Issue #131-Archer's Encyclopedia (Pt. 2), Christia

Biblical Errancy Issue #131-Archer's Encyclopedia (Pt. 2), Christian Promotes Christianity and Attacks Atheism, Biblical Phallicism

Nov 10, '08 6:26 AM
by Loren for everyone





Issue No. 131

November 1993



ARCHER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA--(Part 2) On page 113 Archer is asked: Why did God slay all the firstborn Egyptians when the Egyptian people had no control over Pharaoh's decision not to allow the Israelites to leave his country which can be found in Ex. 12:29-30? Archer responds by saying, "There is no way for nations to be dealt with other than on a collective basis. The fortunes of the citizens of any country are bound up with the government that guides their national policy, whether that government be a democracy, a party dictatorship, or monarchy...." Archer subtlely evades the fact that there was no need for the nation to be dealt with at all. The Egyptian people did not commit the deed and, thus, should not be saddled with any punishment. Rulers may go to war and bring defeat and destruction on their people, but that bears no relation to a nation of people being punished by an omnipotent god for what one leader did. We are talking about the administration of justice, and fundamental to all systems of fair play is that those who do the crime should do the time. A people who are decimated because their leader led them into a disastrous encounter are not being punished by anybody. That is simply the outcome of the decision to go to war. It may have been a wrong decision on the part of the ruler and an even worse decision on the part of his nation to follow in lockstep, but defeat is a far more appropriate term than punishment, especially when national sentiment favored the ruler's decision.

Later on page 114 Archer states, "A loss of life in the family of the king alone--or even in the households of his aristocracy--would scarcely have sufficed to compel Egypt to grant a release of the entire Israelite nation and all its cattle. Nothing short of an all-inclusive calamity visited on the entire people would serve to bring about the deliverance of God's people from the bondage they had suffered in Egypt." In reality, the sequence of events in Exodus strongly imply precisely the opposite is true. It was not until the pharaoh's son was killed that the pharaoh conceded defeat. Evidence strongly indicates that if the lives of the pharaoh's son or other family members had been clearly and unequivocably at stake from the outset all of the plagues and loss of life could have been avoided.

On page 121 Archer is asked one of the most common questions addressed to Christians over the centuries: Why is there so much killing of human beings mentioned in the Bible, along with the frequent references to animal sacrifice on the altar, and how does this square with the divine command "Thou shalt not kill" in Exodus 20:13? Archer begins by saying, "Since the Bible is a book about man in his state of sin, and since there is so much violence and bloodshed in human society, it was inevitable that frequent mention of manslaughter should occur in Scripture." Notice his sly shift to the word "manslaughter" which isn't even at issue. We are talking about killing and murder, not manslaughter, as he well knows. Manslaughter is not the problem by any means. He continues, "But much confusion has arisen from the misleading translation of Exodus 20:13 that occurs in most English versions. The Hebrew original uses a specific word for murder (rasah) in this 6th commandment and should be rendered 'You shall not murder'." If Archer were to consult the section entitled the Hebrew/Chaldee Dictionary in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance he would see the following with reference to the word "kill" in Exodus 20:13: (from--Ed.) "ratsach; a primitive root; properly to dash to pieces, i.e., kill (a human being), especially to murder:--put to death, kill, manslay, murder." Why does he believe the word should be translated as murder? If anything it should be "kill," and there is certainly nothing to justify the allegation that "kill" is a "misleading translation." According to Strong, the Hebrew word means kill in the broadest sense, not in the narrow sense of murder only, and there is no justification in saying that "the 6th commandment should be rendered as 'you shall not murder'." Archer tries to restrict the word's coverage to murder by saying, "This is no prohibition against capital punishment for capital crimes, since it is not a general term for the taking of life, such as our English word 'kill'." Wrong again! Nothing was said about capital punishment. According to Strong the relevant word is a general term and those who translated the word as "kill" were wholly justified in doing so.

If murder is the proper translation of the Hebrew word, then that same Hebrew word creates the following problem in Num. 35:27 in which God says, "(if--Ed.)...the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood." In this instance, the Hebrew word is translated as "kill," and if it should be translated as murder, then according to Archer God is saying a man who murdered another should be found not guilty of blood. In sum and substance, Archer is saying he knows Hebrew better than committees of experts who translated many of the most prominent versions on the market.



