general. You, on the other hand, are trying to restrict it to a rather narrow definition. If that were to be allowed, in effect, we would be conceding the validity of your contentions until we disproved their reliability. As we have said so often, THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON HE WHO ALLEGES. That means, for example, that you are obligated to prove the resurrection of Jesus is of greater importance than that of others. We aren't obligated to accept it just because Paul says it was. Quite the contrary, we can and should reject it until you can prove he was right.

You say 1 Cor. 15:14 and 17 are statements, just like 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' that CANNOT be proved or disproved, but only believed or disbelieved. But you don't seem to realize that these statements are fallacious until proven to be true. When will you religionists ever learn that "belief", "faith", and assertions by people you hold in high esteem are NOT proof, and are not to be accepted as such; they never have been and they never will be. And until these statements are proven to be true, they will remain under the heading of fallacies. There is no reason to alter our subcaption as you so desire. Just because Paul said it, doesn't make it so any more than an African witch doctor should be believed on his authority alone.

You say that the statement "God does not exist" CANNOT be proved or disproved, but only be believed or disbelieved. False again! You and your compatriots are the ones who keep bringing up the subject of God, so it is up to you to demonstrate the existence of this being. And until you are able to do so, the statement "God Exists" is false. You should have read all the prior issues of BE before sending your letter, GM, because this subject has been covered several times before. As I have said so often before, if your premise were true, then every crackpot theory imaginable would be valid until proven to be false. How would I prove, for example, that beings do not live within the planet Jupiter as some would allege? According to you, "faith" or "belief" in their existence or an assertion to that effect by someone you hold in high regard would mean they, in fact, do live there until I prove the contrary. Your thought processes would open the world to a Pandora's box of wild delusions. Is it any wonder that the word "religion" is little more than a euphemism for "superstition"? (TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT MONTH)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #550 from KB of Los Angeles, California (Part a)

Dennis McKinsey.

Issue #127 arrived yesterday, July 13. All sorts of congratulations for having stuck it out for these past ten and a half years, which is about as long as Atheists United has been around, since the middle of 1982.... I suggest that now is the time to catch up on that promise made to your readers some time ago and devote at least one issue of BE a year to publishing letters, and only letters, with your responses. Indeed, I suggest, as an often respondent to BE, as though I had no motive at all in getting my deathless prose into print, that you now devote the next and how many after that issues to getting those letters that have swollen your files to running over onto the floor, and give your readers that expected and well deserved feed-back of their contributions to freethought.



Editor's Response to Letter #550

Dear KB.

Thanks for your congratulations, but we have always had a policy of devoting an entire issue to letters from our readers. That has been in effect for many years, was continued last month, and will be even more prominent in months to come. You probably just forgot.

Letter #550 Concludes (Part b)

I am relieved that the extended response to the worthless diatribe of "JM" is finally over. As I have said in the past, you should give up addressing the likes of JM directly, but use their material as examples of "inerrancy thinking" and give indirect quotes and respond to them succinctly. Avoid direct address, keep to the issues regardless of how stupid a person reveals himself to be. Telling a person that his response is stupid only takes up valuable BE space! As I say, give your readers who have written you the exposure they deserve, or don't. Fill BE pages with BE readers!

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #550 (Part b)

Although your long support of BE is most welcome, KB, we have a significant difference in strategy and tactics. A major aspect of this periodical has always been dialogue and debate with the opposition. Indeed, that goes to the very heart of this publication. In the subcaption itself is the phrase "while providing a hearing for apologists." The whole idea is to debate and expose the opposition on their own territory in their own subject. If you expect to debate somebody without quoting him verbatim, what do you think his response is going to be? If you leave out parts of his extensive argument, what do you think his response is going to be? If you talk about what strikes your fancy rather than what interests him or turns him on, what do you think your effect is going to be? If you give up "addressing the likes of JM directly," how are you going to conduct a forceful, direct, poignant, effective, devastating assault indirectly? I've never seen two people box indirectly, nor have I ever seen two football teams slam one another indirectly. With all due respect, we aren't involved in a game of cricket or horseshoes. We are playing for big stakes in a subject that is of great importance to millions of people and of even greater significance than economics or politics to others. Make no mistake about it. We are engaged in serious business! You have to deal with people where they are, not where you would like them to be. And you have to talk with them on subjects that are of greatest interest to them, not what is of greatest interest to you or tickles your funnybone. The philosophy you are expressing has accounted for more freethought group and individual failures than any other factor that comes to mind. The most obvious result of this theory is that many groups of our persuasion end up having the same people say the same things to the same people, and preaching to the choir is certainly not the way to go. In fact, that is precisely what should be placed near the bottom of the agenda. But, unfortunately, that is often of highest priority. From your perspective the response of JM is a "worthless diatribe," but from his viewpoint it is anything but. In fact, he provided several rationalizations that are typical of the very stock and trade of biblicists' arguments and he probably extracted a few from their writings. By confronting him on his own book, I not only corrected his errors but provided reasons for all others who may be so inclined to pause and reconsider the error of their ways.

