Issue #137-Reason to Believe, SCRIPTURE MIXTURE (P

Biblical Errancy Issue #137-Reason to Believe, SCRIPTURE MIXTURE (Part 1), Hard Questions, More Than a Carpenter, 101 Questions About Jesus, Answering Christianity's Most Puzzling Questions (Vol. 1), Eccle. 3:19-21

Nov 10, '08 6:45 AM
by Loren for everyone










Issue No. 137

May 1994

SPROUL'S REASON TO BELIEVE:
On page 28 in a book entitled Reason to Believe, apologist R.C. Sproul is asked why the Bible is so offensive. An inquirer who wants to know why the law code laid down by God in the OT is so merciless asks on the next page, "When we examine the law code of Israel do we not see a legal ethic that is in fact bloodthirsty? Does not the list of over 35 crimes which require capital punishment reflect a barbarian ethic? Are not the punitive measures of the OT manifestations of what we would regard as cruel and unusual punishment?" Sproul responds by saying, "The law code of the OT seems harsh to us in light of our present societal standards. But we live in an age where serious sin is not taken seriously. We live in an age where the holiness of God and the sanctity of human life have been sadly eclipsed. If we compare the law of the OT with the law of creation, we see not the cruelty of God but the mercy of God. In creation all sin against God is regarded as a capital offense. In the slightest act of rebellion we commit cosmic treason. Any sin against a perfectly holy and righteous God may justly culminate in death. Thus the OT law represents a massive reduction of capital crimes which reveals not the bloodthirsty vengeance of an angry God, but the long-suffering mercy of a holy and loving God.... If we are offended by the Bible, perhaps the fault is not in God but in our own corrupt and distorted sense of values."
In light of his answer, Sproul would have done well to have avoided this question entirely, for several reasons. First, the law code of the OT would be considered harsh in any age. It doesn't "seem" to be harsh according to present societal standards. It is harsh, and would be considered harsh in any era. Secondly, we don't live in an age "where serious sin is not taken seriously." Hundreds of thousands of people are incarcerated in the United States for every felony imaginable. Perhaps the number isn't as high as Sproul desires? But he can't honestly say it isn't taken seriously. Thirdly, he is obligated to cite chapter and verse for this alleged "law of creation" that is even more stringent than the law of the Old Testament. Sproul is trying to make God look less oppressive by comparing his Old Testament laws to an even harsher code that is neither spelled out nor corroborated. Where does the Bible say that "in creation all sin against God is regarded as a capital offense"? Judged by an imaginary criterion that is neither delineated nor substantiated, anyone could be made to look good, no matter how reprehensible his behavior. Fourthly, he states that "in creation all sin against God is regarded as a capital offense and in the slightest act of rebellion we commit cosmic treason." What kind of justice is that? Stealing an apple or lying about one's age warrant execution! If Sproul's assertion has validity, then at one time there were thousands of acts deserving of capital punishment rather than a mere 35. Fifthly, even with all his fire and brimstone, the god of the OT never went so far as to allege that "all sin against God is regarded as a capital offense and the slightest act of rebellion" is "cosmic treason." In his exuberance to defend the faith at all cost, Sproul went beyond the pale. Sixthly, the allegation that God reduced the number of capital offenses to 35 hardly warrants serious consideration, in light of the fact that so many of the remaining 35 are ridiculous. According to Ex. 19:12 you can be executed for touching a mountain; Lev. 24:14 demands capital punishment for cursing; Num. 15:32-35 requires death for gathering sticks on the sabbath, and Deut. 21:15-21 requires the extreme penalty for striking your father or mother or disobeying your parents. In each instance the severity of the punishment is far out of line with the violation. Even with Sproul's alleged massive reduction of unspecified capital offenses, those which remain still reveal "the bloodthirsty vengeance of an angry God." And lastly, the only "corrupt and distorted sense of values" in evidence is that exhibited by Sproul's defense of a moral and legal code that is plagued by tremendous iniquities and disparities between transgressions and punishments.
On pages 122 and 123, Sproul digs himself into another hole when he says the following with respect to God's omnipotence, "In fact there are many things God cannot do. Reason tells us He cannot be God and not be God at the same time and in the same relationship. God cannot make a square circle or a two-sided triangle. Triangles by definition have three sides." So far so good. But Sproul continues by saying, "The point that is crucial, however, is that all of this does not deny the omnipotence of God but affirms it. The point of confusion rests with the meaning of the term 'omnipotence.' As a theological term the word does not mean God can do anything. What it does mean is that God does have all power over His creatures. The whole created order is always under the control and authority of God."
Sproul is exhibiting theological doubletalk. There is no confusion with respect to the meaning of the term "omnipotence." The only confusion lies with his feeble attempt to redefine the word by restricting its coverage. According to Webster's New World Dictionary "omnipotence" means "having unlimited power or authority." Yet, Sproul would have us believe God's power is restricted; it isn't unlimited. But if it's limited, then it's not all-powerful. Sproul wants an all-powerful, omnipotent being with abbreviated powers. Either God can create a square circle and a two-sided triangle or he can't. There's no in between. And if he can't, then he's not omnipotent, and the "whole created order" is not "under the control and authority of God." Squares, circles, and triangles are as much a part of the created order as anything else. And what difference does it make whether the term "omnipotence" is used theologically or otherwise? It's an absolutist word that allows no exceptions. That's about all that needs to be said on Sproul's efforts to have a foot in both camps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SCRIPTURE MIXTURE


