Issue #147-Rev. BB's Attacks Pts. 5, 6, 7, and 8 o

Biblical Errancy Issue #147-Rev. BB's Attacks Pts. 5, 6, 7, and 8 of our Pamphlet THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD?

Nov 10, '08 11:34 AM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #147 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Mar. 1995

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

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

Most of this month's issue will concentrate on continuing our response to Rev. BB's crude and intemperate attack on our pamphlet entitled THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? Few acts fire my ire more than an assault on this publication's veracity or the materials we distribute. For some reason I'm attracted to that kind of challenge like iron to a magnet.
Many of Rev. BB's responses to the following questions were refuted in prior issues of BE and are probably not deserving of reconsideration. But because of Rev. BB's cockiness, arrogance, and insulting demeanor and the number of years that have passed since our prior discussions of these issues, I can't resist reviving a few old battles and making some new points.



DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #605 Continues (Part l)

(The fifth question on our pamphlet asks how 2 Kings 8:26, which says Ahaziah began to rule at age 22, can be reconciled with 2 Chron. 22:2, which says he was 42. In responding to our question fundamentalist Rev. BB says--Ed.),

In my NIV Bible the 2 Chron. 22:2 text is described as a variant reading favored by SOME Septuagint and Syriac manuscripts, and can be explained by textual criticism, perhaps as a "scribal error." It is certainly NOT indicative of an inconsistency in the original autographs.



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

As I said in regard to the "you have to go back to the originals" defense on my 20th TV program, "When it comes to the inerrancy of the Bible, its advocates are required to provide adequate evidence of the inerrant originals, because certainly everything that comes after them is full of errors and contradictions. Why on earth anybody would assume the originals have no mistakes, when all of the copies reek with errors and contradictions is beyond me. That's a leap in logic that only the irrational can fathom. Of course, the problem lies in the fact that there is no logic involved. If you have never read or seen a book, how can you be sure of what it really says? No living human being has ever read a copy of the original Bible and that's assuming there was an original Bible. The entire 'you have to go back the originals' defense is basically the mark of a desperate man trying to defend a hopeless position. People who want to return to the originals are using that as a defense, a subterfuge. They know there are contradictions in the writings facing them. That's obvious. But, they say there are no contradictions or inaccuracies in the originals, knowing full well the originals can't be produced by anyone no matter how hard they may try and hoping that will provide seclusion. As Peter Ruckman, founder of the Pensacola Bible Institute alleges, 'it is nothing but cowardice and desertion in combat'."

When Rev. BB says, "it is certainly NOT indicative of an inconsistency in the original autographs," he couldn't be more incorrect. Precisely the opposite is true. It most assuredly is.



Letter #605 Continues (Part m)

(The sixth question on our pamphlet asks how can Ex. 33:20, which says no man can see God's face and live, be squared with Gen. 32:20, which says a man saw God's face and his life was preserved. In responding to our question Rev. BB says--Ed.),

The answer is found in the Gen. 32:20 text ("And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved"). Had McKinsey bothered to read the whole verse, he would've found it on his own -- "and yet my life was spared." This verse is a fine example of the love, forgiveness and mercy of God, that He allowed Jacob to see His face, and relaxed one of His "personal rules" and did not punish Jacob with death. Uniformity is not necessarily just, and sometimes justice is served by observing the spirit of the law even while violating its letter.



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

Rev. BB would have done better to have avoided this problem entirely. His explanation is not only pathetic but an open admission that a contradiction exists. His assertion that God "relaxed one of his personal rules" along with his last comment that "sometimes justice is served by observing the spirit of the law even while violating its letter" is nothing more than a defensive concession. Need more be said? His melodramatic injection of a lot of irrelevant bleeding-heartism about God's alleged love and mercy is little more than a doomed attempt to play on the reader's feelings at the expense of his logic. In essence, all Rev. BB is saying is that God violated a rule he laid down personally in Ex. 33:20 but it was done for a good cause. Nevertheless, the fact remains that God said in Ex. 33:20 that no man, NO MAN, can see God's face and live, while in Gen. 32:30 Jacob saw God's face and his life was preserved. Why God relaxed one of his rules is irrelevant. Reality exposes an exception and that's all that's necessary for the contradiction to exist.



