Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2012 11:39:40 GMT -8
Issue No. 14
Feburary 1983
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY
This month's BE marks the beginning of a policy of devoting one issue every year or so to answering letters and commentaries submitted by readers.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #36 from REH of Hubbard, OH Dear Mr. McKensey.
I studied under, perhaps, the greatest N.T. scholar in the past several decades, Prof. M.S. Enslin. I remember one remark he made in his course in "Christian Beginnings." "There isn't enough about Jesus of Nazareth to write a decent obituary." No question that Paul is the founder of Christianity. But he also said, "The more you understand the Bible, the more you love it." I think both statesments are true. Knowledge is key to freedom. I think Socrates would attest to that.
Editor's Response to Letter #36
Dear REH.
Although unaquainted with Prof. Enslin, I agree with his obituary comment. However, I assure him that the greater knowledge of the Bible on my part has not created greater love. Indeed, precisely the opposite has occurred and, undoubtedly, countless others have experienced the same feeling. Perhaps someday people will stop making exaggerated claims of this nature.
Letter #37 from KEN of Sacramento, California
Dear Dennis.
I've been meaning to comment on the last few issues of BE and respond a bit to your interesting reply to my other letter (Letter #23, Issue #10). Vagaries of life being what they are however, I simply didn't have the time until now. I read with interest the exerpts from SBJ's long letter (Letter #22, Issues 10 and 11) in defense of the inerrancy of the Bible. I'm not sure what to think of SBJ. He says some intelligent things and makes some monstrous blunders. I was particularly surprised by his claim that any disagreement with the Biblical attitudes toward slavery represent an "opinion" and has no bearing on the Bible's validity (Part a). Would SBJ please elaborate on this? It seems to me that if Biblical inerrancy means anything at all, it means that doctrinal and moral statements in the Bible are just as valid as its factual statements. Now clearly, the Bible explicitly and implicitly endorses the institution of slavery; SBJ made no attempt even to dispute this. So let us ask: How does SBJ regard slavery? If he opposes it, he effectively admits the Bible is wrong. If he straddles the issue, claiming that slavery was moral in Biblical times but immoral in post-Biblical times, he is effectively saying that the moral teachings of the Bible are not absolute, that "right" and "wrong" may change over time. This is pure moral relativism, a doctrine that Christians have regarded as repugnant for centuries. Finally, if SBJ actually supports slavery, let him have the courage to say so--let him justify it, if he can, in the face of history,...
Editor's Response To Letter #37 (Part a)
Dear KEN.
SBJ has not responded to my comments; perhaps he will reply to yours.
Letter #37 continues (Part b)
(After discussing the degree of governmental responsibility for Jesus' death which was covered in the Dec. 1983, issue, KEN stated--). I had other comments on SBJ's letter of the same ilk, but I'll pass over them. Basically I found myself agreeing somewhat with both of you. You were both honest, but you both tended to obfuscate a little, and to try to win points by redefining terms. Your reply to my own letter #23 (In letter #23, Issue 10, KEN stated BE erred in Sept. 1983 commentary by claiming the Bible asserts turtles have voices--ed.) in the tenth issue was enlightening in many respects, but I must take issue with parts of it. In Part (b) response, for example, you at first seemed to understand my contention that in the parlance of the King James era, turtle was an acceptable idiom for turtle-dove.... Remember, the translators of the KJ Bible were translating, not for the 20th century American readers, but for the folk of 16th century England, who used the word turtle in just that way (i.e., a "turtle" was a bird--ed.). Please reference, for example, Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale," IV. 4. It seems that I'm quibbling, but this point is important because it keys with an error you often make in Biblical criticism: you have a tendency to impose modern definitions on archaic words in archaic contexts. Another example will be evident in just a bit. I hope you will accept my comments in the spirit they are intended. I am basically on your side and have a high opinion of Biblical Errancy, but sometimes you seem to try awfully hard to wring inappropriate meanings out of certain passages of the Bible, and this convinces no one. In fact it leaves you wide open to contempt and ridicule from Fundamentalist circles.
Editor's Response to Letter #37 (Part b)
You might be interested in knowing,, KEN that no statement has generated more criticisms than my assertion on page one of Issue #9 that turtles have voices according to Song of Solomon 2:12. "Turtles" in this context, according to many, means a "turtle-dove," not a reptile. I don't mind specific and detailed corrections such as this, but I do take exception to broad, vague generalizations such as: "you have a tendency to...." and "sometimes you seem to try to awfully hard to wring...." Please be specific. If you feel I've erred, cite chapter and verse. Generalizations are like phantoms; you can't address what you can't see.
