Issue #130-Archer's Encyclopedia (Pt. 1), Biblicis

Biblical Errancy Issue #130-Archer's Encyclopedia (Pt. 1), Biblicist Defends the Flood and the Animals Activity, Did BE Leave Its Subcaption?

Nov 10, '08 6:23 AM
by Loren for everyone




Issue No. 130

October 1993



ARCHER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA--(Part 1) One of the most well known and comprehensive biblical defenses written in recent years is entitled Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer, professor of OT and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois. Because the book is one of the most prominent apologetic works available, a study of some of that which is contained therein is appropriate in order to minimize its negative effects on unwary minds. Archer clearly believes he has generated a volume of immense importance because he states on page 11, "I candidly believe I have been confronted with just about all the biblical difficulties under discussion in theological circles today--especially those pertaining to the interpretation and defense of Scripture." If that comment is true, then theological circles are dramatically restricted in their coverage because the amount of substantive material omitted from his work would fill volumes. In any event, so many statements and biblical defenses by Archer are fraught with flaws that several issues of this publication will have reviews devoted to exposing some of their inadequacies. Among those worthy of mention are the following.

On page 25 Archer states, "As we have already seen, Christ accepted as literally true (1) the historicity of Adam, (2) the rescue of Noah and his family by the ark, (3) the literal accuracy of Moses' interview with God at the burning bush, (4) the feeding of Moses' congregation by manna from heaven, (5) the historicity of Jonah's deliverance, and (6) the repentance of the pagan population of Nineveh in response to Jonah's preaching. Nothing could be clearer that than our divine Savior believed in the literal truthfulness of the entire OT record, whether those accounts dealt with doctrinal matters, matters of science, or history." Archer was on firm footing until the last sentence. Just because Jesus believed in the 6 events listed does not mean he believed in thousands of other biblical events that are to be found from Genesis to Malachi. He made a grandiose leap in logic that is wholly unsupportable by Scripture.

On page 86 Archer is asked, "In Genesis 9:24-28, why did Noah curse his youngest son and say that Canaan should be a slave? Was this the beginning of slavery? Was slavery all right in the sight of God?" After explaining why Noah cursed Ham and minimizing the impact of same, Archer correctly stated that, "As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest. Slavery was as integral a part of ancient culture as commerce, taxation, or temple service." But then he said, "Not until the more exalted concept of man and his innate dignity as a person created in the image of God had permeated the world as a product of Bible teaching did a strong sentiment arise in Christendom in criticism of slavery and a questioning of its right to exist." Few comments are more at variance with reality. Slavery was abolished despite the Bible and Christianity, not because of them. Indeed, both the Old and New Testaments are strong proponents of slavery as several prior issues of BE clearly showed. Numerous verses in each regulate, direct, and condone the administration of slavery while none advocate its abolition. Support for slavery is all too obvious. In defense of the biblical stance on slavery Archer states, "Hebrew slaves were required under Mosaic law to be set free after six years of service; they could not be made to serve out their entire lives as slaves unless they willingly chose to remain so, out of love for their masters" (Ex. 21:2-7). What Archer neglects to mention is that these verses in no way advocate the abolishment of slavery. They merely regulate its operation and administration. Restriction does not equal abolition. And second, liberation after 6 years only applies to Hebrew slaves, their blood brothers, which were undoubtedly a small fraction of all the slaves they possessed.

Archer concludes by saying, "Yet there was inherent in the biblical concept of man as a person fashioned in the image of God and a candidate for heaven...a dynamic principle that undermined slavery." This diverges markedly from reality because slaves by definition are owned by others. Slaves were not viewed as human beings but as property. In effect, one biblical mandate overrules another. One says people are created in the image of God, while another says slaves are not people because they are property. If they aren't people, there is no need for them to be treated as such or for them to be considered creatures created in the image of God. If A is owned by B, B will never look upon A as his equal or a person, and the Bible wholly supports this conclusion. The Bible can never be a force for the liberation of mankind until, among other things, it denounces slavery and deems former slaves to be on a par with all other human beings, all of which would necessitate a revision of Scripture.

