Issue #140-Johnson's So the Bible is Full of Contr

Biblical Errancy Issue #140-Johnson's So the Bible is Full of Contradictions? (Pt. 3), Debate on God's Powers, Public Access Taping

Nov 10, '08 6:53 AM
by Loren for everyone










Issue No. 140

August 1994


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this month's review we'll conclude our analysis of the book by Carl Johnson entitled So the Bible is Full of Contradictions?
JOHNSON'S SO THE BIBLE IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS? (Part 3): Johnson resorts to the old word game when faced with the contrast between Gal. 6:2 ("Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ") and Gal. 6:5 ("For every man shall bear his own burden"). He says, "A seeming contradiction is found in the sixth chapter of Galatians. In the first verse above we are told to bear one another's burdens, while in the second verse we read that every man shall bear his own burden. In verse 2, the burdens we are to bear for one another refer to the responsibility each Christian should feel for the welfare of other Christians, especially when they have sinned. The Greek word for 'burdens' here is 'baros' and has the idea of weight, that which can be lightened. God wants us to help bear others' burdens. There are many burdens people carry for which they need help: the burden of sin,...the burden of sickness, of sorrow....
The word 'burden' in verse 5 is 'phortion,' which has the idea of a task, a personal responsibility which a person must not shirk, which no one else can do for him. Each person is responsible for the kind of life he lives...."
Unfortunately for Johnson, his rendition of "phortion" won't stand the strain, because Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says the word means "a task or service, a burden, a diminutive of 'phortos' which means something carried, i.e., in the cargo of a ship: lading, or freight." Since this does not refer to a task that someone must do on his own and is the kind of burden that can be lightened, there is no meaningful distinction from the "burden" used in the first verse. So his explanation collapses.
On page 92 Johnson waded with reckless abandon into the clash between Gal. 6:10 ("As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith") and 2 John 10-12 ("If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds"). He says, "Paul and John seem to contradict each other in these two verses. Paul tells the Christians to do good unto all men; John forbids them to receive a man into their house or bid him Godspeed. There is really no contradiction here, since Paul is speaking of a Christian's duty of doing good to all men, while John is speaking of a Christian's attitude toward false teachers. A false teacher is not to be received into our house and we are not to bid him Godspeed.... We are to love everybody, even our enemies, but we are not to approve of, and support, their dangerous doctrine."
In the first place, Johnson says we are to do good to all men but not to "false teachers." Since when did false teachers resign from the human race? Despite their behavior, they are as much a part of mankind as anyone else. "All" means all, and if we are to do good to "all men," then that would include false teachers as well. Secondly, in typical apologetic style Johnson attempts to shift the focus by saying we are to do good to all men while our attitude toward false teachers is to be one of disapproval. He surreptitiously changed the thrust of the second verse in order to make it appear as if it were addressing a different issue. Actually the first says we are to "do good" unto all men and the second says we are not to "receive" him into our house or "biddeth him God speed." Both refer to doing rather than attitudes or beliefs. Johnson is trying to say that we are to "do good" to all men but our "attitude" toward false teachers is to be negative. But the second verse, like the first, is referring to actions, not attitudes.
