Issue #145-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bi

Biblical Errancy Issue #145-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Part 2), Rev. BB's Attacks Pts. 1 and 2 of THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? Pamphlet

Nov 10, '08 11:27 AM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #145 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Jan. 1995

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists

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

This month's issue will continue our analysis of Haley's book that was begun in the last issue.


REVIEWS

HALEY'S ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE (Part II)--One of the more well known biblical contradictions involves the conflict between John 8:14 ("Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true:....") and John 5:31 ("If I bear witness of myself my witness is not true") which Haley addresses on page 117. He offers several reconciliations and begins by noting that, "Grotius takes the first passage as a mere hypothesis, 'even though I should bear witness of myself,' etc." This tactical attempt to change the mood won't stand for several reasons. First and most obvious is the fact that Grotius inserted the hypothetical words "even" and "should" which are not in the text. If you can insert words at will, then you can make Scripture say anything you want. Second, the second half of the sentence is in declarative form. It's a direct statement and nothing hypothetical is involved. John 8:14 isn't "iffy" or hypothetically written; it's assertive. Third, even if the statement were hypothetical, it wouldn't matter. Jesus is still saying his witness is true.

Haley continues by saying, "Bishop Pearce, Wakefield, and others render the second text thus: 'If I bear witness of myself, is not my witness true'?" In other words, they decided to eliminate the contradiction by completely rewriting the script and putting John 5:31 in interrogatory form. Although not a question originally, it was refashioned to escape the dilemma. How's that for objective scholarship!

Haley carries this charade even further by saying of John 5:31, "Should the common version be retained, the meaning is, 'If I alone bear witness of myself.' The Mosaic law required at least two witnesses. Jesus therefore admits that his own testimony alone would not be 'true'; that is, would not be regarded as legal proof; hence he proceeds to adduce the corroborative testimony of another."

This is the kind of rationalization that makes you want to stay as clear of the Bible and religious institutions as is possible. First, the word "alone" is neither present nor implied in the script. It's nothing more than a gratuitous insertion. Secondly, Haley says, "the Mosaic law required at least two witnesses. Jesus therefore admits that his own testimony alone would not be true; that is, would not be regarded as legal proof." But who said anything about "legal proof?" Where is that in the text? The text is talking about truth or accuracy, not testimony admissible in court according to the Mosaic law. Finally, if we are going to judge these verses on the basis of what is required by Mosaic law, then Jesus lied in the first verse, John 8:14, when he said that if he bore record of himself his record is true. If we are going to apply the Mosaic law to the second verse, then it applies to the first verse as well. After all, what is good for one is good for the other. In John 8:14 Jesus says his record is true, but how can that be true if two witnesses are required according to the Mosaic law which Haley seeks to invoke?

On page 118 Haley confronts the clash between Isa. 9:6-7 ("The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end") and John 14:27 ("Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you") on the one hand and Matt. 10:34-36 ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father....") on the other. He states that, "the object of his mission was peace, but a result of it would, in many cases be strife and war. Often, in securing a valuable end, we cannot avoid certain incidental evils. The object of the surgeon in amputating a diseased limb is the preservation of life, yet pain, as an incidental evil, follows the stroke of his scalpel."

Haley's explanation is without merit because his injection of the word "result" is not in harmony with what Jesus said in Matthew. He said he came to "send" a sword, not peace. He came to set men at variance with one another. This was his intent, not the "result" of a far more beneficent motive, i.e, to create peace. He said he came to create strife; it was not a mere by-product of his mission.

A conflict addressed by Haley on page 119 involves Isa. 49:6 ("I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth") and 1 Tim. 2:6 ("Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom for all") versus Matt. 10:5-6 ("Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel") and Matt. 15:24 ("I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"). Haley's relatively brief explanation is, "He made atonement, 'tasted death,' for every man, and the benefits of his mediation are, to a certain extent, enjoyed by all, but his personal mission was chiefly to the 'house of Israel.' And the first, but not the later, mission of the apostles was similarly restricted."

