Issue #148-Rev. BB's Attacks Pts. 9, 10, 12, and 1

Biblical Errancy Issue #148-Rev. BB's Attacks Pts. 9, 10, 12, and 13 of our Pamphlet, Letter Discusses OT topics like bestiality, barbarism, bloodshed,bigotry & brutality

Nov 10, '08 11:36 AM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #148 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Apr. 1995

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

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

This month's issue will focus entirely on letters from our readers and concentrate primarily on continuing our response to Rev. BB's critique of our pamphlet entitled "The Bible Has the Answer?".


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #605 Continues (Part v)

(The ninth question on our pamphlet asks how Solomon could have had 40,000 stalls for his horses as is claimed by 1 Kings 4:26 when 2 Chron. 9:25 says he had 4,000 and how could Solomon's house contain 2,000 baths as is asserted in 1 Kings 7:26 when 2 Chron. 4:5 says it was 3,000? In responding to our question Rev. BB repeats the same argument he used with respect to Point #5 regarding Ahaziah being either 22 or 42 and then says--Ed.),

What deserves further comment is the kind of attitude nonsense like this betrays. This kind of trivial complaint, which clearly affects no major doctrines, is not generally the kind of thing people just stumble across. It's something you have to hunt for, to research for. The person who is on the lookout for this kind of nonessential information is the person who has already made up his mind as to what the Bible is. He has already decided the Bible is a largely useless book, better left ignored. Which means, of course, having removed the source of authority greater than us all, that even in matters of faith and practice, we're free to do and say as we please, free to construct a religion of our own liking. A religion like this is solely intended for personal comfort, and doesn't need to make any uncomfortable accommodations to what the Bible teaches. Nauseating lies. Self-serving pap....



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

Congratulations are due Rev. BB because he's batting a thousand. Everything he said is false, without exception. First, there is nothing whatever trivial about finding a contradiction in the supposed word of a perfect being. We are talking about a being who has no imperfections whatever. And for Rev. BB to say that contradictions in a writing he created are trivial is absurd. There can be no trivialities when we are dealing with perfection and the Almighty. And the sooner that penetrates his thought processes the better off he'll be. The only triviality involved in this matter is that accompanying his explanation. It's more than trivial; it's pathetic. The very idea that God can write a book full of holes is too absurd to discuss. Any hole, regardless of size, might as well be a chasm. Second, for him to say that no major doctrines are involved is equally absurd. Of course they are. Biblical infallibility is at stake. What could possibility be more important? The whole superstructure of Christianity in general and Jesus's credentials in particular resides on biblical inerrancy. How many times do I have to repeat a comment by one of the most well-known founders of protestantism, John Wesley, who said, "If there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book it did not come from the God of truth." That says it all in one fell swoop. The whole ball of wax is wrapped up in that synopsis. That's the ball-game. I challenge anyone to find a doctrine of greater importance than this. Once inerrancy goes, once the Bible is shown to be fallible, then it's no more reliable or divine than any other book on the shelf. If that doesn't throw a crowbar into the gears of Christianity nothing will. Everything in the book becomes suspect. How often have I said: How do you know what is true when you begin to admit certain parts are false? No doctrine is more important than that of biblical inerrancy. Third, Rev. BB says this "is not generally the kind of thing people just stumble across." Oh, I beg to differ. When I started reading the Bible years ago, I was immediately struck by contradictions on almost every page. I didn't have to go out of my way to hunt for them. Quite the contrary, they were all too obvious and hitting me on the nose. It is those who have been indoctrinated, actually brain-washed is a more accurate term, who fail to see what is staring them in the face. Because of what they have been taught, they tend to overlook, minimize, or discount conflicts on the mistaken belief that "God's Word" couldn't be inconsistent. They are the ones who approach the book with preconceived ideas. They are the ones whose minds are made up. They are the ones who have been programmed to ignore anything that does not fit their preconceptions. Because their initial premises are incorrect, their reasoning flowing from these predilections is erroneous as well. There is none so blind as he who won't see. Only after passing through the first 2 or 3,000 contradictions and inconsistencies is any real effort required. Fourth, our information is essential and is not found only by "the person who has already made up his mind as to what the Bible is." Unlike most biblicists, I made up my mind as to "what the Bible is" after studying the book, not before. There is more than enough evidence to expose the Bible for the fraud that it is, if observers aren't "gotten to" by biblical supporters beforehand.