Later Archer makes the incredible statement that, "Violence and bloodshed are occasionally mentioned in the record of man's history throughout Scripture, but never with approval." Is he serious! Violence and bloodshed are rampant throughout the OT and often mentioned with approval, especially in historical books such as Joshua. One need only read the Commentary in Issue #116 to see that God not only killed repeatedly but ordered others to kill as well. Since God was often the instigator, one can safely assume violence and bloodshed met with his approval.

Archer says violence and bloodshed were never met with approval but then says, "Yet, there were specific situations when entire communities (such as Jericho) or entire tribes (such as the Amalekites) were to be exterminated by the Israelites in obedience to God's command." So, violence and bloodshed were carried out with God's approval afterall.

Archer proceeds to justify all of this mayhem by saying, "In each case these offenders had gone so far in degeneracy and moral depravity that their continued presence would result in spreading the dreadful cancer of sin among God's covenant people. Just as the wise surgeon removes dangerous cancer from his patient's body by use of the scalpel, so God employed the Israelites to remove such dangerous malignancies from human society." But what had these tribes done that had not been committed by the Israelites as well? The latter constantly violated one or another of God's laws and asked forgiveness either before or after punishment. The Israelite record of violating divine decrees was reprehensible and, thus, they deserved God's vengeance as much as anyone. According to Archer God used a scalpel that was no cleaner than the disease being excised.

Archer concludes by saying the sacrifice of animals symbolized the coming sacrifice of the Son of God on the cross, and he justifies animal sacrifice by quoting one of the most inaccurate comments in the entire NT, Hebrews 9:22, which says, "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." Yet, sins were repeatedly forgiven in the OT by methods other than bloody sacrifices. Blood was by no means the only means by which sins could be forgiven. Lev. 5:11-13 states flour can make atonement for the soul. Money can atone for the soul according to Exodus 30:15-16; jewelry can atone for the soul as is apparent from Num. 31:50, and in Num. 14:17-20 and Hosea 14:3 we find that prayer can atone for the soul.



DIALOGUE AND DEBATE



Letter #554 from SF of York, Penn. (Part a)

(A Christian apologist sent a subscriber, SF, the following letter and SF asked us to respond because after several encounters he has become convinced the source is a "hopeless, lost cause case"--Ed.)

Dear SF.... Christianity is, indeed, the most intellectually satisfying world-view there is and although it is not something one can prove the truth of, as you take so much delight in pointing out, this is of absolutely no importance when comparing it to competing world-views inasmuch as no such philosophy of life, whether theistic or atheistic, can be proven.



Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part a)

Dear SF. Your opponent's intellectual myopia is rather pronounced to say the least. For one to say that Christianity is the most satisfying world-view available borders on the ridiculous. Jews would say that of Judaism; Muslims would say that of Islam; Buddhists would say that of Buddhism; fascists would say that of fascism, libertarians would say that of libertarianism, and communists would say that of Marxism. That statement is almost too ridiculous to merit a reply. And for him or her to say that the inability of Christians to prove the truth of Christianity "is of absolutely no importance" belongs in the realm of the bizarre. If that is true, then every satisfying belief is as credible as all the others. Whether a philosophy is true or demonstrable is no longer of any significance; all that counts is whether or not it is intellectually satisfying, a wholly arbitrary and unreliable criterion.

Unlike our friend, many adherents to other philosophies heatedly contend their beliefs are provable and for him to say that nothing can be proven is merely an opinion that will remain as such until he can show that adherents of competing philosophies are also unable to substantiate their allegations.



Letter #554 Continues (Part b)

The satisfactions of Christianity derive from the fact that it offers answers to all the major questions of life, including the one you ask in your last letter about the meaning of life (a response to which will have to await another time). But even more it offers hope. It holds out the promise that there is, in fact, meaning to life....



Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part b)

What kind of response is this? Virtually every philosophy offers answers to all of life's major questions. They are more than glad to comply. That's no problem. The problem is that the answers are either wrong or indemonstrable in far too many instances. And virtually every philosophy offers hope of some kind; that's no problem either. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in demand. Again, the problem is whether or not the hope is well founded and justified. Narcotics, religions, cults, the occult, New Age, and a wide variety of other superstitions and mental escapes offer hope for a better life as well. If they didn't, they wouldn't be around very long.

