Issue #153-Letters on: Refighting the word "perfec

Biblical Errancy Issue #153-Letters on: Refighting the word "perfect" & God, Was the Bowl 30 cubits round, Rounding numbers in 2 Sam. 24:9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5, Strong Appeal for help on Public Access

Nov 10, '08 11:47 AM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #153 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Sept. 1995

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

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


COMMENTARY



Due to an increase in the volume of mail, we are going to devote several issues to letters from readers.


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #629 from HJ of Charlotte, North Carolina (Part a)
Dear Mr. McKinsey. How can you deftly extract so much forensic-type information from a work as complicated as the bible and still not understand the point of a simple--if silly--letter? It appears by your response that you missed the intent of every issue I brought up regarding word definition .
I quote from my own letter, "You define perfect as absolute or unwavering in its meaning." I went on to say, "In all civilized languages people use words to mean whatever they choose for them to mean at that moment. 'I've looked for this dress everywhere. It's perfect! I'll wear it to the Woopergoopers' dinner tomorrow.'"
I must emphasize that it was you who defined perfect. I simply established this silly example to make the point that neither you nor God can give an absolute definition to any word as long as human beings -- of any language group -- will understand the word to mean what they think you intended to say!
I must assume that while God can proclaim himself to be perfect, you can come along and say to Him, "But you have committed genocide so many times!" Then He will say, "Yeah, but I did a perfect job of it!" thereby defending his stature. (We must remember that God has all of man's attributes augmented by all of man's fantasies, including omniscience and omnipotence which are mutually exclusive, and is still (according to some) perfect in spite of it. It really takes a disjointed group of writers to describe him with all these attri-butes).
Forgive the ridiculous examples, but I have no biblical credentials just as I assume you have no more English credentials than I, but I do have English credentials and I'm telling you, words mean what the listener (or reader) believes or wants them to mean, not what the speaker intends to say -- and authority has nothing to do with it. That's how the fundie shuffle was born and how you used it so skillfully when you commented, "That there's a world of difference be-tween God using the word perfect and man using it." Wrong! It's who hears or reads it!