A couple of people have questioned my credentials for biblical criticism because I was never trained in a seminary. Does that mean one must pass through an opponent's propaganda mill in order to become knowledgeable about his material or qualified to criticize his works? That would be like saying no one can criticize nazism until he has attended nazi schools for several years and no one can criticize catholicism until he is qualified to become a priest or has received comparable training by approved personnel in catechisms with the imprimatur. While a philosophy major in college, I learned far more by reading on my own than I ever learned in classrooms. As I told one of my friends at the time: College is interfering with my education. Having not been "trained" in a seminary allows me to exercise a degree of objectivity and emotional detachment that is rarely exhibited by seminarians. Indeed, it is very difficult for people to criticize a philosophy in which they have been steeped all their lives. I am very fortunate in not having been raised in some kind of religiously indoctrinating environment. Fifth, Rev. BB says a person such as myself "has already decided the Bible is a largely useless book, better left ignored." I'm ignoring the Bible?? Is he serious? I've been involved in over 30 years of research and 12 years of publishing, including scores of media appearances relative to Scripture, and he says I'm ignoring the book. What ignorance! For understandable reasons, many people would probably like for me to give Scripture far less attention but I have no intention of complying. Sixth, near the end of his diatribe Rev. BB trotted out one of the most common prevarications biblicists offer with respect to people criticizing the Bible. Critics are supposedly trying to destroy any restraints on their own behavior so that can do as they please. I for one have never felt any restraints coming from the Bible and would put my behavior and concern for others up against any biblicists I've ever known. As I have noted on several occasions, the Bible does not keep people in check. Religious books, especially the Bible, are not controlling the behavior and actions of people. The overriding and controlling mechanism is the environment in which people are raised and forced to live. It has far more to do with human behavior than any pronouncements from a supposedly divine document or preachments from supposedly divine representatives. One of the greatest of all misjudgments made by religious individuals is their assumption that the way to solve mankind's problems is to get the filth and garbage out of people through preaching, teaching, and excoriation, when the opposite is true. First, get people out of the filth and garbage and their behavior will alter accordingly. The religious mentality thinks the basic problem is one of changing people's attitudes and beliefs and conditions will change accordingly, when the contrary is true. Change the conditions in which people live and their attitudes and beliefs will alter in lockstep. In a nutshell, religious people view the world backwards. Preaching is all but worthless when nearly every aspect of a person's environment is telling him to do the opposite. Once someone obtains a good paying occupation, for example, including the usual accompanying amenities, criminal or anti-social behavior becomes far less probable. Over 90% of the world's population conforms to this pattern beautifully, but religionists and their allies often try to accentuate the exceptions, which can also be explained by material factors, although the latter aren't as readily apparent. And seventh, the only "nauseating lies and self-serving pap" involved in this whole affair is that emanating from a religious ideologue who doesn't recognize the full extent to which he has been inculcated from birth with fundamental deceptions that are themselves the source of his misguided self-assurance.



Letter #605 Continues (Part w)

(The tenth question on our pamphlet asks how the resurrection can be of such importance when many others rose from the dead before Jesus. By the time he rose from the dead this was actually a rather common occurrence. I would think it would have been met by a resounding yawn rather than surprise, followed by, "So what else can you do? In responding to our question fundamentalist Rev. BB says--Ed.),

This "argument" is especially childish. The author is clearly grasping at straws, in a flailing, failing effort to debunk God's Word. To even think that two or three raisings from the dead makes any resurrection, let alone Jesus' resurrection "a rather common occurrence" is half-baked malarkey. It doesn't even qualify as a legitimate personal opinion, its so absurd. Even if, by some miracle, one could make a case for the "commonness" of bodily resurrection, that in NO WAY undermines the importance or truthfulness of Christ's resurrection. Adam's coming into the world was more spectacular to whom? Who else was there to witness it but God himself? Even if I were willing to concede that these are valid personal opinions (which I am not) what do they have to do with the authority of the Bible? Answer: Absolutely nothing!....



