Issue #139-Johnson's So the Bible is Full of Contr

Biblical Errancy Issue #139-Johnson's So the Bible is Full of Contradictions? (Pt. 2), Did Jeremy Say It?, Could Jesus Do the Deed?, Events on Paul's Trip to Damascus, Did Jesus Rise First?, Will All Israel Be Saved?

Nov 10, '08 6:50 AM
by Loren for everyone










Issue No. 139

July 1994


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this month's review we will continue our extensive analysis of the apologetic work entitled So the Bible is Full of Contradictions? by apologist Carl Johnson.
JOHNSON'S SO THE BIBLE IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS? (Part 2)
One of the most prominent nonquotes in Scripture is found in Matt. 27:9-10, which says, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued...And gave them for the potter's field...." The act of buying a potter's field for the 30 pieces of silver was supposedly a fulfillment of a prophecy in Jeremiah. Unfortunately for apologists The Book of Jeremiah contains no such prophecy. Johnson says on pages 68 and 69 in this regard, "Matthew is charged with making a mistake by saying that Jeremiah spoke about 30 pieces of silver, when in reality it was Zechariah who made the statement. John Calvin is reported to have said about this: 'How the name of Jeremiah crept in I confess I do not know, nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake instead of Zechariah, for in Jeremiah we find nothing of the sort, nor anything that even approaches it.' The Dean of Westminster quoted this passage to prove that Gospel narratives are not necessarily 'historical accounts of what actually occurred.'
Alford calls it a 'slip of the pen.' Augustine said that Matthew was only quoting 'from memory.' John Haley commented: 'It is obviously a mistake, either made by Matthew or by subsequent transcribers. The prophecy was uttered by Zechariah, not Jeremiah'."
Johnson suggests that "a more probable solution comes when we realize that Matthew does not say it was written by Jeremiah, but 'spoken by Jeremiah.' It is not an uncommon thing for the men who were used by God to write the NT to give in writing for the first time verbal utterances of some of the OT saints.... It may well be that there were sayings of some of the prophets that were handed down orally."
Again we are faced with some typical apologetic distortions of Scripture. Johnson wants us to believe that "spoken by Jeremy the Prophet" does not mean it was written by him. Yet, this flies in the face of that which can be found elsewhere in the Book of Matthew. Matthew 1:22 says "all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying" and the text then goes on to repeat Isaiah 7:14. In other words, it was written. Matthew 2:15 says "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying" and the text then goes on to quote Hosea 11:1. Matthew 2:17 says "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet saying" and the text then goes on to quote Jeremiah 31:15. Matthew 3:3 says "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah saying" and the text goes on to quote Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 22:31, and 27:35 continue the same pattern. Every time Matthew said something was spoken by an OT source, he clearly meant it was actually written down. When Matthew used the word "spoken" he meant "written", not mere verbal communication. So when Matthew said something was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, the problem becomes one of finding it in the Book of Jeremiah, which is impossible.
Johnson resorts to an even weaker defense by citing J. Sidlow Baxter's explanation. The latter states in regard to the absence of anything of relevance in Jeremiah, "Perhaps we need say no more on this point. It is not one on which anyone can speak with absolute finality at the moment; but we have said enough to show that Matthew's reference to Jeremiah might be no problem at all if we had fuller information. Matthew may have been writing with the knowledge and precision upon which we ourselves are quite incompetent to pass any critical judgment. We do not now possess all the data required for a final verdict...." Baxter's defense borders upon the pathetic, because it amounts to nothing more than saying: "There is an explanation; we just don't have a handle on it at present." His explanation is an amalgam of speculation and pure conjecture. While admitting he has no answer, he's claiming one exists. Apparently Baxter doesn't realize that if his premise were to rule the roost, an incredible number of preposterous claims would have to be given credence, on the grounds that substantial and convincing evidence currently unavailable will eventually materialize. Under this criterion I could claim I have the ability to raise people from the dead, and will eventually prove as much. I could claim to be god incarnate and will eventually substantiate my allegation. I could claim I am the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln and will provide substantive proof in due time. After all, can my detractors conclusively prove I am not god incarnate or the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln or that I am unable to resurrect others? We have again returned to the Achilles heal of superstitious thought: The burden of proof lies on him who alleges. Baxter is obligated to prove that sufficient data and convincing proof is available, and until he does, Matthew's comment is erroneous.
