Issue #146-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bi

Biblical Errancy Issue #146-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Part 3), Commentary on Body-Snatchers Movie, Rev. BB's Attacks Pts. 3 and 4 of our Pamphlet

Nov 10, '08 11:32 AM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #146 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Feb. 1995

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

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

This month's issue will continue our discussion of Haley's classic apologetic work.
HALEY'S ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE (Part III)--One of the most famous biblical inconsistencies arises from Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 15:51-52 ("We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump"), Phil. 4:5 ("The Lord is at hand"), 1 Thess. 4:15 ("We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep") and 1 Peter 4:7 ("But the end of all things is at hand") that the coming of Christ is at hand versus his statement in 2 Thess. 2:1-3 ("Now we beseech you, brethren,...that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, not by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand, Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there be a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition....") that the coming of the Lord is far off. Simply put, Paul said he and others would live to see Jesus return; whereas, Jesus not only failed to return in Paul's lifetime but is yet to make an appearance.

Quoting Dr. Davidson on 1 Cor. 15:52 Haley's "explanation" for this conflict is that, "The expression we means such Christians as shall then be alive; all believers then living are grouped together. On 1 Thess. 4:15-17 he (Dr. Davidson--Ed.) says we which are alive and remain, etc., can only mean such Christians as live and remain. Paul employs himself and the early Christians as the representatives of those succeeding Christians who should be alive at the Redeemer's second advent." Sometimes one can't help but feel apologetic "explanations" should not even be read much less taken seriously. The text says WE--WE which are alive. And that must include the speaker if it is to make any sense. Paul did not say "those" who are alive or "whoever" may be alive. He said WE, clearly showing he expected to among those who would be alive at the second advent. There is no evidence whatever that Paul was merely employing himself and the early Christians as representatives of those succeeding Christians who should be alive at the Redeemer's second advent. Later Haley says, "The Thessalonians, though a very amiable people, were by some means mistaken on this subject, so as to expect that the end of the world would take place in their lifetime, or within a very few years." They weren't mistaken at all. There was no "by some means" to it. They were simply taking Paul at his word. That's what Paul said and they believed him. There is nothing mysterious involved. They trusted him and were deceived.

Haley continues his defense by making an analogy with Deut. 30:1 which says, "Thus in Deut. 30:1 ('And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you...') the generation addressed is the representative of a succeeding one; and in John 6:32 ('Jesus then said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven'), a succeeding generation is employed to represent a past one." These situations are not even parallel with our original verses. No one in Deut. 30:1 is saying he or she will personally experience a future event. Paul's statements set a definite time limit on what is to occur. It had to occur before he died. There is no such limit in the Deut. 30:1 verse where God is addressing the nation of Israel whose existence could extend into the future indefinitely. Nowhere in Deut. 30:1 does it say a particular person had to still be alive when the prediction materialized. God is addressing the nation of Israel generally. All members of the particular generation who are listening to him could die and the prediction could still come true. John 6:32 is even more irrelevant. Not only does it lack a specific time line but is addressed to all followers of Jesus, both then and now. The giving of "the true bread" is something that happens over a period of time. It's not a one time only specific event.

Our second and final conflict for this month involves the clash on page 135 of Matt. 10:23 ("But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come") versus Matt. 24:14 ("And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come") and Mark 13:10 ("And the gospel must first be published among all nations"). One verse says Christ's followers will not have even covered the cities of Israel before Jesus returns, while the others say all nations shall hear the gospel before Christ's return. Haley's "reconciliation" is, "Strauss works hard to make a contradiction here. He remarks: 'On one occasion Jesus says to his disciples that the Son of man will return before they shall have completed their Messianic preaching in all the cities of Israel; another time he says that the second advent will not occur until the Gospel has been preached in the whole world among all peoples.' The difficulty is obviated by the following interpretations, any one of which may be adopted." His explanations, which follow, "may be adopted" but they certainly aren't valid.

Haley states, "Regarding Matt. 10:23 Barnes states, 'That is, in fleeing from persecution, from one city to another, you shall not have gone to every city in Judea, till the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the Jewish economy.'" What on earth does the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish economy have to do with what's predicted? It's talking about the arrival of the Son of man, not the destruction of a city and an economy.