(Part 1)
This new section consists of a potpourri of invalid or dubious biblical observations found in a variety of apologetic sources. Many writings don't have enough material to warrant a separate REVIEW section, but they do contain comments that deserve consideration.
COLQUHOUN'S HARD QUESTIONS:
On pages 112 and 113 of apologist Frank Colquhoun's dull book entitled Hard Questions the author addresses the topic of prayer and says, "It's not so much getting what you want as asking God to give you what he wants. Even Jesus prayed 'Your will be done' when he spoke to his Father." If that's true, then why bother praying? Why ask for what you are going to receive, regardless, since that's what God wants? Later Colquhoun says, "What then is the point of praying? Surely the only answer to that must be that God tells us to because he wants us to learn to depend on him and to align our needs and wishes with his will." What kind of an explanation is that? How can you align your needs and wishes with an uncertain will? Biblicists either know God's will or they don't. If they know it, then they can do it. So why pray? If biblicists don't know his will, then praying is nothing more than guesswork. So why pray?

MCDOWELL'S MORE THAN A CARPENTER:
On page 19 in his little book entitled More Than a Carpenter apologist Josh McDowell says, "Since none but God can forgive sins, it is conclusively demonstrated that Christ, since he forgave sins, is God." This argument no more proves Christ is God than a comparable claim by any street charlatan. Jesus may say an individual's sins are forgiven, but that doesn't mean they are. Just because someone makes an assertion doesn't mean it's true. If I met someone on the street and told him I forgave his sins, would that prove I am god or his sins were actually forgiven? Hardly! What evidence can biblicists provide to show that sins were forgiven by Jesus other than assertions of the latter and his accomplices? Saying something doesn't make it true, especially comments that are self-serving.

STEWART'S 101 QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK MOST ABOUT JESUS:
On page 17 in this paperback edition apologist Don Stewart says, "Therefore, the question of the existence of Jesus is not an issue. Twenty-seven separate documents (the books of the NT--Ed.) written by people who had personal contact with Jesus testify to the fact that he did, indeed, exist. We add to their testimony that of the Jews and the Romans. Neither of these groups believed in Jesus.... Yet they never denied that he existed. Thus we can confidently say that the issue of Jesus' existence is not an issue at all. Every source, friendly and unfriendly, testified that he existed."
This is the kind of deceptive apologetic reasoning critics of the Bible should always be on the alert for. Stewart starts from a wrong assumption, proceeds wrong, and concludes wrong. First, the existence of Jesus is very much an issue, and is by no means settled. Second, he relies primarily upon a book, the NT, which is in total agreement with his basic premise. He is using a book to prove the validity of the book itself, the essence of circular reasoning. Third, scholars certainly do not agree that the authors of the various NT books had personal contact with Jesus. They not only clash over who wrote what books, but, even more importantly, when they were written. Fourth, Stewart began by saying the Jews and Romans never said Jesus did not exist, but concluded by saying every friendly and unfriendly source testified that he existed. There is a vast difference between these two assertions. The first is essentially one of neutrality with respect to the existence of Jesus; while the second denotes a strong belief in his prior existence. Stewart might be able to substantiate the first position, which has always been the stance of this publication, but he'll never be able to prove the latter is valid. Even today, plenty of "unfriendly" sources would never testify that Jesus existed, especially when his supporters have provided so little evidence that he did. For Stewart to allege that "every friendly and unfriendly source testified that Jesus existed" is ridiculous. That's never been the case.
Stewart says on page 34 with respect to another topic, "Jesus was unique in His victory over death--the Resurrection." We have already shown in prior issues that this event is by no means unique, since many biblical figures rose from the dead before Jesus. No matter how many times they extol its distinctiveness, the Resurrection remains a bland occurrence from a biblical perspective.
On page 110 in the same book Stewart says the ministry of Jesus "was attested by miracles. He offered the proper credentials as the Messiah, yet they did not believe". He completely ignored biblical testimony to the effect that the ability to do miracles is not to be used to establish one's credentials as the messiah. According to Matt. 24:23-24/Mark 13:21-22 ("For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect") and Rev. 19:20 ("the beast was taken, and with him, the false prophet that wrought miracles before him....") false christs and false prophets can not only perform miracles, but fool the elect as well. Second Thess. 2:9 ("...Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders...") proves Satan himself can perform miracles. Even the pharaoh's magicians can execute miracles, according to Ex. 7:10-11, 21-22, and 8:6-7. So the ability to perform miracles is not to be used as a criterion by which to identify the messiah, because it also lies within the purview of false prophets, false christs, Satan, and magicians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SISSON'S ANSWERING CHRISTIANITY'S MOST PUZZLING QUESTIONS, VOL. 1