On page 94 Johnson finds himself entangled in one of those absolutist imbroglios with which the Bible is so bountifully endowed. He addresses the contradiction between Heb. 9:27 ("And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment") and two other verses: John 11:26 ("And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die") and 1 Cor. 15:51 ("Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed"). In order to reconcile this conflict he states, "According to the first verse above all men will have to die, but according to the second and third verses those Christians who are living when Christ comes for His own at the rapture will not have to die ('shall not sleep' means shall not die). The first verse refers to physical death, while the second verse speaks of spiritual death.... The general rule made by God is that it is appointed unto men once to die a physical death, but there will be an exception to this rule when Christ returns for his own, and those who belong to Him 'shall not all sleep,' but they shall be...'caught up to meet the Lord in the air' (1 Thess. 4:17)."
Apparently Johnson is unable to realize that he actually proved Heb. 9:27 and 1 Cor. 15:51, in particular, are contradictory. He stated, "The general rule made by God that it is appointed unto men once to die a physical death" and then admitted there will be an exception to the rule when Christ returns. He can't have it both ways. Either all men will die once in accordance to Heb. 9:27 or they won't. There's no in between. If some men will not die when Christ returns, then all men are not going to die.
Later, he all but buried himself by saying, "Enoch and Elijah in the OT did not have to die--they went to heaven without dying. So will all Christians who are living when Christ comes again. They will be translated, changed...in the twinkling of an eye.... The God who made the rule that all must die will also make an exception to that rule when Christ comes again." Need more be said? He began by allegedly reconciling a contradiction and concluded by conceding the contradiction's existence. One can't help but be amazed at the willingness of apologists to tackle problems with which they are wholly ill-prepared to cope. With a defense like this, Johnson would have done well to have avoided this conflict entirely. One could hardly imagine a more inept explanation. In effect, he is not only saying Heb. 9:27 is false, but providing evidence to prove as much.
On top of everything else, he didn't even interpret the second verse correctly. He said, "according to the second and third verses those Christians who are living when Christ comes for His own at the rapture will not have to die." That may be true with respect to the third verse, but the second verse, John 11:26 is referring to those in general who believe "the resurrection at the last day" (John 11:24) will occur, not just those who will be living when the rapture is supposed to occur.
On page 95 Johnson sought to reconcile Heb. 11:17 ("By faith Abraham...offered up Isaac...offered up his only begotten son") with Gen. 25:6 ("But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son...."). He states, "The first verse says that Isaac was Abraham's 'only begotten son,' while the second verse says he had other sons. This looks like a contradiction. (Of course, that's only because it is--Ed.). The solution is that though Abraham had sons by concubines and by Keturah, and a son by Hagar, Isaac was the 'only begotten son' by Sarah, the only one in the direct line of ancestry to the Messiah, and the only heir of all the possessions of Abraham. Josephus says the 'only begotten son' means the 'beloved son'."
To begin with, Johnson needs to straighten out in his own mind his definition of "begotten". Does it mean a son who is a direct ancestory of the Messiah, or a son who is merely "beloved"? Either way, his explanation carries no weight. Where does the Bible say that "begotten" refers to someone who is in the messianic lineage? Judges 8:30 says, "Gideon had seventy sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives." Does that mean every one of these seventy sons was in the messianic line? After all, they were "begotten". In Hosea 5:7 God condemns Israel and Ephraim for having "dealt treacherously against the Lord" by having "begotten strange children...." Although these children were "begotten", surely Johnson is not going to allege they were ancestors of the messiah? And finally, Johnson must be aware of the incredible number of times the word "begat" is used in the OT. If all of those people were "begat", then they must have been "begotten". Yet, no one with even a modicum of biblical knowledge would dare claim they were all ancestors of Jesus. So, the word "begotten" isn't used only in reference to those in the messianic lineage.
As far as "begotten" meaning "beloved" is concerned, Johnson is not only obligated to show where Josephus made this correlation but prove they are synonymous. He provided evidence of neither. And where does the text show or even imply that Isaac was the only "beloved" son of Abraham?
