Issue #144-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bi

Biblical Errancy Issue #144-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Part 1), Rev. BB Attacks BE and Our Pamphlet on the Bible

Nov 10, '08 7:01 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 144

December 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HALEY'S ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE (Part I)--One of the most famous of all apologetic works is entitled Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley, which appeared in 1874. Because this work is quite specific and voluminous, several issues will be devoted to an examination of its contents. In the Preface Haley states, "I have restricted my attention to the so-called 'discrepancies,' that is, to those cases in which the statements or narratives of the Bible are said to conflict with one another. I have kept within the Bible. Cases in which the scriptures seem to be at variance with secular history or with science have been left to other and abler hands." Surprisingly, that mirrors the philosophy of BE. So far so good. But after listing how biblical problems can arise, Haley begins a long series of rationalizations, justifications, and obfuscations of hundreds of the most prominent biblical contradictions. Since it would not be possible to discuss every problem addressed in his book, we are undertaking the less ambitious task of simply exposing many of the most egregious.
Haley begins with what are commonly known as doctrinal problems. The first is on page 55, and pits Jer. 32:27 ("Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?") and Matt. 19:26 ("With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible") against Heb. 6:18 ("It was impossible for God to lie"). This problem was discussed in some recent correspondence in BE, and highlights one of the most intractable religious conflicts. Haley's explanation is that, "Omnipotence does not imply the power to do every conceivable thing, but the ability to do everything which is the proper object of power. For example, an omnipotent being could not cause a thing to be existent and non-existent at the same instant. The very idea is self-contradictory and absurd. When it is said that God can do 'all things,' the phrase only applies to those things which involve no inconsistency or absurdity." His explanation won't stand the strain for several reasons. In the first place, the verse neither says nor implies anything relative to "the proper object of power." It says nothing is too hard for God to accomplish, and no expressed or implied qualifications are attached. Secondly, God can't lie because the moment he lied he would cease to be God. And God can't cease to be God. And thirdly, Haley says,"an omnipotent being could not cause a thing to be existent and non-existent at the same time." He says the very idea is self-contradictory and absurd. Precisely! And that's why God's not omnipotent. If he were all-powerful, he could do it, and since he can't we'll rest our case.
On page 89 Haley tackles the conflict between Luke 11:10 ("For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened") and James 1:5 ("If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not: and it shall be given him") on one side and Isa. 1:15 ("And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yes, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood"), Micah 3:4 ("Then shall they cry unto the Lord, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings") and James 4:3 ("Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts") on the other. His explanation is, "The limiting clauses of the last three texts, 'hands full of blood,' 'ill behavior,' and 'asking amiss,' show clearly why God withholds his blessings in these cases. Moreover, the connection in which the first two texts stands evinces that these texts were not intended to be of universal application. They contemplate those persons only who 'ask in faith.' Every one that asketh aright, receiveth. The principle upon which God, in answer to prayer, bestows his blessings, is thus enunciated: "If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us." Haley says the first two texts "were not intended to be of universal application" but only apply to those who "ask in faith," even though Luke 11:10 clearly refers to "everyone who asks," period, and no restrictions or limitations are involved. Where does the verse say or imply that it only applies to those who ask "in faith"? The word "faith" doesn't appear in either verse. And where does Luke 11:10 say anything about asking in accordance with God's will? The word "will" doesn't appear either.
Upon reading a verse with obvious difficulties, apologists often race off to find another verse that can somehow be twisted in order to escape, modify, alleviate, or counteract the original dilemma. And this conflict is a classic example. Haley has, in effect, chosen the version of God's response to requests that suits his purpose. He's acted as if Luke 11:10 and James 1:5 were non-existent, because they don't say what he wants to hear.
On page 97 Haley tries to reconcile Mark 1:2-3 ("Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau") with Psalms 145:9 ("The Lord is good to all") by saying, "The word 'hate' is used here, as often in scripture, in the sense of to love less. If one person was preferred to another, the former was said to be 'loved,' the latter 'hated.' As the opposite of love is hatred, when there is only an inferior degree of the former exhibited, the object of it is regarded as being hated, rather than loved."
Haley is a past master at convoluted distortions and perverted thought, as this example readily attests. In the first place, He admits "the opposite of love is hatred," but then says an inferior degree of love, which remains love nevertheless, is hatred, which is only another way of saying love and hatred are the same. In other words, black is white and up is down. Secondly, "hatred" either means no love at all or it has no meaning. Haley is trying to have it both ways. His phrase "to love less" still involves love; yet he tried to equate it with hatred, its opposite, which is only another way of saying love and hate can be the same. The bottom line is that "hate" means "to not love at all"; it does not mean to "love less," and that's why the contradiction stands. Thirdly, he says "hate" is often used in scripture to mean "to love less." Yet only three instances are cited.
The first is Prov. 13:24 which says, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." This verse is not saying hate is only a diminished form of love or implying hate means to love less. It isn't even analogous to the original problem. Instead of equating love with hate, it is making a rather sharp distinction between the two.