Yes, it holds out the promise that there is meaning in life, but it doesn't prove real meaning is to be found through acts and beliefs outlined and pursued by Christians. There could very well be real meaning that is not found through Christianity. In all probability it is not a choice between Christianity and no hope whatever, as your opponent alleges, but a choice between another philosophy and all other philosophies, including Christianity.



Letter #554 Continues (Part c)

Atheism, on the other hand, offers nothing but emptiness, hopelessness, meaninglessness, death, and despair....



Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part c)

What an inaccurate comment! Atheists and others who don't base their life on belief in a nebulous, unsubstantiated afterlife of sweet bliss have always been in the forefront of those most concerned with the improvement of this world and everything in it. After all it only stands to reason that those most convinced that this world is all there is are going to be among those most concerned with improving the world as we see it. They have been and always will be in leadership of the fight against emptiness, meaninglessness, hopelessness, and despair and have always felt that if man is ever going to abolish these qualities of life, then that will have to materialize here and now, because nothing is going to be bestowed later. This world is all we have and we had better make the most of it. A logical concommitant to this view of life is that conditions will only improve when man rolls up his shirt sleeves and digs in. It isn't going to fall into his lap like a ripe apple from a tree. Who would be more inclined to fight against the deplorable conditions we all see and experience in everyday life than those most convinced that there is no nirvanna to follow and no beneficent diety presiding over the welfare of mankind who has taken humanity to raise like a benevolent babysitter in the sky.

Religionists, on the other hand, are victims of precisely the opposite mentality. Firmly believing a better world is coming and conditions are mainly improved by prayer and reliance upon a benign deity, they are far more inclined to write this world off as a loss, abstain from opposition to social injustice, avoid social activism or improvements, and flee rebellion against unfairness. After all they reason, if you only live 80 or 90 years in this world, why be so involved. Don't worry about events; God will provide and heaven is on its way. The degree of involvement in social problems and distribution of financial assistance by religious agencies throughout the planet is in direct proportion to the extent to which the particular group, church, organization or religious instrumentality involved has left fundamentalism in general and the Holy Book (the Bible, Koran, etc.) in particular; while those closest to the religious/superstitious mentality distribute less aid and provide assistance more out of a need to ingratiate people to religious ideas and make the latter more amenable to the message than any real concern for their worldly condition. Most Salvation Army centers, for example, will not provide support until those in need have willingly submitted to an indoctrination session or propaganda barrage. Of course there are exceptions. But one would be ill-advised to latch on to an exception in an attempt to use it to destroy the rule. That is one of the most common tricks in the arsenal of all propagandists. They seize and magnify an exception in order to portray it as the rule. Make no mistake about it, religious aid is a means to an end; it's not an end in itself.

Incidentally, in light of the fact that religious organizations are subject to very little financial accountability, how can we be sure that money donated to organizations associated with "Save the Children," for example, actually reaches the children? What assurances are in place that nearly all of the funds donated reach the destination intended as opposed to enhancing the affluent life style of the "philanthropic" conveyor. After all, if vast sums are siphoned off who would know the difference?

The bottom line is that people work to improve conditions in this world in direct proportion to the extent to which they jettison their interest or concern for the "next" and vice versa. So who offers emptiness, hopelessness, meaninglessness and despair?--One who tells you that the world reeks with injustice and deplorable conditions that can be improved or eliminated through work, involvement, sensitivity, and realistic thinking or one who tells you the world reeks with injustice, deplorable conditions, and corrupt people that can not be improved to any meaningful degree but only escaped, and promises you a better world is coming based upon nothing more than admittedly unprovable faith, hope, and dreams found in a man-created book saturated with contradictions, errors, and fallacies. Personally, my conscience is clear, my deeds are pure, my cause is just, my advice is sound and that is far more than can be said for the biblical God and his proponents who are urging mankind to not only follow in his footsteps but adopt the tenets of "his" book. (To Be Continued)



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR



Letter #555 from VS of Lake Worth, Florida

Dear Dennis. Congratulations on your completing publication of the mass of material you have collected. Although I found out about your publication long after you started, it has helped me immensely in my search for knowledge about the Bible to counteract the seemingly endless stream of "soul-winners" out there.