On page 72 Johnson confronted another problem which he would have done well to have ignored. I'm always amazed at the willingness of apologists to tackle quandries for which they are ill prepared. What's the old adage: Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. Prudent individuals realize when they are in over their heads and back out. But not our apologetic respondents. They plow ahead like bulls in a mine field, utterly oblivious to the fact that their explanation does little more than corroborate the problem's implacability. That can't help but say something about their intellectual capabilities.
In any event, Johnson addresses the clash between Mark 6:5 ("And Jesus could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them") and Matt. 28:18 ("And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth") by saying, "The first verse speaks of the time when Jesus went to Nazareth. Because Nazareth was His hometown, the people there were offended at Him and did not believe in Him, thus he could do no mighty works there. The second verse says that He has all power. Once again we have a seeming contradiction.... It may surprise some to know that there are some things God and Christ cannot do, but as we read the Bible, we find this is so. Young says, 'God's inability is moral. In the material world He can do everything; in the moral and spiritual world God is confronted with glorious impossibilities.' There is nothing physically impossible for Christ. He said, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.' Morally, He cannot do some things."
Johnson's rationalization is fatally flawed in several respects. First, he says God is limited in what he can do in the moral world but "in the material world God can do everything." If Johnson is going to talk about an omnipotent being, then commentators are well within their rights to discuss omnipotent feats. Again, we ask if God can create another being with powers exceeding his own. Can God create something too heavy for him to lift? Can God annihilate himself and then reappear? Can God create a square circle or a two-sided triangle? Can god count to infinity? These are not trivial, childish, or flippant questions, because they go to the heart of this omnipotent being in which Johnson places so much faith. They show he is, in fact, limited in his physical capabilities. Limitations in one area open up the possibility of limitations in other areas. Even more importantly, once limitations are admitted, the same crack appears in divine infallibility that appears in biblical inerrancy when contradictions are exposed. Secondly, Johnson directly contradicted himself when he quoted Jesus as saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," and followed that up by saying, "Morally, He cannot do some things." Either he has all power or he doesn't. There is no in between. And if he has all power, then there are no moral feats he can't commit, regardless of their nature. If Johnson is trying to say Jesus has all power but merely chooses not to do some things, then he is inaccurate when he says "Morally, He cannot do some things." He can do them, but he just doesn't choose to do so. There's a difference. But Johnson has taken us adrift. That's not what the original verses say. One says he has all power, and the other says he could do there no mighty work. It says he can't do it; it doesn't say he can do it but chooses not to do so. There's a big difference. Johnson is surreptitiously altering Mark 6:5. According to him it should say "he chose there to do no mighty work" and that's dramatically different from "he could there do no mighty work." His rationalization implies that either some people are incompetent translators, or he knows Greek better than a committee of experts. We are again confronted with the "That's what it says, but that's not what it means" strategem.
One of the most well-known NT conflicts concerns the question of who heard what during Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. On page 86 Johnson addresses the conflict between Acts 9:7 ("And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man") and Acts 22:9 ("And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me"). While submitting the standard defense, he says, "In the first reference we read that they heard the voice, but in the second we are told they heard not the voice. At first glance this looks like a flat contradiction. (That's only because it is--Ed.). The difficulty is easily solved with a little knowledge of the Greek language in which the New Testament was originally written. In the Greek of Acts 9:7, the word voice is in the genitive case, and in Acts 22:9, it is in the accusative case. In the first instance the voice is only heard as a sound. The meaning of what is said is not understood. Those with Paul heard the sound but did not understand the words which Jesus spoke to Paul.... In Acts 22:9 the words translated "the voice" are in the accusative. They did not hear the message of the One who spoke. They heard the voice as a mere sound, but they did not hear the voice as the sound of uttered words."