The next verse is Luke 14:26, which says, "If any man comes to me, and hates not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Apparently Haley is under the impression that "hate" in this instance means "to love less" because Jesus wouldn't actually tell people to hate members of their family. But what does it say? How could Jesus have phrased his comment to prove that is exactly what he meant? How could he have written it more clearly or more definitively? If he had meant "love less" or something comparable, it would have been very easy for him to have said just that. He could have said, "You should not love your parents more than me" or "You should not be more dedicated to your parents than to the mission I am assigning to you" or "You should be more dedicated to the cause than even to your closest relative", or something comparable. Any one of these would have been far clearer and resolved the problem. But none of them were mentioned.
The third citation comes from Gen. 29:30-31, which says, "So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren." This is the only citation which appears to lend support to Haley's contention that "hate" means "to love less." The problem is that even though Leah is loved less than Rachel, she is still loved. Love is still present even though the amount may be diminished. How then can the verse say that "Leah was hated"? How can she be loved if she is hated? According to Webster's Dictionary "love" is an antonym for "hate". They are opposites. According to Haley and Gen. 29:30-31, they can mean the same, which will be true when black can be white and up can be down as well.
On page 99 Haley addresses the clash between Mal. 1:14 ("Cursed be the deceiver....") on one side and 1 Sam. 16:2 ("And Samuel said, How can I go? If Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take a heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord"), Jer. 20:7 ("O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..."), and Ezek. 14:9 ("And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet...") on the other.
In essence, God curses deceivers in Malachi, while practicing deception in Samuel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Rather than manufacturing his own explanations for this dichotomy, Haley merely recites those of famous Christian apologists. He states that, "On the text from 1 Samuel, Calvin says: 'There was no dissimulation or falsehood in this, since God really wished his prophet to find safety under the pretext of the sacrifice'." Pretext! Did he say pretext? And what is a pretext if not a deception? Calvin is all but proving God is promoting deception. Haley continues quoting Calvin by saying, "A sacrifice was therefore really offered, and the prophet was protected thereby...." Yes, but the sacrifice was merely part of the deception.
Haley then offers an explanation from the German biblical scholar Keil. The latter states, "There was no untruth in this; for Samuel was really about to conduct a sacrificial festival, and was to invite Jesse's family to it, and then anoint the one whom Jehovah should point out to him as the chosen one. It was simply a concealment of the principal object of his mission from any who might make inquiry about it because they themselves had not been invited. It is our privilege to withhold the truth from persons who have no right to know it, and who, as we have reason to believe, would make a bad use of it."
This explanation is little short of drivel. To begin with, Keil doesn't even have his facts straight. He says "Samuel was really about to conduct a sacrificial festival" which is false. The sacrificial festival was God's idea, dreamed up in order to deceive Saul. Secondly, the concealment was devised to fool Saul so he would not kill Samuel, not in order to fool those "who might make inquiry about it because they themselves had not been invited." Thirdly, Keil admits that a concealment is involved, and what is a concealment but a deception, a deception instigated by God? Fourthly, like most sophisticated apologists, Keil sought to shift the focus by saying "It is our privilege to withhold the truth from persons who have no right to know it," when he knows the problem does not lie merely in the truth being withheld. The problem resides in the fact that a deliberate lie was told. There was a positive act, not just passive inactivity. He did not just conceal; he actively lied. Lastly, and of great importance, Keil finessed God's key statement, which is, "Take a heifer with you, and say, I have come to sacrifice to the Lord." It's totally false. That's not the real reason he came. The Lord deliberately told a man to lie.
On page 110 Haley confronts the clash between Matt. 28:18 ("Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and earth") and John 3:35 ("The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand") on the one hand and Matt. 20:23 ("To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father") and Mark 6:5 ("And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hand upon a few sick folk, and healed them") on the other.
Is Jesus omnipotent or isn't he? Haley says, "Matt. 20:23 is rendered by Grotius, Chrysostom, Clarke, Barnes, and others thus: 'is not mine to give, except to those for whom,' etc. With this the Syriac Peshito precisely agrees." Realizing there is no possibility of escaping this dilemma, Haley has decided to simply rewrite the script by relying upon one lone version of Matt. 20:23--the Syriac Peshito. None of the 14 versions in the repertoire of BE has the word "except," and unless the translators of virtually every available major version of the NT are incompetent, his explanation is worthless. He proceeds to sink even further by saying, "The real sense is: 'It is not fitting that I should bestow it upon others.' The question is not one of power at all, but of fitness." Wrong! According to the verse the real sense is that God will pick who'll sit where. Jesus could not determine it even if he wanted to. Thus, he is not all powerful.
After discussing the omnipotence of Jesus, Haley turned to a problem relative to the omnipresence of Jesus. On page 114 he relates the problem created by Matt. 18:20 ("For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them") and Matt. 28:20 ("Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world") vis a vis Matt. 26:11 ("For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always") and John 11:15 ("I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe....").
