Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2012 13:07:32 GMT -8
Biblical Errancy Issue #150-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible (Part 4), Rev. BB's Attacks Pts. 14, 17, 18, of our Pamphlet, Writer Critizes Haley
Nov 10, '08 11:40 AM
by Loren for everyone
Issue #150 Editor: Dennis McKinsey
June 1995
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month's commentary will mark a resumption of our critique of Haley's apologetic defense of the Bible which was last addressed in the February issue.
REVIEWS
HALEY'S ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE (Part IV)--On page 178 Haley confronts the conflict between 2 Tim. 3:12 ("All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution") and Prov. 16:7 ("When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him."). How can people who live godly in Christ suffer persecution when the latter verse says the enemies of a man who pleases the Lord will live peacefully with him? As is true in so many instances, Haley cites other authorities to make his case. He quotes Andrew Fuller who says, "The truth seems to be that neither of the above passages is to be taken universally. The peace possessed by those who please God does not extend so far as to exempt them from having enemies; and, though all godly men must in some form or other be persecuted, yet none are persecuted at all times." Now let's don't be duplicitous. If these two passages are not to be taken universally, then what passage is? And if no passages are to be taken universally, then a monkey wrench is thrown into the gears not only of the Ten Commandments but a substantial portion of the entire NT. This defense generates an interesting variation on a point we have made repeatedly: How do you know what is true when you begin to admit certain parts are false. In this instance, how do you know what is to be taken universally when you begin to claim universals are to be taken restrictedly. Both verses are stated as universals and nothing justifies limiting their coverage, other than an apologetic need to escape a cul de sac. Haley says God does not exempt those who please him from having enemies when Prov. 16:7 says he does. He continues by saying "all godly men must in some form or other be persecuted, yet none are persecuted at all times." Yet Prov. 16:7 says they can't be persecuted at any time, let alone at all times. It's frequency is irrelevant. It can never occur, period.
Continuing to quote Fuller, Haley says, "God has always given his people some seasons of rest. The former of these passages may therefore refer to the native enmity which true godliness is certain to excite; and the latter to the divine control over it. Man's wrath shall be let loose to a degree; but farther than what is necessary for the praise of God it shall not go." Fuller's dissimulation becomes even more pronounced when he says "The former of these passages may therefore refer to the native enmity which true godliness is certain to excite." What does this have to do with anything? Whether native or foreign born, enmity is enmity. And the word "persecution" in 2 Tim. 3:12 goes beyond mere dislike and wrath. More often than not physical acts are involved. So we are not talking about some form of "mild enmity."
Haley concludes by saying the latter verse refers "to the divine control over it." But divine control is not divine abolition. Prov. 16:7 says his enemies will always be at peace with him, not that this will usually be the case.
Another conflict addressed by Haley (page 200) concerns Isa. 26:19 ("The dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise") and 1 Cor. 15:21, 52 ("The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible") on the one hand and Job 7:9 ("He that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more") and Isa. 26:14 ("They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise") on the other. In reaching for an explanation Haley offers the following. "The quotation from Job expresses the opinion, or perhaps the temporary doubts, of a good, but uninspired man." The speaker in Job is uninspired? One might just as well say the entire book of Job is uninspired and doesn't belong in Scripture, since the same person is speaking throughout nearly all of Job. Using the word "perhaps" is an admission by Haley that he's merely suggesting or guessing. Haley then states, "They cannot counterbalance the express statements of inspiration" that the dead will rise. I beg to differ! Oh yes they can! Most of scripture counterbalances something said elsewhere. Why assume this is an exception?
On the next page Haley seeks to resolve the conflict between Acts 26:23 ("The Christ should suffer, and...be the first that should rise from the dead") which said that Christ was the first to rise from the dead and other verses (1 Kings 17:22, 2 Kings 13:21, and Luke 7:15) which say people rose from the dead prior to Jesus. Haley states, "Romans 6:9 ("Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him") furnishes a solution to this difficulty. Jesus was the first who rose from the dead 'to die no more.' All others who were raised, passed a second time through the gates of death. But over him, death 'hath no more dominion.' Hence, he is the 'first-begotten of the dead,' the first who was raised to immortal life." Haley's explanation is a classic example of switching emphasis. We aren't talking about what occurred after the various resurrections occurred. That's irrelevant. The fact that Jesus did not die again is not germane to the issue. We are discussing who rose from the dead first, not what happened to them afterwards. The contradiction stands.