His rationalization is deficient for several reasons. First, since when did Jesus have two assignments? Where is scriptural support for the allegation that Jesus had two missions, one of which was personal? And where is scriptural support for the allegation that his mission changed? Surely Haley isn't contending Jesus changed his mind? Secondly, even if Jesus had a personal mission, that's not the issue. Where he told his disciples to go is what matters. Thirdly, how can Haley say Jesus "gave himself a ransom for all" and then say "his personal mission was chiefly to the 'house of Israel'?" Fourthly, how can Haley say the mission of Jesus "was chiefly to the house of Israel" when Matt. 15:24 says, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel?" It was only to the house of Israel, not chiefly to the house of Israel. And finally, there are no modifiers or qualifiers in the verses cited. So how can Haley employ words and phrases such as "to a certain extent" and "chiefly"?

Haley confronts a similar difficulty on the same page. Jesus said his followers were to go to the Jews only in Mark 7:26-27 ("The woman was a Greek...and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs"). Yet, this conflicts with the behavior of Jesus according to Luke 17:2 ("And it came to pass as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee"), John 4:3-4 ("He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. And he must needs go through Samaria"), and John 4:40-41 ("And when the Samaritans were come unto him they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days....").

Haley's rationalization for this clash is. "It is impossible says Zeller to reconcile these different accounts. Now the truth is that the infrequent exceptions alluded to in the second series of texts, only prove the general rule, that Christ's personal mission was to the Jews. The mere fact that, in journeying from Judea to Galilee, he passed through Samaria, which lay between the two, or that he wrought a miracle upon one Samaritan, and virtually commended another, or that he actually tarried two whole days in Sychar, does not, in the slightest, militate against the certainty that his personal ministry was among the children of Israel."

Haley is again trying to legitimize a wholly unbiblical concept. Where does Scripture state that Jesus had a personal mission distinct from that of his followers or later intent? Secondly, it's important to note that to some extent Haley built a strawman by failing to insert the most potent verse supporting Mark 7:26-27. He used Mark 7:26-27 which says go to the Jews only but omitted a more powerful verse which specifically rules out going to the Samaritans in particular. Matt. 10:5 states, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." Jesus directly violated this instruction in John 4:3-4, 40-41, and Luke 17:11. Apparently Haley decided to omit consideration of this verse and cited Mark 7:26-27, instead, so he could more easily sell his "personal ministry" theory. And lastly, what is this nonsense about "infrequent exceptions"? Any exception is one too many and destroys the rule.

On page 120 Haley tackles the conflict of John 5:22, 27 ("For the Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: and hath given him authority to execute judgment also") and John 9:39 versus John 8:15 ("Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man"), John 12:47 ("And if any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but save the world"), and John 3:17. Haley seeks to escape this dilemma by playing with the meaning of the Greek word "krino" (to judge). He states, "The Greek word 'krino' has the distinct, though associated meanings of, to judge merely and to condemn. In some of the above passages it seems to be used in one sense, in others a different one is employed. Jesus came, in a sense, to 'judge' the world, that is, to determine, by means of the gospel, the moral status, and consequent final destiny of men; yet his primary object was not to condemn men, though, in the process of judgment, the condemnation of some will be a certain although incidental result."

Again we are faced with typical apologetic weaseling. First, all of the references to the word "judge" in these verses come from the same Greek word "krino" which means, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, "to distinguish, i.e. decide (mentally or judicially); by implication to try, condemn, punish:--avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, ordain, call in question or to sentence to." Nowhere does Strong make the distinction between "merely to judge" and "to condemn" that Haley makes. What part of the verses cited lead credence to a distinction of this nature. Second, Haley doesn't even state which verses have the former meaning and which have the latter. He leaves that to his reader, hoping one of them will "click." Third, by saying "it seems to be used in one sense, in others a different one," Haley is all but admitting he's hypothesizing; he's guessing. Fourth, Haley says, "Jesus came, in a sense, to 'judge' the world, that is, to determine...the final destiny of men; yet his primary object was not to condemn men, though, in the process of judgment, the condemnation of some will be a certain although incidental result." Haley loves to toss in qualifiers at regular intervals. What does he mean "in a sense'? The text says he came to judge the world (John 5:22, 27). There is no "in a sense" to it. Fifth, we are talking about "judging" the world. True, that could have either a positive or negative result. But where does the text say his primary object was not to condemn men? That isn't even at issue. Haley hopes his reliance upon the word "condemn" will save the day. He hopes that if he can draw a distinction between judging, which can be either positive or negative, and condemning, which is viewed as negative only, he'll be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat. The fact is that verses on both sides of the equation refer to judging and it's irrelevant as to whether or not that has a positive or negative connotation. One says he came to judge and the other says he did not come to judge. Neither refers to judging only in the negative sense or what Haley refers to as condemning.