Letter #605 Continues (Part n)

What McKinsey doesn't realize is that Jacob isn't the only man to see God's face. In fact, later in the book of Exodus, God allows Moses to see His face and live. This is then, in both cases, an act of divine intimacy: God mercifully extended to two very important men this great honor. The "contradiction" exists only in McKinsey's mind.



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

No! A "non-contradiction" exists only in Rev. BB's imagination. I fully realize Moses saw God as well and Rev. BB has only managed to provide another event contradicting the rule laid down in Ex. 33:20. Instead of resolving the dilemma, he's only strengthening my case and weakening his. He seems to think that if God contradicts himself for a justifiable reason, somehow the contradiction vanishes. Hardly! God flatly stated something would not happen and it did, which is all that's needed for the contradiction to stand.



Letter #605 Continues (Part o)

(The seventh question on our pamphlet asks how Rom. 3:23 ("All have sinned and come short of the glory of God") can be reconciled with Gen. 6:9 ("Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations") and Job 1:1 ("Job...was perfect and upright..."). In responding to our question Rev. BB says--Ed.),

What the admittedly inferior KJV renders as "perfect" the NIV translates as "blameless." Thus, the contradiction with Rom. 3:23 is eliminated.



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

Now let's don't be ridiculous. Of course it's not eliminated. "Blameless" means someone has done absolutely nothing for which he can be blamed. In other words, he's morally perfect. Changing the word in no way resolves the dilemma.



Letter # 605 Continues (Part p)

McKinsey is also guilty of simplemindedly taking these words at their English face value, just for the purpose of making complaints such as this. Taimiym is the Hebrew word in Gen. 6:9. It means "entire integrity, truth: without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincere, sound, without spot, undefiled, upright" (Strong's). The root word, tam, is found in Job 1:1, 8, and means "complete; pious; gentle, dear; completely together, perfect, plain, undefiled, upright" (Strong's). With all these other, better translations available, to assume that the OT author meant to convey any kind of perfection, let alone a spiritual one, is, again, to be guilty of constructing a conflict.



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

No one needs to construct a conflict, that's already present. Rev. BB should have read all of our back issues before signing his name to such an inane letter. If any simplemindedness were coming from me it would only exist if I were so naive as to accept his rationalizations. In the first place, he would have done well to have avoided Strong entirely because words and phrases such as without blemish, complete, without spot, and undefiled are identical with perfect. He's only proving my argument, not his. Secondly, as I said in a prior issue, if Noah was not perfect then he had no more right to be on the Ark than anyone else. He should have drowned with the rest of humanity. Thirdly, I'm becoming increasingly perturbed with these Johnny-Come-Lately's who always think they have better translations of biblical verses than those of the scholars who created the most prominent modern versions. I'm tempted to ask: Just how much Greek and Hebrew have you had? Never mind about their credentials or mine. What about yours? As I've told several people who resort to this technique: Why don't you create your own version of the Bible and send me a copy which I would be glad to critique. Until you do, we are going to go with what is available. Fourthly, the word perfect in Gen. 6:9 which is applied to Noah comes from the same Hebrew word which is applied to God in Deut. 32:4 and Psalm 18:30. If there is no reason to say Noah is perfect according to Gen. 6:9 then there is no reason to say God is perfect according to Deut. 32:4. If Noah wasn't perfect then neither is God. If it applies to one, it applies to the other. And lastly, Rev. BB isn't very well acquainted with modern translations because the King James is not the only version to use the word "perfect." The American Standard Version of 1901 also says "perfect" and few people call it inferior.



Letter #605 Continues (Part q)

It is highly unlikely the author meant to convey in any way that these men lived in the same perfection as God, especially when the narrative of their lives is much less glowing than the glowing praise of a perfect being. Therefore, this argument is spurious, false, and contrives a nonexistent contradiction.