I took the liberty of putting your name, address, and something about your publication on America OnLine. I wrote a short piece on how to debate Christians and quoted you (with attribution of course). I also mentioned Farrell Till of the Skeptical Review. Till does a bang-up job, in my opinion. You do, too. The piece has been downloaded about 40 times so far and one person sent me e-mail saying he would write to you for more information....

As you note, if nothing else we have to get some sort of message across about the Bible. I know from personal experience, however, that preachers simply tell their flocks that Bible critics (and even scholars) are miserable, disturbed people who want to share their misery with "joyful" Christians by destroying the Bible: claiming it is not the work of God to point out its contradictions, and so on. But, there are rational people out there who seek the information you have provided; I am on the lookout for them and have plenty of your nontracts to hand to them. Just by showing them that life without literal Bible belief can be just as good (and more so) than life in Christianity's intellectual cage, we may accomplish our goal.

Like you, I would like to see an intelligent debate on not only the Bible but also extra-Biblical topics presented on electronic media. I'm glad you're beginning to "broaden [the] focus" in bringing other material to the Bible. Fundamentalists like Robertson and Randall Terry want to drop the Bible, like a bomb, on our society and remake it in its image. We have to do the same. In any case, simple logic can disprove most of the Bible handily. We have to be sure to emphasize that the fact that the book has parts that are true does not make the whole book true. As you have noted in the past, every book has some truth in it. The Christian's insistence that it's either all true or all false are, in my view, indefensible and easily dealt with.

Keep up the good work.... Take care, keep plugging away, and don't lose hope. I look forward to future issues of Biblical Errancy and wish you luck in your future endeavors.



Letter #556 from JG of Altadena, California (Part a)

Dear Dennis. I was reading Issue #97 (Jan. 1991) and came across this misquote you were citing. It was at the top part of page two. (4) Matt. 11:10 ("For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Mal. 3:1 ("Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me").

(a) the OT says "thy way before thee." WRONG! The OT says "The way before me."

(b) Jesus created the phrase "before thy face." As an atheist I don't believe the Jesus character ever existed. Jesus never created anything.

....On Issue #125 (May 1993) page 3. THE WARS OF GOD AND MAGOG. WRONG! THE WARS OF GOG AND MAGOG.

Please be careful in printing up this material. I give these periodicals out to read.



Editor's Response to Letter #556 (Part a)

Dear JG. You are correct on both textual points. It is so easy to make typing errors and accidentally transpose words when you work with as much material as I do. I wish you had caught the first error when it appeared nearly three years ago. (4)(a) should say, "The OT says "the way before me" not "thy way before thee." This mistake should be corrected on all copies in everyone's binders. And THE WARS OF GOD AND MAGOG should be changed to THE WARS OF GOG AND MAGOG in all copies. Try as we may we can't catch them all.



Letter #556 Concludes (Part b)

Nevertheless I really enjoy how you point out these erroneous references made by the NT writers that this and that verse or verses in the OT are a prophetic fulfillment of what they write about. I think the Jesus character is their crowning achievement. There are other references about Moses and other items also. Moses is another fictional character. Why would these NT charlatans refer to Moses without fear of being punished by an all powerful God for falsely using his name; I think it's because they know the OT story about Moses is fiction.



Letter #557 from MC of Boston, Mass.

Dear Sir. A casual acquaintance showed me a copy of your newsletter. I would like to subscribe, and also obtain any back issues that might be available. I have been doing a lot of research in preparation for writing a book.... I started out thinking that the errancy issue had probably been covered exhaustively in the last few centuries, but I began to find some "corkers" on my own that had not been mentioned in any of the other literature I looked at, including various compendiums of errors such as the old Foote's Bible Handbook. My personal preference in error-hunting is to look for specific internal contradictions that require no referencing outside the Bible itself. I also like to compare certain passages in the different English translations; what is hidden or distorted in one is often revealed in another. My pet peeve is skeptics whose only stock in trade is to debunk the Bible's miracle tales. With perhaps a couple of exceptions (like the sundial movements), to point out that an event is highly improbable does not prove absolutely that it (or something similar, or subsequently exaggerated) did not occur. There are plenty of airtight logic boxes (and some serviceable ones, too) with which to confound the fundamentalists' claims; and they have not all been found, I daresay....



