Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2012 12:37:18 GMT -8
Biblical Errancy Issue #132-Archer's Encyclopedia (Pt. 3), Are Christians Environmentally Concerned & Do They Behave for Personal Gain, Does Biblicism Foster Anti-War Feelings & Anti-Sexism, Is Human Nature the Cause?
Nov 10, '08 6:28 AM
by Loren for everyone
Issue No. 132
December 1993
With this month's issue we will continue our critique of The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWS
(ARCHER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA--Part 3)
On page 126 Archer is asked how the Bible can be correct when it contends rabbits chew the cud. After discussing the hyrax of Lev. 11:5 and the rabbit of Lev. 11:6, he responds by saying, "True ruminants normally have four stomachs, and that which has been worked over in these stomachs is regurgitated into the mouth when it is ready to be chewed again. In this technical sense neither the hyrax nor the hare can be called ruminants, but they do give the appearance of chewing the cud in the same way ruminants do. So convincing is this appearance that even Linnaeus at first classed them as ruminants, even though the four-stomach apparatus is lacking." In effect, he's provided little more than an admission that the Bible erred. What does a "technical sense" have to do with the issue? They either are or they are not chewers of the cud. And that's that. What does he mean by "technical sense?" Does he mean there is another sense that makes sense? And what does appearance have to do with accuracy? You might as well say a car is alive because it moves or all birds fly because you have never seen one that didn't. You might just as well allege loud noises cause bullets to be expelled from guns, because every time one is expelled it is accompanied by a loud noise; or someone is a king because you saw him wearing a crown and a gorgeous robe. What difference does the appearance make? The fact is that they do not chew the cud. If Linnaeus classified them as ruminants, then he was no more accurate than the Bible.
On page 152 Archer is asked: Deut. 24:16 says that children will not be killed for the sins of the fathers. Yet 2 Samuel 12:15-18 shows that the baby born to David and Bathsheba died because of their sin. Later, in 2 Samuel 21:5-9 Saul's seven grandchildren were put to death because of his sin, in order to bring the 3 year famine to an end. How do you reconcile these? And he responds by saying, "...It is clearly recognized in Scripture that each person stands on his own record before God.... In the case of the child conceived by Bathsheba and David when she was married to Uriah, the loss of that baby (in the OT setting) was a judgment visited on the guilty parents for their gross sin (which actually merited the death penalty under Lev. 20:10). It is by no means suggested that the child was suffering punishment for his parent's sin but that they were being punished by his death." This exhibits the kind of perverted logic that is so indicative of Christian apologetics. Certainly the child was bearing the brunt of the punishment, regardless of how it affected the parents. He paid the price, not them. One might just as well say that if I murdered someone and my father was executed in response, I was adequately punished because I lost my father. How ridiculous! My father was punished for my deeds, not I. He paid the price not I. All I endured was mental agony, at best. Later, Archer adds to his perverse sense of justice by saying, "Under special circumstances, then, the general rule of safeguarding children against punishment for the sins of their parents was subject to exceptions, so far as God's administration of justice was concerned. In each of the above cases it is fair to conclude that if the children involved had been permitted to live out a normal lifespan, they would have chosen to follow the evil example of their forebears and thus occasioned much suffering and woe to others." How absurd! Working on this principle we should kill the children of all criminals because they will probably choose to follow in their parents' footsteps. It is unfair to conclude anything, much less prejudge. Even more important, how could it be just to punish people for doing something they have never done but could possibly do in the future? The kind of reasoning Christian apologists display to reconcile biblical contradictions is often downright unnerving.
On page 155 Archer is asked: Did God approve of Rahab's lie as related in Joshua 2:4-5? In essence, he seeks to justify her behavior by noting that she had faith in the Hebrew god, risked her life, joined the Israelites and became an ancestor of David and Jesus. But these considerations are irrelevant. The fact is that she lied and his answer rambled on for a page and a half without answering the question: Did God approve of the lie or didn't he? Even good people lie, but that doesn't make the lie any less false.