Haley continues by quoting another apologist named Wordsworth who says, "In a primary sense, you will not have completed your missionary work in Judea before I come to judge Jerusalem. In a secondary and larger sense,--the missionary work of the church for the spiritual Israel will not cease till the second coming of Christ. There is a successive series of 'comings of Christ,' all preparatory to, and consummated in, the great coming." Oh, for goodness sake! Where in the world is he getting all this gibberish? Where does the Bible make reference to a "successive series of comings of Christ?" Talk about writing your own script! In addition, Wordsworth shifted the focus from specifics to generalities. What does Matt. 10:23 say. It says, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel...." That is a specific statement referring to a definite group of cities. There is nothing vague or nebulous about it. But Wordsworth refers to "the missionary work of the church for the spiritual Israel" which is not only vague but unscriptural. That's not in the text. And where is a "secondary and larger sense" even implied, much less stated? And finally, "the missionary work of the church for the spiritual Israel" can be portrayed as a never-ending, on-going activity which can be made parallel with the prediction of the return of Jesus which is yet to occur; while covering the cities of Israel is a specific accomplishment that did occur, even though Jesus is yet to return. In other words, he changed the prediction from a specific achievement which was fulfilled to a goal that is yet to come to fruition, in order to make the non-arrival of Jesus parallel to the non-accomplishment of a missionary assignment. As you might have noticed Haley relies upon some of the most deceptive and sophisticated rationalizations ever devised. You have to think more deeply than normal or you'll miss the subtle shifts that are made in everything discussed. Some apologists are past masters at derailing the truth train. They can get you involved in more extraneous, irrelevant, twaddle than you ever thought possible.

Haley continues by citing the comments of other apologists on the phrase "Till the Son of man be come." He states, "Baumgarten-Crusius says, 'Until the victory of the cause of Christ'; Michaelis, 'To the destruction of Jerusalem'; Calvin, 'To the outpouring of the Holy Spirit;' Norton, 'That is, before my religion is established and its truth fully confirmed';.... Lightfoot: 'Ye shall not have travelled over the cities of Israel, preaching the gospel, before the Son of man is revealed by his resurrection." And Haley concludes his illusory defense by saying, "These interpretations, almost any of which may be adopted without an arbitrary exegesis, serve to show how slight is the foundation for the objection urged by Strauss."

The only "arbitrary exegesis" involved in this whole affair is that emanating from a deceptive defender of the Bible citing a group of biblicists engaged in specious interpretations. As far as the explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius is concerned, nothing is said about a "victory of the cause of Christ." Who said anything about a victory? The word "victory" doesn't even appear in the verse. And the verse is not even referring to the "cause" of Christ. It's referring to Christ himself. It says the "Son of man." That's a human being, not a cause or mission. How much clearer can the verse be? In addition, even if the "victory of the cause of Christ" were intended the explanation is all but worthless because the same problem exists with this as with the arrival of Jesus personally. Just as Jesus did not arrive before they had gone over the cities of Israel, the "victory of the cause of Christ" did not occur before they had gone over the cities of Israel. So, either way the contradiction stands.

The explanation of Michaelis is hardly worth considering since the word "Jerusalem" is non-existent in Matt. 10:23. It was just whimsically thrown in by Michaelis.

Calvin refers to the Holy Spirit which is also not the topic of conversation. Wouldn't it be nice if people talked about what verses discuss rather than heading out on some kind of tangent that strikes their fancy but is wholly divorced from the topic at hand!

Norton's defense suffers from the same malady that plagues the defense of Baumgarten-Crusius. Matt. 10:23 is referring to a man, a person, a human being, not a cause or mission. It is not talking about "my religion" but me (Jesus--Ed.) personally. It's talking about the physical appearance of a real live human being, not his cause, his purpose, his mission, his victory, his religion, or the full confirmation of truth. And also like the Baumgarten-Crusius defense even if "my religion is established and its truth fully confirmed" were intended the explanation is all but worthless because the same problem exists with this as with the arrival of Jesus personally. Just as Jesus did not arrive before they had gone over the cities of Israel, "my religion being established and its truth being fully confirmed" did not occur before they had gone over the cities of Israel. So, again, either way the contradiction stands.

