Issue #151-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies in the Bi

Biblical Errancy Issue #151-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible (Part 5), Rev. BB's Attacks Pts. 19, 21, 22, Compliment of Stein Comment, Appeal for Public Access Help

Nov 10, '08 11:42 AM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #151 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


July 1995

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

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

This issue will continue our analysis of Haley's classic work and our exhaustive critique of Rev. BB's denunciation of our pamphlet, "The Bible is God's Word?"


REVIEWS

Haley's ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE (Part V))--On page 230 Haley addresses the conflict between Rom. 7:18 ("For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing") and Gal. 2:20 ("I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me"). His explanation is relatively brief but highly suppositional. He states, "In these passages Paul speaks in two distinct relations. (a) 'In me, that is, in my flesh,'--in my lower, carnal self. (b) 'Christ liveth in me,'--in my higher, spiritual self, in my renewed heart in which Christ is enthroned. This is Alford's view. Hodge takes substantially the same view. Some interpret the first text as describing Paul previous to his conversion; the latter, as applying to him after the event."

Haley says "some interpret" and that's just the problem. Too much interpreting is involved at the expense of reading the words themselves. To begin with, how could the first text be interpreted as "describing Paul previous to his conversion", when it's found in the Book of Romans which Paul allegedly wrote after his conversion?

But even more importantly, this entire defense is based on guesswork. Where does the text state, either expressly or implicitly, that two opposite natures of Paul are involved. There is no evidence one text is referring to a higher spiritual self while the other is referring to a lower carnal self. Gratuitous assumptions are certainly not the hallmark of objective scholarship based on evidence and textual corroboration. This defense is founded far more on what Haley would like to think is the case than what he can prove to be true. A far more sensible explanation is that Paul just didn't remember or take into account his earlier comment that no good thing dwelt in him when he said that Christ dwelt within him. Or perhaps the order of the comments was reversed because Galatians was written prior to Romans. Either way he was more concerned with theological hyperbole than consistency. Of course, if Christ is no good then the contradiction vanishes.

On page 231 Haley submits another short reconciliation of a direct biblical clash. In this instance, Matt. 6:5-6 ("When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say to you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret"), 2 Kings, 4:33, Luke 6:12 and Acts 10:9 are opposed to 1 Tim. 2:8 ("I will therefore that men pray every where"), 1 Kings 8:22-23, and Dan. 6:10-11. Haley states, "It is not publicity, but ostentation in prayer, which is prohibited; not praying in public, but praying in conspicuous places 'to be seen of men.' The motive, not the place, is the thing in question. Chrysostom and Augustine both caution us against a merely literal interpretation of Matt. 6:6."

The phrase "to be seen of men" lies at the core of Haley's rationalization. He tries to shift the focus by implying that as long as they pray modestly and with no intent to be seen by others they are behaving well. Motive is supposedly more important than location. If that were true, then there would be no need for Matthew to have said that when you pray you should enter your closet, shut thy door, and pray to your Father in secret. Why even refer to the location of prayer if the motive behind the prayer is more important? Why? Because location is of greater importance than motive.

Moreover, 1 Tim. 2:8 says God wants men to pray everywhere. Why would God give people specific instructions to pray in their closets, if he wanted them to pray everywhere? For understandable reasons, Haley is more interested in discussing one aspect of Matthew than the clash between Matthew and 1 Timothy. Haley falsely says, "It is not publicity, but ostentation in prayer, which is prohibited." The text says that when you pray enter into your closet and shut the door. It does not say public prayer is permissible as long as it is not ostentatious. It says don't pray in public period.

Haley's reconciliation of Ex. 31:15 ("Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath-day he shall surely be put to death") with Matt. 12:1-5 ("At that time Jesus went on the sabbath-day through the corn, and his disciples were a hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat....") is also relatively brief. He says, "Deeds of necessity and mercy were not forbidden by Moses. Eating, drinking, caring for the sick, and like needful acts were not interdicted. Our Savior did not 'break' the Sabbath. He did, indeed, disregard the foolish traditions of the scribes and pharisees relative to that day, but neither by precept nor example did he sanction its real desecration."