Letter #38 from WTF of Spanaway, Washington
Dear Mr. Mckinsey. I am certainly no Christian, and do in fact enjoy your publication. Although it is beyond me as to how I might get a Christian to read it. Your part (a) discussion in letter #22 is founded on essentially wrong premises. A full discussion of the subject of liberty, in the Bible, can only be broached if one wants to open a Pandora's box. Since I am reckless then let me do so. In defense of SBJ (and to his undoubted amazement) 2 Cor. 3:17 (Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty--ed) does not contradict references to slaves and the subservience of women IF ONE CONSIDERS IN TOTAL CONTEXT TOTAL JUDAIC TEACHINGS. The case has been made to my satisfaction that the Bible (O.T.) is a hodgepodge of compilations and modified borrowings of the more appealing myths, fables, and teachings of various peoples and nations by a nomadic, rootless tribe. The code of Hammurabi becomes the ten commandments, the Epic of Gilgamesh becomes the Flood et al, ad nauseum. One cannot understand the most Holy Bible unless one has also read the Talmud. According to Rabbinical authorities the Torah (Pentateuch or first five books of the bible) is water, but the Talmud, ah, that is the wine. The Talmud clearly states that the gentile or goyim is a beast, a non human, and that woman does not exist outside her husband. Both the Jewish woman and the gentile exist only to serve the male Jew. According to the Talmud, it is not a crime or sin to murder, rob, betray, or harm a gentile (we are merely beasts). A jew could not enslave another Jew, hence only gentiles were slaves.... If one considers Judaism in its totality and realizes that the Bible is derived from the Talmud, then there is no contradiction, only a lack of proper definition. Christ stated that he did not come to overthrow the law (tradition), but to fulfill it. He did not repudiate the Talmud, but acted according to its precepts when he spurned the Samaritan women. One must take everything in context.
Editor's response to Letter #38 (Part a)
Dear WTF. You stated, "2 Cor. 3:17 does not contradict references to slaves...," but proves the opposite. Remember, we aren't discussing the Talmud, which is little more than a compilation of Jewish writings and commentaries on the Pentateuch. The Talmud is not scriptural, is not alleged to be the word of God, and can't be used to rewrite the Bible. What is water and what is wine doesn't matter. It's what is allegedly inspired that counts. But even if it were "divinely inspired", you have only shown that the Talmud also supports slavery and subservience of women. Not only many biblical verses, but the Talmud as well, contradicts 2 Cor. 3:17. You don't really support SBJ's position; you have only broadened the context and provided additional evidence to corroborate the Aug. 1983 commentary. The spirit of God in the Talmud, if indeed, the Talmud represents God's spirit, is certainly not one of liberty. Secondly, could you tell me where Jesus spurned some Samaritan women? Doesn't the fourth chapter of John show the opposite? And finally, I noticed you put the word "most" in front of "Holy Bible" when it wasn't needed. Am I wrong in detecting Christian proclivities?
Letter #38 concludes (Part b)
The rulers that killed Jesus were the Sanhedrin (Seventy), which were rulers over the Jews. Pilate recognized their authority and acceeded to it for fear of a revolt.
Editor's Response to Letter #38 (Part b)
I hope you accept my comments in the spirit intended, but could you cite chapter and verse for the following. What verses say: (a) the Sanhedrin killed Jesus, (b) the Sanhedrin ruled the Jews, (c) and Pilate recognized its authority? The Sanhedrin receives a lot of attention in literature. But why? The word "Sanhedrin" never appears once in the KJ Bible. The word "seventy" only appears three times in the N.T. and none has anything to do with rulers. One pertains to the number of times a person should forgive others, and the remainder pertain to some disciples being sent out. Perhaps the Sanhedrin was responsible, but the Bible is silent.
Letter from MJ of Ferndale, Washington (Part a)
Dennis
. I wish to make a few comments on the Nov. issue dealing with the Flood. First you quoted Gen. 8:4 and then commented, "How could the ark have rested upon several mountains at once?" I personally had no problem with that verse--as many elements of our modern language use identical usage. If you interpret many of our statements today, literally, word for word, you would have a difficulty functioning normally. As children, we would often interpret our brothers' and sisters' comments and/or commands literally-- word for word--to render their statements useless, or create nonsense out of commonly used phrases. Please let's leave that method to pranksters and comedians.
Editor's Response to Letter #39 (part a)
Dear MJ. Gen. 8:4 says "mountains", plural, not "mountain", singular. Translators should have left off the "s" if only one mountain was intended. You're speaking as if the "s" didn't exist. Apologists repeatedly say one should read the Bible as one reads a newspaper, which is what I'm doing. I assume the book says what it means and means what it says. If you are going to change a plural to a singualar because it sounds absurd, are you going to deny the miracles of the Bible because they are absurd also? TheBible says a woman turned into a pillar of salt, for example. Is that any more or less incredible than a ship landing on several mountains at once? If you are going to rewrite an incident because it makes no sense, then you might as well rewrite others. And, of course, if you rewrite the Bible's miracles in such a manner as to make them appear natural, then you will "gut" the Book in the process. The Resurrection will vanish; Jesus will no longer be God and man; Peter and Paul will not have resurrected anyone; God will not have carved the Ten Commandments in stone, and Jesus will not have had miraculous powers. In essence, if you are going to start rewriting the text because verses don't make sense, you face the problem of deciding where this will end, and what's left when you are through.