On page 96 Archer is asked how God could condemn human sacrifice in Leviticus 18 and 20 and yet command it in Genesis 22, or at least accept it in Judges 11? Archer states, "It is a mistake to interpret Genesis 22:2 as a command by God for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar. On the contrary, God actually (through his angel at least) restrained Abraham's hand just as he was about to plunge the knife into his son's body...." Archer's answer is little more than a deceptive shift in focus. True, Abraham's hand was restrained and the execution did not occur. But that was not the question. The question was how God could have given the order to begin with. He ordered a man to engage in human sacrifice and the man fully intended to comply with his wishes. Just because God stopped him at the last moment does not excuse or justify the original order. The question is how the original order could have been given by a "just" God, a god who condemned human sacrifice in Leviticus 18 and 20. Archer concludes by saying, "It is logically indefensible to assume that God would expect or condone infant sacrifice on the part of Abraham or Jephthah, or any other of his servants, after such a stern prohibition of it in the Mosaic law." No, it is not logically indefensible. It's quite possible as long as one has not been indoctrinated to believe that biblical contradictions are an impossibility. In Judges 11:30-31 Jephthah vowed to the Lord that if the latter would allow him to defeat the Ammonites he would sacrifice to the Lord as a burnt offering whatever came out of his house to greet him upon his return from victory. The 34th verse shows that his only child, his daughter, came out to meet him as he returned victorious and the 39th verse says he "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." The Lord did not restrain this man's hand, so it is not illogical to assume God would expect or condone infant sacrifice, and there is little to be gained by only focusing only upon the Lord's prevention of that which was fully contemplated by Abraham.

On top of everything else, Archer ignores verses even more potent than that found in God's order to Abraham such as Exodus 22:29-30 which says, "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep...." And we all know what happened to oxen and sheep on a regular basis in the OT. So, for Archer to say that it is "logically indefensible" to assume God would order human sacrifice is ridiculous. (To Be Continued)



DIALOGUE AND DEBATE



Letter #537 Continues from Last Month (Part h)

Regarding the FLOOD. Just some observations on your paragraph. Question (c) How would a flood destroy all sea animals?

Answer: It wouldn't! Why don't you read carefully what the Bible says? You have underlined almost every word in the verses you quote, except those words that answer your question! So I will take again the same verses you quoted and I will underline the words that answer the question:

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die." (Genesis 6:17)

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4)

I trust you are familiar with the fact that the Bible distinguishes between earth and sea (Ex. 20:11).



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

You are exhibiting the kind of reasoning that has caused biblical scholarship to be held in such low esteem by so many people for so many centuries, my friend. You cite Gen. 6:17 which says, "I will cause it to rain upon the earth." According to your restriction of the word "earth" to the land mass only, it did not rain on the oceans. How utterly preposterous! You mean there was a wall of water beginning at the ocean's edge that covered land only and was held back somehow? Or do you mean that it rained only on the land portion of the globe and the water then flowed over the seas? In either case, I believe you have reached the outer limits on this one. If TV's The Twilight Zone is ever revived, you would do well to apply for a position as a script writer. I'm surprised you didn't say that when Gen. 6:17 says everything that is in the earth shall die, it was only referring to worms, moles and other underground creatures. The sky is the limit when your imagination runs wild. According to you, then, when Gen. 1:17 says, "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly...fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of the heaven" fowl fly above land only, and when Gen. 2:1 says, "the heavens and the earth were finished..." the seas were not finished. When Abraham says in Gen. 14:22, "I have lift my hand to the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth," God did not possess the seas? And when Gen. 18:25 says, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right," God is not the judge of the seas? Anyone unwilling to concede that the word "earth" refers to the entire planet, not just the land portion, has entered a troublesome swamp, indeed. As is so often true, when biblicists try to reconcile one aspect of the Bible with another, they often wreck havoc upon a third.



