Issue #135-Archer's Encyclopedia (Pt. 4), Parts of

Biblical Errancy Issue #135-Archer's Encyclopedia (Pt. 4), Parts of DeWitt's Beyond the Basics, Taking it to Biblicists, Trinity, TV Program Underway

Nov 10, '08 6:38 AM
by Loren for everyone










Issue No. 135



March 1994

This month's issue will conclude our analysis of Archer's volume entitled the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



REVIEWS

(ARCHER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA--Part 4) On page 294 Archer is asked: How could a holy God command Hosea to marry a harlot? Specifically, Hosea 1:3-4 says, "And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed a great whoredom, departing from the Lord. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son." Archer rationalizes the situation by saying, "From the standpoint of Hosea himself, looking back on his domestic tragedy, it was quite clear that when God had encouraged him to marry Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, who He foreknew would be unfaithful to Hosea after he had married her, this amounted to a divine directive to marry a harlot. This does not necessarily mean that she had already shown a tendency to sexual promiscuity when he was courting her or that she was already a woman of ill fame when he married her...." To begin with God did not encourage Hosea to marry Gomer; he commanded it. "Go and take" is not mere encouragement. But even more importantly, Archer has all but ignored the text. The Living Bible states, "Go and marry a girl who is a prostitute." The NAB says, "Go take a harlot wife." The NEB says, "Go, take a wanton for your wife." The NIV says, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children." And the JB says, "Go, marry a whore, and get children with a whore, for the country itself has become nothing but a whore by abandoning Yahweh." Every citation clearly shows that the woman was a whore before Hosea married her. The text says nothing about foreknowing that Gomer would later become a whore, while it most certainly does show "that she was a woman of ill fame when he married her." Seeing no way out of the situation, Archer chose to simply rewrite the script to his own specifications.

Moving to another problem, Archer is asked on page 329: Is the mustard seed really the smallest of all seeds? Obviously Archer toned down the question, which should have been: Didn't Jesus lie when he said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds? In any event, Archer replies, "In Matthew 13:31-32 Jesus describes the mustard seed as being 'smaller than all the seeds.' The question arises as to whether this statement could be supported by a knowledgeable botanist, or did Christ make a mistake in His rating of the comparative size of the mustard seed? In all probability, He was referring to the black mustard seed.... J.C. Trever in the Interpreter's Dictionary suggests that the orchid seed is even smaller than the seed of the black mustard. But it is highly questionable whether Jesus was discussing all plant life on planet Earth when He made this statement. No one yet has proved that ancient Palestinians planted anything that bore a smaller seed than that of the black mustard, and that was the framework within which Jesus was speaking." First, how does Archer know that "in all probability" he was talking about the black mustard seed? He's guessing, and what difference does it make what kind of mustard seed is under consideration? As Trever strongly implies, in a Christian publication no less, the orchid seed is smaller than every kind of mustard seed; so Jesus erred. Second, for Archer to say that it "is highly questionable whether Jesus was discussing all plant life on earth" is equally conjectural. He is pulling speculations out of a hat, because nothing in the text justifies that conclusion. Jesus said the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, period. He did not qualify the comment by saying it only applied to seeds in Palestine. Third, as is so often true of religionists, Archer tried to shift the burden of proof by alleging that no one has proved that ancient Palestinians planted anything that bore a smaller seed than that of the black mustard seed, when they are under no obligation to do so. Instead, Archer is obligated to prove that only seeds within Palestine are being discussed. Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds; he did not say it was the smallest of all seeds in Palestine. It is incumbent upon Archer to prove that Palestine, rather than the world at large, was intended. Jesus attached no qualifications or modifications to his statement, and for that reason the burden of proof lies on Archer's shoulders.