Lightfoot's "rationale" is afflicted with the same shortcoming as that of Michaelis. While the latter uses the word "Jerusalem" which isn't even in the text, the former employs the word "resurrection" which isn't in there either.

Anybody could explain anything to anyone's satisfaction if they were allowed to gratuitously insert words and phrases with utter disregard of the text itself. That is one of the most obvious flaws in the explanations offered by the apologists cited by Haley. Haley says these explanations "may be adopted without an arbitrary exegesis" when precisely the opposite is true. They can only be adopted with an arbitrary exegesis. Haley's allegation that the interpretations of these men "serve to show how slight is the foundation for the objection urged by Strauss" rests on no foundation whatever. Quite the contrary, Strauss was one of the most meticulous of all biblical critics and he knew exactly what he was talking about. (TO BE CONTINUED)

COMMENTARY

Nearly every time I hear a fundamentalist tell me the exact time, place, and occasion under which he or she underwent the born-again experience, I can't help but think of a movie released in 1956 entitled "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." The parallels are striking if not unnerving. In the movie, large football shaped pods are placed beside people while they are sleeping and the latter awaken with an entirely new personality. With respect to Christianity, Jesus and the Bible are placed near people and they, too, are absorbed, transformed, and awaken with a new character. In the movie, the absorbing pods are the product of a being or beings from another world just as the Bible is supposedly an emanation from God and heaven. In the movie, people are troubled with life in general before they change but afterwards they testify to a feeling of contentment, serenity, and happiness. Being born-again generates the same feeling according to fundamentalists. In the movie, those who are absorbed by the alien force devote a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to convince the unconverted to accept the inevitable, succumb willingly, and join them in their realm of bliss. The comparison between this and the amount of religious propaganda on radio and TV programs throughout this country is all too obvious. In the movie, people are betrayed by those whom they trust the most--relatives and friends--who have already been absorbed. And that is no less true of the process by which most people join religious rigidity and are changed today. People are suckered in by those in whom they place the greatest confidence. In the movie, people had the same outward appearance before and after being incorporated, but the inner change was sinister, insidious, deceptive, and devastating. And that is no less true of those who have been co-opted by the born-again experience. In the movie people are only assimilated when they lower their guard and are lulled to sleep. How true that is of the process by which people are taken in through fundamentalist cunning and duplicity. In the movie those converted to the alien force do not hesitate to resort to coercion when persuasion proves to be ineffective. When peaceful measures are ineffective, imposition and violence are readily employed. Recent torchings of abortion clinics and the killing of their personnel, as well as events in the Ayatollah's Iran, show that's no less true of those who have undergone the born-again experience or something comparable. In the movie, those who have succumbed to the alien force behave as mindless, uncritical robots, blindly following every command or whim of their new cause. Those who have undergone the born-again experience adopt a similar mind-block to any concepts or ideas emanating from a source other than the one to which they have succumbed. But undoubtedly the most important parallel is that in the movie, the hero, the sane man, the sensible man, was doing everything in his power to either escape or destroy the alien force and its agents. And when it comes to the Bible in general and Jesus in particular, that's no less true of sanity today. In the movie, the hero puts up great resistance, escapes from the town controlled by his enemies, is chased by them through the hills out onto a busy highway occupied by people still unconquered by the alien force. As he is running up and down the highway saying and doing everything in his power to alert the unwary, a leader of his band of pursuers tells the others to stop the chase and then turns to them and says paraphrastically, "Never mind, let him go. They'll never believe him anyway." How well that applies to today's society. How well I know the feeling of that poor man on the highway trying to alert Americans to the ideology that is seeking inroads everywhere. When I see my programs on public access cablevision I can't but feel there are some influential figures in the audience saying to themselves: Never mind, let him go. They'll never believe him anyway.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #605 Continues from Last Month (Part i)

(The third question on our pamphlet, THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD, says God created Adam, so he must have been perfect. How then, could he have sinned? Regardless of how much free will he had, if he chose to sin, he wasn't perfect. In responding to our question via a subscriber's letter fundamentalist Rev. BB says--Ed.),

God's verdict on His creation was that it was "very good" (Gen. 1:31), NOT that it was "perfect." Just because God created it doesn't mean that He created man and/or the rest of creation as "perfect" in exactly the same way that God Himself is perfect. Obviously not, since God's perfection is original, and the best creation could boast would be a derived perfection. But the Bible never describes creation as having any measure of perfection.