:
On page 80 in this verbose apologetic work, the author, Sisson, says, "Paul was an apostle. He had seen the risen Savior! Jesus Christ had called him by name. He was the divine instrument for bringing the authoritative message of the gospel to the Gentiles...." He erred in a couple of respects. To begin with Paul was not one of the 12 apostles, and for him to be repeatedly called the Apostle Paul is decidedly misleading. Secondly, he incorrectly related the sequence of events relative to Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, which can be found in the ninth, twenty-second, and twenty-sixth chapters of the Book of Acts. Nowhere does it say Paul saw Jesus. In fact, Acts 9:3-9 says, "As Paul journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him,.... The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight...." The text not only says that when Paul arose he saw nothing, but he remained blinded for three days thereafter. Even the men with him saw nothing.
Sisson contends on page 157, in regard to another subject, that God "has decreed that sin can be atoned only through blood sacrifices" and he cites Lev. 17:11 ("For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of life") as proof. He further states, "God rejects all human devices and schemes that attempt to pay for sin." Like most apologists trying to prove the validity of Heb. 9:22 ("...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins") he completely ignores the fact that the Leviticus passage does not exclude other methods. It does not say "only" through the shedding of blood can sins be forgiven, but merely portrays this as one path. As Shmuel Golding notes on page 33 of his work entitled The Light of Reason Vol. 1, "The scriptures clearly state that blood was one way of obtaining an atonement. There are indeed other forms of atonement, as seen in Lev. 5:11-13, where it states that flour can make atonement for the soul. Money (Ex. 30:15-16), jewelry (Num. 31:50), and prayer (Hos. 14:3) can atone for the soul." So from a biblical perspective it is by no means true to say that "God rejects all human devices...that attempt to pay for sin."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'BRIEN'S TODAY'S HANDBOOK FOR SOLVING BIBLE DIFFICULTIES:
Most of this apologetic work is little more than a mass of conjectures and generalities that systematically avoid the tough issues. We've discussed some of its comments before, although most aren't worthy of critical analysis. We can't help but note, however, that O'Brien says on page 217, "...did Scripture ever teach a flat earth? I think not." If he thinks not, then he thinks wrong. He continues by saying, "Bible readers today see poetic imagery in places where Christians of past centuries saw proof of a flat earth." No! Christians of today "seek", rather than "see", poetic imagery to escape the text's wording. He omitted the letter "K". Christians of past centuries were more candid in their interpretations of scripture, because they didn't have to face modern science or be so involved in molding the Bible to reality and greater rational criticism. The Bible has several verses that support belief in a flat earth. Rev. 7:1 says, "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth...." and Isaiah 11:12 says, "...assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." How could the earth be round, circular, or a globe if it had corners? Job 28:24 says, "For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens" and Dan. 4:11 says, "The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." Globes or circular objects don't have ends. "Ends" are only applicable to something that is flat and whose surface abruptly changes direction. And no matter how tall the tree was, it could not have been seen by someone on the other side of the planet. Probably the most potent verse of all is Matt. 4:8 which says, "Again the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them." How could Jesus have seen all the kingdoms of the world at one time from one spot, if the world were round or a globe? How could he have seen around a curved object? How could he have seen kingdoms on the opposite side of the planet? The answer is that he couldn't. Those who believed in a flat earth centuries ago were following the implications of scripture rather than reinterpreting the Bible for purposes of expediency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #575 Continues from Last Month (Part b)