On page 215 Haley tackles the clash between Psalm 78:69 ("The earth which he hath established forever"), Psalm 104:5 ("Who laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be removed for ever") and Eccle. 1:4 ("The earth abideth for ever") versus Luke 21:33 ("Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away") and 2 Peter 3:10 ("The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up"). He states, "As to the first texts, the Hebrew word 'olam' rendered 'forever,' does not imply the metaphysical idea of absolute endlessness, but a period of indefinite length, as Rambach says, 'a very long time, the end of which is hidden from us.' These texts do not necessarily teach the absolute perpetuity of the earth." Stripped to its bear essentials, all Haley is saying is that "forever" doesn't mean forever. It has an end which happens to be hidden. But if it has an "end," then it can't be forever. He's hoping his readers will swallow this doubletalk. All three verses in the first group say "forever." What would the authors have had to say in order to convince Haley that when they said "forever" they meant "forever," not merely an indefinite period with a hidden end. It is often hard to imagine how the Bible's authors could have written something to make the Book's defenders admit it means exactly what the words state. One can't help but feel the Book's defenders are telling its authors: You don't really mean that; to which the authors would no doubt reply: Oh yes we do. In this instance, there is no word or series of words the authors could have used that apologists would not have perverted in such a manner as to make them mean something less than "eternal" or "forever."
Haley's "reconciliation" of John 3:13 ("No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven") with 2 Kings 2:11 ("Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven") is exceptionally weak. He states, "In the first text Jesus, setting forth his own superior authority, says substantially, 'No human being can speak from personal knowledge, as I do, who came down from heaven.' 'No man hath ascended up to heaven to bring back tidings." But the text says nothing of the kind. Where does Jesus say anything about speaking from personal knowledge or bringing back tidings? Haley continues by saying, "So we, speaking of the secrets of the future world, should very naturally say: 'No man has been there to tell us about them.' In saying this, we do not deny that any one has actually entered the eternal world, but merely that any one has gone thither, and returned to unfold its mysteries." When I read rationalizations of this stripe, as occurs so often, I can't help but think of the political comment that was thrown around so loosely not long ago: What is mine is mine; what is yours is negotiable. The very fact that Haley's vacuous explanation is even given a hearing and seriously contemplated can only work to his advantage. Nothing whatever is said, either expressed or implied, about anyone bringing any information back from anywhere. Where does the verse say or imply anything with reference to someone returning from the eternal world "to unfold its mysteries"? The mere discussion of something so inane provides it a degree of legitimacy, a degree of credibility, which is all Haley desires. In confronting a problem without a sensible solution Haley concocted a brew that he hopes will somehow stick. If any part thereof is seriously considered, then he's halfway home. The whole idea behind a good apologetic defense is to generate any kind of explanation that can somehow be deemed plausible. As long as it is sufficient to create indecision and doubt, that's all that's needed. It doesn't have to be airtight. Apologists are not interested in the attainment of truth. They are only interested in making sure you don't obtain it or remain uncertain once you have. Anything that sows doubt, discord, or uncertainty in your logical processes works to their advantage. That's their stock-in-trade. As long as they can convince you that something is meant other than what you are reading with your own eyes, their assignment is well on the way to completion.
On page 217 Haley's reconciliation of 1 Cor. 15:50 ("Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption") with Heb. 11:5 ("Enoch was translated that he should not see death") is short but not sweet. He states, "A late sceptical writer adduces this as a...discrepancy. It need only be said that, beyond question, Enoch and Elijah, before entering the heavenly world, passed through a change 'equivalent' to death. The corruptible put on incorruption, and their mortal put on immortality." Talk about reading into the text! Where does the Bible either state or imply that they went "through a change equivalent to death" that changed their corruption into incorruption? Second Kings 2:11, which Haley prefers not to cite, vis a vis Enoch's account, says Elijah went straight to heaven. Nothing is said about prior purification. Haley hopes that by using the phrase "beyond question," the sheer force of his words will carry the day. But it's by no means beyond question. Quite the contrary, it's very much in question.