On page 373 Archer is asked how Jesus can call some men gods, as is done in John 10:34 ("Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"). His vapid defense is as follows. "In citing Psalm 82:6, Jesus was appealing to a verse from the infallible Scriptures...that attaches the name or title 'god' to certain men, not to all men, of course, but only 'those to whom the word of God came' (John 10:35). A divine dimension was added to those people who had been especially chosen by God to be bearers of His saving truth and administrators of His holy law. In Psalm 82 God is addressing judges and administrators who have been chosen to serve as His representatives in teaching and enforcing His holy law...." In the first place, what difference does it make how many men are involved? No man at any time can rightly be called a god. From a biblical perspective, the word is inapplicable to all men and can't be applied to anyone, even a select few. Secondly, if the word can be applied to men "who have been chosen to serve as His representatives in teaching and enforcing His holy law," then Peter, Paul, Moses, some prophets and several other people can be called gods as well. But isn't Christianity a monotheistic religion? Apparently Archer just couldn't concoct a better defense.

Moving further, on page 378 Archer is asked if Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran. His reply is, "In Acts 7:4 Stephen asserts that Abraham did not leave Haran for Canaan until after his father, Terah, was dead. But Terah did not die, according to Gen. 11:32, until the age of 205. That would mean Abraham must have been 135 when he left Haran, since Terah fathered him at the age of 70, according to Gen. 11:26. But Gen. 12:4 states that Abraham was only 75 when he migrated to Canaan. Therefore Stephen was 60 years off in his statement.... But things are not really as bad for Stephen as the previous paragraph declares, for there is one serious fallacy. Gen. 11:26 records: 'And Terah lived 70 years, and became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.' Normally the first named in a list of sons is the oldest, but that rule has its exceptions. Abraham was not Terah's oldest son, even though he was named first. It is far more likely that Haran was Terah's oldest, since he was the first of them to die (Gen. 11:28). Concerning Nahor's death we have no information, except that he outlived Haran, and that his descendants Laban and Rebekah were living up in the region of Haran by the time of Isaac's marriage. But in all probability the reason Abraham was mentioned first was that he was by far the most important of the three brothers. Even though he must have been born when his father was 130--and may therefore have been the youngest of the three--he was the most prominent of them all as far as historical achievement was concerned."

Archer's resolution of this difficulty is unconvincing, to say the least. To begin with, Gen. 11:26 clearly states that Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran at age 70. It doesn't say that he fathered Nahor and Haran and 60 years later fathered Abraham. What in the text would lead one to believe there was a 60 year gap between the birth of the sons, and why would Abraham even be mentioned with respect to the children Terah fathered at age 70, if there were a 60 year gap between Abraham and his brothers? And if Terah fathered only Nahor at age 70, then why were Abraham and his brother Haran mentioned? Secondly, since Abraham was mentioned first, it seems reasonable to assume he was the oldest, despite the prior death of Nahor. If anyone was born when Terah was 130, it was one of Abraham's brothers. And finally, most versions of Gen. 11:26 blow Archer's rationalization out of the water. The Living Bible says, "By the time Terah was 70 years old, he had three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran." The NAB says, "When Terah was 70 years old, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran." The BBE says, "And Terah was 70 years old when he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." The NEB says, "Terah was 70 years old when he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran." And the JB says, "When Terah was 70 years old he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran." In every instance, the text clearly shows that all three sons were born before Terah reached the age of 71, and none even remotely implies that Abraham was born 60 years later.

And lastly, on page 383 Archer is asked with respect to another topic: Was Paul obedient or disobedient to the Spirit when he went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem? He responds by saying, "Acts 20:22 ('And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions await me') expresses Paul's confidence that he is in the will of God as he journeys back to Jerusalem to fulfill his vow as a pilgrim. But in Acts 21:4 ('And finding disciples...who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem') the disciples at Tyre kept telling Paul though the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem...." Paul later went to Jerusalem and Archer explains his defiance by saying, "It is clear that the Holy Spirit did everything to warn Paul of the danger and suffering that awaited him if he went back to Jerusalem. The statement in 21:4 that the disciples told Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem makes it sound as if Paul was acting in disobedience...." Of course, that's understandable in light of the fact that he was, as is noted by a scholar named Pettingill, whom Archer quotes as saying, "Paul was forbidden to go to Jerusalem at all. It is therefore evident that he was out of the Lord's will." Archer claims Pettingill's "position is difficult to maintain in view of God's continued faithfulness to him through all his trials." And Archer later concludes by saying, "All things considered, then, it seems best to understand Acts 21:4 as conveying, not an absolute prohibition of Paul's journey to Jerusalem, but only a clear, unmistakable warning that he is not to set foot in Jerusalem--if he wants to avoid danger and stay out of serious trouble."

