Issue #154-Letter on: Did Jesus Raise Himself, Dog

Biblical Errancy Issue #154-Letter on: Did Jesus Raise Himself, Dogs & Evolution, Battles on Simple Contras, Versions & Did Bible Exist, Does Rev. 22:18 Apply to Whole Bible, Answering Prayers, Joshua/Number of villages

Nov 10, '08 11:50 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue #154


Editor: Dennis McKinsey



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 1995



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


This issue will continue our discussion of letters we have received in recent months.


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #633 from DA of LA Puente, Cali fornia (Part a)
Dear McKinsey.
Herein is a check for $12 for a 1 year subscription to Biblical Errancy. I expect I shall get enough fun out of it to make it worth the effort. Now how much fun you will get is your problem.

Presumably you have learned some of the below since you put together the sample issue, but since you still put it out, you will have to suffer being told it again. So, a few of the points you need to correct (in your sample issue are as follows--Ed.).

Resurrection just a routine event? Yawn? No, there exists a difference of at least an order of magnitude between the Resurrection and the other risings of the dead you mention. In each of the other cases, an outside force, generally a holy man, raised the dead. There was no outside force for the Resurrection. For comparison, consider your car when it won't run. The mechanic can do an impressive job of repairing it (& an even more impressive job on your wallet), but that would be nothing compared to the car simply repairing itself (& the sticker shock if you had to buy one would really be impressive. Except for very minor cases, such a self-repairing car can't be built for any sum that won't let you buy lots of cars and simply replace them every time they run out of gas.) So the Resurrection, if true, would qualify as THE event.

Editor's Response to Letter #633 (Part a)
Dear DA.
When you start out with "Dear McKinsey" it's not hard to tell what is going to follow. Your letter, along with those of other recent critics of BE, has convinced me that before biblicists send me any more of these "Johnny-Come-Lately I'll slay the dragon for Christ" letters, they should read ALL of the back issues of this publication. In other words, I'd strongly recommend they do their homework. That should more than forestall many of the repetitive criticisms coming across my desk. But alas, in your case it's too late. If there are any points that need to be corrected, it is the one you just made and many to follow. Having confronted your points on numerous occasions, I'm compelled to restrain my own yawn. First, Jesus did not raise himself; he was raised by another--God. You might want to read my response to RVH two months from now in the Dialogue and Debate section. This subject has been covered many times in various issues of BE. Too bad you didn't take time to read them. Second , you say, "In each of the other cases, an outside force, generally a holy man, raised the dead." Would you be so kind as to name the holy man who raised the saints before the Resurrection in Matt. 27:52-53? Third, in light of the fact that Jesus did not raise himself, your self-repairing car analogy is all but worthless. You wasted some ink.

Letter #633 Continues (Part b)
Your attacks are very uneven in nature, from serious points to attacking for what everybody, atheist or not, believes. We have under the Flood (section--Ed.) "...are we also to believe, for example, that the tremendous variety of dogs in the world today...descended from two of the species?...tremendous evolutionary change in only a few thousand years." But that is precisely what evolution and geology say did happen. They of course differ with the Bible on when, but the dog mutated out of the wolf in a very short period of time. Wolves began following men around for food and not long afterwards dogs appear (probably despite human attempts to avoid it. Despite the common assumption that man domesticated the dog, the dog/wolf was the active partner and changed itself enough to avoid most human hostility.) Strictly speaking, there were more than 2 original dogs, likely full packs of them, but just about any 2 of those original dogs would figure in the ancestry of any living dog.
The dog, by the way, has a very plastic shape largely because a puppy doesn't look like a dog. As the dog grows up, its form changes greatly. So it is a relatively easy task to select those dogs who change at a slow rate or a fast rate, and thereby end up with a different type of adult dog. You want a big dog? Just select those that grow fast. One with short legs? The legs just grow a little slower than the rest of the body
Despite all the difference in dogs, there is actually very little genetic difference. This can be seen in feral (wild, untamed--Ed.) dogs. By the time they have been on their own for a few generations, they "revert" to general mutt, almost wolf. There just isn't much genetic difference between a great dane and a chiluahua (sic.).