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

First, by definition God is perfect. Everything he does is perfect. If he creates something it must be perfect. How could a perfect being create something that is less than perfect? Rev. BB is relying on Gen. 1:31. But what does "very good" mean? Does it mean perfection or less than perfection. If "very good" is a surreptitious way of saying God's creation was less than perfect, if Rev. BB is contending the Bible is saying a perfect being committed a less than perfect act, then we have an impossibility. A perfect being cannot do anything that is imperfect or flawed. Second, Rev. BB chose the translation of Gen. 1:31 that best served his purpose. If he had consulted the Modern Language Bible or the Living Bible he would have seen "...everything He had made was excellent" and "it was excellent in every way," respectively. If something is excellent in every way, then it is perfect. Something with even the slightest imperfection is not excellent in every way. Third, Rev. BB is trying to shift the focus. We are talking about the Bible's analysis of Adam, not what the Bible says about creation in general. Regardless of the nature of Creation, Adam sinned. He was not perfect as Paul makes clear in Rom 5:12. Fourth, Rev. BB says, "Just because God created it doesn't mean that He created man and/or the rest of creation as 'perfect' in exactly the same way that God Himself is perfect." Yes it does. How else could he have created it? It had to be as perfect as himself. After all he created it! Fifth, Rev. BB asks if that means God created man and/or the rest of creation as "perfect" in exactly the same way that God Himself is perfect and answered his own question by saying, "Obviously not, since God's perfection is original, and the best creation could boast would be a derived perfection." What kind of doubletalk is this? What is "original" and "derived" perfection? Perfection is perfection, period. Something is either perfect or it's not. There's no inbetween. Even the Bible is not so absurd as to make a wholly arbitrary distinction of this nature. One can't help but ask where on earth Rev. BB is getting all of this nonsense. And sixth, Rev. BB says, "the Bible never describes creation as having any measure of perfection." If that is true, if no part of creation is perfect, then how does Rev. BB account for Gen. 6:9 ("Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations") and Job 1:1 ("There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright....")? Clearly some parts of creation are perfect and we are back to square one.



Letter # 605 Continues (Part j)

Also, perfection does not necessarily include incapability of sinning. In fact, Heb. 4:15 teaches that Jesus was perfect precisely because He withstood temptations to sin; that He resisted the capacity to sin that was born in His humanity. There's no virtue in resisting sin if one is incapable of committing it in the first place. "Perfection" that exists only as the incapability of doing otherwise is not true (at least not truly human) perfection.

"Free will" is an essential theological issue and cannot be so lightly dismissed as McKinsey attempts. As will prove to be typical, his argument has only the barest appearance of logic.



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

Rev. BB says, "perfection does not necessarily include incapability of sinning." Yes it does. Otherwise the being in question is not perfect. If Jesus could sin, then Jesus was not perfect. If Jesus could sin, then Jesus was not God. Rev. BB says, "Jesus was perfect precisely because He withstood temptations to sin." If Jesus had to withstand temptations to sin, then Jesus was not perfect. Rev. BB says, "There's no virtue in resisting sin if one is incapable of committing it in the first place." Precisely! And that's why Jesus deserves no credit. As God, he was incapable of sinning in the first place. If he could have sinned, then he was neither God nor perfect. Rev. BB says, "Free will is an essential theological issue and cannot be so lightly dismissed," while failing to realize that perfection negates free will from the outset. No being can be free to do something that negates an essential aspect of his nature. If Jesus or God is perfect, then neither is free to do anything that is less than perfect. And if a man, in our case Adam, was created by a perfect God, then he had to have been created perfect. He couldn't have sinned or committed an act of imperfection, even if he had wanted to. The overriding error made by Rev. BB and all of his compatriots on this issue is that they just don't realize "perfection" negates "free will." No being can be both free and perfect simultaneously, unless that being is only committing perfect acts. Among perfect acts he does have a choice. Only in regard to perfect acts does he have options. Imperfect acts, however, are ruled out ab initio.