In addition, you say I should give my readers the exposure they deserve or don't and fill BE pages with BE readers. What does this mean? Are you saying I should only insert letters that are sympathetic to my philosophy? What do you think would be the response of biblicists who read this newsletter based upon groundrules of that nature? Besides turning part of our subcaption into a prevarication, BE would become little more than a one-sided propaganda organ not unlike those of its opponents. If it means I should insert letters from the opposition, then how should I insert them? Should they be quoted word-for-word, paragraph by paragraph, page by page, or should things be omitted? And who makes the latter decision? Even more important, what do you think my opponent is going to say when I start deleting comments? I can hear the yells now. "You left out my strongest arguments or you omitted the key words. Your presentation is both slanted and biased." We have scrupulously avoided vulnerability of this nature since day one. Remember when I said in my speech (See: Issues 58-60) that before you fire something over you had better know what lies in the other side's arsenal. If you don't consider their arguments ahead of time, then you are headed for misery, if not catastrophe.

When you say that I should "give up addressing the likes of JM directly...give indirect quotes and respond to them succinctly. Avoid direct address...." you are propounding a philosophy that is not only far from this publication, but could only result in its demise were it to be implemented. BE is a forum of debate and discussion, not a one-sided propaganda agency. I hope you take my response in the spirit intended, but you struck a chord by expressing an ideology that is all too common among many freethinkers.

Not long ago a subscriber told me that a prominent representative of a freethought publication objected to my critique of the Bible because it was deemed to be too negative. My critic expressed the belief that attacking the Bible only alienated Christians by creating ill-will and hatred. This person felt that if you don't criticize the Bible, people will be more open to what you have to say and less repelled by your arguments. Unfortunately this philosophy expresses the sentiments of too many people in the freethought movement and is exactly what you don't want to do. The person so inclined couldn't be further from the truth if he or she tried. Christians have been indoctrinated with a mass of beliefs that are the very antithesis of what freethought represents, and any delusion that the two can somehow be melded into a harmonious relationship in the same individual is absurd. One must sound the death-knell over the other. They are utterly incompatible, and people are not going to be oozed into freethought by some sort of mass mollification, masked under the heading of universal brotherhood, common values, and mutual tolerance. That's a pipe dream. Telling them what they want to hear in order to get them to listen won't carry the day. Telling them that which is not too far from what they have been hearing all along isn't going to get the job done. As I have said so often, why would they come to hear our position when they are already convinced they have truth and we have error? And how are they going to know they are living under multiple delusions, if the numerous delusions under which they operate are not brought to their attention. Who is going to perform that role? That's certainly not what ministers, priests, and rabbis are paid to do. If you think the latter are going to provide a balanced presentation, forget it. BEFORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LISTEN TO US THEY MUST FIRST BE SHOWN THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS, and that's why I teach a kind of Sunday-School-In- Reverse. That's why I tell them all the things they should have heard in Sunday School but didn't. That's why I return to the fundamentals upon which they are operating and viewing the world and begin anew. Any other program is doomed to failure from the outset because it is not materially altering or affecting the basic concepts upon which all decisions are premised. That's why churches know it is so important to indoctrinate and "brainwash" the very young. Before constructing a new building in a city, what is the first thing you have to do? You have to destroy. You have to destroy either the structure that is already in place or you have to bring in a bull-dozer or other earth-moving equipment to destroy the vegetation and ground configuration that already exists on the plot of land to be used. One way or the other, destruction must precede construction. They are inseparable, and the same is no less true of philosophies and ideologies. Before you can start people thinking differently, you must first destroy the way they are thinking.

Of course, all of the above is said in a spirit of camaraderie, and I hope it will be taken as such.



Letter #551 from RS of Sherman Oaks, California

Dear Dennis.

It's a great pleasure to renew my subscription again. I have been a dedicated BE fan every since I began to read it. Over the past couple of years, I have put the material to good use, too. Some of the Biblicists I've met may never be the same. I dialogue with Biblicists, hear them out, and discuss what I have learned through BE. Many are surprised to see that their arguments collapse so quickly. Some counter with sophisticated apologetic arguments; yet these are easily and effectively refuted with information from BE. BE is effective. It causes Biblicists to re-think age-old beliefs, and would-be Biblicists to reject them altogether. Judging by your letters, many are as dedicated to spreading BE as I am.

I am excited about the latest product from BE -- audio tapes! I have received taped sermons from Christians, but I never had anything to send back. Thanks to BE, that situation will be remedied! I was wondering if you had BE on a wordprocessor, and if you had considered placing an IBM disk version on the market like the Skeptical Review does. I would love to have the information on my computer. With the information on computer, I could arrange it by subject, Bible verse, etc. It would help me considerably in composing speeches, rebuttals to letters, etc. Furthermore, have you considered putting BE on a computer bulletin board?

Editor's Response to Letter #551

I'm glad to see that you, too, are using BE in the manner intended, RS. Keep up the good work. As far as computer bulletin boards and putting everything on a wordprocessor are concerned, I just don't have the time. Please believe me when I say I have too many balls in the air now. You are by no means the only one to make these suggestions.