Letter #39 continues (Part b)
I wish also to respond to another comment you made. You stated, "Killing animals of which only two remain after the Flood seems absurd." Note, they only sacrificed "clean creatures," and in Gen. 7:2, God instructed Noah to take seven each of the "Clean beasts," and two each of unclean beasts.... Also I'd like to point out that within a year's time many animals could have been actively reproducing within the ark during the flood.
Editor's Response to Letter #39 (Part b)
I received your letter on November 8th, MJ. The December commentary addressed the first part of your question, i.e., the Bible can't agree on how many animals entered the Ark, and no law delineating clean from unclean animals existed at the time. Your second point is vitiated by the fact that in Gen. 8:17 God told Noah to take the animals off the Ark so that, "they may breed abundantly in the earth and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth." Why make this statement if they were already doing so on the Ark?
Letter #39 concludes (Part c)
I have a few other things to point out from past issues, but I am so busy.... Apparently I see a perspective you do not, as I was a devout and serious christian in my early childhood, but now a devout agnostic. It appears you never were a christian in the past (am I wrong?), and that puts you at a slight disadvantage. Keep up the good work though! We need more of you! I've underlined many of your statements with laughter; some of them are real killers! I just wish my christian relatives and friends would let me show them. I really thought by using their medium (the Bible) that there would be an open line of communication, but I was dead wrong! I nearly got thrown out on my ear! When they caught the drift of my intentions, they refused to read any more of the scriptures I had opened to and told me to close the book! I'm afraid many (a majority) of christians are like that, and it's a battle we can hardly win! Are you the only one working on this periodical? What is your circulation up to now? I have a lot more to say, but I must stop rattling on, as both our time is extremely limited. Again I wish to praise you for your efforts, and hopefully we can tie your achievements with others in related areas into one powerful light beacon, and alter the course of humanity from the gloomy prophecies of christianity....
Editor's concluding response to Letter #39 (Part c)
You are a thoughtful individual, MJ. Let me respond to your comments one at a time. You are correct. I never was a Christian in that I never accepted Jesus as a savior, but that's a decided advantage. I by-passed all the subtle inculcation that an outside observer notices more easily. In regard to your expectations about using "their medium," I've often had the same experience. I've been told to leave Bible study sessions on several occasions. Biblicists not only want to close the Book, but close me out as well. We will win the struggle, however; don't worry. It will just take time. My wife handles the more mundane affairs of BE, such as record-keeping. Scores of people have subscribed so far.
Letter #40 MA of Tulsa, Oklahoma
See Acts 12:4 for the word Easter.
Editor's Response to Letter #40
In letter #32, December, 1983 issue, BAY stated the word "Easter" did not appear in the New Testament, and I agreed. I was using the NASB. I'm not sure what version BAY used. In any event, there really is no problem. Not one version in my library--the RSV, NASB, NIV, Modern Language, Living Bible, NAB, and the NWT--uses "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Only the KJV does.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letter #41 from SS of Vienna, Virginia
(In Letter #19, Issue #7 SS stated there were human sacrifices in Leviticus, Judges, and 2 Samuel. The author of Letter #31, Issue #13 asked him to quote chapter and verse. The following is the reply of Ss--ed.) In Judges 11:29-40 Jephthah is forced to burn his daughter only as a sacrifice to God "according to his vow which he had vowed." (Judges 11:39). See also Bible Handbook, pp. 109-110 by G.W. Foote and W.P. Ball; Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Vol. I, pp. 246-247 for instance. The Jewish historian, Josephus, also reports the girl as having been burnt and not merely condemned to perpetual virginity, as some modern Fundamentalists have tried to argue. In 2 Sam. 21:1-9, David sent seven innocent men to their deaths "whom the Lord did choose" (2 Sam. 21:6) in order to appease God and end a three-year famine. In Lev. 27:28-29 human sacrifice is condoned by God, "No human being thus devoted (as an offering to God-SS) may be redeemed, but he shall be put to death" (NEB). In Gen. 22:2, 9-10 God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Other instances referring to the practice of human sacrifice include Jer. 7:30-31, Ezek. 20:25-26, Micah 6:7. All of this would seem contrary to the injunction in Ex. 20:31, "Thou shalt not kill"; but how can this be if the Bible is truly inerrant?....