On the same page Haley continues to engage in eisegesis (reading into the text) via an unsubstantiated harmonization of Matt. 21:31 ("The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you") with 1 Cor. 6:9-10 ("Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God"). He states, "The first text does not say that publicans and harlots as such, but merely that some who had been such, and had afterwards repented, should enter heaven. Paul, in the verse succeeding the quotation in Corinthians, observes: 'And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified.' They had been corrupt and wicked, but were so no longer. Observe also, that our Saviour's assertion amounts simply to this, ''The publicans and harlots are more likely to be saved, stand a better chance for salvation, than do you, chief priests and elders.' Neither this passage, nor any other, sanctions the idea of impurity tolerated in heaven."
Haley's rationalization is plagued with dissemblance. First, the first text says nothing about people who "had been such." There is no past tense involved. Haley is making a faltering attempt to make their status diametrically opposed to what Matt. 21:31 is saying and commensurate with his conception of what heaven allows. It is talking about people who are currently publicans and harlots, not those who formerly retained that status. Where does the first text say anything about them "repenting" and thereby changing their status? Second, Paul's comment in 1 Cor. 6:11 ("And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified") only substantiates verses 9 and 10. All it is saying is that while they were publicans and harlots they could not have entered the kingdom of heaven, but now that they are washed and sanctified they can. But all of this contradicts Matt. 21:31 which refers to publicans and harlots who entered heaven, even though nothing is said about them having been purified. And lastly, Matt. 21:31 ("The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you") is another one of those absolutist statements upon which the Bible periodically chokes. If Matt. 21:31 had said something akin to, "The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you after they have been purified, sanctified, or cleansed there would have been no problem." But that's not what the text states. Instead, they are going in as harlots and publicans per se. Haley is trying to use 1 Cor. 6:11, in combination with the two prior verses (9 and 10), to modify Matt. 21:31. In essence, we are confronting another instance in which an apologist is trying to use verses in other parts of Scripture to ameliorate the effects of absolutist cul de sacs.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #605 from Rev. BB Resumes (Part aa)
(The fourteenth question on our pamphlet is: Matt. 27:9-10 quotes a prophecy made by Jeremy the prophet. Yet no Bible believer has ever been able to show me where it lies in the book of Jeremiah. Rev. BB responds by saying--Ed.),
Perhaps you weren't listening - at least that wouldn't surprise me. Read Jer. 32:6-9, where Jeremiah buys a field, paying for it with silver. Then read Zech. 11:12-13, where the potter and the thirty pieces of silver are mentioned.
Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part aa)
Instead of shooting from the hip through his foot, Rev. BB should have read my commentary on page 2 in the 108th Issue regarding the dissimilarities between the accounts in Jeremiah and Zechariah. They are not discussing the same events. But even more importantly, who cares what Zechariah says. We are talking about a prophecy that is allegedly in the Book of Jeremiah. And since it's nowhere to be found in Jeremiah and Rev. BB made no attempt to reveal where it can be found in Jeremiah, I rest my case.
Letter #605 from Rev. BB Continues (Part bb)
(The seventeenth question on our pamphlet is: We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone (John 3:18, 36); yet, Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments--Matt. 19:16-18 (saving by works)--if he wanted eternal life. Rev. BB responds by saying--Ed.),
Half truth! McKinsey lacks any sense of finesse, any flexibility to search for a larger truth beyond the merely obvious. For example, far from making an all-encompassing statement about salvation, further from contradicting Himself, in Matt. 19, Jesus is setting up a surprise for the rich young man. His purpose is to shock him into a realization that salvation is more than a matter of externals, but involves an inward faith commitment as well. His method is to shock the young man with the rigid requirements and further, the radical commitment that true faith demands. Thus, the teaching method produces a statement that may seem contradictory, but is only superficial. A better understanding of this event and Jesus' purpose in the light of the entire Bible's teaching quickly eliminates any alleged differences.
Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part bb)
What Rev. BB really means by saying I lack "any sense of finesse, any flexibility to search for a larger truth beyond the merely obvious" is that I don't read into the text whatever tickles my funnybone or what I'd like to hear. I'm too involved in exegesis rather than eisegesis. This "larger truth beyond the merely obvious," which Rev. BB chooses to insert into the script is nothing more than a cloak for his own opinions and conjectures. He says Jesus is trying to shock the rich young man "into a realization that salvation is more than a matter of externals, but involves an inward faith commitment as well," when that is exactly what the text is not saying. The only subject discussed is externals. Nothing is said about believing in anything. In true apologetic style Rev. BB is interpolating at will. Words such as "faith" and "commitment" are nowhere to be found. Rev. BB says, "'Jesus' method is to shock the young man with the rigid requirements and further the radical commitment that true faith demands. Thus, the teaching method produces a statement that may seem contradictory, but that is only superficial." What a lot of twaddle! Where on earth is he getting all this? It doesn't seem contradictory; it is contradictory. There is no "may seem" to it. The problem does not lie with my being superficial but with Rev. BB adding a layer that doesn't exist. And then he states, "A better understanding of this event and Jesus' purpose in light of the entire Bible's teaching quickly eliminates any alleged differences." In other words, ignore what Jesus is saying, wander off into other parts of Scripture that say what you want to hear, and then transpose whatever strikes your fancy. Incidentally, to what other biblical teachings is he referring? Citation of chapter and verse are noticeably absent. I wonder why? Instead of providing specifics, he simply refers to "the entire Bible's teaching."
Letter #605 from Rev. BB Continues (Part cc)
(The eighteenth question on our pamphlet is: According to the text there are 29 cities listed in Joshua 15:21-32 (RSV). One need only count them to see that the total is 36, proving biblical math is not to be trusted. Rev. BB responds by saying--Ed.),
Criticisms like this are petty and picayune. They reveal more about the mind and soul of the writer than they do about the Bible. McKinsey has clearly not read the text very carefully. The NIV says "29 towns and their villages." As the number of villages is not given, we can easily assume that 7 of these names designate "their villages" and not the "towns".
Finally, what does it matter? The bible (sic--Ed.) is a spiritually alive work of divinely-inspired art, not a set of IRS tax tables and instructions. An overweening attention to details is unnecessary, and, as we have been forced to repeatedly observe, is culturally inappropriate.
Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part cc)
How wrong can one be! First, there is nothing petty or picayune about providing facts to prove the Bible is flawed. Rev. BB only wishes the opposite were true. Inerrancy goes to the very crux of whether or not the Bible is the word of a perfect being. If the Bible has mistakes, then it couldn't emanate from a perfect being and 2 Tim. 3:16 ("All Scripture is given by inspiration of God") is a lie. Apologists don't seem to realize that lawyers build their cases on details. That's the meat and potatoes of their profession. The grandiose rhetoric and glittering generalities in which apologists specialize are wholly inadequate. They'll never get the job done, even though biblicists employ them on a regular basis.
Second, Rev. BB asks, "What does it matter? The bible (sic) is a spiritually alive work of divinely- inspired art, not a set of IRS tax tables and instructions." As we have noted on numerous occasions, precision and details matter tremendously. Imagine one lawyer telling another: You're just too concerned with details. The Bible is nothing without accuracy. Without perfection, its spirituality differs from other works only in terms of quantity not quality. How could a book possibly be spiritually alive and divinely-inspired that contains so much dead wood? And its only resemblance to art is that found on ghetto walls and passing buses.
Third, the only one who has submitted drivel for homework and failed to read very carefully is Rev. BB. He employs the NIV to prove his case, when it is no less clear than the KJV, the RSV, and many other versions on the market. They all say the same. Joshua 15:21 in the NIV says, "The southernmost towns of the tribe of Judah in the Negev toward the boundary of Edom were" and then it goes on to list 36 names. Yet the total is supposed to be 29 according to Joshua 15:32 which says "a total of twenty-nine towns and their villages." So the Bible erred by 7. To reconcile this difference Rev. BB says, "The NIV says '29 towns and their villages.' As the number of villages is not given, we can easily assume that 7 of these names designate 'their villages' and not the 'towns'." Rev. BB needs to read more meticulously. He's all but ignored Joshua 15:21 (NIV) which says "towns" situated along and then goes on to list 36 names. In other words, all of the subsequent names were to be those of towns. None of the names following Josh. 15:21 are those of villages. Nowhere does Josh. 15:21 say they are villages, and nowhere in the list does it say they are to be interpreted as such. Haley's reliance upon the word "villages" is nothing more than a gratuitous insertion based upon Josh. 15:32. There cannot be only 29 towns listed with 7 additional villages when the 21st verse said the following names are those of towns. If any version of the Bible is scripted with expediency as the overriding theme, it's the NIV. Yet, even it deserts Rev. BB when the chips are down.