Our last example of Haley's duplicity emerges from his reconciliation of John 9:5 ("As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world") and John 1:9 ("That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world") with Matt. 5:14 ("Ye are the light of the world") and Phil. 2:15 ("Among whom ye shine as lights in the world"). So who is the light of the world? Jesus or his followers? On page 129 Haley states, "In the primary and highest sense, Christ is the Light of the world; in a secondary and subordinate sense, Christians, viewed as receiving and reflecting his light, may be designated as the 'light of the world'." Again Haley seeks to resolve a conflict by drawing a whimsical distinction lacking textual support. Jesus is referred to as "the light" in John 9:5 and calls his followers "the light" in Matt. 5:14. If Jesus has top billing in the former, then his followers have top billing in the latter. There is no difference. Both "he" and "they" are referred to as "the light" not "a light." Both are referred to in the primary or highest sense. If one is primary then so is the other. If one is not referred to as primary, then neither is the other. If one is secondary then so is the other. They sink or swim together. In fact, why couldn't Haley's explanation be reversed 180 degrees and say, "In the primary and highest sense, Christ's followers are the Light of the world; in a secondary and subordinate sense, Christ, viewed as receiving and reflecting their light, may be designated as the 'light of the world'?" After all Christ's light is only reflected throughout the world as a result of the evangelistic and proselytization efforts of his followers. They activate the light coming from Christ. His secondary status is dependent on their primary efforts. Without them he would either be unknown or could very well fade into oblivion.

(To be Continued)





DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #605 Continues from Last Month (Part d)

(The first question on our pamphlet, THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD, asks how fetuses and the mentally deficient can be saved if you must accept Jesus as your savior. In responding to our question via a subscriber's letter, fundamentalist Rev. BB says--Ed.)

I wonder about the wisdom of putting your strongest argument first. I also wonder about the smallness of a mind that cannot imagine the broadness of God's love and justice. Likely, McKinsey is already guilty of creating a "strawman" - an easily defeated argument construed to belong to one's opponent, created falsely for the sole purpose of knocking it down. It is a deception, a forensic sleigh of hand. I do see straw here - after all, he is using an ultra-Conservative line of reasoning to come to a Liberal conclusion.



Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part d)

How does God's alleged love and justice adequately address this issue? If Rev. BB would only answer the question and not bring in a lot of extraneous grandiloquence, we'd both be better off. In addition, "The broadness of God's love and justice" is an assumption for which there is not only very little biblical proof but much evidence to the contrary. Secondly, the real difficulty lies not with my creation of a strawman but with Rev. BB's attempt to evade the issue by giving people the impression that the question is some sort of trick undeserving of a reply. Thirdly, I'm not using any line, ultra-conservative or otherwise. I'm just asking a simple, straightforward, logical question that should disturb anyone concerned with the reliability of Scripture. And fourthly, I fail to see how my question automatically classifies me as an ultra-conservative or a liberal. Atheists, agnostics, and humanists could very well pose the same dilemma.



Letter #605 Continues (Part e)

My answer to this complaint is in the first case, very broad. "If we cannot trust those incapable (for any legitimate reason) of accepting Christ as Savior to God, then to whom can we trust them?" I would rather rely on the justice of God (as revealed in the Bible) than on the weening, sentimental, foolish sense of justice exercised by Liberals like McKinsey (who's name does not, by the way, appear on this little tract - an act of cowardice?). In a related vein, God's thoughts and ways are clearly higher than ours (Is. 55:8+9), and beyond our capacity to understand (Rom. 11:33+34). Given these conditions, I'm willing to trust persons legitimately unable to make a faith-commitment to God's justice and His love and His mercy, all of which exceeds our human ability to understand or measure it.



Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part e)

In other words, to cut through the verbiage and make a long story short: Rev. BB doesn't have an answer. He could have saved a lot of rhetoric by admitting as much at the beginning. All he's really saying is that, although he doesn't understand how God will provide, somehow he will, which is no answer at all. Secondly, I would respectfully request that Rev. BB read Issues 115 through 120 on God's behavior before relying upon God's alleged justice. Thirdly, in true apologetic style he denounces an alleged shortcoming on my part--possessing a weening, sentimental, foolish sense of justice--without providing so much as a shred of proof for its existence. The problem lies not with my foolish sense of justice but with his lack of justice. Fourthly, Rev. BB should stop referring to me as a liberal since inane comments of this nature show he knows little or nothing about my religious or political views. Fifthly, my name was left off the pamphlet because I could think of no good reason for inserting it. Who wrote the pamphlet is of far less importance than the accuracy of the arguments contained therein. Why would I be afraid to put my name on a pamphlet when my name is on locally produced cable access TV programs, hundreds of audio tapes, thousands of BE issues, and a soon to be published book. I'm displaying cowardice? Is he serious? Again, he proved that he knows little or nothing about that which he speaks. And lastly, Rev. BB's final sentence is nothing more than a restatement of his contention that he will leave the matter in God's hands, which is only another way of saying he has no answer. His critics will just have to accept his contention that God will find a way out. Of course, God doesn't have to find a way out because he never found a way in. It's not his book, so it's not his problem. It's the problem of those who created the mess known as Scripture.



Letter #605 Continues (Part f)

More specifically, in my own study of this topic, I have found at least one-half dozen verses that imply a different kind of Judgement for those who have had a chance to believe. I find the Bible DOES address this issue by stating that God judges people first and primarily on the basis of belief and unbelief (the conscious decision NOT to believe, when given the opportunity to choose). And, secondarily, on the basis of works - good or evil. The person who had no legitimate opportunity to choose belief or unbelief is not included in this process. While their fate is a matter open to biblical conjecture, and best entrusted to God as I've already stated, it can be shown from the Bible that God will indeed show mercy on them. In other words, the contradiction is only apparent until we realize that we're talking about two different things here, two different situations, a Day of Judgement, and (perhaps) a time on non-judgement. This is NOT a different (or opposing) kind of salvation, but a different (not opposing) category of judgement.



Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part f)

Rev. BB is sinking deeper and deeper. First, he earlier said God would eventually provide an answer to this question and now he says he has "found at least one-half dozen verses that imply a different kind of Judgement for those who have had a chance to believe." Yet he fails to provide so much as one. What verses? But even more importantly, who cares? He should quit trying to shift the focus. We are not discussing people "who have had a chance to believe." That's not the issue, so it should not have arisen and was only mentioned in order to muddy the waters. We are talking about those who could never believe because of their circumstances. Second, what is a different kind of Judgement? Does he mean there are degrees of justice and the goal posts are set further back for some than for others? Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Third, he says people will be judged "first and primarily on the basis of belief and unbelief" and "secondarily on the basis of works - good or evil." Where is this kind of outline formulated in Scripture? But even more importantly, how is that relevant to those who have neither belief nor works. Fourthly, he says "the person who had no legitimate opportunity to choose belief or unbelief is not included in this process." According to what verses? Where is this in Scripture? He's writing his own text. Fifthly, I would again suggest the Rev. BB read Issues 115 through 120 before saying "God will indeed show mercy to them." Judging from the manner in which God treated infants and sucklings in the OT, one would be foolish, indeed, to conclude that they are going to receive any more justice in the next world than they did in this one. After all didn't God order the slaying of "both man and woman, infant and suckling" in 1 Sam. 15:3 and Ezek. 9:6. Rev. BB says, "it can be shown from the Bible that God will indeed show mercy on them." Where? What verses say they will get special treatment? Sixthly, because the last two sentences of Rev. BB's monologue have no biblical foundation and fall, like much of his discourse, into the category of esoteric gibberish, I'll do him the favor of forgetting he ever mentioned them. Based upon his use of the word "perhaps," even he is uncertain about what he's saying. Finally, and on top of everything else, Rev. BB should realize the word "judgment" is almost never spelled "judgement."