Haley's explanation is short and sour. He states, "The first texts refer to his spiritual presence with his people; the second series relates to his visible presence, in the body. Paul, in Col. 2:5 ("For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit....") employs language of a quite similar import." But Paul's situation is not analogous, because he made a clear distinction between flesh and spirit, whereas Jesus does not. How could "In the midst" have a spiritual meaning? Jesus did not say he was in them spiritually; he said he was "in the midst", which would mean he was among them, not in them. Haley provides no evidence that Matt. 18:20 and 28:20 have a spiritual connotation while Matt. 26:11 and John 11:15 have a physical one. That's a completely unsubstantiated, expedient distinction, created purely for purposes of evasion-- in other words, a snow job.
On page 115 Haley sticks out his neck even further by attempting to reconcile Psalms 72:17 ("All nations shall call him--Jesus--blesssed") with Gal. 3:13 ("Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"). If Christ is being referred to in both Psalms 72 and Gal. 3, as most Christians allege, then Jesus is being called both a blessing and a curse.
Since that's too much for Haley to swallow, he says, "Luther and some other commentators, taking the language in Galatians too literally, have supposed that by some mysterious transference of human guilt to Christ, he actually became a sinner. This interpretation is, however, uncalled for, and repugnant to our feelings." Rarely do I agree with Martin Luther on much of anything, but in this instance his interpretation and that of other commentators is far more accurate than Haley's. The problem lies not with Luther taking the verse too literally, but with Haley refusing to take the verse at all. It's more than he can stomach. Rather than providing some kind of evidence to support his position, he merely says it is "uncalled for" and "repugnant to our feelings."
If that were all the proof one needed to substantiate a position, I could have blown away the Bible years ago. Haley has opted for one of the most common of all apologetic subterfuges: That's what it says, but that's not what it means.
And finally, Haley approached this problem from still another direction by quoting the scholar Barnes, who said, "Jesus was subjected to what was regarded as an accursed death. He was treated in his death as if he had been a criminal." The problem with this explanation is that it ignores the unmistakable assertion in Gal. 3:13 that Jesus was "made a curse." It does not say "as if" he were made a curse or criminal. It says he was a curse, period.
(To Be Continued)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #605 from RH of Hubbard, Ohio (Part a)
(RH, a liberal religious supporter of BE, entered into a written debate with a fundamentalist baptist minister named Rev. BB, who lives in Richford, Vermont. He wrote to us and said, "I am in the process of housecleaning and ran across the enclosed correspondence and because it contained references to you, decided to send it to you. You may toss it in file 13; as far as I'm concerned it should have been ditched a few years ago.... However, I am becoming aware that perhaps some good could come out of dialog with fundamentalists. You are my inspiration for that change of heart.... I just wanted to let you know of another attack on your pamphlet." Although RH waited nearly 4 years before sending us a copy of their dialogue, we are glad it was sent, nevertheless. Their acerbic interplay involved such words as irrational, overtones of hatred and self-righteousness, hermeneutical hocus-pocus, worse than useless liberal trash, self-excusing lies, liar, pseudo-religious doubletalk, sickening, cloud of falsehoods, groundless, venomous attack, hateful disposition, erroneous rhetoric, barnyard matter, liberal bunk, slanting the truth, and insane. I think you get the idea. In one of Rev. BB's letters he states, "As for McKinsey's awful little tract, I will, in the second part of this lengthy tome, refute his alleged arguments." It is his alleged refutation of our THE BIBLE IS THE ANSWER? pamphlet to which we will now turn our attention. It is packed with the kind of material we love to refute, expose, and critique. Sometimes I think I'd rather debate the Bible than eat--Ed.).
As regards McKinsey's little tract it's interesting to see how the introduction already exposes his hypocrisy. First, the same man who is about to debunk the Bible as being unreasonable and inconsistent appeals to it! I know the Book of Mormon IS an unreliable and inconsistent document. That's why I would never quote from it to persuade anyone of anything other than its faults.
Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part a)
To say Rev. BB missed this one is an understatement. He wants me to refute the Bible's validity without citing anything other than its faults. How can you show what is wrong with a body of literature without first reading it and then citing every difficulty worthy of consideration? I use the Bible against itself and he calls that "appealing" to the Bible. How is that "appealing" to the Book? What could be more destructive to the Bible than the Bible itself? The Bible is its own worst enemy. I would hardly call that "appealing" to the book. It would be foolish to focus your attention upon something else, especially when that something else is not inspired in the eyes of the Bible's adherents. Hypocrisy would only be involved if I denied the Bible's validity and then turned around and cited it as an authoritative and reliable source. I, on the other hand, deny the Bible's validity and cite it to prove as much. There is no turning around whatever. Instead, I am merely fortifying my original premise. I don't appeal to the book in the manner he implies; I merely cite it to prove my case and because it's a source to which he appeals.
Secondly, he says he "would never quote from the Book of Mormon to persuade anyone of anything other than its faults." How myopic! There are other reasons to quote from a book with which you disagree than to cite it faults. What could be more effective than quoting from a book in which someone believes fervently in order to prove that it denounces something they are doing, teaching, believing, or saying? As we have said before, BE focuses on more than just contradictions to prove the Bible is anything but divinely inspired. Now who is being hypocritical? Rev. BB implicitly portrays himself as an open-minded individual, while admitting that he would never quote from the Book of Mormon except to accomplish a very narrow agenda.