On page 175 Archer is asked: In 1 Sam. 16:19-21 Saul recognizes David as the son of Jesse, but in 17:58 Saul is said to have asked David, "Whose son art thou?" How can the two be reconciled? Archer responds by saying, "It is true that Saul had already been introduced to David (1 Sam. 16:18) as 'a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, one prudent in speech, and a handsome man.' But it should be noted also that up until the contest with Goliath, David had shown to King Saul only his artistic side; and then David had been permitted to return home to Bethlehem. It is altogether true to life for Saul to see David in an entirely new light and to show a keen interest in his background."
What drivel. In other words, we are supposed to believe that David was known by Saul as an artist, went home, returned, and was no longer recognized by Saul. To say Archer is reaching on this one is an understatement. Saul knows David is Jesse's son in 1 Sam 16:19, saw him face to face in 1 Sam. 16:21, and told David he was a valiant man of war in 1 Sam. 16:18. Yet we are to believe he later saw him in a "new light." Archer's explanation is little more than an act of desperation. Saul isn't seeing David in a new light when the text clearly shows he's seeing him for the first time. After all the prior events, he doesn't even know David, according to 1 Sam. 17:58.
On page 184 Archer is asked: What is the correct number of horsemen that David took in his battle over Hadadezer, 1,700 (2 Sam. 8:4) or 7,000 (1 Chron. 18:4)? In this instance we are at least given an answer that is not smothered in irrelevant and inaccurate verbiage. Archer states, "There is no question but that these two accounts refer to the same episode, and therefore the prisoner count should be the same in both instances. There has been a scribal error or two either in Samuel or in Chronicles." Of course, he is guessing and we have already addressed the inadequacies of this whole copyist-error defense in prior issues. It just won't save the day.
The same approach is employed on page 206 when Archer is asked: How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign (compare 2 Kings 8:26 with 2 Chron. 22:2) and Jehoiachin when he began to reign (compare 2 Kings 24:8 with 2 Chron. 36:9-10)? It's interesting to note that Archer doesn't even attempt to justify this contradiction. Even the most conservative of fundamentalists can no longer evade the obvious on occasion. He opts for the more expedient ploy of invoking the following rationalization: "Copyists were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names...and the other had to do with numbers.... It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book--sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. It is also true that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine of the Bible...." To this one can only reply: How does he know there were any original manuscripts? Secondly, how can he be sure that any document is errorless when he admits no one living, including himself, has ever seen that document? How can he attest to the validity of a document he has never seen? Thirdly, how does he know they were errorless, in light of the fact that the copies reek with errors and contradictions? Fourthly, how does he know they weren't copied correctly and still contradict one another? This is certainly a reasonable assumption, in light of the fact that the copies often conflict. Having never seen the originals, how does he know they agree? How can he prove they are in concert, when they no longer exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #554 from SF Who is Citing a Letter Received from an Apologetic Opponent Continues from Last Month (Part d)
If you are interested in a more detailed response to Utchen's booklet, let me know, but I didn't think it worth the effort in this letter, especially since I found Dennis McKinsey's claims in his column entitled COMMENTARY to be more interesting.... McKinsey expresses his further concern that believers will be disinterested in the environmental destruction of our planet, since this earth, they believe, is only temporary.... I myself am a contributing member of half dozen conservation groups, including The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, World Wildlife Fund, and others. I speak on environmental issues to churches from time to time, and I find that many Christians are very concerned about the degradation of the biosphere. McKinsey here, as elsewhere, just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part d)
As long as you don't mind, SF, I'll address your opponent's comments concerning me directly.
If there is anyone who doesn't know the subject matter, it's you. In the first place, you are concealing your position with respect to the inerrancy of the Bible. To what extent you have drifted from a fundamentalist position is central to the issue. If you are a liberal Christian who has drifted away from many biblical teachings, then your inclination to join social activist groups is understandable. If, on the other hand, you are a conservative Christian of the fundamentalist or inerrantist variety, then you are nothing more than an exception to the rule. For every one in your camp, scores of fundamentalists are not. Again, the exception does not destroy the rule. You are participating in those organizations despite biblical teachings, not because of them. The central thrust of biblical doctrines is other-worldly, not this-worldly, and that remains an unalterable fact.