Letter #537 Continues (Part i)

Question (d) How did animals that are restricted to certain parts of the earth get to the Ark? They would have had to have crossed vast oceans (plus other similar questions).

Answer: You are assuming that before the Flood geography was similar to what we see today. This idea does NOT come from the Bible, but from some other source. In fact the Bible teaches that the world was destroyed by the Flood (Gen. 6:13, 2 Peter 3:6), and that therefore we have no way of knowing how it was like. There is nothing absurd in the idea, for example, that animals were distributed evenly before the Flood. What is relevant here is that if you stick to the biblical text there is nothing contradictory in the story. Actually, in the beginning of your discussion on the Flood you promised you would do just that--forget the scientific issues, and stick to the Bible. However what you did forget, it seems to me, was your own promise.



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

How could animals be distributed evenly, GM? You have completely ignored the climatic factor. How could animals that can only live in the tropics live alongside animals that can only live in the arctic? And how could the specialized vegetation upon which many depend be interspersed as well? Bamboo and eucalyptus, for example, the only food for some animals, would last no time at all in another climate. You might as well have said the climates were evenly distributed. Secondly, as I have said so often, BE does not deal only with biblical contradictions. Its scope is much broader and focuses on any and all problems having to do with the validity of the Bible. So your comment that "if you stick to the biblical text there is nothing contradictory in the story" is quite irrelevant, because I never said that internal biblical contradictions were involved. In fact, I specifically said "BE will concentrate on the great number of difficulties, impossibilities, and unanswered questions accompanying the biblical account." Where is the word "contradiction" even mentioned in the section on the Flood in the Sample Issue? You accuse me of saying something I never said and then proceed to disprove it. Thirdly, you state that at the beginning of my discussion of the Flood I promised to "forget the scientific issues, and stick to the Bible." You then say I forgot my own promise. Unfortunately, you didn't read very carefully. On the front page is clearly written, "BE will not discuss the scientific data used by proponents (of the Bible--Ed.) to support their beliefs." Notice it says the scientific data used by "proponents" would not be used. I didn't say I would not use any scientific considerations whatever. That does not mean, on the other hand, that only the scientific data of opponents would be employed but only that the scientific questions that would be asked by any student of science would be posed. And one need only reread the section to see that that is exactly what occurred.



Letter #537 Continues (Part j)

Secondly, God told Noah that the animals would come to him, and the animals did come. Period. How? From where? When? These are interesting questions, but have nothing to do with errors, fallacies or contradictions in the Bible, although they may be of interest to Christian scientists. You may not know how, when and from where your family migrated to America, but this does not make the story of your family an error or a fallacy or a contradiction.



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

For some unknown reason hundreds, if not thousands, of animals from all over the world began simultaneously to march to an ark in the Middle East. You wish to attribute this to an act of God. So be it! But be sure to make this clear to your students. Don't leave them with the impression that this can be explained rationally or by natural forces. Be sure it is confined to the realm of theological mythology and students are made aware of the rational difficulties involved. I'm sure your concern for precision will not let this slip your mind.

Like so many Christian analogies your reference to my ancestors is inapplicable. Thousands, if not millions of Europeans, did not simultaneously march to ships like mindless zombies for no apparent reason. Immigration to America has been occurring for decades and the reasons are generally quite obvious. They nearly always have something to do with economics and higher standards of living. That is hardly comparable to hundreds of animals meandering to an ark as if to a magnet.



Letter #537 Continues (Part k)

When you ask, "How were animals prevented from killing their natural prey?" you again assume something that does not come from the biblical text, namely that carnivorous attitudes were present in the antediluvian world. The Bible says clearly that this was not the case: animals ate grass (Gen. 1:29-30), man himself was allowed to eat flesh only after the Flood (Gen. 9:3), animals began to fear man only after the Flood (Gen. 9:2). This is in perfect harmony with the story that animals and men could live together for a year in the Ark without serious danger for the weak creatures. I see no errors, no contradictions, no logical fallacies in this fact that the animals came to Noah, or that they stayed together: do you? If you don't, I suggest you remove these two arguments too from your Sample Issue.