Editor's Response to Letter #629 (Part a)
You don't listen very well, HJ, when you're repelled by what you hear or your ego is involved. But we'll go through it again. Gen. 6:9 ("Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations") was originally written in Hebrew. A group of scholars read the verse and then translated it into English. Those who did the translating felt that the English word "perfect" was the best duplication available of the Hebrew term. The English word "perfect" is clearly defined in Webster's Dictionary, so the translators had no doubt about the full implications of the word they were using. Therefore, your complaint is not with me but with those who did the translating. In effect, you are saying you know
Page 153-2
Hebrew better than a group of Hebraic scholars. And to coin a current comment making the rounds: I don't think so!, especially in light of your admission that you "have no biblical credentials." That's readily apparent. Many additional mistakes accompany your poor analysis. First, I didn't miss the intent of every issue you brought up. I was fully aware of the points you were making because they're nothing more than a variation on the cultural differences theme. The real problem is that you refused to recognize the point I was making. I didn't miss your points; you missed mine. Second , from whence comes your wholly erroneous assertion that I "define perfect as absolute or unwavering in its meaning." You state, "It was you who defined perfect." Where are you getting this? I didn't define it that way; Webster did. Your quarrel is with him, not me, my friend. Third, I am well aware of cultural differences and that "In all civilized languages people use words to mean whatever they choose them to mean at that moment." And those who translated the word "perfect" are as aware of these differences as you or I. Nevertheless, they chose an English word with a definite meaning to represent a Hebrew term which they no doubt felt was comparable to the English word, "perfect." In other words, after having taken account of cultural differences in the process of translating, they still used the English word "perfect" as the best duplication of the Hebraic term. For you to say that cultural variations were not taken into account, is for you to say the translators were incompetent. At this point I would normally ask for a recitation of your qualifications to correct a group of Hebraic scholars, but since you have already acknowledged your inadequacies, we'll forego that step. Fourth, your dress analogy is wholly inapplicable because you are substituting a colloquial use of the term in the English language for Webster's definition of "perfect" that is also in the English language. Everyone knows that to say the dress is perfect is not to say it is totally flawless. People are well aware of the fact that you are engaged in hyperbole; they know that perfect means without imperfections and that you do not really mean to imply it's truly perfect. But when the word "perfect" is in a supposedly flawless book, accuracy is crucial. If your dress example were analogous, then the translators would have seriously erred by using a word that is so clearly defined by Webster. No, I think the problem lies with you, not Webster or a group of Hebraic scholars. Fifth, all of the problems I raised on several occasions with respect to Noah not being perfect would come into play if Noah were not "perfect" as Webster defines the term. Sixth, you say "neither you nor God can give an absolute definition to any word as long as human beings -- of any language group -- will understand the word to mean what they think you intended to say!" I can't speak for God but he would no doubt agree with me that you need a les-son in translating. "Cultural relativism" is taken into account by any good translator. If not, then the translator is out of his league. No one is trying to "give an absolute definition to any word" and anyone experienced with translating knows that people are going to interpret a word "to mean what they think you intended to say" or how they understand the term. But that is factored into any competent, reliable, translation. In simple terms, translators chose the word "perfect" because it best represented the corresponding Hebraic term. And if you don't think they made the best choice then you are putting your expertise above theirs, an act for which you are admittedly wholly unqualified. That's the bottom line. Incidentally, I can't help but notice that you said God can't give an absolute definition to any word. I thought your omnipotent God can do anything? Seventh, your reasoning often drifts off center as is shown by your statement that, "I must assume that while God can proclaim himself to be perfect, you can come along and say to Him, 'But you have committed genocide so many times!' Then He will say, 'Yeah, but I did a perfect job of it!' thereby defending his stature." How could God be a perfectly moral being if he replied by admitting that he did a perfectly immoral act? We are talking about moral perfection not about the manner in which an act was performed. There is a big difference between God being described as a being with perfectly moral character and God committing an act that is perfectly immoral. The only perfection he could claim in the latter instance would be perfect imperfection, a quality generally reserved in Christian theology for the Devil alone. For God to be perfect every act committed by him would have to be moral. If he committed an act that was perfect but immoral, then he would no longer be perfect. You are describing the method by which the act was performed while ignoring the nature of the act itself. You are trying to make God perfect while ignoring the goodness or badness of the act performed. Eighth, you stated that "God has all of man's attributes." Are you serious? God is self-centered; God is greedy; God is envious and jealous, etc.? That may be in harmony with the OT presentation of God but is hardly commensurate with the Christian conception of God. Your conception of God all but destroys any reason for respecting him. Ninth, you refer to "all of man's fantasies, including omniscience and omnipotence, which are mutually exclusive." Why would omniscience and omnipotence have to be mutually exclusive? Indeed, I would say the opposite is true. Tenth, in light of your description of God, wouldn't you be in that "disjointed group of writers" who describe him with all these attributes? After all, you did say, "We must remember that God has all of man's attributes augmented by all of man's fantasies." If that isn't degradation of God I don't know what is. Eleventh, you say, "I do have English credentials and I'm telling you, words mean what the listener (or reader) believes or wants them to mean, not what the speaker intends to say -- and authority has nothing to do with it." Wrong again! How can you make so many mistakes in such a short monologue. Words mean what the dictionary says they mean. They don't mean what the listener or reader wants them to mean. If that were true, then why have dictionaries? Everyone would be free to interpret any word as it struck his fancy. Words may be interpreted by listeners and readers as desired but that may or may not be the correct meaning. If you had said "words mean To the Listener or Reader what the Listener (or Reader) believes or wants them to mean" I would have had no objection. But you turned personal opinions, whether true or not, into facts. There is an objective real world out there and the sooner you get in tune with it the better off you will be. The world is not going to change according to your whims or conceptions; it's up to you to change your conceptions so as to bring them in line with the real world. This very issue, more than any other, has divided all philosophers throughout history into two great assemblages. One group--the idealists--believes that ideas are primary and material conditions are secondary and has always made the world conform to beliefs and conceptions. The other group--the materialists--has always felt there is a real world out there to which ideas must conform. One feels that ideas are primary while material conditions are secondary, while the other feels material conditions are primary and ideas are secondary. I have never encountered any observer of the world scene, especially philosophers, who did not fall into one camp or the other. Twelfth and finally , the real problem lies not with my use of the fundie shuffle but with your intransigent unwillingness to nuckle or buckle.