We skipped your second objection for now. Your third objection was that many verses in the Bible rule out any possibility of a resurrection of anybody to begin with. Here is the response I got from my fundamentalist acquaintance:
...These isolated passages hold little weight when cross-checked with the whole of the Biblical message about man and the afterlife. First, one must check the context of the statement and understand the meaning in terms of the immediate passage at hand. Two of these (verses that you quoted) are from Ecclesiastes, which is known to be reflecting the negative conclusions and musings of Solomon after having pursued all manner of earthly amusements in a search for meaning; they do not necessarily reflect doctrinal statements.
Editor's Response to Letter #575 (Part b)
How did your fundamentalist friend manage to cram so much palaver into such a small paragraph, JL? First, the passages I used are neither isolated nor of little weight. Several were mentioned, including Eccle. 3:19-21 (RSV) which states, "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has NO ADVANTAGE over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?" To say this passage is of little weight is absurd, although I can understand apologists wishing that were true. He's trying to ignore Ecclesiastes because it doesn't fit his preconceptions of what the Bible should say. The fact that other biblical verses say the opposite does not invalidate what is said in Ecclesiastes, but only proves the Bible is contradictory. Running to other verses and claiming they are more valid because they say what he wants to hear, and picking and choosing according to conditions is anything but objective scholarship. Second, insofar as Ecclesiastes is concerned, one need only read the entire chapter to see that the contextual argument isn't going to save the day. There is nothing either before or after the text that invalidates the clear intent of the words. The format of Ecclesiastes is similar to that of Proverbs, in which a series of statements are made on a variety of topics. Consequently, the contextual argument has little or no applicability. Third, what difference does it make if Ecclesiastes is reflecting the negative conclusions and musings of the author as long as its contents reflect biblical doctrine? Since when do biblical teachings have to be positive and uplifting? Fourth, how does your fundamentalist acquaintance know Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes? Every version I have says the book was written by the Preacher, the son of David, who was king in Jerusalem. David had many sons and only one was king in Jerusalem? Fifth, how does your fundamentalist friend know that comments in Ecclesiastes "do not necessarily reflect doctrinal statements?" Is that stated somewhere? If he can use that defense, then nearly every statement in the Bible is up for grabs and can be discarded on the pretext that it "does not necessarily reflect biblical doctrine." What are his criteria for valid doctrinal statements? How does he know what is bona fide and what isn't? When he says "they do not necessarily reflect doctrinal statements," he is obligated to prove otherwise, since they are, in fact, scriptural. If a comment is scriptural, do we assume it is doctrinal until proven otherwise, or do we assume it is non-doctrinal until proven doctrinal? Not surprisingly, when distasteful comments, such as those found in Ecclesiastes, are under consideration, our fundamentalist acquaintance opts for the latter.