Letter #42 from Dr. TSC of Brockport, New York
...I have one comment to make concerning one of the points you raised on the first page of Issue #11. I refer to point (c) which raises a criticism of Gen. 6:17. There you ask, "Yet, how would a flood destroy sea animals such as...." The fact is, however, that if there had been such a flood--one supposedly involving enough water to cover all but the highest mountains--the amount of water required would greatly dilute the salinity of the seas. Sea animals are in isotonic balance with their saltwater environment. Hence, a greatly reduced salt concentration in the environment would, through osmosis, cause them to die. Which means, of course, that if the story of Noah and the ark were true, Noah's task would be even more impossible--since, in that case, he would have to take ocean animals (which are very numerous and diversified, requiring extremely varied conditions such as tremendous or slight pressures and depths) aboard the ark, as well as the land animals. Keep up the good work.
Letter #43 from SK of Tucson, Arizona
Dear Dennis, I'm an atheist and I'd like to make a comment on a statement on page 3 of your Aug. 1983 issue. In the article "Coping with Apologists", the third approach listed was to mention the sick, perverted aspects of the bible, and you said that a logical response from apologist would be, "That's life, Friend. The Bible deals with the real world." Frankly, I think that this would be a logical response if all the rotten things in the bible were done by the "villians" of the bible, such as the Babylonians, the idol-worshippers, etc. But I think that what's so insidious about the bible isn't the fact that evil is mentioned and discussed, but that it's the heroes and role-models of the bible that do the evil! It wasn't one of the perverts of Sodom who had sex with his daughters, but Lot, who had just fled Sodom because he was the godly, upright antithesis of what went on in Sodom. It wasn't a leader of the Babylonian army who told his soldiers to kill everyone but the young virgins and to keep them for themselves, but it was the most exalted character of the O.T., Moses. These are just examples.... If all the bible did was "deal with" these things and call them "evil," that would be one thing. But to have the "good guys" of the bible do them, and usually not be punished or labeled "evil" for them...is quite different.
Editor's Response to Letter #43
The commentary in Jan. 1984 issue substantiates your position. This is the reason biblicists would rather concentrate on N.T. figures.
Letter #44 from VG of McCalla, Alabama
Almost seven years ago I was ordained as a deacon at a local Baptist church after "going through the motions". I found myself engaged in heated debate concerning and defending the inerrancy of the Bible. After coming to grips with the fact that I really wasn't sure the Bible was inerrant, I began a self-study of the subject. In one evening I found a dozen "problem passages" that troubled me at the time. Since my ordination, I have restructured my thinking and have come to the conclusions that are not popular with those here in the Bible-belt. Thanks for your efforts and research, it is greatly appreciated and needed.
Letter #45 from FAW of Eufala, Oklahoma
Dear Dennis
.... I might say I was raised as a missionary child in north India before independence. Have never been able to personalize Christianity tho have gone thru routine church membership. Any uplift I've needed has been thru church music in which I've been a lifelong active participant as choir member/director. For many years in San Diego in mainline churches I was able to sing without confrontation, but a recent 1980 move to this fundamentalist area has brought close beliefs in/with which I cannot agree and I'm examing things much more actively than ever before.
Letter #46 FS of San Rapael, California
Dear DM/BE
.... I appreciate receiving your free issue, and also your attempt to add some critical thinking to an uncritical field. It may be a contradiction in terms to bring rationality to bible study, but what you are doing may be helpful even if it proves that point. When you indicate biblical support for slavery and oppression of women, you help those who already have some critical sense to advance further in their knowledge; but when you try to use the bible in order to contradict the bible, I believe you are on shakier ground....
Editor's Response to Letter #46
Dear FS. Your letter is praiseworthy, although a couple of points should be addressed. First, I believe you can bring rationality to the study of any subject, including the Bible. Mythology, folklore, mysticism, superstition, and fairy tales can all be studied in a reasonable manner. The matter discussed need not be sensible in order for the analysis to be rational. Secondly, you doubt the Bible can be used to contradict itself. Quite the contrary, what source would you use to disprove the Bible? Would you marshall a mass of scientific data? Would you discount miracles as childish nonsense? Would you belittle the entire book as little more than a fairy tale worthy of immature minds? The problem with these is that most people who put credence in the Bible are going to respond, "I don't care what evidence, proofs, or logic you muster; if it contradicts the biblical teachings, then it's wrong." The best way to cope with such mentality is to show that not external evidence, but internal data as well, says the Bible is in error. When one part of the Book says another part is false, that's a problem even the staunchest defender finds unsettling. It's one thing for science to say the Bible is fallacious; it's quite another for the Bible, itself, to say so.
Letter #47 from JG of Cloverdale, New York
Dear Dennis
.... Keep punching. I have one question: In Jan. 1984 issue, you said Moses blasphemed by saying he was greater than Jesus. How could he say this since Jesus lived hundreds of years after Moses?
Editor's Response to Letter #47
Good question, JG. It's the kind of query we like--relevant, significant, material, and directly applicable to the Bible's validity. As you probably know, apologists allege Moses wrote the first five books of the O.T. The following statement is near the end of the fifth book: "There has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." (Deut. 34:10 RSV).