The obvious defect in Archer's protracted explanation lies in the fact that Acts 21:4 says, "who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem." It's not a warning; it's a direct command. Don't do it, period! Paul chose to ignore a direct order from the Holy Spirit, relayed to him through his disciples, and went. Nothing was said about suffering, trouble, or dangers allegedly awaiting him. Archer's Christian compatriot, Pettingill, correctly concluded that Paul "was out of the Lord's will" and that's about all that needs to be said on that topic. Paul was disobedient, not obedient. He defied God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEWITT'S BEYOND THE BASICS--One of the most common problems to plague the Gospels is the numerical clash between different accounts. On pages 59 and 60 in the book entitled Beyond the Basics, apologist David DeWitt addresses this issue by saying, "Mark 5 and Luke 8 describe one Gerasene demoniac who confronted Jesus, whereas Matthew 8 says there were two. Matthew 28:2 mentions only one angel at Christ's tomb, and John 20:12 says there were two.... In the case of two demoniacs versus one, and two angels at the tomb or one, that is certainly no contradiction. If there were two, there certainly was one. There were, no doubt, many angels, and a hillside full of demoniacs. One author simply mentions two, whereas the other zeros in on one. The Bible never says there was only one demoniac or only one angel." This is the most common rationalization given for difficulties of this nature, and several problems accompany each excuse. First, the text refers to one demon-possessed man in Mark and Luke, and two in Matthew. DeWitt is assuming an additional man exists in the former accounts, even though he is not referred to in any way. Second, DeWitt is assuming the larger number is always correct and the lesser is not. Why couldn't the reverse be true? If four different witnesses to a hit-and-run accident say there were one, two, three, and four people in the car, respectively, are police to automatically assume four is the correct number? Are they to automatically accept the higher figure? Are they to ignore the possibility of shadows, faulty vision, distorted angles, distractions, human-like contents of the automobile, etc.? Or should they just immediately assume the greatest number is valid. That's the procedure apologists want critics of the Bible to follow. Why couldn't the lower number be correct and the higher number be erroneous? And third, if we are going to make assumptions, why can't we assume 6, 8, 10 or even 50 men possessed with demons are involved and both accounts are invalid? Why can't we let our imaginations run wild and concoct any figure that strikes our fancy? If proof is not required, we could say the hit-and-run car was crammed with people, although only four were seen. After all, two can play that game. Apologists operate on the assumption that anything possible is actual, until disproven, which is only another ruse by which to shift the burden of proof and ignore our time-honored maxim that The Burden of Proof Lies on He Who Alleges.

In another defense DeWitt says on page 59, "Mark 6:8 speaks of the disciples taking staffs along on their journey, but Matthew 10:9-10 seems to speak against it.... Concerning taking a staff (Mark 6:8) versus not having one (Matthew 10:9-10), a closer reading will solve the supposed problem. In Mark 6 Christ instructs them to only take along 'a mere staff,' whereas in Matthew 10 He tells them not to 'acquire' an additional one. In Mark the instruction is on what to take along, but in Matthew the instruction is concerning what they are not to acquire after they got going." One need only read the appropriate texts to see that this explanation is without substance. Mark 6:8 says, "He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts." In other words, they were to take a staff. But Matthew 10:9-10 says, "Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food." In other words, they were not to take a staff. How much clearer could the text be? Where does Matthew say anything about what they were to acquire after being underway? Matt 10:5 clearly shows that Jesus is giving them marching orders prior to the commencement of their journey. When Jesus says, "Take...no staves" for your journey, he is saying they should not be acquired at the start, and subsequent behavior is irrelevant.