Letter #575 Concludes (Part c)
Finally, you assert that the resurrection is not nearly as important as other events in the Bible by saying, "Our FIFTH AUDIO COMMENTARY states the resurrection is of no real consequence when compared to other events. How many people came into the world as full-grown adults as did Adam and Eve in Gen. 1:27 and Gen. 2:7? Elijah never died at all; he just went straight to heaven in 2 Kings 2:11. According to Gen.5:22-24 Enoch never died either. He, too, went straight to heaven. In Gen. 18:11 and Gen. 21:1-3 Isaac was born to a woman who had passed through menopause, and according to Heb. 7:1-3 Melchisedec had no father, no mother, no beginning, and no end...Jesus never topped that. At least he had a father and a mother."

My resident Christian has the following feedback,

"...It is true that there are other supernatural events recounted in the Bible, which fill out the picture of the revelation; however, the resurrection of Jesus, as noted above, has unique qualities as those associated with the promised Redeemer (messiah) which is pivotal for the Christian message. Read 1 Cor. 15 and you will see that the resurrection is crucial for the gospel that Paul preached. He himself stated that if Christ be not raised then the Christian faith is futile and that Christians, above all people of the world, should be pitied (presumably for their naivete and gullibility). Read Revelation 5:9-10. Here the statement is made that the Lamb (Christ) overcame by his death and resurrection. This accomplishment makes him worthy to open the seals of God's book of judgment on the earth, as recounted in the fifth chapter of Revelation. It should be read in context. Rev. 1:18 has Jesus saying that he was dead and is now alive forevermore."
I consider myself a novice at this; that is why I am feeding this Christian's responses directly to you. Hopefully, you can either send me a reply directly or publish this letter and your reply in your next issue of Biblical Errancy. Whatever you decide, I will look forward to your response.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #575 (Part c)
I fail to see the relevance of your resident Christian's response, JL. All he is doing is reemphasizing the alleged importance of the resurrection to humanity. But that's not what I asked; that's not the issue. I want to know what makes the event, itself, so unusual, in light of the fact that others rose from the dead before Jesus, and participated in acts that were far more spectacular. For obvious reasons, he wants to concentrate on its ramifications, rather than the event per se.

Letter #579 from CK of Bloomfield, New Jersey
Dear Mr. McKinsey.
In regard to your discussion on whether the words "dung" and "piss" are pornographic, I would have to disagree with that categorization. The dictionary labels "piss" as vulgar, but "dung" is in no way so annotated. I wouldn't even venture to guess, however, how either word was considered at the time of translation of the King James Bible, and the words can only be judged in that context. The NRSV uses "urine." Ultimately it rests upon some Hebrew word, to whose connotations we have even less a clue. As for "pornographic", that usually implies some sexual context, and that is absent in the cited verses. I never understood myself why some synonyms are considered vulgar and others are not.... Intrinsically, no set of phonemes or letters is offensive--it's only in the trained ear of the listener, and eye of the reader....

Editor's Response to Letter #579
Dear CK.
According to my Webster's New World Thesaurus pornography is comparable to obscene literature, vulgarity, smut, salaciousness, prurience, and grossness. And since the word "piss" is rather vulgar, to say the least, I think it can be reasonably classified as pornographic. Technically speaking, the word "pornography" probably does pertain to lewd sexual activity, but that is not the manner in which it is generally employed today. Secondly, how the words were originally used when the KJV was translated is not as important as how the words are currently viewed, especially by children. Whether words are intrinsically offensive is of less importance than the fact that they are viewed as salacious by today's reader. Incidentally, if you traced the Hebrew origins of the word "dung" you would find that the latter is translated from a word that would have been more offensive if it had been translated literally rather than euphemistically. It's reminiscent of the comment by Abraham to his servant in Gen. 24:2 that the latter should swear an oath by putting "thy hand under my thigh." That's a sanitized version of where the hand was really placed when an oath was sworn. In Gen. 47:29 Jacob told Joseph to put his hand on the former's male organ when he swore an oath as well.

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


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #580 from PC of Donalsonville, Georgia
Greetings....
My son is a fundamentalist Baptist minister. I have now shaken his position, due to your publication, mostly. His deceased mother misguided his education and endeavors. I was traveling abroad at the time. He is now 51 years old. It isn't easy to endure a change in his life's pursuits since there is his livelihood. ...You are indeed an unusual person who ventures forth with the sword of truth against odds approaching the incredible.
Letter #581 from SC of La Honda, California
Dear Dennis.
We ordered your publication kind of like a kid sending in a boxtop for a plastic slingshot; imagine our delight when we received instead a high-quality, fully loaded bazooka! Great information to fuel anti-biblical debating. So, we'd like to get some more ammunition, please.

Letter #582 from JT of Williamsport, Penn.
Dennis....
I continue to be amazed at the work you've put into the tapes! I've never run across their equal anywhere else....

Letter #583 from KB of Santa Barbara, California
Dear Mr. McKinsey. ...
You have been an inspiration to many freethinkers, including myself. You have the ability to put into words the thoughts and beliefs that I've had all my life....

Letter #584 from BW of Shreveport, Louisiana
Dear Dennis.
Don't let my subscription expire!... Your publication is a valuable resource for freethinkers. I mention it every chance I get. Keep up the good work.

Editor's Response to Letter #584
Dear BW.
Your kind words, like those of PC, SC, JT, and KB, are warmly received.