Feburary 1983
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY
This month's BE marks the beginning of a policy of devoting one issue every year or so to answering letters and commentaries submitted by readers.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #36 from REH of Hubbard, OH Dear Mr. McKensey.
I studied under, perhaps, the greatest N.T. scholar in the past several decades, Prof. M.S. Enslin. I remember one remark he made in his course in "Christian Beginnings." "There isn't enough about Jesus of Nazareth to write a decent obituary." No question that Paul is the founder of Christianity. But he also said, "The more you understand the Bible, the more you love it." I think both statesments are true. Knowledge is key to freedom. I think Socrates would attest to that.
Editor's Response to Letter #36
Dear REH.
Although unaquainted with Prof. Enslin, I agree with his obituary comment. However, I assure him that the greater knowledge of the Bible on my part has not created greater love. Indeed, precisely the opposite has occurred and, undoubtedly, countless others have experienced the same feeling. Perhaps someday people will stop making exaggerated claims of this nature.
Letter #37 from KEN of Sacramento, California
Dear Dennis.
I've been meaning to comment on the last few issues of BE and respond a bit to your interesting reply to my other letter (Letter #23, Issue #10). Vagaries of life being what they are however, I simply didn't have the time until now. I read with interest the exerpts from SBJ's long letter (Letter #22, Issues 10 and 11) in defense of the inerrancy of the Bible. I'm not sure what to think of SBJ. He says some intelligent things and makes some monstrous blunders. I was particularly surprised by his claim that any disagreement with the Biblical attitudes toward slavery represent an "opinion" and has no bearing on the Bible's validity (Part a). Would SBJ please elaborate on this? It seems to me that if Biblical inerrancy means anything at all, it means that doctrinal and moral statements in the Bible are just as valid as its factual statements. Now clearly, the Bible explicitly and implicitly endorses the institution of slavery; SBJ made no attempt even to dispute this. So let us ask: How does SBJ regard slavery? If he opposes it, he effectively admits the Bible is wrong. If he straddles the issue, claiming that slavery was moral in Biblical times but immoral in post-Biblical times, he is effectively saying that the moral teachings of the Bible are not absolute, that "right" and "wrong" may change over time. This is pure moral relativism, a doctrine that Christians have regarded as repugnant for centuries. Finally, if SBJ actually supports slavery, let him have the courage to say so--let him justify it, if he can, in the face of history,...
Editor's Response To Letter #37 (Part a)
Dear KEN.
SBJ has not responded to my comments; perhaps he will reply to yours.
Letter #37 continues (Part b)
(After discussing the degree of governmental responsibility for Jesus' death which was covered in the Dec. 1983, issue, KEN stated--). I had other comments on SBJ's letter of the same ilk, but I'll pass over them. Basically I found myself agreeing somewhat with both of you. You were both honest, but you both tended to obfuscate a little, and to try to win points by redefining terms. Your reply to my own letter #23 (In letter #23, Issue 10, KEN stated BE erred in Sept. 1983 commentary by claiming the Bible asserts turtles have voices--ed.) in the tenth issue was enlightening in many respects, but I must take issue with parts of it. In Part (b) response, for example, you at first seemed to understand my contention that in the parlance of the King James era, turtle was an acceptable idiom for turtle-dove.... Remember, the translators of the KJ Bible were translating, not for the 20th century American readers, but for the folk of 16th century England, who used the word turtle in just that way (i.e., a "turtle" was a bird--ed.). Please reference, for example, Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale," IV. 4. It seems that I'm quibbling, but this point is important because it keys with an error you often make in Biblical criticism: you have a tendency to impose modern definitions on archaic words in archaic contexts. Another example will be evident in just a bit. I hope you will accept my comments in the spirit they are intended. I am basically on your side and have a high opinion of Biblical Errancy, but sometimes you seem to try awfully hard to wring inappropriate meanings out of certain passages of the Bible, and this convinces no one. In fact it leaves you wide open to contempt and ridicule from Fundamentalist circles.
Editor's Response to Letter #37 (Part b)
You might be interested in knowing,, KEN that no statement has generated more criticisms than my assertion on page one of Issue #9 that turtles have voices according to Song of Solomon 2:12. "Turtles" in this context, according to many, means a "turtle-dove," not a reptile. I don't mind specific and detailed corrections such as this, but I do take exception to broad, vague generalizations such as: "you have a tendency to...." and "sometimes you seem to try to awfully hard to wring...." Please be specific. If you feel I've erred, cite chapter and verse. Generalizations are like phantoms; you can't address what you can't see.