On page 96 Johnson leaps into another prominent biblical dilemma by trying to meld 1 John 1:8 ("If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us") with 1 John 3:9 ("Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God"). Oddly enough, he begins by refuting two of the most common rationalizations provided by his own compatriots. He states, "These two verses, which seem to contradict each other, have been a source of perplexity to many of God's children. Many attempts have been made by Bible scholars to reconcile these verses. One interpretation says that 1 John 3:9 is referring to the new nature of a Christian which does not and cannot sin. It is true that the new nature cannot and does not sin, but that is not the true interpretation of the verse. Another interpretation, which is perhaps the most common one, says that the sin referred to is a continuous act or habit of life, and that a Christian does not practice sin. Dr. William Pettingill, in his book Bible Questions Answered tells about speaking to Dr. Scofield about this verse and says, 'I see you have adopted the word practice in the margin of your reference Bible relating to the third chapter of John. But, doctor, how does that help matters any? When you consider that any coming short of the glory of God in thought or word or deed is sin, is it not true therefore that we all do practice sin?' 'Alas! Alas! so we do,' replied the doctor."
In effect, Johnson has saved us the trouble of refuting two of the most common excuses used in an attempt to make these two verses compatible. As he correctly showed by his little story, to sin at all is to practice sin. It doesn't have to be repetitive. First John 3:9 says that whoever is born of God does not sin; it does not say it has to be done on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, Johnson closes by submitting a harmonization of his own that is no more sea-worthy than those already disproven. He states, "The key to the problem is found in the literal rendering of 1 John 3:9: 'Whosoever is begotten of God is never lawless, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot be lawless because he is begotten of God.' No born-again child of God will be guilty of sin in the sense of lawlessness. There is a great difference between disobedience and lawlessness. A person may disobey the Word of God at the same time he acknowledges God's Word to be right that he should obey it.... So, although a Christian can sin, as we see in 1 John 1:8-9 and 2:1, he cannot be lawless...."
Apparently Johnson is trying to prove that the adage "Words were invented to hide reality" has some validity. Not only does the Bible make no such distinction between the words "lawlessness" and "disobedience" but they aren't even mentioned. Where on earth Scripture justifies a wholly arbitrary distinction of this nature is anyone's guess. Secondly, not only does Scripture make no such differentiation but Webster's New World Thesaurus New Revised Edition equates the two words on page 429. If you are disobedient then you are lawless, and if you are lawless then you are disobedient. Johnson has concocted a distinction without a difference.
So, in summary and based upon what we have seen over the last couple of issues, the evidence clearly demonstrates that Carl Johnson is a firm believer in one of the most common of all apologetic defenses: "That's what it says, but that's not what it means"
Before ending our extensive analysis of Johnson's book, we can't resist citing his quotation on page 124 of an absurd remark made by Dwight L. Moody, founder of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Illinois. The latter states, "I know the Bible is inspired because it inspires me." If that is to be the criterion, then hundreds of religious books are inspired because millions are inspired by them. No doubt Muslims feel inspired by the Koran and Mormons are inspired by the Book of Mormon. Being a source of inspiration hardly proves a book was written or produced by God. Even more important, in no way does it prove the book is valid.
That completes an analysis of Johnson's work entitled So the Bible is Full of Contradictions? and if our readers have been provided with additional tools with which to examine apologetic literature more critically, then our efforts will not have been in vain.




DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #591 from TD of Morgantown, West Virginia
(On page 2 in the 137th issue we asked a biblicist if god could create a two-sided triangle or a square circle and TD feels our comments should have been altered--Ed.)
Dear Dennis.
I think you erred in your answer to Sproul on BE page 137-2. To have unlimited power means to be able to perform any action. But there are some sequences of words that do not describe actions. For example, the sequence "to make green ideas sleep furiously" is a nonsense string. It does not describe any action. So if someone were to ask "Can an omnipotent being make green ideas sleep furiously?" then the correct reply would not be "Yes, of course," but rather "Your very question is unintelligible."
Similarly with the sequences "to create a square circle" and "to create a two-sided triangle." They are nonsense strings and do not describe actions. If someone were to ask "Can an omnipotent being create a square circle (or a two sided-triangle)?" then the correct reply is not "Yes, of course," but rather "Your very question is unintelligible."
In order to describe an action, a sequence of words must be intelligible, which means that it must express something thinkable or imaginable, something capable of being represented by pictures or on film (if only in a cartoon). Thus, Biblical miracles would be actions in this sense because they can indeed be represented on film (e.g., the movie "The Ten Commandments"). It follows that an omnipotent being must be able to perform all the Biblical miracles. But sequences of words like "create a square circle," "create a two-sided triangle," "make green ideas sleep furiously," "make is were he if," etc. are mere nonsense strings. They do not express anything thinkable or imaginable or capable of being represented on film (even a cartoon). Some would say they are ill-formed sequences that violate rules of language. Thus they do not describe actions or anything that an omnipotent being might intelligibly be said to do.
Most of your answers are well done, but that one was objectionable. Keep up the good work.
Editor's Response to Letter #591
Dear TD.
I appreciate your suggested modification to my critique of Sproul in the 137th issue, but beg to differ with your analysis in several respects. Firstly, I think you are confusing an unintelligible sentence with an unintelligible concept. I asked if God could create a square circle, which is an intelligible sentence with an unintelligible concept. Your statement "make is were he if" is no sentence and has no concept. The mere presence of verbs like "make, is, and were" and the pronoun "he" is not sufficient for the creation of a sentence. So nothing is doing anything. If I had made that kind of comment, it would have been as if I had never spoken at all. Your question: "Can an omnipotent being make green ideas sleep furiously?," on the other hand, is a sentence and, like my query, contains an incomprehensible concept. But you have taken the absurdity in my question one step further by relating concepts that are not associated with one another. Ideas are not associated with color and speed is not associated with sleep. With reference to my questions, however, shapes are associated with triangles and squares. Perhaps you are merely making a subtle attempt to discredit my observations, I'm not sure. But I don't think your analogy will stand the strain. If you insist the situations are analogous, then I'm willing to go one step further by asking your questions as well. Can God create green ideas? Can he make ideas sleep furiously? Of course not.
Secondly, you say that "to have unlimited power means to be able to perform any action. But some sequences of words do not describe actions." If a sequence does not describe any action, how would it even be applicable to what we are discussing, since I was asking god to do something in every sentence I uttered?
Thirdly, you say, "a sequence of words must be intelligible, which means that it must express something thinkable or imaginable, something capable of being represented by pictures or on film (if only in a cartoon). Thus, Biblical miracles would be actions in this sense because they can indeed be represented on film (e.g., the movie "The Ten Commandments")." In effect, you are saying that man has no right to ask god to perform any kind of deed that man cannot imagine or put into films or cartoons. In other words, unless man can conceive of it, man has no right to ask god to do it. God's powers are limited to what man can imagine! Or stated somewhat differently, god can only be justifiably asked to do what man can conceive. Since when is god acting only within the constraints of man's capabilities? Since man can't conceive of someone counting to infinity; therefore, man has no right to ask god to do so?
And lastly, you say, "If someone were to ask 'Can an omnipotent being create a square circle (or a two sided-triangle)?' then the correct reply is not 'Yes, of course,' but rather 'Your very question is unintelligible'." The question is not unintelligible, but conceiving of a response is.
In summary, I can't help but feel that your "God can only be asked to do what man can conceive" approach betrays an insidious religious background coming to the fore. In any event, I appreciate your suggested modifications to my analysis and hope my observations will be taken in the spirit of camaraderie intended.