Letter #629 Continues (Part b)
...I quite agree with you regarding Noah's moral "perfection" and his right to be on the ark, etc., but your whole argument is based on the use of the word "perfect". If you want to shoot down the story do it on the basis of God's heinous act, not some pointless syntax.

Editor's Response to Letter #629 (Part b)
First, "to shoot down the story," to use your words, on the basis of God's heinous act would hardly be realistic in light of the fact that many biblicists would no doubt say that the act was far from heinous. The world was corrupt and people got what they deserved. You are making a judgment with which many of your own compatriots would disagree. Second, as has been shown throughout the history of our discussion of this topic, there is nothing pointless about my syntactical attack. Gen. 6:9 is another one of those absolutist comments that play havoc with the Bible's alleged inerrancy.

Letter #629 Continues (Part c)
(After returning to his dress analogy and making some assertions that are even more vacuous than those presented earlier, HJ says--Ed.), You go on to say that the flood was useless because it failed to purify the world. Well, you're right. It was, and it did fail if that was the goal. There's your fodder for argument. I got the distinct impression that God did it as a matter of punishment because he was angered, not as a matter of purification, but I must admit not yet having dissected the story. He saved a few beans so he wouldn't have to go to the trouble to make another Adam and Eve. I'm surprised He didn't see the problem beforehand, being omniscient and all.

Editor's Response to Letter #629 (Part c)
I really wish you would stop attributing assertions to me that were made by others and which I am merely relating. I didn't say it failed to purify the world. That's the position of many Christians and I'm merely relaying their sentiments. If you feel it was done for purposes of punishment only, then you are at odds with a sizable number of Christians. Apparently not only is your dissection of the story incomplete, but your surgery is decidedly at variance with that performed by most biblicists.

Letter #629 Continues (Part d)
I took note of the fact that you didn't address my issues regarding idiomatic expressions in which I used the challenging example: I'd like to know how you can interpret perfect in his own time or perfect in his own generations to mean simply perfect without an ancient Hebrew thesaurus. I suspect that the simple word perfect would have been employed if simply perfect is what the writer meant.

Editor's Response to Letter #629 (Part d)
Like so much of your entire presentation, HJ, your point is somewhat vague, poorly conceived, and badly worded. In any event, I think I know what you are trying to say and if I'm correct, then you are merely fishing for an answer. If you think adding the phrases "in his own time" or "in his own generations" to the word "perfect" somehow modifies the entire problem, then it is incumbent on you to prove as much. You may "suspect that the simple word perfect would have been employed if simply perfect is what the writer meant" but that is about all you have to go on. According to Rom. 3:23 all men have sinned and no man can be perfect at any time, either in or out of his generations.