Letter #38 from WTF of Spanaway, Washington
Dear Mr. Mckinsey. I am certainly no Christian, and do in fact enjoy your publication. Although it is beyond me as to how I might get a Christian to read it. Your part (a) discussion in letter #22 is founded on essentially wrong premises. A full discussion of the subject of liberty, in the Bible, can only be broached if one wants to open a Pandora's box. Since I am reckless then let me do so. In defense of SBJ (and to his undoubted amazement) 2 Cor. 3:17 (Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty--ed) does not contradict references to slaves and the subservience of women IF ONE CONSIDERS IN TOTAL CONTEXT TOTAL JUDAIC TEACHINGS. The case has been made to my satisfaction that the Bible (O.T.) is a hodgepodge of compilations and modified borrowings of the more appealing myths, fables, and teachings of various peoples and nations by a nomadic, rootless tribe. The code of Hammurabi becomes the ten commandments, the Epic of Gilgamesh becomes the Flood et al, ad nauseum. One cannot understand the most Holy Bible unless one has also read the Talmud. According to Rabbinical authorities the Torah (Pentateuch or first five books of the bible) is water, but the Talmud, ah, that is the wine. The Talmud clearly states that the gentile or goyim is a beast, a non human, and that woman does not exist outside her husband. Both the Jewish woman and the gentile exist only to serve the male Jew. According to the Talmud, it is not a crime or sin to murder, rob, betray, or harm a gentile (we are merely beasts). A jew could not enslave another Jew, hence only gentiles were slaves.... If one considers Judaism in its totality and realizes that the Bible is derived from the Talmud, then there is no contradiction, only a lack of proper definition. Christ stated that he did not come to overthrow the law (tradition), but to fulfill it. He did not repudiate the Talmud, but acted according to its precepts when he spurned the Samaritan women. One must take everything in context.
Editor's response to Letter #38 (Part a)
Dear WTF. You stated, "2 Cor. 3:17 does not contradict references to slaves...," but proves the opposite. Remember, we aren't discussing the Talmud, which is little more than a compilation of Jewish writings and commentaries on the Pentateuch. The Talmud is not scriptural, is not alleged to be the word of God, and can't be used to rewrite the Bible. What is water and what is wine doesn't matter. It's what is allegedly inspired that counts. But even if it were "divinely inspired", you have only shown that the Talmud also supports slavery and subservience of women. Not only many biblical verses, but the Talmud as well, contradicts 2 Cor. 3:17. You don't really support SBJ's position; you have only broadened the context and provided additional evidence to corroborate the Aug. 1983 commentary. The spirit of God in the Talmud, if indeed, the Talmud represents God's spirit, is certainly not one of liberty. Secondly, could you tell me where Jesus spurned some Samaritan women? Doesn't the fourth chapter of John show the opposite? And finally, I noticed you put the word "most" in front of "Holy Bible" when it wasn't needed. Am I wrong in detecting Christian proclivities?
Letter #38 concludes (Part b)
The rulers that killed Jesus were the Sanhedrin (Seventy), which were rulers over the Jews. Pilate recognized their authority and acceeded to it for fear of a revolt.
Editor's Response to Letter #38 (Part b)
I hope you accept my comments in the spirit intended, but could you cite chapter and verse for the following. What verses say: (a) the Sanhedrin killed Jesus, (b) the Sanhedrin ruled the Jews, (c) and Pilate recognized its authority? The Sanhedrin receives a lot of attention in literature. But why? The word "Sanhedrin" never appears once in the KJ Bible. The word "seventy" only appears three times in the N.T. and none has anything to do with rulers. One pertains to the number of times a person should forgive others, and the remainder pertain to some disciples being sent out. Perhaps the Sanhedrin was responsible, but the Bible is silent.
Letter from MJ of Ferndale, Washington (Part a)
Dennis
. I wish to make a few comments on the Nov. issue dealing with the Flood. First you quoted Gen. 8:4 and then commented, "How could the ark have rested upon several mountains at once?" I personally had no problem with that verse--as many elements of our modern language use identical usage. If you interpret many of our statements today, literally, word for word, you would have a difficulty functioning normally. As children, we would often interpret our brothers' and sisters' comments and/or commands literally-- word for word--to render their statements useless, or create nonsense out of commonly used phrases. Please let's leave that method to pranksters and comedians.
Editor's Response to Letter #39 (part a)
Dear MJ. Gen. 8:4 says "mountains", plural, not "mountain", singular. Translators should have left off the "s" if only one mountain was intended. You're speaking as if the "s" didn't exist. Apologists repeatedly say one should read the Bible as one reads a newspaper, which is what I'm doing. I assume the book says what it means and means what it says. If you are going to change a plural to a singualar because it sounds absurd, are you going to deny the miracles of the Bible because they are absurd also? TheBible says a woman turned into a pillar of salt, for example. Is that any more or less incredible than a ship landing on several mountains at once? If you are going to rewrite an incident because it makes no sense, then you might as well rewrite others. And, of course, if you rewrite the Bible's miracles in such a manner as to make them appear natural, then you will "gut" the Book in the process. The Resurrection will vanish; Jesus will no longer be God and man; Peter and Paul will not have resurrected anyone; God will not have carved the Ten Commandments in stone, and Jesus will not have had miraculous powers. In essence, if you are going to start rewriting the text because verses don't make sense, you face the problem of deciding where this will end, and what's left when you are through.