Letter #605 Continues (Part g)

(The second question on our pamphlet asks: Why are we being punished for Adam's sin. After all, he ate the forbidden fruit, we didn't. It's his problem, not ours, especially in light of Deut. 24:16 which says children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers. Rev. BB's answer is as follows--Ed.).

Deut. 24:16 is part of a section of miscellaneous laws given to Israel by God. It's teaching regards capital punishment, that "each is to die for his own sin." In other passages, God does talk about "inherited punishment" and "inherited righteousness" both of which have natural, logical and/or theological explanations. In other words, "inherited punishment" is a right God reserves for Himself but denies His people. This verse has NO direct link with the Genesis account.



Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part g)

In the first place, is Rev. BB saying Deut. 24:16 only applies to capital punishment and only in regard to capital punishment shall each man be punished for his own sins? If a man robs, rapes, maims, or vandalizes another, then it doesn't really matter who is punished as long as someone pays the penalty. Only in the case of killing another human being should the perpetrator die? I've never been a fan of the Bible but I don't think that's one of its ridiculous statements. Secondly, his attempt to divorce this problem from "inherited punishment" has no substance, since mankind is clearly adversely affected by what Adam did according to the Bible. Third, Rev. BB states that, "In other passages, God does talk about 'inherited punishment'." Very true! I'm surprised he'd admit it. In Rom. 5:12 ("Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned") Paul clearly alleges we are all paying the penalty for what Adam did. In effect, in Rom. 5:12 Paul talks about the very inherited sin which Rev. BB denies exists--the sin we all inherited because of Adam's sin. Rev. BB says, "inherited punishment" is a right God reserves for Himself but denies His people. What's his point and how's it relevant? And lastly, his concluding comment--"This verse has NO direct link with the Genesis account"--has no validity whatever as is proven by the worthlessness of his entire rationalization.



Letter #605 Continues (Part h)

(Rev. BB concludes his comments on our second point by saying--Ed.).

Further, this man (I think he is referring to me--Ed.) is either a gimpy theologian, or is fond of creating 'strawmen.' We'll have a whole hayfield full of 'em soon! We are NOT being "punished" for Adam's sin. We live under its effects, which are certainly sufficiently horrible (including the kind of non-reasoning that leads a man to write nutty papers like this one). The effects of Adams's sin have compromised creation, and will continue to do so until the New Creation at Christ's Second Coming.



Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part h)

As far as NOT being punished for Adam's sin is concerned, Rev. BB had better consult Paul before opening his mouth again. What did Rom. 5:12, which we quoted earlier, say? Did he try to find out or did he just assume that the theology with which he had been indoctrinated would naturally agree with anything Paul asserted? We aren't just living under the effects of Adam's sin. We sinned, period. Rom. 5:19 says, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." We "were made sinners." And what happens to sinners? They are punished! If that's not being punished for what Adam did, what is? Rom. 5:18 says, "...by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," again showing we are all being punished for what Adam did. And 1 Cor. 15:22 says, "For as in Adam all die...." How many verses does he want? He tries to hide man's punishment for Adam's sin under a smokescreen of nebulous nonsense about a "compromised creation" and living under the "effects" of Adam's sin. We are being punished for Adam's sin, and if he doesn't believe it he should ask Paul. The latter said that when Adam sinned we all sinned. Instead of calling others "gimpy theologians," Rev. BB would do well to acknowledge his own lack of theological expertise. The only non-reasoning and nutty papers involved in this whole affair are those emanating from an amateurish reverend projecting a counterfeit aura of sophistication that seems to never end.



Editor's Note: We apologize for not having contacted those who volunteered to play our video tapes on their local public access channels, but we have been incredibly busy throughout all of 1994. In fact, I can't think of a year in my life in which I have been more preoccupied. Just making tapes has been quite an accomplishment, let alone circulating them. Baring any unforeseen circumstances, we hope to get there eventually. We just finished our twenty-first program.



Erratum: In the first column on page 2 in last month's issue we should have printed Mal. 1:2-3 instead of Mark 1:2-3.