Letter #629 Concludes (Part e)
In your response to someone else's letter #614 you admit to being divisive in order to make your points. Frankly, I don't think you need to be divisive, and taking the quality and the intent of your work into account, I think doing so is beneath your dignity. Tacky. Self-diminishing, a.k.a. shooting yourself in the foot.
Your response #611 'part a' says, "When are you (referring to me--Ed.) and your compatriots etc. ...?" Well you are one of them! I'm no fundamentalist! I'm just trying to squeeze out the stuff that doesn't fly so they'll have one fewer rational argument (as if they had one now!).
I like your stuff. Keep it up.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #629 (Part e)
I've reread my response to Letter #614 several times, HJ, and for the life of me I can't find any comment by me showing that I admit to being divisive in order to make my points. Where on earth are you getting this? You need to reign in your imagination.
As far as unjustly including you within the fundamentalist community is concerned, I apologize for any humiliation this may have engendered. Being fully cognizant of how I would feel if the tables were turned, I can sympathize with your ire. But in light of your arguments in a couple of letters I think you can understand my conclusion.
In any event, if your orientation is far closer to mine than is apparent, then I welcome you into the realm of sanity as a compatriot in our ongoing struggle against religious superstition in general and the Bible in particular.

Letter #630 from CK of Bloomfield, New Jersey (Part a)
Dear Mr. McKinsey. I am enjoying your Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy and find it a useful compendium that looks a lot nicer than a stack of issues of the periodical. I do note however that some topics are covered more than once, under more than one category.
More important, I think some of your attention to small matters can detract from the really egregious errors in the Bible. For example, when the "Prince of Peace" who would have us "turn the other cheek" and love one's enemies, brandishes a whip and creates a riot in the temple, this is an egregious contradiction. This involves such well-known aspects of Jesus that even liberal theologians have a problem (even if they can't see the problem).
On the other hand, comes the problem of the 10-cubit bowl having a circumference of 30 cubits. Your criticism is subject to criticism itself. That Lindsell agrees with your criticism should not be of comfort, as Biblicists' levels of mathematical sophistication certainly leave something to be desired. OK, my criticism of yours: You say, "the circumference of this 'molten sea' must be 31.4 feet [sic--I assume you mean cubits], not 30." I can say that it must be 31.4159265...cubits, not 31.4. We all make an agreement to round to a certain place. Remembering that the circumference was not necessarily a calculation, but an observation, probably done by using a forearm as a ruler, it would be logical to round to the nearest cubit. Any diameter from 9.5 cubits to 10.5 cubits would round to 10 cubits.... The reportage would be correct, rounded to the nearest unit.... in the days when basins were measured by forearms, the nearest cubit was as good reporting as you could get, and in the case of the above-mentioned possible "precise" measurements, can indeed be an accurate representation of what was there.

Editor's Response to Letter #630 (Part a)
Dear CK. Your explanation of this problem is very much in the tradition of most apologists and will be addressed as such.
First, the fact is that 30 cubits is not the correct answer. If you say that 31.4 is not the correct answer either, then I will allege that your 31.4159265 figure is incorrect as well. Following the stream of logic you have set in motion, there is no correct answer, because every answer involves rounding. Any answer would be automatically false.
Second, you are assuming the answer involves rounding without proving as much. The answer is wrong until you can prove it results from rounding. You can't allege it's the result of rounding until I prove it's not. As I have said so often, the burden of proof lies on him who alleges. In effect, you want me to prove it is not the result of rounding rather than you and your compatriots being required to prove it is the result of rounding. The error is blatant; it's obvious; it's staring us in the face. Biblicists must provide proof, not mere supposition, that rounding explains everything. If guesswork is going to be admissible, then many biblical contradictions could be explained away by mere conjecture and theorizing. Nearly every numerical contradiction in the OT, for example, could be lightly dismissed by simple reference to the "rounding" defense. Apparently I'm supposed to be Mr. Niceguy by defocusing on the script and giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt every time a contradiction is clearly evident, when the Book's defenders wouldn't grant me a scintilla of slack if they saw a loophole. I'm too accommodating already. If I were really playing hardball, my arguments could become considerably more poignant. As was shown in a prior issue, I'm not as much a stickler for details as is true of strict literalists. On the other hand, I'm certainly not going to assume the Bible has it all together every time it opens its mouth, nor am I going to give it the benefit of the doubt when the proposed reconciliation is so obviously beyond the pale of what one would expect even from someone writing 2 or 3,000 years ago in a far more primitive era.