Letter #605 Continues (Part k)

(The fourth question on our pamphlet, THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD, asks how Num. 23:19, which says God doesn't repent, be reconciled with Ex. 32:14 which clearly says he does. In responding to our question fundamentalist Rev. BB says--Ed.),

Num. 23:19 describes God's consistency, truthfulness and trustworthiness. "Repent" is used in the KJV in a variety of ways, one of which describes what seems to be a change of mind that is inconsistent, and thereby untruthful or untrustworthy. As the writer points out, God, unlike human beings, does not engage in such inconsistency or deception. Ex. 32:14 describes the mercy of God and uses "repent" to describe the appearance of God changing his mind, to show mercy rather than wrath to His people. These passages are talking about two different things. If anything, all McKinsey has "proven" is the general unreliability of the KJV translation, and his own desire to create inconsistencies where none truly exist.



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

First, we aren't discussing a change of mind that exhibits inconsistency and deception which God allegedly would not do versus a change of mind to show mercy rather than wrath which God allegedly would do. We are discussing a change of mind, period. Num. 23:19 says, "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." There are no qualifiers, modifiers or restrictions applied to the word "repent." It simply says he won't repent. Why he later repents is irrelevant. What evidence does Rev. BB provide to prove that the word "repent" in Num. 23:19 has the very narrow meaning he attaches to it. It simply says God does not repent. Second, Rev. BB says God does not engage in "a change of mind that is inconsistent," but later says Ex. 32:14 uses repent "to describe the appearance of God changing his mind, to show mercy rather than wrath to His people." In other words he changed his mind; he was inconsistent. Any change of mental direction exhibits inconsistency. Rev. BB is trying very hard to shift the focus from the fact that he changed his mind to why he changed his mind. Third, Rev. BB says, "God, unlike human beings, does not engage in such inconsistency or deception." If he changes his mind then he is engaging in inconsistency and to the extent it deceives people he is engaged in deception. Fourth, what does he mean "the appearance of God changing his mind?" There is no "appearance" to it. It says he changed his mind, period. Fifth, many modern versions use the word repent in the same manner employed by the KJV. Rev. BB hopes he can mislead readers and improve his case by attacking the KJV as if it were the only version on the market containing this contradiction. In fact, it's not. And lastly, the "repent" in Num. 23:19 and the one in Ex. 32:14 come from the same Hebrew word which is transliterated "nacham." The two "repents" do not come from two separate Hebrew words which can't help but weaken dramatically the possible apologetic argument that they have separate meanings. (TO BE CONTINUED)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #607 from FS of Anaconda, Montana

Dear Dennis. Regarding Charles Ryrie's "explanation" for the change of day-of-worship from the Jewish Sabbath to the Sun's day.

Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln wrote on page 340 in the book entitled Holy Book, Holy Grail, "By an edict in A.D. 321...Constantine ordered the law courts closed on 'the venerable day of the sun' and decreed that this day be a day of rest."

Thus Christians, formerly "worshipping" on the Jewish Sabbath, named for the planet Saturn, began their worship on the Sun God's day, the day of "Sol Invictus," the Invincible Sun.



Editor's Note: D. L. Smith is in the process of compiling a larger WORD INDEX of BIBLICAL ERRANCY than that which has been distributed in the past. He needs your assistance and sent me the following letter.

Dear Dennis. I'm writing to ask you and your readers for help. As you know I have offered to index the BE's from 1983 to 1994 and hopefully update every year or so. However, I have run into a bit of a problem that only you and your readers can solve. A VERSE INDEX is no problem because once a verse appears, its in the index list. BUT - words, that's a horse of a different color. I could use the old index and pick words I would like to see, but would that be adequate for others? I need readers and yourself to send me a list of words they would like to see in the index. If you or they would send them to me on 3.5 in. disks, in either PC, MAC, or PRODOS format, it would make the job easier, but a written list is still good. Then I could compile all the lists and use that as the index. I don't need issue dates or pages, just a word list. Word 6.0 should do all the marking and pagination once the list is compiled. Send disks or list to: Index, Box 513, Tiffin, Ohio 44883, (419) 447-0669. The deadline should be around APRIL 1995 for lists. Full index should be available before summer 1995. Thanks for your help.