Letter #39 continues (Part b)
I wish also to respond to another comment you made. You stated, "Killing animals of which only two remain after the Flood seems absurd." Note, they only sacrificed "clean creatures," and in Gen. 7:2, God instructed Noah to take seven each of the "Clean beasts," and two each of unclean beasts.... Also I'd like to point out that within a year's time many animals could have been actively reproducing within the ark during the flood.
Editor's Response to Letter #39 (Part b)
I received your letter on November 8th, MJ. The December commentary addressed the first part of your question, i.e., the Bible can't agree on how many animals entered the Ark, and no law delineating clean from unclean animals existed at the time. Your second point is vitiated by the fact that in Gen. 8:17 God told Noah to take the animals off the Ark so that, "they may breed abundantly in the earth and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth." Why make this statement if they were already doing so on the Ark?
Letter #39 concludes (Part c)
I have a few other things to point out from past issues, but I am so busy.... Apparently I see a perspective you do not, as I was a devout and serious christian in my early childhood, but now a devout agnostic. It appears you never were a christian in the past (am I wrong?), and that puts you at a slight disadvantage. Keep up the good work though! We need more of you! I've underlined many of your statements with laughter; some of them are real killers! I just wish my christian relatives and friends would let me show them. I really thought by using their medium (the Bible) that there would be an open line of communication, but I was dead wrong! I nearly got thrown out on my ear! When they caught the drift of my intentions, they refused to read any more of the scriptures I had opened to and told me to close the book! I'm afraid many (a majority) of christians are like that, and it's a battle we can hardly win! Are you the only one working on this periodical? What is your circulation up to now? I have a lot more to say, but I must stop rattling on, as both our time is extremely limited. Again I wish to praise you for your efforts, and hopefully we can tie your achievements with others in related areas into one powerful light beacon, and alter the course of humanity from the gloomy prophecies of christianity....
Editor's concluding response to Letter #39 (Part c)
You are a thoughtful individual, MJ. Let me respond to your comments one at a time. You are correct. I never was a Christian in that I never accepted Jesus as a savior, but that's a decided advantage. I by-passed all the subtle inculcation that an outside observer notices more easily. In regard to your expectations about using "their medium," I've often had the same experience. I've been told to leave Bible study sessions on several occasions. Biblicists not only want to close the Book, but close me out as well. We will win the struggle, however; don't worry. It will just take time. My wife handles the more mundane affairs of BE, such as record-keeping. Scores of people have subscribed so far.
Letter #40 MA of Tulsa, Oklahoma
See Acts 12:4 for the word Easter.
Editor's Response to Letter #40
In letter #32, December, 1983 issue, BAY stated the word "Easter" did not appear in the New Testament, and I agreed. I was using the NASB. I'm not sure what version BAY used. In any event, there really is no problem. Not one version in my library--the RSV, NASB, NIV, Modern Language, Living Bible, NAB, and the NWT--uses "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Only the KJV does.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letter #41 from SS of Vienna, Virginia
(In Letter #19, Issue #7 SS stated there were human sacrifices in Leviticus, Judges, and 2 Samuel. The author of Letter #31, Issue #13 asked him to quote chapter and verse. The following is the reply of Ss--ed.) In Judges 11:29-40 Jephthah is forced to burn his daughter only as a sacrifice to God "according to his vow which he had vowed." (Judges 11:39). See also Bible Handbook, pp. 109-110 by G.W. Foote and W.P. Ball; Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Vol. I, pp. 246-247 for instance. The Jewish historian, Josephus, also reports the girl as having been burnt and not merely condemned to perpetual virginity, as some modern Fundamentalists have tried to argue. In 2 Sam. 21:1-9, David sent seven innocent men to their deaths "whom the Lord did choose" (2 Sam. 21:6) in order to appease God and end a three-year famine. In Lev. 27:28-29 human sacrifice is condoned by God, "No human being thus devoted (as an offering to God-SS) may be redeemed, but he shall be put to death" (NEB). In Gen. 22:2, 9-10 God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Other instances referring to the practice of human sacrifice include Jer. 7:30-31, Ezek. 20:25-26, Micah 6:7. All of this would seem contrary to the injunction in Ex. 20:31, "Thou shalt not kill"; but how can this be if the Bible is truly inerrant?....
