Issue #152-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies in the Bi

Biblical Errancy Issue #152-Haley's Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible (Part 6), Rev. BB's Attacks Pts. 23 & 24, Special Sabbath & Resurrection Dating, Saluting those who aided us

Nov 10, '08 11:44 AM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #152 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Aug. 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 conclude our exhaustive critique of Rev. BB's analysis of our pamphlet, THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD?.


REVIEWS

Haley's ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE (Part VI))--On page 241 Haley relates the conflict between Acts 13:39 ("And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses") on the one hand and Matt. 12:32 ("Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come") and Mark 3:29 ("He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation") on the other. He states, "The texts at the left (Acts 13:39, Rom. 5:20, 1 John 2:1) by no means assert that every sin, wherever and by whomsoever committed, will be forgiven. The general rule is that sins repented of will be forgiven. Matthew and Mark are speaking of sins which will never be repented of, consequently never forgiven; hence they are sins 'unto death'."

Haley's entire resolution of this conflict is based on faulty premises. First, he began by saying, "The texts at the left (Acts 13:39, Rom. 5:20, 1 John 2:1) by no means assert that every sin, wherever and by whomsoever committed, will be forgiven." Nobody said thay did. They are only referring to sins committed by those who believe. Second, who cares. The issue is not whether or not all sins will be forgiven but whether all sins can be forgiven, and according to Acts 13:39 they can be for believers. But according to Matt. 12:32 there is one sin--blaspheming the Holy Ghost--that can't be forgiven under any circumstances either in this world or in the world to come. Third, Haley says, "The general rule is that sins repented of will be forgiven." In none of these verses can one find the word "repent" or a comparable concept; therefore, it isn't even relevant. And fourth, Haley says, "Matthew and Mark speak of sins which will never be repented of, consequently never forgiven; hence they are sins 'unto death'." Again, since the word as well as the concept of "repent" are nowhere to be found in Matthew or Mark, this, too, is irrelevant. And why refer to "sins unto death" when only one sin is being discussed?

Probably the most common defense used by Haley throughout his entire book, and this problem is a prime example of same, is to read into the text or read between the lines. Haley is a past-master at adding concepts to the script that aren't present in the original text. He doesn't twist or delete passages as much as he supplements them. He specializes in adding ideas that modify, restrict or redirect what is being said. He redefines words and statements so that they say what he deems desirable and then continues the battle on a new footing. Like a typical politician, he reframes the issue in the light most favorable to himself and proceeds accordingly. Stripped to its bare essentials, he relies most heavily on the old defense of: That's what it says but that is not what it means. But instead of being forthright and frankly admitting that that is the essence of his approach, he simply restructures the conflict by restating the original dilemma, while hoping his sleigh of thought will stay off his detractor's radar screen. He makes the conflict something it is not and then proceeds to show how easily the conflict can be resolved. Of course, if the original problem were as he defines it, then there would have been no need to have mentioned it to begin with.

Another good example of his ideological shell-game is evident in his resolution of the conflict between Eccle. 1:18 ("For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow") and Eccle. 6:8 ("For what hath the wise more than the fool") on the one hand and Eccle. 2:13 ("Wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness") and Prov. 3:13 ("Happy is the man that findeth wisdom and the man that getteth understanding") on the other. So is wisdom a curse or an asset. That's the issue. You'll never know from these verses. Haley's explanation is that, "The term 'wisdom' is applied, in the scriptures, to at least three things: 1. Worldly craft, cunning, or policy; 2. Mere human knowledge or learning; 3. Enlightened piety. The first is always disapproved; the second, having in itself no moral quality, is not condemned save when it usurps the place of the third kind, or enlightened piety. The latter is invariably commended. In the case before us ethical wisdom is contrasted with carnal wisdom."

The obvious sophistry permeating this explanation, as with so much of Haley's approach to biblical clashes, lies in his constant propensity to embellish the text. There is nothing in these verses justifying these distinctions and they are only offered because of their attractiveness from an apologetic perspective. Where are distinctions of this kind outlined in the text? Where does the Bible say it is referring to 3 different kinds of wisdom? There is no reason to proceed further until Haley establishes the premise upon which his entire rationalization is based. And that he completely failed to do.