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

Rev. BB feels it is "highly unlikely" that "these men lived in the same perfection as God." That's supposed to be proof! Since when is the gut reaction of a narrow-minded ideologue comparable to hard evidence? If he thinks God's behavior is immaculate, then I would strongly suggest that he read issues 115 through 120 of BE. That should cure him of any delusions regarding the perfect behavior of his biblical God. He also needs to reread what is stated in the fourth point in the prior answer regarding the application of "perfect" to God and Noah. The only thing spurious, false, and contrived is the bogus defense of an unctuous escapist.



Letter #605 Continues (Part r)

Let us now observe another contradiction (a sure sign of untruth and hypocrisy) in McKinsey's writing. While he would decry a wooden, strictly literal method of Bible interpretation (because he thinks the Bible is too unreliable to support such a method), he is certainly guilty of employing such a method.

What we have just read is an example. Since Rom. 3:23 literally says all have sinned, and as he observes "All means all," McKinsey adopts an extremely literal interpretation that "all" means all persons, at all times, in all places and situations, can never be described as "perfect." Obviously (according to this interpretation) that "all" includes Noah and Job, who, in his KJV Bible, are literally described as "perfect." And there appears the specter of contradiction.



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

To begin with, untruth or hypocrisy is a crime of which Rev. BB is far more representative than I will ever be. I've made a mistake now and then, but I've never displayed the kind of consistent pattern of falsehood and deception that is so prominent in the apologetic circles he represents. By denying that "all" means all persons at all times in all places, Rev. BB is saying there are some instances in which people are perfect. But he doesn't provide so much as one example. There is no "specter of contradiction"; there's a real contradiction. Secondly, the problem lies not with my adoption of an extremely literal method but with his repeated abandonment of the literal interpretation every time he feels the pinch. Talk about dishonesty and shoddy scholarship! Unlike him, I operate on the principle that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. His operative standard is that the Bible means what he says and says what he means. My approach is neither wooden nor strictly literal, and is far from being extremely literal. If I had been pushing an unwarranted or excessively literal approach over the years, there are hundreds of arguments I could have submitted that have never been broached in the history of this publication. Some of the most obvious examples are the following: Gen. 3:20 says, "Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." I don't know about Rev. BB but I have a mother and her name is not Eve. Except for a few people in the Book of Genesis, Eve was not the mother of anyone in history. Genesis 7:11-12 says, "...the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." The argument could be made that heaven has real windows. After all that's what it says. Matt. 16:19 says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...." According to this you must have some keys to get into heaven. Imagine actually unlocking some kind of door and then entering the promised land! Job 1:20 says, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb; and naked shall I return thither." That would be quite an accomplishment considering the fact that many mothers are deceased and many children are bigger than their mothers! But that's what it says. Matt. 10:12 says, "And when ye come into a house, salute it." So why don't Christians salute a house after entering it? In 1 Tim. 5:23 Paul says, "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." So why don't Christians stop drinking water when they are sick? That's what it says. Proverbs 15:3 says, "The eyes of the Lord are in every place." One could argue from this not only that the Lord actually has eyeballs like human beings but that he has trillions of them. Otherwise how could they actually be in every place? In 1 Cor. 4:17 Paul says, "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord...." So Paul must be the father of Timotheus. John 3:7 says, "Ye must be born again." Consequently, you have to reenter the womb and make another appearance. What a feat! Job 21:24 ("His breasts are full of milk") and Prov. 30:28 ("The spider taketh hold with her hands") could also be pushed to the wall. After all, Scripture says males have breasts with milk and spiders have hands. In John 10:7 Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep." Jesus said he was a door; so he must be a door. He called his followers sheep. Therefore all Christians are real sheep. Otherwise he's a liar. First Cor. 10:4 says, "...for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." If the Bible says Christ was a rock, then he must be a rock. In Matt. 5:29 Jesus says, "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast if from thee" and in Matt. 5:30 Jesus said, "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee." I don't see any Christians walking around with plucked out eyes or severed hands. But that's what it says. And how could a hand or an eye offend you to begin with? I have never known of one to display intellect or will power. In light of these citations and scores of others that are available, one can now understand what a real strict literalist sounds like. Obviously a zealous biblical critic could press many additional points home if he really stuck to the letter of the script.