To cut through all the verbiage and get to the meat of the matter, all Johnson is saying is that the word "hearing" in Acts 9:7 means only hearing the voice but in Acts 22:9 "heard" means more than mere hearing; it means understanding, which they failed to do. This is another instance of: That's what it says but that's not what it means. If his defense had any merit, then the word "heard" in Acts 22:9 should have been translated as "understood" which is quite different, and the committee of experts who composed Acts 22:9 would have been exposed as incompetent translators. There is a qualitative difference between the word "heard" and the word "understood." Everything audible that is understood had to have been heard, but everything heard certainly does not have to have been understood. Finally, both of the key words come from the same Greek word (akouo). In every instance in the NT where the words "hearing" and "heard" come from this Greek word, they mean hearing as hearing is normally used. Nowhere does it mean to not only hear but understand.
Moving further, on page 87 Johnson seeks to resolve the conflict between Acts 26:23 ("Christ should suffer, and...be the first that should rise from the dead....") and Luke 7:15 ("And he (a young man--Ed.) that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he (Jesus--Ed.) delivered him to his mother"). In response to this dichotomy Johnson says, "Jesus is said to be the first to rise from the dead, yet we read of others who rose from the dead before Him (see 1 Kings 17:22, 2 Kings 4:32-35, 13:21, Matt. 9:18-25, Luke 7:11-15, John 11:43-44). The solution to this seeming contradiction is that Christ was the first to be raised into an endless life over which death has no power. 'Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him' (Rom. 6:9). All others who were raised passed through death again...." Johnson's constant reliance upon the "That's what it says but that's not what it means approach" leaves us no alternative but to suggest that he write his own version of the Bible and send us a copy. Time after time his defense is little more than an assertion that he has a more accurate rendition of what a particular verse should say. He repeatedly adds, deletes, or changes the meaning of words. In this instance nothing is said about Christ being "the first to be raised into an endless life over which death has no power" or that he would never die again. Johnson has supplied some wholly gratuitous addenda. All Acts 26:23 says is that Christ "should be the first that should rise from the dead." Nothing is said about what occurs afterward, and for that reason it's irrelevant. Acts 26:23 does not say Christ was to be the first to rise from the dead and never rise again. For obvious reasons Johnson is more concerned with differences between what happens after the act of rising from the dead than with the act of rising itself. But that's not what the verses are discussing. He's attempting to shift the focus.
And finally, on page 87 Johnson addresses the problem of whether or not all Israel will be saved. It's generated by the clash between Rom. 11:26 ("And so all Israel will be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob") and Zech. 13:8-9 ("And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; and the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined...." In order to resolve this difficulty he says, "Paul says 'all Israel shall be saved.' Zechariah says only one-third of them shall be saved. The Bible teaches that when Christ comes back to earth He will gather the Jews, bring them into the wilderness, cause them to pass under the rod of judgment, and will purge out the rebels from among them (Ezek. 20:33-38). The passage in Zechariah teaches that two-thirds of them will be purged out, and one-third of them will come through the judgment. Those Jews who accept Jesus as their Messiah will make up the 'all Israel' who will be saved...."
Wait a minute! Proceed no further! Johnson's argument just collapsed. He quoted Rom. 11:26 as saying, "And so all (Not some, most, or many, but all--Ed.) Israel will be saved." But then he says that only those Jews who accept Jesus as their Messiah will make up the "all Israel" who will be saved. That means "All Israel" does not include all Jews but only those who accept Jesus. Obviously if that is true then all Israel is not included and all Israel will not be saved. All Israel can not be saved when 2/3 are excluded.