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

First, there is nothing childish about this question; quite the contrary it's among the most potent. And only by grasping at straws can an apologist concoct an answer. The only childishness involved is that emanating from Rev. BB's "explanation." Second, he refers to the Bible as "God's Word" when that is to assume the very point in dispute. He's not only provided no evidence whatever that it's God's Word but made an assertion in spite of the evidence. Third, he says, "To even think that two or three raisings from the dead makes any resurrection, let alone Jesus' resurrection 'a rather common occurrence' is half-baked malarkey. It doesn't even qualify as a legitimate personal opinion, it's so absurd." Not only is Rev. BB proving nothing and merely uttering that which makes him feel good, but he is repeatedly using phrases that are directly applicable to himself. "Malarkey" is something he pours out in abundance. I mentioned more than 3 resurrections and they all preceded that of Jesus. If that doesn't make his rather common, what does? I could easily have piled on. But just one other resurrection by anybody is enough to diminish its importance. There is nothing absurd about this issue and the diminished importance of the Resurrection certainly isn't merely an opinion. It's a fact. He says the resurrection of others "in NO WAY undermines the importance or truthfulness of Christ's resurrection" when it most assuredly does. In simple terms, if everybody is doing it; it's hardly unique. If others are doing it, then why should it be accorded such great fanfare? If Rev. BB spent as much time answering the question as he does manufacturing names to call the positions of others and venting his religious craw, he'd be a lot better off. Fourth, he says, "Adam's coming into the world was more spectacular to whom? Who else was there to witness it but God himself?" What on earth does this criticism have to do with anything. Who cares who witnessed it. I said Adam's entrance into the world was more spectacular than the resurrection of Jesus and all Rev. BB can say is that Adams's was less important because no one witnessed it. That's an answer? Moreover, would Rev. BB so kind as to give me a list of the names of those who saw the resurrection of Jesus. Some of his replies border on the ridiculous, if not incoherent. And fifth, he says "what do they have to do with the authority of the Bible? Answer: Absolutely nothing!" when that wasn't even the issue. I never said this issue bore directly on the authority of the Bible. I said it bore on the importance of the Resurrection which implicitly affects the Bible's reliability. Rev. BB is practicing the old 'avoid and switch' routine. When you can't answer a question just avoid it by switching to another, claim the latter's the real issue, and then proceed to answer whatever looks weak and strikes your fancy.





Letter #605 Continues (Part x)

(The twelfth question on our pamphlet asks how we could follow the 6th Commandment, even if we wanted to, when the authors of the various versions of the Bible can't agree on whether the key word is "kill" or "murder"? Surely they recognize the difference. In responding to our question fundamentalist Rev. BB says--Ed.),

What editor? What version? You speak in concealing generalities, sir. Even given to you, this point hardly constitutes a good reason for ignoring the Bible entirely. If "experts" can't agree on the proper maintenance of your new Cadillac, does that mean you're going to stop driving it? This is childish reasoning (1 Cor. 13:11). Anyone who has trouble keeping the 6th Commandment has greater problems than theology. Also, you've forgotten Jesus' declaration that hatred and words of violence are equally as sinful as acts of violence (Matt. 5:21-22). Also, the difference between "kill" and "murder" is nonexistent to some degree - one could certainly describe them as synonyms. Therefore, this argument, like those preceding it is nothing more than "a tempest in a teapot."