Letter #558 from HB of Alexandria, Virginia

Dear Dennis.... Letter #549 in (Issue 128 of August, 1993) states that Abraham has a servant place his hand under Abraham's thigh to take an oath, but this does not refer to his penis. The thigh actually refers to Abraham's testicles or testes, which are the most important part of a man taking a vow because he swears on his progeny. Testes are so important that they are parts of words like testimony, testify, testament, Old Testament, and New Testament. None of my several reference books on the Bible mention this, probably from embarrassment because Christians have always had difficulty dealing with sex.

Your most recent Issue 128 of August, 1993 suggests only general directions for future issues. I would like to suggest several topics. (1) Put the 27 books of the NT in chronological order and then examine them to determine what has been added and removed over time.... (2) Describe how the canon of the Bible developed over time and the conflicts involved. (3) Show the difficulties of determining authors and dates of the 66 books of the Bible, with continuing disagreements. (4) Examine the 613 laws in the OT to determine which are obeyed, disobeyed, or ignored. (5) Examine the treatment of women in the Bible and anti-Semitism in the NT. (6) Compare science in the Bible with what the Greeks knew at the time.... (7) Examine the justifications for slavery and conflicts related to this. (8) Analyze the two dozen errors in procedure and Jewish law in the trial of Jesus. (9) Analyze the Christian claim that democracy is based on the Bible. (10) Examine the relationship of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Bible. (11) Examine the changes which have been made over time to make the Bible more appealing. For example, Jesus was a Mediterranean Jew with dark skin, hair, and eyes, yet he appears much lighter in our art. (12) Comment on such thinking as Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker--Paul and the Invention of Christianity and John Spong's Born of a Woman--a Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus. They turn the Bible upside down and raise numerous questions. (13) Describe the contents of the Apocrypha, how it developed, and why it is important. This is my way of encouraging you to continue your fine work.



Editor's Response to Letter #558

Dear HB. Don't worry; instead of winding down our efforts we have every intention of increasing them. As far as your list of suggested topics is concerned, I would say we have covered to one degree or another virtually everything you suggested except points 1 and 9-13.



Letter #559 from RH of Dayton, Ohio

Dear Mr. McKinsey. Heartiest congratulations on the completion of your catalogue of Biblical errors. This is a superb achievement! I wish you well on your TV efforts; perhaps it will attract the attention of those who get their religion from TV. For those of us who usually avoid TV, and have no cable, it will be inaccessible. That is one reason I'd like to join the "scores of people" who have asked you to write a book. I value my 127 editions of BE highly. I often take down my binders and look at the older issues. But I would guess that there are relatively few like me who have every issue. And ring-bound notebooks of duplications of a computer-printout are not the easiest volumes to read. A one volume, thorough inclusion of your commentaries, organized by subject and indexed would be terrific ammunition for anyone wanting to debate biblicists, and as I am certain that there is no more comprehensive point-by-point refutation of the book, it would become a standard reference book as useful in one hundred years as it is now, and as a book, much more accessible than TV tapes.

I urge you, therefore, to do more than consider writing a book sometime in the future. It cannot be published too soon. Dennis, you have my admiration for the superb service you have done. I'll look forward to hearing about whatever new projects you undertake.



EDITOR'S NOTE: Over the years many people have asked us to write a book about the Bible's inadequacies and because the essentials of a very comprehensive work can be found in the transcripts of 24 recently completed audio tapes, we have decided to comply with their request. An abbreviated version of the book encompassing 3 of 24 chapters, a preface, and a table of contents is now available for review by any interested publishers readers may suggest. The final stimulus for this undertaking came from Paul Kurtz of Prometheus Books who sent us a letter in July stating that he would be delighted to consider any proposal we may have. Although we declined his initial suggestion because of so many other irons-in-the-fire, we decided to reconsider the matter and phoned him a month later to accept his kind offer. Because he stated he would like to review an abidged version of any manuscript we might seek to publish, in mid-October our abbreviated version of 75 pages was sent to him for analysis.