Letter #605 Continues (Part b)
(The pamphlet entitled THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? begins by saying, "I can't accept the Bible as God's Word because it contains hundreds of problems and contradictions that can't be solved, only rationalized." Rev. BB says the following in response--Ed.)
Second, to "rationalize" can be a positive effort as well as a negative one. In a positive sense, to rationalize is to employ reason to prove an assertion is rational, reasonable. If McKinsey slurs defense of the Bible as "rationalization", he's not necessarily charging the defender with doing anything other than what he urges us to do - to be reasonable!

Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part b)
I am well aware of the fact that "rationalize" can have one of two meanings as Rev. BB suggests. But apparently he is unable to distinguish the one being employed, even after having read the entire pamphlet. Is he so immature that it must be spelled out in detail? Webster's Dictionary defines "rationalize" as meaning "to make rational; make conform to reason; to explain or interpret on rational grounds." That's quite true, as most people are well aware. But it also means "to devise superficially rational or plausible explanations or excuses for (one's acts, beliefs, desires, etc.), usually without being aware that these are not the real motive." If Rev. BB can't tell which of these wholly divergent meanings BE employs, then he's either in over his head or just doesn't know all the meanings attached to the word "rationalize". Then again, maybe he is just banking on his audience not knowing the widely disparate meanings attached to the word "rationalize" and wants to make it look as if BE is endorsing his approach, in which case he is more than a hypocrite; he's a deceiver.

Letter #605 Continues (Part c)
Third, it is a self-serving argument to label (and libel) one's opponents as unreasonable (or non-reasoning) without offering any authoritative proof of same. This is specious, and, again, argument by "wishful thinking". "Hundreds" is a puerile exaggeration. Sweeping exaggerations are a sure sign the individual actually knows nothing about which he is writing, and is bluffing.

Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part c)
It's hard to believe the lengths to which Rev. BB will go to prove he knows almost nothing about that of which he speaks. Were he to read all 144 issues of BE and listen to our 24 audio commentaries, he would more than likely retract such an injudicious comment. If there is anything BE does not lack, it is "authoritative proof." Indeed, some readers feel that I tend to overprove my points and saturate them with citations and evidence. Obviously either Rev. BB has little or no acquaintance with our publication, or he's whistling in the dark. I would STRONGLY recommend that he read every back issue of BE, and then come to me and say with a straight face and a clear conscience that I'm "bluffing" and engaged in "wishful thinking." He's the one who's wishing. He's wishing my philosophy would vanish and he could propagandize unhindered.
The opening sentence to the pamphlet is merely an outline of what I'm about to prove. Would Rev. BB prefer that I just jump into my points without any explanation of where we are going and why? In his hatred of what I'm doing, he ignores one of the most elementary principles of responsible writing--a clear introductory statement of purpose and intent. If he feels the pamphlet does not contain an adequate number of problems and contradictions to make my case, then he obviously chose to ignore my final sentence, which was that the pamphlet contains "just a few of the Book's many shortcomings." Surely he is not going to be so narrow-minded as to think I would base my entire refutation of the Bible's validity on 24 points in a brief pamphlet. In truth, Rev. BB is desperately looking for something to criticize, and this is about all he could concoct.
In a real fit of hyperbole he says I failed to offer "any authoritative proof." That isn't even true of our short pamphlet, let alone our entire publication. All 24 points were buttressed by biblical citations and impeccable logic.
As far as "hundreds" being a exaggeration is concerned, I probably should have used the word "thousands" instead. "Hundreds is more applicable to individual books within the Bible than all of Scripture. "Puerile" is only applicable to those who are so foolish as to think they can restrict the number of biblical contradictions to hundreds. And if "sweeping generalizations are a sure sign an individual actually knows nothing about which he is writing and is bluffing," then Rev. BB qualifies unreservedly. He hasn't hesitated to make grandiose generalizations concerning not only my approach, but also a publication which he has never read, and about which he knows almost nothing. It provides the "authoritative proof" which he claims is lacking.
(To be Continued)

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


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #606 from SA of Brooklyn, New York
Dear Dennis.
Your publication is excellent and I agree 100% with your objectives in your critical examination of the Bible. The Bible, just like any other book, should be subject to cross examination and critical review. I am enclosing an item that I put together called "The Bible--The Book of the Five B's." Perhaps you may be able to use it in one of your issues of Biblical Errancy. Keep up the excellent work. (What follows is his item--Ed.)
As a result of about 2,600 years of brainwashing, most Jews and Christians believe that the Bible is: a) "The Good Book" and b) "The Word of God." However, those people who read the Bible carefully, and with their reasoning switch in the on position while doing so, will eventually come to the conclusion that it is neither. This is easily confirmed by referring to statements made by the two most famous "Doubting Thomases" and "Princes of Reason," Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.
Thomas Jefferson - "I find some passages of the Bible of correct morality, and others of so much ignorance, untruth, charlatanism and imposture." (Letter to William Short, April 13, 1820).
In a letter to John Adams, dated October 13, 1813, Thomas Jefferson describes how he wrote the Jefferson Bible by cutting verse by verse from the printed book and arranging the matter that contained morality, and wound up with 47 pages out of 615 from the NT. He stated that good passages were as easily distinguishable from dross as diamonds in a dunghill.
Thomas Paine, in a letter to Thomas Erskine, dated Sept. 1797, stated that the Bible makes God to say to Moses (Deut. 7:2) "And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shall smite them and utterly destroy them, thou shall make not covenant with them, nor show any mercy unto them."
He concluded the letter by stating that he could never believe that the Creator of the Universe would give such an order to Moses, and could therefore not believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
As Jefferson stated, there are some moral teachings in the Bible, but they are few and far between. The rest of the Bible, however, can be described as a book of the five B's - Barbarism, Bestiality, Bigotry, Bloodshed, and Brutality. If you do not believe this then please read the following passages. (1) Barbarism: Num. 31:1-20, Hosea 13:8, 2 Kings 2:23-24 (2) Bestiality: Num. 21:21-25, 21:3, Ex. 22:18, Isa. 45:7, Ezek. 5:10 (3) Bigotry: Ex. 3:21, 11:1-2, 34:7, 20:5, Deut. 14:21, Matt. 13:12, 10:35-36, Luke 14:26, John 15:6 (4) Bloodshed: Ex. 32:27-28, Num. 14:1-37, John 15:6 (5) Brutality: Ex. 32:19-26, 34:7, Gen. 9:20-25, 2 Sam. 12:14, Isa. 14:21, Ezek. 4:12-15, Lev. 21:18, Mal. 2:3.
The above passages are but the tip of the iceberg. There are many more. What sayest thou Brother Evangelist, Brother Rabbi, Brother Priest, Brother Minister?