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

The problem lies not with my questions being "a tempest in a teapot" but with Rev. BB's rationalizations resembling "rot in a pot." First, if Rev. BB had put forth any effort at all to research the matter, either by reading our issue discussing the matter or by studying the topic on his own, he would have seen a difference of opinion among the major versions on the market as to the proper wording of the 6th commandment. Instead, he merely opted to ask me some secondary questions in a vain attempt to appear erudite without being contrite or burning the oil at midnight. Second, the only childishness associated with his experts and the cadillac analogy is that emerging from his conclusion and practiced by those adopting his philosophy. What does he mean that he would go ahead and drive it. Does he mean that if one group of experts said the brakes were all but gone while another said they were in reasonably good shape he would go ahead and drive the vehicle? All I can say is that I'm glad I don't ride with him in a car pool. It is that kind of reasoning practiced by many Christians in regard to the promises in Mark 16, for example, that has caused the deaths of many people. If the experts can't agree on whether the proper word is murder or kill, just as the experts can't agree on the condition of my brakes, you can bet I am not going to operate by the 6th commandment or ride in my car. I wouldn't heed any commandment until the proper wording is ascertained. Frankly, I'm not really sure Rev. BB believes his own nonsense. Third, he says, "Anyone who has trouble keeping the 6th Commandment has greater problems than theology." What an ignorant comment in light of my original question. What is the sixth commandment? He acts as if it's a given known by all. If so, then by all means he should set the record straight and reveal its proper wording. That would answer my original question and put the problem to rest once and for all. He hasn't done his research or he would be aware of the conflicting versions and the problem posed. Fourth, he says, "You've forgotten Jesus' declaration that hatred and words of violence are equally as sinful as acts of violence (Matt. 5:21-22) without showing how this weighs on the issue. What does this comment have to do with the topic at hand? Relevance seems to be a subject with which he has a great deal of difficulty. He repeatedly makes a sequence of statements that are reasonably well connected and then out of the blue comes one that is virtually off-the-wall. If his sermons are as bad as his logical connections and his preachings are as liberally sprinkled with non sequiturs as his writings, it's a wonder his pews are filled with anything other than air. And lastly, his assertion that "the difference between 'kill' and 'murder' is nonexistent to some degree - one could certainly describe them as synonyms" is a classic. If every killing is a murder, then thousands of military personnel, policemen, prison executioners and self-defense killers should be executed or imprisoned for life. After all, they all killed and if killing and murdering are synonymous, then they all murdered.



Letter #605 Continues (Part y)

(The thirteen question on our pamphlet asks how people can say the bible has no scientific errors when it says the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:13, 19), hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:5-6), and some fowl (Lev. 11:20-21) and insects (Lev. 11:22-23) have four legs. In responding to our question Rev. BB says--Ed.),

...Once again, you have a translation difficulty, and all McKinsey has "proven" is that the KJV is generally a less reliable translation of the Bible.



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

It is this kind of answer that exposes religious propagandists for the con artists they are. Rev. BB made the mistake of assuming that I, like his parishioners, would assume the truthfulness of anything he said rather than checking it out. How wrong he was. One need only read the NASB, the NEB, the ASV and other versions, as I did years ago, to see that their terminology is no different from that of the KJV. Many apologists think they can save their hides by simply alleging the KJV is far less reliable than the latest versions. But that will only influence those who are so foolish as to believe a religious appellation (Rev.) makes for repetitious precision.



Letter #605 Continues (Part z)

It is my personal belief that it is foolish for anyone to claim 100% scientific or historical accuracy for the Bible. This is an unimportant issue anyway, one that can easily be conceded without impinging on the fact of its divine origin and perfect authority in matters of faith and practice. How? Because the Bible's stated purpose is "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It was not written as a "scientific" history anyway (See #5), or a scientific treatise. As pointed out earlier, these disciplines are chronologically and philosophically distant from the Bible writers....



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

In the first place, is the Bible God's Word or isn't it? If it is, then it must exhibit 100% accuracy in everything, and that includes science and history. There can be no exceptions. What difference does it make whether or not it was written as a scientific treatise. The fact is that is making scientific statements and they had better be correct. There can be no mistakes or exceptions to perfection. If the Bible does not know what it is talking about in the realm of science, then it should sit down and shut up. Its supporters should certainly not claim inerrancy or perfection for its contents. Second, any issue impinging on or subtracting from the Bible's perfection is important, regardless of the topic under discussion. Everything is important. There are no exceptions. We are dealing with something written by the most perfect, the most knowledgeable, the most powerful, the most all-encompassing being in all of existence. Indeed, we are dealing with the being responsible for existence itself. If he doesn't know everything, then who does. And for him to write a book riddled with errors, scientific or otherwise, is too stupid to discuss. Third, this whole "perfection only in matters of faith and practice" defense is nothing more than theological doubletalk and escapism. There is no way to draw a clear line of demarcation between faith and practice on the one hand and all other topics on the other. Moreover, the nebulous and imprecise arena of faith and practice contains numerous contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors as well. Scores of contradictory topics involving faith and practice have been discussed over the years in BE and neither is sacrosanct or above reproach. Quite the contrary ,they are fertile soil for some of the best contradictions and problems to have ever emerged from the annals of biblical criticism. And lastly, when Rev. BB says, "these disciplines are chronologically and philosophically distant from the Bible's writers," he's only wishing that that were true. Once the Bible begins to discuss science and history both are drawn into the maelstrom as surely as any other subject falling within the realm of biblical analysis. Understandably apologists attempt to make a distinction of this nature for tactical reasons. (TO BE CONTINUED)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #608 from JO of Sonora, California

The book title quoted in Letter #607 is not "Holy Book, Holy Grail," but "Holy Blood, Holy Grail...." "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was published in 1982. The same three authors published a sequel in 1986 entitled "The Messianic Legacy." Looking forward to your video tapes....whenever!