On pages 68-69 DeWitt provided additional proof that his biblical defenses warrant little credibility. He stated, "It may be, for instance, that the apostle Paul thought that Jesus Christ was coming back during his own lifetime. If he did, he was wrong. But if he did, he never said that in the Bible." One can only say in response to this observation that DeWitt needs to read scripture with a more discerning eye. In 1 Thess. 4:17 Paul says, "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Two verses earlier he stated, "...we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep" and in 1 Cor. 7:29 he said, "...the time is short...." In Heb. 1:2 Paul said, "In these last days" and in Heb. 10:37 he said, "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come and will not tarry." So, clearly Paul felt the end of the world was coming in the lifetime of his contemporaries, and he expected to be snatched up bodily into heaven with the other disciples then living who would, thus, never taste death. Paul taught his converts that Christ's coming was close at hand, and after 2,000 years it is safe to conclude that his prophecy is as erroneous as DeWitt's observation that he made no such prognostication.

On pages 90-92 DeWitt recites the fundamentalist belief--Once saved, always saved--and then says, "Of all the major world religions, biblical Christianity is the only one that teaches that we cannot lose our salvation.... Salvation is a cleansing of all sins of all time totally accomplished by Christ on the cross and applied to the believer at the time he or she receives Christ. Can a Christian stop believing? Of course he can! But he cannot stop being saved...." Then DeWitt is asked about the unpardonable sin and says, "The expression 'the unpardonable sin' is in one sense like the expressions 'Cleanliness is next to godliness' and 'God helps those who help themselves.' The one thing all such expressions have in common is that not one of them is in the Bible.... The Bible mentions a sin committed by the Pharisees that Jesus called 'blasphemy against the Spirit,' adding that, for whoever did what they did, 'it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come (Matt. 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-30, Luke 12:10). A couple of observations are significant to understanding the 'blaspheming against the Spirit' as seen in Matt. 12. For one thing, the 'blasphemy against the Spirit' is nowhere repeated in the Bible. The apostles never warned anybody about it.... They were very specific in their warnings and exhortations to the early church, careful not to overlook anything that the Body of Christ was to be or not be."

What difference does the apostolic influence make? A direct instruction from Jesus should be more than sufficient. Since when do his admonitions have to be reiterated by the apostles to have validity? If that were true, a wide variety of his teachings would lack substance.

DeWitt continues, "A second observation to consider here is that there are two different kinds of events described in the Bible. There are the ones that might be repeated anytime (like someone praying) and the ones that will probably never be repeated (like the Israelites crossing the Red Sea on dry land). Some sins are unique to a certain time.... The sin of Matthew 12 appears to be just such a sin.... To blaspheme the Spirit was actually to see Jesus in a human body doing miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit and to reject that as evidence that He was the Messiah, the God of Israel. This sin was committable while Jesus was physically on earth doing those things. After that, the conditions for this particular unpardonable 'blasphemy against the Spirit were (and are) not present. Therefore it could not be committed today."

There is nothing in Matthew 12:31-32 that would lead one to believe that it "appears" to be a unique sin, and where does the text say that in order to blaspheme the Holy Spirit you must "see Jesus in a human body doing miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit and reject that as evidence that He was the Messiah"? DeWitt is rewriting the script according to his predilections, and has increased the amount of material contained therein. He is asserting the sin could only be committed while Jesus was alive, which is nowhere to be found in the text, and is alleging the sin consists of rejecting miracles performed by Jesus, which isn't scriptural either.

Interestingly enough, DeWitt's explanations still won't allow him to escape. If this unpardonable sin could only have been committed by contemporaries of Jesus who saw him doing miracles in a human body, we would still have people who would not have had all of their sins forgiven by him. He could not have paid for the unpardonable sins of contemporary detractors who witnessed his miracles but denied his messiahship. So DeWitt's comment on page 91 that "Salvation is a cleansing of all sins of all time totally accomplished by Christ on the cross" is fallacious.

DeWitt is resorting to a strategy often invoked by apologists. If a biblical maxim is liked by the Bible's defenders, they say it is applicable to all men everywhere. If, on the other hand, it is anathema or offensive, they claim it only applies to those being admonished at that particular time. Biblicists leap in and out of biblical teachings like porpoises following in a ship's wake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #570 from of Sonoma, California

Dear Dennis.
I recently wrote a letter to the Editor of our local paper where I stated the contradiction between Num. 23:19, which says that God doesn't repent, and Ex. 32:14 which says, "And the Lord repented...."