(To Be Concluded Next Month)

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


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #585 from RS of Sherman Oaks, California
Dear Dennis.
Just want to say hello and thanks again for your great publication. It is a great contribution to intellectual integrity, exposing, as it does, the fantasy world of Christian apologetics, where two plus two equals five and red is green. It's about time someone attacked the head of the snake and exposed the appalling befuddlement underlying Christian "scholarship". Anyone who takes the time to study Christian apologists and their writings will eventually see the convoluted web they weave. It's truly amazing how they can offload such drivel onto an unsuspecting public. Their apologies are really a cut below medieval science and scholarship, at best.
If we were forced to believe the arguments of apologists, we would eventually become rambling imbeciles, forever forcing facts to fit fallacies. I often hear Christians regurgitating apologetic denials like magical incantations to ward off Biblical errors. For example, when shown a contradiction in their scriptures, some of them will say the verse has been taken out of context, or the verse is better in the original Greek or Hebrew, or some other such obfuscating nonsense. But in every case when you call their bluff and read the actual verse in context and analyze the original Greek or Hebrew so that there can be no mistake about it, their argument collapses for sheer lack of support. Eventually, they are wrestled to the mat with their own spurious information and have to take the "faith" amendment. Really, they must re-examine the false information of their apologetic sources if there is to be any light on the matter. Then, maybe, just maybe, they will see how apologists work with shadows and smoke to effect their miscreant sophistry.
Christians rarely think independently and, more often than not, rely on some "expert" with a new, "magic bullet" against the innumerable problems of the Bible. They'll read apologetic drivel till the cows come home, yet rarely will they review scholarly critiques found outside of Christian bookstores. The reason for this shameful farce is simple. They're not looking for truth; they're looking for a band-aid to cover their self-deception. They have no real faith to begin with. If they did, they would not fear getting a second opinion from independent scholars. In my mind, most Christians are intellectual cowards. They'll die at the stake for their beliefs, but run like hell when the silver bullet of reason flies at them.
I have encountered similar subterfuges, as you have in apprehending apologetic criminals like Carl Johnson. I recently talked to a Christian who had Zondervan books up the kazoo and still he couldn't answer the question: "Why does God create evil?" He gave the same response as Johnson, so I had him look up the Hebrew word used in the verses in which it is stated that God creates or causes evil. The meaning of the word includes "calamity", but it most certainly also includes "iniquity." I told him that if the verses were intended to mean "calamity" only, then they should have used the Hebrew word for "calamity" rather than using a word that means "iniquity", especially since the word clearly means "iniquity" wherever it's used in the Bible. Finally, I asked him how can anyone trust a God who creates evil. There was no response.
The more I talk to persons of the Christian persuasion, the more I realize what a foul mess of sloppy thinking they have gotten themselves into. If the propensity to believe Christian apologists reflects the intellectual development of the Christian millions who populate the earth, then we are definitely headed for a grave decline in moral and intellectual achievement. B.E. provides the only "review board" that examines apologetic authors and exposes their intellectual depravity at the root. By the way, your tape transcripts were excellent.
Letter #586 from KN of Sacramento, California
(In our 137th issue we answered a letter written by a fundamentalist to one of our supporters who forwarded the letter to us. The author accused us of taking verses out of context and he also stated, "Two of these verses 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." KN would have altered our response to the fundamentalist and sent us the following letter--Ed.).

Dear Dennis.
You missed a good bet in your response to JL's fundamentalist friend (letter #575, part b, Issue #137, page 5). Like many apologists, JL's friend argued that some of the more inconvenient teachings in Ecclesiastes are simply the sinful musings of Solomon in his twilight days.
Indeed, Eccle. 1:1 identifies the following verses as the words of the "Teacher" or "Preacher," the "son of David" and "king in Jerusalem." One might well identify this as King Solomon, son of David.
But now read Eccle. 12:9-10, at the end. Ecclesiastes has stopped quoting the Preacher and has returned to narrative form. These closing words, at least, are not the musings of Solomon. And they clearly say that what the Preacher wrote was "upright" and "true".
The entire Book of Ecclesiastes, therefore, has God's stamp of approval. JL's friend should have kept reading.

Letter #587 from FM of Novato, California
Dear Dennis.
I participated in an effort which resulted in the city of Santa Rosa dropping its requirement to have a prayer before council meetings, and also the city of Petaluma that changed the requirement to a moment of silence for those who wished to pray and for those who preferred not to do so.