Again, Haley let his imagination assume control and interject whatever it deemed appropriate for the occasion. First, Jesus didn't merely "disregard the foolish traditions of the scribes and pharisees relative to that day;" he directly violated a cardinal tenet of the old law itself. And second, where does Exodus say or imply that caring for the sick and other needful acts are exempted? Haley reads more between the lines than on them. Nowhere does the Bible say there are exemptions or exceptions are permitted. When Haley says "Our Savior did not 'break' the Sabbath" he couldn't be more incorrect. He most assuredly did. And as we have noted in prior issues of this publication, he violated many other OT laws as well. (To Be Continued)

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #605 from Rev. BB Continues from Last Month (Part dd)

(The 19th question on our pamphlet is: Surely you don't believe Eccle. 1:9 (RSV) which says, "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun." How many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945 and how many people walked on the moon before 1969? Rev. BB responded by saying--Ed.),

I believe there is nothing new about war or human inventiveness. Both pre-dated Ecclesiastes' "Preacher." The atomic bomb is simply another variation on the war theme. It killed, maimed, injured, and brought grief. Certainly there's nothing new about that. Similarly, the moon landing missions stand in a long line of human technological achievements that began with the wheel and continue in gene splicing. In this sense, there's certainly nothing new about man walking on the moon.

In this case, McKinsey isn't even presenting a case of the Bible contradicting itself, only a contradiction with his opinion, born in his narrow interpretation of the text and of recent events. Such pickiness is either construed or irrational or both.



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

As usual Rev. BB's thought processes are performing inadequately on extraneous considerations. First, we aren't talking about war in general but an event in particular. Again, he's trying to hide among broad generalizations. Just as we aren't talking about war in general, we aren't talking about technological achievements in general. We are talking about a specific occurrence. Of course, wars have always been fought. Who would deny that? But when was an atomic bomb employed? We are not talking about war broadly speaking but about a specific event which may or may not be included within war. In this instance, it is. The dropping of the atomic bomb is a variation on how to fight a war, a unique variation, having never been used until 1945. It's use in 1945 was not a variation on a war theme but a new way in which to fight a war. Certainly the atomic bomb killed, maimed, injured, and brought grief. But its uniqueness does not lie in what it did but in how it did it.

Second, of course technological developments have always been emerging, but when did one entail walking on the moon. If there is nothing new about men walking on the moon, then Rev. BB should be more than willing to cite an instance that occurred prior to 1969.

Third, Rev. BB says, "McKinsey isn't even presenting a case of the Bible contradicting itself." If Rev. BB had read with a more discerning eye, he would have noticed that I not only never said I was presenting an internal contradiction, but I noted that this involved a contradiction between the Bible and real events, not a conflict within Scripture. As I have said so often, and apparently it bears repeating, this publication does not deal with biblical contradictions alone. Much of its contents involves biblical conflicts with external science or events and this is a prime example.

Fourth, Rev. BB says I am only presenting a contradiction with my own opinion. How ridiculous! People walking on the moon and dropping the atomic bomb are facts, hard facts, not opinions. Opinion has nothing to do with this problem.

Fifth, the only construed and irrational aspect relative to this dilemma is Rev. BB's evasive, disingenuous, deceptive excuse for an answer.

And lastly, nearly every time apologists like Rev. BB are confronted with specifics that play havoc with biblical pontification, they escape into glittering generalities and secondary befuddlement. When the Bible says there is nothing new under the sun, it's lying pure and simple. And only someone possessed by a narrow-minded ideology bordering on fanaticism would deny the obvious by alleging otherwise. The problem lies not with a narrow interpretation of the text on my part but with Rev. BB trying to escape into glittering generalities and avoid specifics at all costs. I'm not interpreting anything. I'm merely reading what is said, while operating on the principle that Scripture says what it means. If only Rev. BB did likewise!



Letter #605 Continues (Part ee)

(The 21st question on our pamphlet is: If God created everything (Col. 1:16, Eph. 3:9, Rev. 4:11, and John 1:3) then he created the world's evil (Isa. 45:7, Lam. 3:38). Thus he's responsible. Rev. BB responded by saying--Ed.),

Neither of the OT texts listed describe God as creating evil. They do attest to the fact that God allows trials to come to the faithful for their training in godliness--there is nothing evil about that. To insist that, as the texts clearly say, God created all things that He must therefore have created evil too is to make an invalid "inductive leap."