But I don't emphasize these verses, because I don't think in all fairness they should be taken literally. You could, and some do, but I don't. The ones I have stressed over the years, however, are meant to be taken literally and only those feeling the heat contend otherwise. A reasonable balance must be maintained and in all honesty I think that I have attained that equilibrium quite well. The Rom. 3:23 versus Gen. 6:9 and Job 1:1 example, to which Rev. BB takes exception, has the necessary qualifications. A literal interpretation is fully warranted, especially in light of the rest of Scripture and the attitude Paul has toward humanity in general.



Letter #605 Continues (Part s)

As we have already proven, McKinsey's hypocritical method ignores a whole set of grammatic factors, and all three contexts in a blatant attempt to rationalize disharmony. "Nature abhors a vacuum," scientists proverbialize. Similarly, true Bible interpretation abhors a vacuum between the ears of the interpreter. McKinsey's methods are deceitful and illegitimate, arranged solely for the creation of facades like this one. God has reserved a special fate for such false teachers (Matt. 18:6).



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

When Rev. BB mentions "a blatant attempt to rationalize disharmony" one can't help but feel he is referring to himself, for surely that describes his entire biblical defense to a tee. He refers to my violation of "a whole set of grammatic factors" without mentioning so much as one. What factors? This is nothing more than an attempt to impress his readers without being required to put up or shut up. To quote Mondale: Where's the beef? One of the most common tactics of apologists is to make grandiose generalizations without providing a shred of solid data in an attempt to prove without proof. Without explaining how or where, Rev. BB alleges that I ignore contexts and interpret too literally. Critics of BE have to fortify their allegations with chapter and verse, if they expect to be taken seriously. Otherwise, I have no way of knowing what they are referring to. If they can't be specific; if they can't provide the nuts and bolts necessary for a credible argument, then they should do everyone a favor by remaining dormant. The "taking out of context" argument is one of the most overused, misused, perverted, twisted, and distorted arguments ever devised by biblical mouthpieces. It's a catch-all that can be thrown at any criticism without doing minimal research or putting forth any effort to prove one's case. I for one am tired of hearing this enervated defense that more often than not emanates from those least able to defend Scripture. It's the lazy man's out while projecting an aura of sophistication and erudition. When Rev. BB refers to my methods as being deceitful and illegitimate, when he refers to a vacuum between an interpreter's ears, he is only attempting to rid himself of his own inadequacies by projecting them on to another. His entire biblical philosophy is illegitimate and deceitful, which can no doubt be attributed in large part to the deficit lying behind his own forehead. But enough of this puerile namecalling which would not have been invoked were it not for the fact that his diatribes are so plentifully endowed with same. As far as the terrorism inherent in his citation of Matt. 18:6 is concerned, I can't help but think of the terror he should feel when the Koran condemns him to hell in Sura 5:72-75 for believing in the Trinity. One's as childish as the other.

Incidentally, the words "grammatic" and "proverbialize" aren't even in my Collegiate Dictionary and I've never heard of them. Either my vocabulary has just been increased or Rev. BB has further demonstrated his ineptitude with the English language. As far as "grammatic" is concerned, I think he means "grammatical."



Letter #605 Continues (Part t)

(The eighth question on our pamphlet asks how Moses could have written the first five books in the Bible (the Pentateuch) when his own death and burial are described in Deut. 34:5-6. In responding to our question Rev. BB says--Ed.),

First of all, there is no internal evidence for Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch, of which I am aware. (In other words, nowhere in those five books does Moses identify himself as the author.) Moses' authorship is commonly and widely accepted...on the basis of tradition. Therefore, what appears to be at odds here is NOT the Bible with itself, but the Bible with tradition. There's nothing self-contradictory about this.



Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part t)

For once Rev. BB and I are in agreement. There is no internal evidence for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. When he says "nowhere in those five books does Moses identify himself as the author," he is correct. In fact, there is a sizable body of evidence proving precisely the opposite. So why doesn't Rev. BB enlighten his fundamentalist friends who continue to claim Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible? He is also correct when he says the Mosaic "authorship is commonly and widely accepted...on the basis of tradition and therefore what appears to be at odds here is NOT the Bible with itself, but the Bible with tradition. There's nothing self-contradictory about this." But he's wholly incorrect when he alleges I claimed the Bible contradicted itself. I never said anything of the kind. If he had taken the time to see what was actually said, he would have noticed the question was directed toward those who claim Moses was the author. I never said the Bible was contradictory. I said the fundamentalist claim that Moses was the Torah's author contradicted the internal evidence. As I've said so often, and apparently it bears repeating, Biblical Errancy is concerned with everything bearing on the Bible's validity and that includes more than just internal contradictions. Exposing contradictions is only one phase among several in our program. BE is not, I repeat, IS NOT concerned only with biblical contradictions.



Letter #605 Continues (Part u)

Again, McKinsey indulges in excessively rigid, simplistic reasoning. There is a simple explanation that can reconcile this tradition (of Moses' authorship) with the Bible. Perhaps Moses authored the majority of Deuteronomy, writing until his death. Afterward, an anonymous scribe wrote the epilogue that chapter 34 clearly is. No, I cannot "prove" this theory, but it's certainly a more natural explanation than the antagonistic construction McKinsey's imagination creates.



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

As has been stated on several occasions and apparently it bears repeating, I really wish our critics would read all of our back issues before sending us a letter that so clearly shows they haven't done their homework. This question was addressed long ago in issues 19 and 20. The only rigid, simplistic reasoning involved is that exhibited by someone who is relying upon his indoctrination, did not sufficiently research the question, and is obviously unaware of the response we gave to this common apologetic ploy. Even if Moses could not have written the last part of Deuteronomy, which Rev. BB is reluctantly willing to concede, he could not have written the remainder of the Pentateuch for other historical reasons as well. He admits he cannot prove his theory, but that's only a small part of his problem. He must also refute the historical arguments made in BE years ago regarding Moses and the Pentateuch. For him to say my imagination is creating an antagonistic construction is nothing more than a whimsical escape into grandiloquent rhetoric for purposes of "scholarly" exhibition and obfuscation. In other words, he's trying to hide his ignorance with a flurry of high-falutin rhetoric. If there is anyone who should not be free with the word "imagination" it is Rev. BB. TO BE CONTINUED



EDITOR'S NOTE: IT'S HERE, IT'S ARRIVED, THE WORLD HAS BEEN RENDERED AN IMMENSE SERVICE. OUR BOOK ENTITLED THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRANCY IS NOW BEING DISTRIBUTED AT BE'S OFFICE AND BY PROMETHEUS PRESS. MY FIRST COPIES ARRIVED ON VALENTINE'S DAY AND WERE A WONDERFUL PRESENT. THE BOOK WOULD MAKE A FINE GIFT AND IS COMPOSED OF 552 PAGES, INCLUDING A WORD INDEX OF 28 PAGES AND A VERSE INDEX OF 19 PAGES. IT'S DARK GREEN WITH BIG GOLD LETTERING AND LOOKS GREAT. WE URGE YOU TO ORDER COPIES FROM US OR THE PUBLISHER [PROMETHEUS BOOKS, 59 JOHN GLENN DRIVE, AMHERST, NEW YORK 14228-2197] WHICH HAS THE FOLLOWING AD IN ITS 1994/1995 FALL/WINTER TRADE CATALOGUE. AND DON'T FORGET TO TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS, RELATIVES, AND EVERYONE ELSE ABOUT THE TREMENDOUS BIBLICAL CRITIQUE THAT IS NOW AVAILABLE.