Letter #609 from RH of Simi Valley, California

Dear Dennis.... Is it my mistake, or do the references to "The 5 Bs" in issue 144 on page 6 (Dec. 1994) (near the bottom) contain mistakes? I'm talking of the alleged Bestiality passages in Numbers, none of which contain any references to what I would call Bestiality -- to my great disappointment, since I live with a fundamentalist. Some of the other passages also don't contain what the author of the letter claims. Was there a misprint, or did I read my bible wrong or hastily.

If you could provide a note in the next newsletter if there is indeed a mistake, I'd appreciate it....



Editor's Response to Letter #609

Dear RH. Apparently your conception of bestiality, barbarism, bigotry, bloodshed, and brutality differs from that of SA who wrote the letter to which you refer. On several points I think you are correct. As far as the verses he cites with reference to bestiality are concerned, some are applicable, some aren't. I don't think I'd use Isa. 45:7 to establish bestiality either, but with Num. 21:21-25, 21:3, Ex. 22:18, and Ezek. 5:10 he could make a case. He could use Matt. 10:35-36, Luke 14:26, and possibly John 15:6 to establish bigotry, but I don't think I would use Ex. 3:21 or Deut. 14:21. Favoritism would be more applicable. Nor would I use Ex. 20:5, 34:7, and Matt. 13:12, since injustice would be more relevant than bigotry. He could use Ex. 32:27-28 to prove bloodshed but there are better verses available than Num. 14:1-37 and John 15:6. And he could probably use Ex. 32:19-26, 34:7, 2 Sam. 12:14, Isa. 14:21, and Mal. 2:3 to prove brutality, but Gen. 9:20-25, Ezek. 4:12-15, and Lev. 21:18 should probably be replaced by more applicable citations. On balance, I would say that your criticism has some merit. But, again, it's a judgment call. If I had it to do over again, I would probably insert an Editor's Response mentioning my reservations regarding some of SA's choices. Biblical critics should never allow inclination and determination to exceed reflection and consideration. In some instances SA appears to have crossed the line.



Letter #610 from JM of Magna, Utah

I wish to include my voice amidst those who applaud your efforts toward demolishing the fallacies that have bedeviled our lives for far too many generations. I was born into a Mormon family and I live on the outskirts of Salt Lake City. So I am sure that you can imagine the difficulty I have experienced since I made a decision, some 30 or 40 years ago, to abandon efforts to believe in claims to ultimate knowledge based on nothing more substantial than the utterings of self-appointed prophets proclaiming, "thus sayeth the Lord." I know from experience that reasoning with those who reason on a totally unreasonable premise is a frustrating proposition. I love life as much as anybody, but I do not believe that I express that love by embracing systems that smack of deception and subterfuge. I recognize the courage you employ in taking on the champions of non-thought, and I wish I were nearer your area so that I might attend some of your sessions.... Keep up the good work, or as my Mormon friends might say, "God bless you." (joke)



ERRATA: (a) In the second column on page 6 in last month's issue John Gleen Drive should have been John Glenn Drive.

(b) On page 6 in the 144th issue (Dec. 1994) SA's letter should have been numbered. We accidentally omitted #606.



EDITOR'S NOTE: WE NEED ASSISTANCE! So far we have produced 27 half hour video programs for public access cablevision. We have more than enough material for at least 80. In order to circulate them, however, I need a reliable, self-disciplined individual who would be willing to duplicate the tapes and forward them to those who have volunteered to have them played on their local public access stations. This individual must be dedicated and willing to be on board for the long haul, because once the program is up and running people will be expecting continuity and dependability. We are planning to move into bigger quarters in Hilliard, Ohio, a suburb of Columbus, this summer. Does anyone know of someone who lives in that vicinity who would be willing to aid our worthy cause, especially someone who has two VCR's for duplication of tapes? I am just too busy to take on another project, but the sooner this gets underway the better.