Everyone is familiar with the commandment in Ex. 20:14 which says Thou shalt not commit adultery. And Heb. 13:4 says, "Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." So adultery is clearly condemned. But in Num. 31:18 God condones the practice by saying, "All the women children...keep alive for yourselves" and in Hosea 1:2 he says, "Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms, for the land hath committed great whoredom departing from the Lord." In defense of the biblical God Haley says on page 255, "In Numbers Keil (a famous German apologist--Ed.) says all the females were put to death who might possibly have been engaged in the licentious worship of Peor, so that the Israelites might be preserved from contamination by that abominable idolatry. The young maidens were reserved to be employed as servants, or, in case they became proselytes, to be married."

Apparently Haley couldn't think of an explanation so he turned to Keil for assistance. Instead of addressing the problem, all Keil did was focus on the alleged justice associated with killing women who might have worshiped Peor. But that isn't the issue. We are not concerned with those women who worshipped incorrectly but with those the Israelites took for themselves without the benefit of matrimony. And Keil is trying to give the impression that these women were merely impressed into servitude without sexual contact being involved and some were later married. If Haley had quoted all of Ex. 31:18 ("But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves") he would have shown that more than mere servitude was involved. The last part of the prior verse ("...kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him") provides further evidence that mere servitude is not on the speaker's mind. In addition, by saying "all the females were put to death who might possibly have been engaged in the licentious worship of Peor," Keil is denigrating the biblical God by accusing him of ordering the killing of people on the mere suspicion that they may have engaged in a forbidden act. That's justice! What happened to a fair hearing?

As far as the Hosea quote is concerned, Haley turned to another famous German apologist, Delitzsch, who takes the prophet's marriages simply as internal psychological events, i.e. "as merely carried out in that inward and spiritual intuition in which the word of God was addressed to him." Apparently Delitzsch was even more at a loss for an answer than Keil, because he submitted an array of words without a ray of light. He needs to go back to the drawing board and return with something considerably more lucid. In commenting directly on the passage in Hosea Haley says, "the word 'whoredom,' in the first part of the verse may mean, as it certainly does in the last part, simply spiritual whoredom, or idolatry." That Haley is guessing seems rather clear. Saying "may mean" shows he's offering a plausible explanation that's by no means airtight. And when other versions of this verse are read, his entire rationale all but collapses. The RSV says, "To, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry...." The Living Bible says, "Go and marry a girl who is a prostitute, so that some of her children will be born to you from other men." And the New International Version says, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the Lord." Clearly none of these versions are referring to "simply spiritual whoredom, or idolatry." The clincher is found in the very next verse which says in the NIV, "So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son." That eradicates Haley's entire theory that a spiritual meaning is intended. On top of everything else, even if the meaning were spiritual, how could a morally perfect God tell people to take whores?

Haley's rationalization of the conflict between Jesus' comment in Matt. 28:19 ("Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") and Paul's assertion in 1 Cor. 1:14, 17 ("I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius. ...For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel") is one of his shortest. That's probably because he decided the only way to address a direct conflict of this magnitude would be to hit and run.

He says, "Obviously, 'Christ sent me not so much to baptize, as to preach the gospel.' Paul did not neglect or undervalue baptism, but gave himself to the work of teaching, leaving his associates to administer baptism."

Again Haley rewrote the script. Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize, period. He did not say "Christ sent me not so much to baptize." While acting under the orders of Jesus, Paul specifically said that he baptized no one, except two people, and for that he implicitly apologized.

And finally, on page 258 in Haley's tome can be found the conflict between Gen. 9:6 ("Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed") and Gen. 4:12-13 ("A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear"). The problem generated by these verses is that instead of executing Cain for killing Abel as is required by Gen. 9:6, God merely condemned him to a life of wandering throughout the earth. Haley provides an exceptionally poor resolution of this contradiction by saying, "By some unaccountable freak of exegesis, a well-known critic makes the first text the prohibition of capital punishment. Instead, it is a most explicit command, sanctioning it. The case of Cain occurred some 1,500 years before the command was given to Noah."