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


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR




Letter #592 from JS of Detroit, Michigan
Dear Dennis.
On page 139-5 I don't understand why SS says in his letter that 1 Samuel 1:3 is the most blasphemous verse in the Bible. Can you get clarification?
Editor's Response to Letter #592
Dear JS.
We received several letters expressing the same concern. We should have been more vigilant. Perhaps SS will write and enlighten us.

Letter #593 from EEB of Corpus Christi, Texas
Dear Dennis.
I have been aching to find a steady supply of freethought programs to put on the local public access channel, but the search has been frustrating. My first hope was a series of readings from Ingersoll's works done by a man in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, his tape did not meet the requirements of the local TV company. Your program will not either unless you are willing to change your format.
I am sure that you know the federal laws concerning public access use. The only local requirement is that "No program shall be transmitted which contains copyrighted material for which proper clearance has not been obtained." When the manager of the public access channel saw the Ingersoll tape, he told me I had to have authorization from the copyright owner of the music that was used in the introduction.
The cable company has the following technical standards:
•The videotape is previewed for minimum technical requirements.
•Access programs must have technical standards high enough to deliver clear pictures throughout the entire length of the program.
•A label must accompany each tape cassette. It should contain the producer's name and phone number, the length of the program, the title of the program, and the cablecasting date. Only one program per tape is allowed.
These specifications are strongly encouraged: •60 seconds of color bars and tone at the head of the tape.
•Slate with title of program, producer and production date.
•A countdown or at least 10 seconds of black before the program begins, and 60 seconds of black after the 30 or 60 minute mark.
•The public access tape format is 1/2" VHS (SP speed) and 3/4" u-matic. All other formats must be transferred to 3/4" for cablecasting.
My concern is that you intend to put four programs on one tape, which would mean that I cannot get them on the local channel. It seems you probably use the SP speed, since you intend to put four 30 minute programs on one 2-hour tape.
I hope it will be possible for you to be a source for me. Surely you know about Freethought Television Network which will publish a catalogue of programs.
Editor's Response to Letter #593
Dear EEB.
Your willingness to assist is greatly appreciated. In regard to specifics, let me say this. Our music was chosen from a list of songs on a generic list that presents no copyright problem. Our station provides a list of songs that are free for anyone to use. Having one program on each tape isn't possible, however. I tried that initially and quickly realized that I was going to have a room full of tapes very rapidly. Even more importantly, mailing costs would soar. I can mail four programs on one tape for almost as much as it would cost to mail one program per tape. Of course, once you receive the 2 hour tape you are free to record it onto four separate tapes or divide it in any manner you deem preferable. As far as color bars, labeling, countdowns, clarity, and so forth are concerned, I recommend showing it to your local cable access personnel to see what they think. I hope you can make whatever modifications may be required, if any. Our program's quality exceeds that of many of the programs that are shown on our local access channel, so I don't think that should be much of a problem. I'm unacquainted with the Freethought Television Network. Is it connected with the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin? I've always found Dan Barker to be a fine gentleman, doing good work.

Letter #594 from PS of Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Mr. McKinsey:
I would like to volunteer to contact my local cable station to arrange "airing" the television program you mentioned in the last issue of BE. The comments you made regarding the purchase of "broadcast quality videotape" on which to record the shows is not specific enough, since there are several "broadcast quality" video formats. Our local cable station uses 3/4" U-matic video cassettes, which will only hold a total of 1 hour of programming. I assume you are referring to SVHS, which some cable companies are now using, and will hold up to 2 hours of total programming in the SP speed.... Please specify what format tape you require, and I will send them to you. Also please advise the title of the show so that I can give this information to the cable station when I contact them. In order to reserve a time slot for a program they usually want to be sure the show will continue pretty much uninterrupted every week. They have had problems with people starting a project and then its fizzling out after a few shows.

Editor's Response to Letter #594
Dear PS.
I'm certainly glad you also are willing to volunteer to help in our most worthy cause. We just finished recording our 11th program, but we still aren't ready to begin circulation yet. We'll let you know through BE when we are ready to proceed.
In regard to specifics, we can say the following. The name of the show is BIBLICAL ERRANCY COMMENTARY. Every program is 1/2 hour in length. (The shows are supposed to begin with a disclaimer by the station according to the station's manual, but they have never bothered to insert the disclaimer at the beginning of any of our shows. I asked why it wasn't inserted and wasn't given much of a reason.) Except for the first one or two programs, the format is as follows. The show begins with a 30 second color bar which is required by the local station. Then we see a Bible splitting in half with the name of the program appearing in the middle. A short introduction with respect to the program's purpose and content is followed by my appearance on a short stage speaking from notes on a clip-board. Every program ends with a rolling of the credits and a final statement as to where additional information can be obtained. ALL programs are on 1/2 inch tape only. We never use 3/4" tape for any reason. Programs are recorded on tapes that are 2 hours long, so we put 4 programs on each tape. Once I have four programs on a tape, I will take it home and record the tape from one of my VCR's to another one of my VCR's, which will have your blank tape inside. Your tape will then be mailed to you. I have no way to modify the tapes as recorded; so if your local station has some local requirements with respect to a tape's format, all I can do is ask that you make whatever changes are needed.
There has been some concern about what is meant by a "broadcast quality tape." Basically, it is a quantum improvement over the 2 hour tapes that can be purchased in most local discount stores. We use VHS Broadcast quality tapes. We do not use the next grade up which is SVHS (Super VHS) because it cannot be used on my home VCR's without damaging my equipment. The picture is better, but it can only be used by our studio equipment. So, in order to get a good picture without great expense, we record the show on an SVHS tape and then use studio equipment to transfer the recording onto a VHS tape, which I then take home and use in my VCR's. Stay tuned. We'll keep you informed as to the latest developments. More is yet to come.