Letter #630 Continues (Part b)
Along the same lines, your criticism of 2 Sam. 24:9 versus 1 Chron. 21:5 (page 75) is that one quotes a figure of 500,000 men and the other quotes 470,000 men. You say rounding cannot account for this discrepancy. I know that my fifth grade daughter has textbooks which give rounding problems (and answers) like this all the time. How would you round 470,000 to a single significant figure? The textbook solution is 500,000.

Editor's Response to Letter #630 (Part b)
While using even weaker figures, you are repeating the numerical argument you submitted with respect to the 10-cubit bowl and my answer would be the same.
First, you are assuming without evidence that these figures are the result of rounding.
Second, by asking how I "would round 470,000 to a single significant figure," you are assuming it has not been rounded already. Four hundred and seventy thousand does not need to be rounded to a significant figure; it's already there.
Third, even if the biblical figures are the result of rounding, the roundings don't agree. There's still a difference of 30,000.
And lastly, my son does rounding problems too, but his teacher does not allege the answer is precisely correct. Everyone is well aware of the fact that the answer is not meant to be precise. That's made clear from the outset. But nowhere does the Bible imply, much less state, that the figures cited are the result of rounding or approximating.

Letter #630 Concludes (Part c )
Another subject: To your criticism on page 116 in your book of John 10:27-28 ("My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and...neither shall any man pluck them our of my hand") which also includes similar verses such as John 18:9, 17:12, 13:21, and 25-27, can be added John 6:66 ("After this, many of his disciples left him and stopped going with him").... I note John 6:66 is not in your Index of Verse Citations.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #630 (Part c)
Your observation has merit. I probably should have included John 6:66 in my list. It's hard to get them all.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #631 from BS of Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Dear Dennis. In Issue #152, you mentioned contradictions regarding adultery in the Bible. Permit me to add another. Deut. 22:22 clearly states "god" orders that the man and the woman who commit adultery shall die. Yet in the story of King David and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:15) they commit adultery and are not killed. Instead, god kills their baby, after first making it suffer for seven days. Either a) god is a hypocrite, b) god gives kings special dispensation, or c) the people who wrote those Bible verses out of their imaginations were just plain stupid. I favor option 'c' myself....

Letter #632 from SB of Los Angeles, California
I would like to subscribe to Biblical Errancy which was mentioned in the Skeptical Review . I am a recent convert to freethought, having spent a lifetime (age 53) under the bondage and fear of Christian fundamentalism. My route to freedom was initially through studying astronomy and science. This started the doubts which led to serious readings on Christianity. The more I read, the more absurd Christianity became, until I finally "chucked" the whole thing. What a great day that was.