And lastly, since Rev. BB likes to refer me to prior information and material, then I'll ask him to note what we said in prior issues regarding the cultural context and pettiness ploys. (To Be Continued)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #621 from RH of Simi Valley, California
I am burning with curiosity and intrigue to learn more about the 3 resurrections before Christ. Are they well-documented/witnessed as the Christians claim theirs is? I'd like to be able to use this as evidence in my argumentation sessions, so vehement have they become and so easily is the issue defused by showing that Christ was typical, not atypical, in regards to resurrection.
By the way, who decides what is a proof of being God? Even if He did rise from the dead, that wouldn't convince me that He created the whole universe, only that he had some superior knowledge that allowed him to perform resurrections. The degree of creativity and power required for the respective tasks is hugely different. Most Christians don't possess any degree of logic capable of handling degrees of anything. They prefer black and white arguments that make little sense to one who has experienced life even a little bit with an open mind.
Thanks again, and I repeat: you've made my breakfast sessions invigorating, and provided me with excellent defenses against solicitations by zealots. My own logic was fledglingly good, but yours and your data are superb.
Editor's Response to Letter #621
You might want to note the 10th point on our pamphlet entitled THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? or read 1 Kings 17:17-22, 1 Sam. 28:7-15, 2 Kings 4:32-35, 2 Kings 13:21, and Matt. 27:52-53. All of them describe people rising from the dead before the resurrection of Jesus.
Letter #622 from LB of Firenze, Italy
Dear Mr. McKinsey. ...In BE I've read about the existence of many discrepancies concerning numbers in the Bible. On page 380 in Haley's Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible I read an explanation for this problem. He says single letters were used to represent numbers and often those letters were similar, and so many of those discrepancies arose from mistakes of copyists.
But in a little grammar of biblical Hebrew I've found that cardinal numbers were written literally. For example "Twenty-one" for 21. So a word, and not a single letter, was used to indicate a number. In this case misunderstanding is almost impossible isn't it?
Editor's Response to Letter #622
Dear LB. I think you've answered Haley without my assistance.
Letter #623 from RG of Brooklyn, Ohio
Dear Mr. McKinsey. I greatly enjoy Biblical Errancy and look forward to each issue.... As an ex-Jehovah's Witness who wasted the first thirty-five years of his life on religious nonsense, I can see the need for a movement countering religion. Most people are not able to see the contradictions and lack of logic in religious teachings on their own. For some reason I finally did, but in trying to talk to others still in various religions I can tell you that most of them are afraid to examine anything that challenges their beliefs. We need to keep exposing the contradictions in the Bible. I would be most happy to contribute to this effort by duplicating the tapes or helping in any other way that I can.
Editor's Response to Letter #623
Dear RG. We appreciate your willingness to assist and will notify everyone in a future issue how they can aid our cause. Stay tuned.
Letter #624 from SA of Brooklyn, New York
(SA wrote a letter in the Dec. 1994 issue regarding his 5 B's of bestiality, barbarism, bigotry, bloodshed, and brutality. He was criticized by RH of Simi Valley, California in Letter #609 (Issue 148/April 1995) for making mistakes and I concurred with some of RH's observations. SA sent us a corrected copy and prefaced it with the following comments--Ed.)
I can't seem to locate the Dec. 1994 issue of Biblical Errancy in which my letter appeared. I would appreciate your sending me another copy of that issue.... The writer of letter #609 is correct in stating that I made several mistakes and I should have checked it out more carefully. Your comments were also correct and I must apologize for being "overzealous." Your suggested verses are definitely more appropriate. I am enclosing several items with a Table of Contents and Comments. I hope that you will find them useful. Keep up the excellent work.
Editor's Response to Letter #624
Dear SA. I'm glad to have an ally as openminded as you. If only our opponents were as willing to admit their errors and make corrections! Instead, they prefer to defend hopeless positions at all costs.
ERRATUM: In the 148th issue on page 3 in the right column the 14th line from the bottom should read: "Moreover, would Rev. BB be so kind as to give...." We left out the word "be."