Letter #554 Continues (Part e)
McKinsey argues that believers will be motivated to good behavior by the hope of reward rather than by concern for simply doing what's right. ...in a world where so many aren't motivated to do good by anything at all, he should be pleased that believers strive to do good for whatever reason, even self-interested ones.
Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part e)
I should be glad that they are doing good, even if it is for reasons of self-interest? You admit they are doing it for self interest, self aggrandizement, self-enhancement and say I should be pleased. That's morality? That kind of behavior is included in what you deem to be desirable behavior? Can acts be moral that are based upon nothing more than self-interest and personal gain? Are they moral acts even though they may appear magnanimous to others? All you are saying is that if we can get people to behave correctly through the promise of personal reward, who cares if we are basing our morality upon self-interest. That isn't morality; that's the systematic manipulation of others by the expectation of personal gain and profit. People would not be inclined to behave unless they could see some personal benefit to themselves, and to say that that is better than nothing is to justify the world's sad condition, which Christianity and the Bible enhance. Doing a good act for a bad reason could never lead to a real concern of one person for another. Instead people would tend to base their acts on cold prior calculations of what benefits they could expect. We have too much of that occurring already, and Christianity is a prime cause. People should do the right because it is the right thing to do, not because they expect a kickback, a reward, or a payoff.
In addition, you are saying that the end justifies the means, because it doesn't really matter if Christian teachings are true as long as they obtain results.
Letter #554 Continues (Part f)
But beyond this, his assertion is just plain wrong. It requires a complete and utter misunderstanding of Christianity to aver that Christians strive to do good out of hope for reward. Our reward is already established when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior. The Christian's motive for doing good is love for God, which manifests itself in love for God's creation, both human and non-human. McKinsey would do well to read, say, Book I of Thomas A Kempis' THE IMITATION OF CHRIST before he ventures again to make such uninformed statements in his journal.
Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part f)
Wrong again! According to biblical theology, your reward is not received by accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, but when you enter heaven -- and not a moment before. If you did nothing more than accept Jesus as your savior, and absolutely nothing happened to you subsequently, where is the reward? Jesus Christ is not an end in himself; he is a means to the end, which is eternal salvation. Heaven and hell are inseparable parts of Christian theology; indeed, they lie at the very foundation. Take them away and the superstructure begins to crumble. For you to say that Christians don't do good out of hope for a reward or that Christian morality is not ultimately based upon a system of rewards and punishments is ridiculous. If there is anyone who displays an utter misunderstanding of the true import of Christian teachings, you are that individual. Abolish heaven, hell, and purgatory from Christian theology and see what happens. When I say abolish, I mean completely eradicate them from the minds of all Christians. See what that does for your love of Jesus. See how much is left of your concern for salvation. See what that does to Christian charities. And see what is left of Christian churches and denominations. And then come and talk to me about Christian beneficence and humanity. Why do you accept Jesus? Because you think it's to your own personal benefit. That's why. Take the fear of hell-fire and damnation out of the Bible, as well as the expectation of self-centered rewards in heaven, and Christianity would collapse. For you to say that "the Christian's motive for doing good is love for God which manifests itself in love for God's creation, both human and non-human" is little more than a prevarication. How can Christians love this world when the Bible says this world's god is the devil? For biblical Christians, the external world, the Devil's domain, is to be used as a means to an end -- to get people into heaven-- and is not to be loved or viewed as an end in itself. And since we have already shown that good deeds toward others primarily arise out of self-interest and personal profit, it cannot be said that the Christian motive for doing good is love for a supreme being. It's love for self that is cloaked in love for another.
Letter #554 Continues (Part g)
The author alleges that believers will not oppose wars very strenuously because of their belief in an afterlife. This whiff of intellectual flatulence evinces once again a complete ignorance on the part of the writer. The criteria of Just War theory were first worked out by Christians who were loath to have their governments go to war capriciously, and Christians have striven ever since to hold their governments to these standards. Additionally, many of the staunchest elements of the anti-war and nuclear disarmament movements have been Christian, as are many pacifists and conscientious objectors.
Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part g)
If there is any ignorance, my friend, it lies in your failure to realize that I never said anything about a Just War theory. My comment was much broader. I said that religion, by its very nature, is supernatural and otherworldly, and those entangled in its web are far more likely to accept war and possible death than those who believe that this world is the sum and substance of existence. Those who believe that death is followed by another world, another existence, or another life are less inclined to fear that which places their life in danger.
Secondly, religious components of the anti-war and nuclear disarmament movements are composed almost completely of liberal Christian elements and organizations. The latter are comprised of Christians who have moved farthest from an inerrant Bible and are least inclined to accept the largest number of biblical teachings. Generally speaking, those least inclined to accept the Bible are most involved with saving this world and vice versa. Your arguments remind me of Christian apologists who love to trot out the names of Christian ministers who opposed Hitler and Mussolini when their forces were rampaging throughout Europe. What they neglect to mention, of course, is that the ministers and priests who opposed them were the exception, and nearly always of the liberal Christian persuasion. Biblical inerrantists, fundamentalists, conservatives, evangelicals, and reactionaries were noticeably absent from beginning to end. Yet, it is those few brave individuals who were willing to oppose fascist tyranny that are projected as indicative of biblical Christianity as a whole, when they were by no means representative of the latter. It's from the liberal wing of Christianity that conscientious objectors and those who hold governments to a higher standard emerge. The support given to fascism by the pope and to the Vietnam War by Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other conservative Christians is fully understandable.
Letter #554 Continues (Part h)
On the other hand, as I have written before, most of the wars of this century have been precipitated and prosecuted by atheistic tyrants. It wasn't Christians who invaded Czechoslovakia in the thirties, it wasn't Christians who bombed Pearl Harbor. Christians have traditionally been disinclined to go to war unless they feel there is no other recourse. McKinsey doesn't have to speculate on this. It's history. He can look it up if he's really interested in truth and not in merely flummoxing his readership in order to score debating points.
Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part h)
This comment is almost too inane to warrant a response. Where on earth are you getting this preposterous nonsense! Tens of millions of people died in World War I, and prime leaders of that catastrophe, such as the Hapsburgs and Romanovs, were not Christians? Are you serious! Key initiators and participants in World War II such as Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, and Roosevelt were not Christians? I can remember seeing a newsclip of Roosevelt and Churchill on a ship in the North Atlantic singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" with thousands of sailors following a crucial meeting in the darkest hours of late 1941. Every major war of this century and most of the smaller conflagrations have been led, caused, or fought by Christians. Are you saying Adolph Hitler was not a Christian when he invaded Czechoslovakia, or Mussolini was not a Christian when he invaded Albania, Greece and Ethiopia? Franco was not a Christian when he attacked a legally elected government and killed prisoners? And what about Northern Ireland and Yugoslavia? If Christians have been disinclined to go to war, deliver me from those you feel are so inclined. I taught history for many years and rarely encountered information that would substantiate your version of historical events.
Actually, flummoxing appears to be your specialty, in light of the fact that you deftly slipped in the phrase "wars of this century." Apparently you prefer to avoid other centuries, and in light of what repeatedly occurred throughout the last 2,000 years, one can easily understand why. Entire books would be needed to adequately cover the history of the wars, massacres, atrocities, tortures, and executions perpetrated by Christians for religious reasons. Anyone who doesn't know that the history of Christianity is replete with warfare and aggression of one sort of another has no business denouncing the historical comments of others. Succinctly stated, what you say is wholly inaccurate, and if anyone needs to be more concerned with research and less concerned with scoring debating points, it's you.
Letter #554 Continues (Part i)
McKinsey alludes to passages in the Bible that suggest that it teaches the inequality of men and women, but what the Bible teaches is that men and women are different, not that they're unequal. Indeed, Christianity revolutionized how women are viewed by the larger culture. Contrary to Judaism...and contrary to Roman society...women were exalted by the early church to a status similar to what they enjoy in twentieth century America....
Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part i)
What tripe! I'm tempted to say trash. All the apostles were men; all the patriarchs were obviously men; all the founders of Christianity were males; Christianity's savior was a male, and God is depicted throughout the Bible as a male. From priests, through bishops, cardinals, and popes, women were purposely excluded from any meaningful role in church activities, and except for lessor parts for Eve and Mary, no women play significant roles in the formulation of biblical Christianity. Even more importantly, the Bible specifically relegates women to a role lying somewhere between that of a slave and a domestic household servant. And you want us to believe that men and women are biblically equal! Don't deceive people by contending the Bible teaches "that men and women are different, not that they're unequal." You definitely need to read the 8th issue of BE, my friend. The thrust of verses like 1 Cor. 11:3 ("...the head of the woman is the man"), Gen. 3:16 ("thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"), 1 Cor. 11:7-9 ("the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man"), Eph. 5:22-24 ("Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church"), Col. 3:18 ("Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands"), and 1 Tim. 2:11-14 ("I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve...."), is clear to all but the most indoctrinated. In no sense does the Bible teach that men and women are equal in social standing. Women are clearly to be viewed as subservient. Christianity never "revolutionized how women are viewed by the larger culture." In fact, the opposite is true. One would be hard pressed to find any religion that is not a bastion of male supremacy, and Christian teachings are directly in the mainstream of all religious pronouncements on women. At no time were women "exalted by the early church." Would you cite chapter and verse to substantiate this wholly unbiblical comment? In fact, I'd even be willing to consider any extrabiblical data you can provide to prove women were exalted by the early church or endured any other role than that of an appendage to a man. To be perfectly blunt, where on earth are you getting this palaver? You're merely writing your own script, my friend.
Letter #554 Continues (Part j)
McKinsey voices his dismay that believers enrich certain televangelists in an attempt to "buy their way into heaven." While giving money to Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakker and their ilk is doubtless foolish, people don't do it to buy a ticket to heaven. They do it because they believe in the people to whom they contribute and wish to help their ministries prosper. They may be deluded, but that is not the point at issue. The point is that Christians don't give in order to garner some reward....
Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part j)
They don't! Take away the fires of hell and the eternal rewards of heaven's bliss and see what happens. If you don't think the underlying motivation behind nearly all contributions is self interest and personal gain, then you have failed to detect one of the pillars upon which Christianity rests. Its financial growth depends upon the concern and fear people have for a suspected or perceived future. Terror and fear of the unknown lie at the heart of all religions.
Letter #554 Continues (Part k)
I agree with McKinsey's assertion that Christians tend to view evil as a problem of human nature rather than a problem of our environment, and what's more, they are absolutely correct to do so. While environment is certainly a factor in how our nature expresses itself, our moral predicament today is nevertheless a function of the propensity of human beings, whether rich or poor, to be lustful, greedy, proud, and violent. These evils arise from within the hearts of men, they are not imposed from without.
Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part k)
Here, probably more than anywhere else, our views differ drastically. You say the world will never improve until you get the garbage out of people, while I say the world will never improve until you get the people out of the garbage. It is not a matter of bad people making a bad environment; it's a matter of a bad environment making bad people. You have the cart before the mule. Where do you find the most crime, the most violence, the most anti-social behavior, the most profanity, the most debilitating addictions, the most of that which is undesirable? It's in the poorer sections of society throughout the world. Where do police patrol the most? Where crime is greatest-- and that's in poverty-stricken areas. You can't bear a child in a rat's nest, raise him in a slum, restrict his every movement during maturation by removing everything material that allows him to enjoy life and respect others, and still expect him to display the manners of Emily Post and the etiquette of Amy Vanderbilt. It just isn't going to happen. In debating this very point with a fundamentalist minister, I repeatedly mentioned the fact that no amount of preaching and sermons would ever be able to overcome material conditions that were generating the opposite behavior. When words are saying one thing while every aspect of surrounding reality is dictating the opposite, people are going to obey the latter. That's a virtual foregone conclusion. Try stressing the evils of prostitution to a woman who has children to feed and can't find a decent job paying anything comparable to what she can make in one night on the streets. On the other hand, try teaching those who are materially well off to engage in criminal behavior and see what happens. They'll nearly always ignore your advice, because people with something at stake, people with more to lose than to gain, aren't about to jeopardize their status. (To Be Continued)