Editor's Response to Letter #587
Dear FM.
Your efforts are to be commended and every bit helps, but I think Petaluma tarnished your achievements. Isn't a moment of silence, prayer by another name? A moment of silence to do what? What is it's purpose, if not for the insidious introduction of silent prayer? Nobody has died and no tragedies have occurred, so it can't be in commemoration of anything. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but as far as I'm concerned Petaluma has surreptitiously inserted prayer through a cleverly disguised subterfuge. Prayer by another name is still prayer. What about those who don't believe in prayer or a moment of silence? What about those who just want to get down to work and have no interest in wasting time looking at the floor for some outside force to alleviate their problems or provide assistance? In any event, keep up the good work and more power to you.

Letter #588 from MO of Chicago, Illinois
Dear Dennis.
I missed reading Biblical Errancy very much. I've read tens or hundreds of books and articles in critique of Christianity, but two among them are outstanding: Biblical Errancy and "The Case Against Christianity" by Michael Martin.

Letter #589 from SS of Kalamazoo, Michigan
Dear Dennis.
...I consider Psalms 137:9 as the SECOND most blasphemous verse in the Bible. First Samuel 1:3 is the most blasphemous verse. And yet as Ingersoll points out in his "Why I am an Agnostic" the doctrine of "eternal torment" should be considered the worst. He writes, "As a matter of fact, the New Testament is infinitely worse than the Old. In the Old there is no threat of eternal pain." Ingersoll is correct. This doctrine is the worst, the most horrible.... Thank you for making Biblical Errancy available to former SLAVES, like myself. Keep up the GOOD work, doc. We're all behind you!

Letter #590 from RS of Sherman Oaks, California
Dear Dennis.
Love your publication; you're still the tops. I'm still challenging every Christian who believes the Bible has all the answers. Thanks to your publication I have been able to totally educate myself about the Bible and I believe myself to be a competent spokesperson for our cause. It is interesting to see how many Christians are at first shocked and ultimately incapable of refuting the many counter-arguments which I have in store for them. I have a sense of total control over my interchanges with Christians to the extent that they are finally unable to come back with a persuasive counter-argument. I owe a debt of gratitude to you.

Editor's Response to Letter #590
Dear RS.
It sounds as if you are using BE in precisely the manner intended. Keep up your excellent work, and if we can be of further assistance, please write. As I have said so often: Taking it to the other side goes to the crux of this publication. Gathering information merely for the sake of compiling data is all but worthless. We have no interest whatever in amassing a mountain of anti-biblical data merely in order to put a trophy on a shelf.

Editor's Note: Our TV game plan is as follows. So far we have created and played on cablevision eight one-half hour programs. When we have a much larger number of programs available, we intend to start distributing them to supporters who are willing to see that they are played on their local cable access television station. We will be asking people to do the following. First, contact your local cable access station and arrange for our programs to be played at a favorable time. All programs are one half hour in length. Second, buy a blank TWO HOUR--BROADCAST QUALITY VIDEOTAPE at a company specializing in tapes of this kind. We get them for around $3 to $4 each from a company in Columbus, Ohio called Comtel Instruments. Send us the blank tape and we will record FOUR (4) programs onto each of your tapes and then mail them back to you. The first tape has programs 1-4 and the second has programs 5-8. Try to have each program played four times--Two times one week and two times the next week. We, for example, have a program played on a Wednesday evening at 7:00 PM and then two days later on a Friday evening at 7:00 PM. The next week the same program is again played at 7 P.M. on Wednesday and 7 P.M. on Friday. Then that program is completed and the same procedures are followed for the next program. Since each tape contains four programs, one tape should last 8 weeks or two months. If you can only get the tape played twice a week for one week, then one 2-hour tape should last one month. Once you finish with a tape you can keep it, circulate it, give it to a local library or friend, save it for a later showing or do whatever you prefer. That's your choice to make. But we definitely need your help. This is one project that is not going anywhere without the assistance of BE's supporters. Of that there can be no doubt. WE'LL NEED YOUR HELP! Right now we are only asking you to be willing to respond YES when asked to assist. We already have 11 volunteers and hope to enlist more. If you want to combat religious superstition and the Bible in particular, then effort and dedication are a must. Mere complaining won't accomplish much of anything. The other side has thousands of dedicated volunteers, and we need to exhibit similar determination if inroads are to be forthcoming. We'll let you know when the circulation of videotapes is to begin.