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

First, since Rev. BB apparently has serious difficulty reading and comprehending that which lies before him, I'll render some assistance. What do the two OT texts say verbatim? In Isa. 45:7 God says, "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." If Rev. BB will notice, nothing is said about allowing anything. The word "allow" or its equivalent is nowhere to be found in the text. God says he "creates," which means he's the source. Lam. 3:38 says that good and evil proceed out of the mouth of the Most High. Again God is shown to be the source of evil; he doesn't just allow it. He generates it.

Second, Rev. BB says, "to insist that, as the texts clearly say, God created all things that He must therefore have created evil too is to make an invalid inductive leap." He accuses me of making "an invalid inductive leap" when his own stream of logic has no flow but is stagnant and fatally polluted. He admits that the NT texts "clearly say, God created all things" and then immediately reverses himself by saying that does not include evil. If God created EVERYTHING and evil is a part of everything, then the simple syllogistic reasoning of Logic 101 will tell you that God must have created evil. And to think he's denigrating my logic! His logic is neither inductive nor deductive, it's merely elusive and deceptive.



Letter #605 Continues (Part ff)

Evil's existence is not sufficient proof that God created it. The "all" in the verses needs to be qualified in light of the broader Bible teaching that Satan is the source of all evil (John 8:44) and that sin entered creation by means of Adam's disobedience (Rom. 5:19).



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

Rev. BB is creating and fighting a strawman. As usual he's attempting to shift the focus. I never said evil's existence is sufficient proof that God created it. I said that according to the Bible God created everything and simple logic tells us that if evil exists then God must have created it as well. Since Rev. BB believes evil exists and freely admits "the NT texts clearly say, God created all things" the point is made.

Rev. BB incorrectly concludes that "the 'all' in those verses needs to be qualified in light of the broader Bible teaching that Satan is the source of all evil (John 8:44) and that sin entered creation by means of Adam's disobedience." John 8:44 says, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own for he is a liar, and the father of it." And Rom. 5:19 says, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." In the first place, John 8:44 does not say Satan is the source or cause of all evil. It says he was a murderer and the father of lies, but many evils involve activities other than murdering or lying. Even more importantly Rev. BB's qualification is nothing more than an attempt to ignore one side of a biblical contradiction while stressing the other. Who is the source of evil, God or Satan? Several verses, which Rev. BB chooses to avoid, say God, while one verse, John 8:44, which Rev. BB incorrectly interprets and prefers to use, allegedly says Satan. Rev. BB thinks he can run off to another part of Scripture to prove there are other sources of evil than God. But instead of resolving the problem he has only managed to highlight a contradiction.

And on top of everything else, if Adam is the source of evil as Rev. BB proves by citing Rom. 5:19, then God didn't create everything; several verses (Col. 1:16, Eph. 3:9, Rev. 4:11, John 1:3) are a lie, and we are back to square one. Something has to give!



Letter #605 Continues (Part gg)

Thus statement #21 is false. But even if we conceded it, the statement has no direct relationship to biblical authority. This is just another case of McKinsey grinding his own axe of illogical illegitimate theology.



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

The only false aspects regarding this problem are a series of apologetically contrived excuses manu- factured to derail the unwary. For Rev. BB to say "the statement has no direct relationship to biblical authority" is to add nonsense to duplicity. Whether or not God created evil bears directly on his character which, in turn, impacts on the validity and reliability of everything contained in what is supposedly his book. Stated differently, how could a book be perfect, if it arose from an imperfect, evil-creating author? The evidence clearly demonstrates who is grinding an axe, protecting his ideological turf, and propounding an illogical illegitimate theology. In point of fact, Biblical Errancy has never propounded any kind of theology, since the very phrase "logical theology" is an oxymoron. Our philosophy is based on logic and proof; whereas, theology is based on hope and theory.



Letter #605 Continues (Part hh)

(The 22nd question on our pamphlet is: In Psalm 139:7-11 we are told God is everywhere. If so, why would God need to come down to earth to see a city (Gen. 11:5) when he is already here? And how could Satan leave the presence of the Lord (Job 1:12, 2:7)? Rev. BB responded by saying--Ed.),

It's hard to believe anyone could overlook figurative language when its under his nose. The author of this tract is either devoid of imagination, reason, and faith, or he willingly sacrifices in his vain attempt to discredit the Bible. Or, he may appear to give up on these to construct an army of "strawmen" that masquerades as reasoning. Clearly, he is going for a quantity of "arguments", unconcerned with their quality.