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

You sure want to rewrite my sample issue, GM. Do I see any errors, contradictions, or fallacies? Of course! Error lies in the fact that you are claiming there were no carnivorous animals on the earth before the Flood. No cats, no dogs, no sharks, no seals, no frogs, no spiders in other words no flesh-eaters, and that would include snakes. But wasn't the serpent in Gen. 3:1-14 a kind of snake? Wasn't he a meat eater? Tyrannasaurus Rex and many other carnivorous dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures must be figments of folklore according to you. If you insist on ruling out any carnivorous activity prior to, and during, the Flood, then just make sure these difficulties are brought home to your students who will probably find your rationalization hard to swallow. Secondly, if the world was idyllic prior to the Flood, then how can Gen. 4:4 say, "and Abel brought the fatty cuts of meat from his best lambs, and presented them to the Lord." A period in which animals were slaughtered certainly doesn't sound heavenly, especially from the perspective of the animals involved. That's an idyllic world in which carnivorous attitudes weren't present? It's also important to note that according to Gen. 4:4-5 ("And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect") Abel's offering of sacrificed animals was preferred by God over Cain's offering of the fruit of the ground. Thirdly, animals sacrificed to God were normally eaten in order to complete the sacrifice. Isn't that carnivorous activity? Or are you saying and substantiating biblically that nothing slaughtered and sacrificed prior to the Flood was eaten? And lastly, in light of the fact that Cain slew Abel, conditions prior to the Flood couldn't have been as heavenly for the human animal as you would have us believe either. Incidentally, according to your mythology, all carnivorous plants, such as the Pitcher Plant, the drosera (sundew), and the Venus Fly-trap, had to have been nonexistent prior to the Flood as well.



Letter #537 Continues (Part l)

...In the end of Question (e) you write: "These are only a few of the problems associated with the Flood that believers must address" (emphasis mine). Three observations are in order:

1. That in the Bible there are interesting problems no believer doubts. No honest believer has ever claimed that he has all answers to all questions. Neither has the astronomer or the biologist or the archeologist or the linguist. However none of the latter decides to give up with his profession only for the reason that there are open questions: on the contrary, open questions are what make their job exciting. A theory is abandoned not because there are open questions, but if it is proved to be wrong.



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

Don't try to soft-pedal your dilemma, GM. The problems under discussion are not just "open questions." They are blatant problems that either contradict other parts of scripture and/or directly conflict with science and/or logic. Again you have submitted another invalid analogy. The scientists you listed are not defending data that counteracts logic, other valid data, or their own pronouncements. If there is any group that deals with open questions, it is the scientific community, while you and your compatriots deal with open conflicts and impossibilities.



Letter #537 Continues (Part m)

This leads me to my second point. Your periodical's stated aim is precisely to present "biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies." That is, you willingly take the burden to offer proofs that the Bible contains such things. I don't see then why you waste the reader's time in listing questions about the Flood that are not errors nor logical fallacies nor textual contradictions. Therefore I suggest that you remove all these useless sentences about the Flood from your Sample Issue.



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

The time of readers is never wasted when they are being exposed to the Bible's inadequacies. I know you would like for these questions to be kept under wraps but I'm unwilling to oblige. Contrary to your assertion, the questions submitted fall within the category of biblical fallacies and errors and will not be removed from the Sample Issue. There is no obligation on our part to remain entirely within the Bible nor did we ever state we intended to do so. Where did you get the impression from the subcaption of this periodical that we will remain totally confined to the Bible alone. BE addresses any and all problems bearing on the Bible's validity and that could very well entail the incorporation of extrabiblical material or considerations. Scientific data and logical difficulties are certainly not going to be ignored. Based upon your misreading of our subcaption, you would have people believe that unless something in the Bible contradicts another part of the Bible it is out-of-bounds and can not be included within BE. Wrong! As we have said so often, BE deals with any and all problems bearing on the Bible's validity and that may or may not entail concentration on the Bible alone. If your interpretation of our subcaption were valid, we could never have presented much of that which can be found in our issues on biblical history, historicity, geography, math, science, differing versions, etc.