A Rev. John R. Wayne responded with this; "Secondly the supposed contradiction regarding God's 'repenting' is clearly a matter of context. Num. 23:19 is simply a statement that God is not like a sinful man in need of repentance; while Exodus 32:14 tells of God's mercy toward a band of disobedient Hebrews, in response to an intercessory prayer offered by Moses."

I wrote a second letter where I quoted verses. Unfortunately the second letter wasn't printed, leaving the impression that Rev. Wayne's "clarification" was valid. I am beginning to see how sneaky and dishonest Christians are. I am still writing letters to the editor and every one is being challenged. But I have BE! And I fight back....

In another letter I quoted the OT teachings on slavery and the status of women. Mr. Bjerkhoel wrote in saying that "the position of woman has been greatly changed for the better through Christianity" and we are no longer under the old law. Well, thanks to your BE I replied that someone forgot to tell Peter and Paul, and quoted the NT verses supporting slavery and the subservience of women. Dennis, when you have the truth (i.e. BE) it is wonderful! Thank you so much.

And I found another JW to show my short list of 8 verses. Four say no one has ever seen God, and four say they saw God. I wish that you could have seen the sinking look on her face. She said, "Gee, if someone read this they might think that the Bible contradicted itself." I wish you the best.

Letter #571 from JL of Seattle, Washington

Dear Dennis.
I just got your sample issue of Biblical Errancy today. All I can say is, wow! Where have you been all this time? I wish I had known about you sooner. For the last six months, I have been researching the question of New Testament reliability. I am an Agnostic going to Seattle Pacific University, a Free Methodist university in Seattle, WA. I have been challenged by several fundamentalist Christians who are Josh McDowell fans to investigate NT reliability. Well, I've done about 160 hours of research on the subject so far, and I wish I had found your newsletter sooner. I looked through the list of materials you have available, and I think I eventually want a copy of all of it.... Keep up the good work!

Letter #572 from KB of Santa Barbara, California

Dear Mr. McKinsey.
As a late subscriber to Biblical Errancy I am in the process of catching up on all the back issues. In my view one of the most interesting of all the issues is number 15 and its in-depth comments concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. Countless books have been written about it...pro and con. People have been put to death for not believing in it. Everyone on both sides of the issue agrees that it is incomprehensible. It must be accepted on faith since it could never be accepted as a result of the reasoning process.

In all of my considerable readings on the trinity doctrine I have never read of anyone mentioning the following. If all three persons of the trinity are co-equal, as well as co-eternal, with no one any greater than the other two, then why was the son the one fated to be the "fall guy" in this great celestial drama? Why should it not have been the father who had to come to earth and offer himself as a living sacrifice to the son? To my way of thinking the fact that it was the son who had to placate the father is implicit recognition that the three so-called persons of the trinity are anything but equal.

Keep up the good, liberating work. You are a treasure to the freethought movement.

Letter # 573 from JB of Cincinnati, Ohio

Dear Dennis.
...You completed phase one a few months ago. Now comes the marketing project. I doubt that there is a more thorough or comprehensive work in the world than what you have compiled. It deserves a lot more than frustrating a Jehovah's Witness or diehard fundamentalist.... A study of your works in a college religion course would be excellent exposure. Actually it should be a required course. Bible Critique 101 could get the message out to anyone with an open mind.... Please give your superb work the exposure it deserves.

Letter #574 from RL of Marysville, Washington

Dear Dennis.
A thousand thanks for your great publication; it is eagerly awaited each month.

EDITOR'S NOTE: At long last our fledgling TV program is underway and airing every Wednesday and Friday at 7:00 P.M. in the northern half of Dayton, Ohio and some surrounding communities. We tape a 1/2 hour show every other Saturday morning at 10:00 A.M. and need volunteers to assist. The station kind enough to lend us its studio is located very close to the intersection of Interstates 70 and 75. Please contact us if you can arrive on a regular basis and are willing to be trained in one or more aspects of TV program production. Later we intend to activate and expand that list of volunteers complied several years ago of people willing to play copies of them on their local public cable access channel.