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

Rev. BB is only widening the distance between himself and reality. First, he doesn't hesitate to employ the old "figurative" defense when the obvious meaning of any biblical statement makes his dearly-beloved book look like something that emerged from the myopic mind of a child in fantasyland. In truth, it is hard to believe that anyone would try to make something figurative that is so obviously literal. Is Rev. BB also saying that Jacob didn't wrestle with God in Gen. 32:24-30 even though the text says, "...for you have striven with God and with men" and "For I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved."? After all it is difficult to see how God could be seen face to face in a wrestling match without moving. Is he also saying Abraham was not visited by the Lord, even though the 18th chapter of Genesis says he was? One need only read Genesis to see that there is nothing symbolic or figurative about the entire visitation and movement by God in the flesh is present throughout.

Second, even if Gen. 11:5 and Job 2:7 were intended to be taken figuratively, that would in no way solve the problem. How could God move from point A to point B, even in a figurative sense, if God is everywhere? Whether interpreted figuratively or literally, God either is or is not everywhere. How could he not be everywhere literally; how could he not be everywhere figuratively. Therefore, for one to say God moved is to deny the omnipresence of God. Figurative movement is no more possible than literal movement. One is no more plausible than the other. Rev. BB is so narrowly focused that he doesn't realize he's denying God's omnipresence. As far as my nose is concerned, the only thing under it is the stench coming from an apologetic concoction composed of the foulest of ideological ingredients.

Third, Rev. BB accuses me of being devoid of imagination, reason, and faith. And since he's no doubt referring to these concepts as he understands them, I'll concur. Coming from somebody whose imagination runs wild, whose faith ignores reality, and whose "reason" is nothing more than a perversion of the word itself, I consider this a compliment. The only real imagination involved is that associated with the lengths to which Rev. BB will go to create a defense. I'm glad to see he admits I don't have "faith," which he so obviously possesses in abundance, and which the Bible describes as evidence of things not seen. Faith is applicable to virtually his entire defense in light of the fact that the latter rests wholly on evidence, proof, and data not seen.

Fourth, he vilifies my approach as a "vain attempt to discredit the Bible" when it could only be portrayed as such by someone fully unacquainted with over 150 issues of this publication. No one with even a modicum of objectivity could possibly believe such buncombe. I'd strongly suggest that Rev. BB read all 150 issues and then try to make that statement with a straight face. If he succeeds, then he's no longer with us and has entered the detached world of make-believe.

Fifth, the only "strawmen" involved are the anemic defenses erected by Rev. BB to divert attention from the real issues. In a doomed attempt to appear erudite, he doesn't even use the word strawmen correctly. I am not attributing arguments to him that he did not in fact make. Quite the contrary, I'm addressing direct and unequivocal biblical assertions, while he's resorting to a modified version of the old hackneyed defense: That's what it says but that's not what it means.

And lastly, he says I am "going for a quantity of 'arguments' unconcerned with their quality." If I were going for quantity over quality, does he seriously think I'd rely on a mere 24 questions in a small pamphlet. Can't he get anything right? If he spent as much time on verification and validation as he does on vituperation and vilification, he'd be far better off.



Letter #605 Continues (Part ii)

As I began to say, even though the Bible affirms that God is omnipotent, it sometimes aids our understanding to think of God in figurative language. In this case, that means imposing imaginative spatial limitations on God, when, to be completely literal no such limitations exist. Since Heaven is thereby described as being overhead, God, as Heaven's Chief Resident, occasionally comes "down" to earth to deal directly with His people. Another purpose of this imagery is to highlight the importance of the events so described. After all, anything that merits a special visit from God in Heaven to earth is important indeed.

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

First, figurative language that denies the very nature, the very definition, of God is hardly of use to anybody interested in being accurate. As we noted earlier, a being that is everywhere can't go anywhere either figuratively or literally.

Second, Rev. BB says "it sometimes aids our understanding to think of God in figurative language." No! Far more often it is used merely to provide apologists with an escape hatch.

Third, Rev. BB says that in this case "that means imposing imaginative spatial limitations on God." I'm glad he said "imaginative" because that's why they aren't worthy of being taken seriously. Even from a theological, much less a rational, perspective, they don't exist. "Imposing" is a revealing term because that's exactly what's being done. Because they don't exist they're being imposed.

Fourth, Rev. BB says "no such limitations exist." Then why are they even being discussed, much less imposed? Why discuss something that is no more valid from a Christian perspective than Greek or Roman mythology?