Letter #537 Concludes (Part n)

Please note that I am not suggesting that you remove arguments that I am afraid to address: I have addressed, though shortly, some of them, I am more than willing to discuss at length the problems you raise--but not in a context of biblical errancy, for the simple reason thatÿÿ these are problems, not fallacies.

Nor am I suggesting that you remove everything from your Sample Issue: some questions you ask in the paragraph "Contradictions" do qualify as possible or apparent fallacies; but for honesty's sake please remove all the things that are not what your Periodical claims to be about, and are thus irrelevant, as well as all alleged biblical fallacies that are shown by readers not to be fallacies at all. When you have done that, then we can start talking about what is left.

If you decide to remove fallacious arguments from your Sample Issue, the latter will surely appear less impressive. However, I trust you do not intend to dazzle the unaware and unlearned reader using a mass of arguments that have been already answered and that you know are fallacious or irrelevant.

I am looking forward to receiving your answer and I hope we can start a fruitful dialogue. Please forgive me for the mistakes I have surely made. English is not my mother language. Thank you for your kind attention.



Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #537 (Part n)

You say you won't discuss them within the context of BE because they are problems, not fallacies. As I have already stated, BE deals with any and all problems having to do with the Bible's validity and those are incorporated into what I refer to as fallacies. Perhaps I should use the word "problems" instead of "fallacies" in the subcaption or use both simultaneously in order to make our position clearer. But I don't think so. People know what is intended, and to refer to fallacies as mere problems would be to concede the very point in dispute. In effect, I'd be accepting your position that they are mere problems and will remain as such until proven to be fallacies, when they are fallacies and will remain such until proven to be mere problems. Again, as I have said so often, the burden of proof lies on he who alleges. You are obligated to prove that the events occurred as you and your book allege, while scientists are obligated to prove that they occur as the scientific community believes. And where do you think the vast preponderance of the evidence lies. You won't find very many scientific creationist laboratories complete with fossils, artifacts, and other physical remains. Instead you will find a body of pseudo-scientists trying to prove their theory is true by casting doubts on contentions of the other side. They fail to realize that even if they could thoroughly disprove the theory of evolution, that would by no means prove their theory was correct. Disproving another theory does not prove yours is automatically true, not by a long ways. Creationists must not only disprove the other side but substantiate their own assertions by something other than words in a mythological and superstitious book and, unfortunately for them, they are unable to do either. Because you have misread, misunderstood, and misinterpreted what our "Periodical claims to be about," your "irrelevant" argument is without standing. I'd be glad to remove "all alleged biblical fallacies that are shown by readers not to be fallacies at all" as soon as you provide some good examples, and what "fallacious arguments" are you referring to that have already been answered and you feel should be removed?



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR



Letter #552 from JA of Cambridge, Mass.

To Whom It May Concern: I learned about your magazine in a small leaflet. "The Bible is God's Word?" which I picked up this morning on the Boston subway system. I was very excited to hear of your magazine as I have been thinking about the subject of biblical inconsistency for some time and wondering where I can learn more about it. Please send a copy of your magazine and subscription information to me.



Letter #553 from JB of Portland, Oregon

Dear Mr. McKinsey.... I would like for my subscription to commence with Issue number 125.... Doctor (name deleted--Ed.) was the first person to suggest that I subscribe to your publication. He recommended you very highly. Then I saw a sample copy at our local Center for Rational Thought and I was convinced that I had to subscribe. I don't know how you do it but I hope you keep it up! I am a retired lawyer who is experienced in the examination of documents and I really appreciate your cutting analyses.