In the first place what difference does it make how some "well-known" biblical critic misinterpreted the first text. If he understands that to be saying capital punishment is to be prohibited, then obviously he can't read very well. Haley is correct in reprimanding this unknown critic. He shouldn't have even mentioned him. Then Haley says that the command regarding capital punishment was given to Noah 1,500 years after the Cain/Abel incident and, thus, by some strange twist of logic the command does apply. The only "freak of exegesis" involved is that emanating from the pen of Haley. His entire train of thought in this regard is all but incoherent.

Some of Haley's supporters may say that all he meant to state was that Cain was not executed because capital punishment was not instituted until 1,500 years after Cain lived. Thus, the command would not apply. What? Morality varies with the times? That's "situation ethics" which fundamentalists denounce in no uncertain terms. If one of the Ten Commandments is only applicable to a particular time in history, then a pandora's box is opened with respect to the applicability of the entire Ten Commandments. (To Be Continued)



DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

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

(The 23rd question on our pamphlet is: For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, hell's punishment is infinitely greater. Rev. BB responded by saying--Ed.)

It would be interesting to hear just what McKinsey's definition of hell is. How a biblical concept could find a place in his non-biblical theology is beyond me. At any rate, he has failed to understand first of all what sin is. It is a deliberate act of willful disobedience that has the effect of distancing us from God. It makes us estranged in our relationship with the divine. Only the blood of Christ can bring forgiveness of sin and remove the estrangement, close the distance.

Second, he does not understand what hell is. Hell is the fate of the unrepentant, the unbelieving. It is eternal separation from God. With a correct understanding, you can see that the punishment does "fit the crime," indeed, perfectly. Because sin is a willing separation of ourselves from God, it only makes sense that the separation in eternity is a continuation of the separation begun in this life. The person who dies in unbelief, in sin, has committed themselves to being separate from God, to "going their own way," and God's judgment is, in this sense, a continuation of that separation.



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

To begin with, my definition of hell is irrelevant. What counts is the Bible's description of hell. Second, what does Rev. BB mean by saying, "How a biblical concept could find a place in his non-biblical theology is beyond me." Some of his comments are worst than erroneous, they're muddled. Is he implying I believe in hell? How nonsensical can one be? Does he mean that because I discuss ghosts, goblins, spooks, heaven, and hell for example, I must therefore believe in them? Third, Rev. BB says I "failed to understand first of all what sin is." I have no problem at all understanding what the Christian definition of sin is. But Rev. BB has a big problem showing how his ramblings are relevant. Fourth, his theology is a chaotic mess. If sin is a willing separation of ourselves from God, then all fetuses, infants, babies, and severely mentally impaired people who die in that condition never sinned. Yet, the Bible says all have sinned and come short (Rom. 3:23). Moreover, John 14:6 says no one cometh to the father but by me. Since these beings are in no condition to make a conscious decision to come to the father, they are automatically condemned. Yet they never sinned. And fifth, because someone separates himself from God, whatever that means, during his short period of time on earth, he is to be punished forever? That's justice! There is nothing someone could do in the short space of 80 or 90 years that could possibly warrant eternal punishment, including separating himself from God. Even though someone decided to separate himself from God for 80 or 90 years, it is illogical to continue that for an eternity. Has Rev. BB lost his mind? One might just as well say that since someone spent 10 years in prison for armed robbery, he might as well go the extra mile and spend the rest of his life there. Rev. BB says "it only makes sense that the separation in eternity is a continuation of the separation begun in this life." What's he talking about? There's no sense to it. Doesn't he believe in a man serving his time and completing his sentence?



Letter #605 Concludes (Part kk)

(The 24th and last question on our pamphlet is: In Acts 20:35 Paul told people to "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'it is more blessed to give than to receive'." Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn't Paul guilty of deception. Rev. BB responded by saying--Ed.),

It is transparently false to assume that the Gospels record every word Jesus said. It is this false assumption that is the basis of this "argument." John tells us that his own account is not the complete, verbatim record of Jesus' teaching and preaching. Paul is not logically guilty of deception when we realize the Gospels do not (and cannot) contain everything Jesus said. Here Paul refers to something that went unreported by the Gospel writers. Or, perhaps, Paul is referring to something the resurrected Christ said to him personally. Or, it may have been revealed to him otherwise. What I am trying to show is that there are a host of possible explanations of Paul's statement better than McKinsey's illogical, mean-spirited one.