Letter #42 from Dr. TSC of Brockport, New York
...I have one comment to make concerning one of the points you raised on the first page of Issue #11. I refer to point (c) which raises a criticism of Gen. 6:17. There you ask, "Yet, how would a flood destroy sea animals such as...." The fact is, however, that if there had been such a flood--one supposedly involving enough water to cover all but the highest mountains--the amount of water required would greatly dilute the salinity of the seas. Sea animals are in isotonic balance with their saltwater environment. Hence, a greatly reduced salt concentration in the environment would, through osmosis, cause them to die. Which means, of course, that if the story of Noah and the ark were true, Noah's task would be even more impossible--since, in that case, he would have to take ocean animals (which are very numerous and diversified, requiring extremely varied conditions such as tremendous or slight pressures and depths) aboard the ark, as well as the land animals. Keep up the good work.
Letter #43 from SK of Tucson, Arizona
Dear Dennis, I'm an atheist and I'd like to make a comment on a statement on page 3 of your Aug. 1983 issue. In the article "Coping with Apologists", the third approach listed was to mention the sick, perverted aspects of the bible, and you said that a logical response from apologist would be, "That's life, Friend. The Bible deals with the real world." Frankly, I think that this would be a logical response if all the rotten things in the bible were done by the "villians" of the bible, such as the Babylonians, the idol-worshippers, etc. But I think that what's so insidious about the bible isn't the fact that evil is mentioned and discussed, but that it's the heroes and role-models of the bible that do the evil! It wasn't one of the perverts of Sodom who had sex with his daughters, but Lot, who had just fled Sodom because he was the godly, upright antithesis of what went on in Sodom. It wasn't a leader of the Babylonian army who told his soldiers to kill everyone but the young virgins and to keep them for themselves, but it was the most exalted character of the O.T., Moses. These are just examples.... If all the bible did was "deal with" these things and call them "evil," that would be one thing. But to have the "good guys" of the bible do them, and usually not be punished or labeled "evil" for them...is quite different.
Editor's Response to Letter #43
The commentary in Jan. 1984 issue substantiates your position. This is the reason biblicists would rather concentrate on N.T. figures.
Letter #44 from VG of McCalla, Alabama
Almost seven years ago I was ordained as a deacon at a local Baptist church after "going through the motions". I found myself engaged in heated debate concerning and defending the inerrancy of the Bible. After coming to grips with the fact that I really wasn't sure the Bible was inerrant, I began a self-study of the subject. In one evening I found a dozen "problem passages" that troubled me at the time. Since my ordination, I have restructured my thinking and have come to the conclusions that are not popular with those here in the Bible-belt. Thanks for your efforts and research, it is greatly appreciated and needed.
Letter #45 from FAW of Eufala, Oklahoma
Dear Dennis
.... I might say I was raised as a missionary child in north India before independence. Have never been able to personalize Christianity tho have gone thru routine church membership. Any uplift I've needed has been thru church music in which I've been a lifelong active participant as choir member/director. For many years in San Diego in mainline churches I was able to sing without confrontation, but a recent 1980 move to this fundamentalist area has brought close beliefs in/with which I cannot agree and I'm examing things much more actively than ever before.
Letter #46 FS of San Rapael, California
Dear DM/BE
.... I appreciate receiving your free issue, and also your attempt to add some critical thinking to an uncritical field. It may be a contradiction in terms to bring rationality to bible study, but what you are doing may be helpful even if it proves that point. When you indicate biblical support for slavery and oppression of women, you help those who already have some critical sense to advance further in their knowledge; but when you try to use the bible in order to contradict the bible, I believe you are on shakier ground....
Editor's Response to Letter #46
Dear FS. Your letter is praiseworthy, although a couple of points should be addressed. First, I believe you can bring rationality to the study of any subject, including the Bible. Mythology, folklore, mysticism, superstition, and fairy tales can all be studied in a reasonable manner. The matter discussed need not be sensible in order for the analysis to be rational. Secondly, you doubt the Bible can be used to contradict itself. Quite the contrary, what source would you use to disprove the Bible? Would you marshall a mass of scientific data? Would you discount miracles as childish nonsense? Would you belittle the entire book as little more than a fairy tale worthy of immature minds? The problem with these is that most people who put credence in the Bible are going to respond, "I don't care what evidence, proofs, or logic you muster; if it contradicts the biblical teachings, then it's wrong." The best way to cope with such mentality is to show that not external evidence, but internal data as well, says the Bible is in error. When one part of the Book says another part is false, that's a problem even the staunchest defender finds unsettling. It's one thing for science to say the Bible is fallacious; it's quite another for the Bible, itself, to say so.
Letter #47 from JG of Cloverdale, New York
Dear Dennis
.... Keep punching. I have one question: In Jan. 1984 issue, you said Moses blasphemed by saying he was greater than Jesus. How could he say this since Jesus lived hundreds of years after Moses?
Editor's Response to Letter #47
Good question, JG. It's the kind of query we like--relevant, significant, material, and directly applicable to the Bible's validity. As you probably know, apologists allege Moses wrote the first five books of the O.T. The following statement is near the end of the fifth book: "There has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." (Deut. 34:10 RSV).