EDITOR'S NOTE: (A) Last month's issue contained an appeal for assistance in the circulation of our cablevision videotapes. I'm quite disappointed with the response. A few people volunteered but far more are needed. How is religion in general and the Bible in particular going to be countered if effort comparable to that exhibited by the other side is not forthcoming. Biblicists are working like beavers to spread their doctrines and undermine much of that which rational minds hold most dear and frankly, the only thing that has been keeping them at bay so far are the liberal wings of Christianity and Judaism represented by the World Council of Churches and Reform Judaism. Atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and others of a decidedly rational frame of mind have been depending upon those whose reliance is unstable and dubious at best. Playing a secondary role to those who more often than not are in league with your devout opponents is hardly a sensible approach. People complain to me that fundamentalists are co-opting school boards, inserting religious observances and clubs into the schools, propagandizing unhindered and unopposed in the media, raking in vast sums of wealth without opposition or correction, controlling or influencing political decisions regarding abortion, euthanasia, corporal punishment, prayer, textbooks, unionizing, social activism, environmental concerns, etc., and successfully promoting a wide assortment of other nefarious activities. When I say, "I couldn't agree more, what do you suggest be done?," about all that is forthcoming is the writing of letters to the editor and court challenges. Hardly viable approaches! Cussing out the TV isn't going to get the job done either. I constantly receive letters complaining about church/state violations and freethought books and journals replete with examples of same, as if I wasn't aware of the fact that the constitution is ignored on a regular basis. I am well aware of numerous breaches and being told the obvious is superfluous. Every time I hear the Pledge of Allegiance or read my coins, constitutional violations and religious domination hit me in the face. The question is: What are we going to do about it. Are we going to merely complain or take action? Something tangible, of real substance, has to be done and that involves taking it to the other side. I can provide the format, the presentation, programs, research etc., but I can't put determination, dedication, motivation, and commitment into my disseminators. Only they can play programs in areas in which I don't even live. If people don't get serious about the power and threats posed by the world of biblicism, then they could very well arrive at a time when they will wish that they had done something earlier. But then, of course, it could be too late. Apparently they feel it can't happen here. Oh, yes it can! The United States is no more exempt from the vicissitudes that have plagued other nations than any other country on this planet. The mentality and philosophy generated by religion in general and the Bible in particular is regressive to mankind's advancement and inimical to his welfare. Make no mistake about that. The sooner and more vigorously it is opposed the better. It is a shame that so often people have to learn the hard way before they are willing to act.
The Editorial Note at the end of July's issue (#151) outlined some very simple procedures that could be followed by anyone. Many stations don't ask for anything more than someone who is willing to bring a tape down to the station to be played. If people with access to cablevision can't muster that much energy, especially when the other side has thousands of people who are willing go to other nations and devote years to spreading the word, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I have been told by subscribers that some cablevision managers yearn for the type of information I have available in order to offset the religious saturation that currently exists in their vicinity. So, I would again ask that you become involved and check out cablevision's opportunities. To those who have already acted I say, THANK YOU. Would that you could be cloned.

(B) Several subscribers have asked me to advertise their anti-religious material and have even sent me copies of that which they wish to see advertised. The problem with this is that when I advertise something I feel obligated to read and check out everything involved and I just don't have sufficient time. By advertising material written by others I am implicitly vouching for its reliability. So rather than discourage some energetic writers, whom I have no reason to distrust, I have decided to advertise their names and addresses. By all means contact the following to see what they have available. Dave Matson, P.O. Box 61274, Pasadena, California 91116, (213) 422-5251 and Stephen Barr, 6425 Old Redwood Highway N., Santa Rosa, California, 95403 (707) 838-4238. Others who have wanted me to advertise their material in the past are invited to send me their names, addresses and phone numbers as well. I was more than willing to advertise The Skeptical Review because I have conversed with Farrell Till on numerous occasions, read many of his issues, seen his video tapes, been aided by his ads for Biblical Errancy, and feel confident he is on the right track.

(C) By now you have no doubt noticed the considerable improvement in the appearance and readability of this publication. Because of some significant financial contributions we were able to: replace our out-of-date Apple II-S Computer with a 6200CD Macintosh Performa, exchange an Apple Imagewriter II Printer for a Hewlett-Packard LaserJet 5MP, and substitute a ClarisWorks 4.0 Program for a Publish-IT 4.0. I have been spending a considerable amount of time reading the manuals and getting accustomed to how everything operates. As time goes on I hope to make even more improvements in BE's format, style, appearance, and readability. But that is going to require more study and the manuals are pretty thick. Not being a computer expert, I am happy with just what I have been able to accomplish so far.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE TO: BIBLICAL ERRANCY $12 US/$14 Canada for One Year
3158 Sherwood Park Drive $23 US/$27 Canada for Two Years
Springfield, Ohio 45505 Back Issues $1 Each
(513) 323-6146 Payable To: Dennis McKinsey