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

The only false assumption that really matters is the assumption by biblical readers that these words were said by Jesus and are in the Bible. As I have said on several occasions, as long as Christians make it clear to readers and listeners alike that these words are not in Scripture, I am willing to admit that they could have been said by Jesus, although never recorded scripturally. But this distinction is rarely made, even though biblicists repeatedly use this verse for propaganda purposes. When an alleged statement by Jesus is nowhere to be found in Scripture, when people are not told it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, when Paul and his followers give people the impression that the statement is to be found in Scripture, then people are being deceived. A deception based on omission can be as deceptive, damaging, and misleading as one based on commission.

I am well aware of the fact that Scripture could not contain everything Jesus said. That's not the problem. The problem is that Jesus is quoted as if his comment is in Scripture, when it most assuredly is not. As long as everything is kept open and above board I have no problem. But when Christians intentionally give people the impression that their beloved hero said something that, in fact, is not in Scripture and can't be demonstrated, I have qualms and raise objections.

Letter #625 from JS of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan

Dear Dennis. Would you please answer this question for me, or refer me to chapter and verse in Biblical Errancy where this may have already been dealt with. On page 39 in your book, you state that the Crucifixion could not have occurred on a Wednesday, and the resurrection not on a Saturday, because all of the special sabbaths mentioned in the OT occurred in the fall, and the Crucifixion occurred in the spring.

However, as I read Leviticus 23 and its parallels, at least one Sabbath did occur around the time of Passover, and that Sabbath is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Furthermore, the NT does say that the Sabbath on the day after the Crucifixion was a "special" sabbath. Accordingly, it seems to me that perhaps the Wednesday to Saturday scenario is plausible (such as in the year A.D. 31). Any comments on this?



Editor's Response to Letter #625

Dear JS. I'll take your points one by one. First, I did not say on page 39 that "all of the special sabbaths mentioned in the OT occurred in the fall, and the Crucifixion occurred in the spring"? I said that "the sabbaths referred to in the OT all occurred in the seventh month, while the Crucifixion occurred in the first month." But I'm willing to overlook this discrepancy because I assume you are using a Hebrew calendar. Second, you say that "at least one Sabbath did occur around the time of Passover," which is borne out by the early part of Lev. 23. What verses are you referring to specifically, and where do they say the sabbath referred to fell on any day other than the 7th day or what we know as Saturday? The 3rd verse preceding what you are referring to says, "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest,...it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings." It specifically states the seventh day, not one of the other six, is the sabbath. Third, you say the sabbath you are referring to "is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread." But where does it say it fell on any other day than the seventh day, Saturday? As far as this problem is concerned, if it didn't fall on a day other than the seventh, what difference would it make what it's called or what's being celebrated? Fourth, you say that "the NT does say that the Sabbath on the day after the Crucifixion was a 'special' sabbath" without proving this is any day other than the seventh or citing chapter and verse to show where it is deemed special. From the perspective of Christians no doubt it was special. After all, how many sabbaths occurred on the day after the Crucifixion of Jesus? But where is it cited as such? And lastly, I am at a lost to understand how you feel you have demonstrated a possible faux pas on my part. In order to prove your point, you are going to have to prove that one of the OT sabbaths not only occurred on a day other than the seventh day, specifically Thursday, but also prove this occurred in the first month because, as you noted, that is when the Passover occurs and the Crucifixion occurred around the time of the Passover.

I know you have always been a strong supporter of BE and are submitting this question for purposes of clarification and to eliminate any possible avenues of attack from which I may have left myself exposed. Thanks for the assistance and please don't take umbrage if the tenor of my response seems reminiscent of those directed toward apologists.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #626 from SC of La Honda, California

...Keep up the good work. Those self-satisfied, dangerous religious zealots think they're going to establish a theocracy in this country, and it is ever more important to keep attacking their beliefs and their idiotic "holy book" at every level. B.E. is an inspiration, a delight, and a comfort. So glad you are out there. All the best for 1995.