And finally, Rev. BB says, "Another purpose of this imagery is to highlight the importance of the events so described." It's language like this that shows why biblical defenders are past masters at doubletalk. How can you highlight events that couldn't possibly occur and still be discussing the real world? In essence, Rev. BB concludes by begging the question. He refers to an event that can't occur and then acts as if it's a given. He argues as if his initial premise is an established fact when that's the very point in dispute. (To Be Concluded Next Month)



EDIT0R'S COMMENT: We would like to thank Dr. Gordon Stein, Editor of The American Rationalist, for his complimentary analysis on page 13 in the May-June 1995 issue of his periodical regarding our book. His final comment that it "belongs in the library of every rationalist, non-theist, or religious liberal" is most gracious. Coming from someone who reads incessantly and is as qualified as anyone to make an accurate comparison with other works, that's quite a compliment. Oddly enough I agree with his only negative comment that the book could more accurately be titled a handbook than an encyclopedia. The word "handbook" was not chosen, because I hope to create another work that will be a true handbook--a compilation of our five notebooks in alphabetized and indexed form. Dr. Stein and I have exchanged publications for years and since he was kind enough to recommend my book I would like to recommend an exceptionally "on target" article he wrote on page 2 in the same issue of The American Rationalist entitled "Shooting Ourselves in the Foot." Although consisting of only 3 short paragraphs, the article encapsulates precisely the feelings of many atheists, freethinkers, and humanists regarding who should, and should not, be our national spokesperson.



EDITOR'S NOTE: FINALLY!! FINALLY!! We are ready to distribute our public-access cablevision programs. But we DEFINITELY NEED YOUR HELP. There is no way this undertaking can be successful without dedicated and determined supporters. Nancy Stanley of Richmond, Indiana, has enthusiastically volunteered to be our duplicator and distributor, so we are all set at this end. As of now 33 programs have been completed and we have more than enough material for approximately 80. Each program is one half hour long and is recorded only on Broadcast Quality Tapes that are 2 hours long. Low quality tapes such as those found in discount stores simply won't do. Since each program is 30 minutes long and each tape is 120 minutes long, we are putting four programs on each tape. So the programs are distributed as follows: Tape #1 (Programs 1-4); Tape #2 (Programs 5-8); Tape #3 (Programs 9-12); Tape #4 (Programs 13-16); Tape #5 (Programs 17-20); Tape #6 (Programs 21-24); Tape #7 (Programs 25-28), Tape #8 (Programs 29-32) etc. We are now asking people throughout the nation to become involved in our ongoing struggle against religious superstition in general and the Bible in particular. But as with any endeavor of real substance expenses are unavoidable. I simply can't afford to pay for everything. Instead, we are asking you to send $10 for each tape. Considering what religious programs charge for 2 hour video tapes, $10 is definitely reasonable. With that money we hope to be able to buy a blank tape, record 4 programs on the tape, purchase the mailer in which the tape will be mailed, and pay postage. With each $10 you need only tell us which tape you want. Of course, all tapes are yours to keep and circulate. The real challenge will be in getting them played consistently on your local public access stations. Stations have different requirements and some have none. Some want disclaimers at the beginning; some want color bars; some use 3/4" tapes only (ours are 1/2"); some want Super VHS tapes only, some want to see a sample first, and so forth ad infinitum. You will have to contact your local station, find out what is required, and then tailor our tape to their specifications. There is simply no way we can arrange our tapes to meet the specific requirements of every cable station. We are asking you to complete whatever arrangements are involved. Once you have worked out mutually agreeable procedures with your local station we recommend: (a) playing each program at least two times a week; (b) playing each program at least 2 weeks in a row, (c) having each program played as near prime time as possible, not at 2 or 3 in the morning; (d) watching each program enough to see that everything is proceeding smoothly, and (e) asking your friends or relatives to play your tapes on their local public access stations. The greater the circulation the better. Some people have already volunteered to assist our efforts but many more are needed. So, please join this worthy cause. And don't be overly concerned about people finding out what you are doing. Your name should never be broadcast in any way and will not appear in the credits. We have been playing my tapes all over the entire north Dayton-Montgomery County area (a circle with a radius of approximately 50 miles encompassing hundreds of thousands of people) for over 18 months and, although I am undoubtedly the most visible participant, I have never received any negative feedback, except for some textual comments.