Letter #627 from WD of Melbourne Beach, Florida

I have found your Encyclopedia of BE tremendously enlightening, stimulating, importantly necessary for study by everyone -- in all religions.... Allow me a moment for a background of myself. For 63 of my 65 years I had a very good relationship with religion. It didn't bother me and I didn't bother it.... I got into the study and research of religions as a matter of protection from some friends who evidenced themselves as good ole fundamentalists who clued me into the absolute truth that if I didn't agree with their beliefs I was going to be welcomed into the Devil's cadre. Since that didn't make too much sense to me I bolted for the books. Unfortunately the deeper I get the more unbelievable it becomes. At the moment I am at a loss as to how religion, in particular Christianity, has ever survived. Worse, I feel I have been intellectually raped by the church....



Letter #628 from BY of Seminole, Florida

Dear Dennis. Once again, I am happily renewing my subscription to BE. I continue to find it a well-researched source or arguments for debating Christians whose faith is based on an incomplete knowledge of their own Bible. I have also acquired your book, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, and find it immensely useful as a starting point -- one might even say "inspiration" -- for newspaper and other "letters to the editor" responses.

I have also taken the liberty of becoming an unpaid salesman for you (no, I'm not asking for a raise). I've created the enclosed stickers (a couple were included--Ed.) which I place in strategic places in hotel bibles; I will eventually create an entire line of them referring to specific verses and contradictions which I will forward to you. Feel free to make whatever use of them you see fit. As our country sinks deeper into the fanaticism encouraged by radio talk show hosts and ambitious politicians using the Bible as ammunition, I think that your publication will continue to grow in value as a defusing tool for religious bombast.



Editor's Response to Letter #628

Dear BY. I'm glad you are finding my book useful and I have no doubt distribution of your stickers will be useful to our cause. Keep up your great work and I can't help but note that your analysis of the average radio talk show host is similar to mine.



EDITOR'S NOTE: We would like to take this opportunity to thank all those people who have contributed over the years to our worthy cause. It's about time, indeed long overdue, that we gave credit to where credit is due and apologized for the oversight. Many unsung heroes have given funds and other assistance to this periodical without being solicited or pressured because they realize that any undertaking of real consequence can't operate effectively without the appropriate wherewithal. Specifically we would like to alphabetically acknowledge contributions by the following individuals. SA of Brooklyn, New York; GA of Belmont, Massachusetts; JA of New York, New York; JA of British Columbia, Canada; PB of Nova Scotia, Canada; WB of Waterloo, Iowa; EB of Wayne, Michigan; SC of La Honda, California; RC of Altadena in the California Republic; RD of Tempe, Arizona; DG of Sioux Falls, South Dakota; AH of Sonoma, California; RH of Hubbard, Ohio; GK of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; GL of Saskatchewan, Canada; WL of Cambridge, Massachusetts; DM of Pasadena, California; HM of Bellbrook, Ohio; RM of Baton Rouge, Louisiana; RM of Balwin, Missouri; AM of Bloomington, Texas; RN of Moscow, Idaho; JO of Sonora, California; JP of Meriden, Connecticutt; HR of Greendale, Wisconsin; SR of Anaheim, California; VS of Lake Worth, Florida; JS of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan; JS of Columbus, Ohio; JS of Ambler, Pennsylvania; JT of Riverside, California; and JV of Chicago, Illinois.

A special thanks goes out to the following individuals for exceptional donations. CB of Prescott, Arizona; JE of Elizabeth, Illinois; PJG of Cincinnati, Ohio; RK of Ruston, Louisiana; DL of Ipswich, Massachusetts; FM of Chicago, Illinois; JO of Jacksonville, Florida; ET of Sanford, Maine, and FT of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

And finally, a very special, indeed, a unique note of gratitude is extended to a retired Florida businessman whose untiring efforts and generous contributions to our cause have been truly extraordinary. Without his support and that of everyone else we would not have been able to obtain the computer equipment and other peripherals that will soon be producing and disseminating a much more readable and professional looking periodical. No one is more aware of the need to improve BE's appearance than I. Once, again, we'd like to thank you all. The Best, Dennis.