Editor's Response to Letter #633 (Part b)
You are all over the waterfront, my friend. I'd suggest that you confine your musings to theology, since theoretical imaginings and concoctions are far more acceptable in theology than in science. I hardly know where to begin. Your entire presentation is very uneven in nature. First you say "that is precisely what evolution and geology say did happen." Are you serious? Geology and evolution teach that the tremendous variety of dogs today descended from two dogs that lived a few thousand years ago? Where on earth did you learn your science? Then you say, "They of course differ with the Bible on when" which refutes what you just stated. You said geology and evolution teach "tremendous evolutionary change in only a few thousand years," which is also the biblical position, and then you reversed yourself by saying evolution and geology "differ with the Bible on when." Second, where did you get the idea that "the dog mutated out of the wolf in a very short period of time"? And from whence may I ask did the wolf evolve, or was it the original ark-occupant? Third, I fail to see any relevance to your whole wolf-followed-man-around scenario. Fourth, you say, "Strictly speaking, there were more than 2 original dogs, likely full packs of them, but just about any 2 of those original dogs would figure in the ancestry of any living dog." What a mess! How could there be more than two original dogs when the Bible says TWO of each species was taken aboard the ark? If there were "full packs of them," then the ark was oversupplied with dogs, and that would contradict the biblical account. Fifth , I also fail to see the relevance or accuracy of your whole discussion of the rate at which dogs grow. How does the rate at which they grow cause them to change from one kind of dog into another? And your comment that if you want a big dog just select one that grows fast is quite amusing, as is your assertion that short-legged dogs have legs that grow slower than the rest of their body. Sixth, despite genetic similarity between dogs, you still have not shown how all of the dogs now living could have descended from two dogs that lived a few thousand years ago. You still haven't shown how 2 dogs on a boat a few thousand years ago could have given rise to the tremendous variety of dogs that now populate the earth. Seventh, apparently you haven't noticed that your penchant for talking about topics extraneous to the issue is quite pronounced. And lastly, what do you mean by saying "a puppy doesn't look like a dog." I had two puppies as a boy that were exact images of their parents. Your knowledge of dogs resembles your knowledge of science in general.

Letter #633 Continues (Part c)
In lesser degree, we can see much the same pattern in other domesticated animals. Existing with man, whether as pest, partner, or food-source, meant greatly changed conditions, and thus a great rate of evolution. The wild cow has great big horns, and had them for millions of years. Man domesticated the cow, and within a couple of thousand of years, the horns shrank to a size men "desired" (or more likely were willing to put up with as they probably didn't even realize they were breeding for horn size) and stayed at that size to current times. However the base point is that there has been way more than enough time since the Ark to account for all the variety of domestic animals.

Editor's Response to Letter #633 (Part c)
I'm not sure your presentation of animal development is even worthy of a response. It sounds as if you are saying domestic animals stayed nearly the same for millions of years until man got into the act and then they evolved rapidly. Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just spinning a theory that strikes your fancy and tickles your funny bone? Even if man had taken over, could he have made all those changes in such a short period of time? And what about the millions of animals that had no contact with man but changed as well? I can't help but notice that your final sentence only refers to "domestic" animals. In any event, the central point is that there is no way every variety of existing animal could have evolved from two of each species in the biblical time allotted.

Letter #633 Continues (Part d)
[On page 2 in our sample issue BE lists the following biblical contradictions: (a) David took 700 (2 Sam. 8:4) vs. 7,000 (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer; (b) David slew the men of 700 chariots and 40,000 horsemen (2 Sam. 10:18 vs. David slew of the Syrians 7,000 men which fought in chariots and 40,000 footmen (1 Chron. 19:18); ( c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8) vs. 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8) vs. 3 months and 10 days (2 Chron. 36:9); (d) There were 800,000 (2 Sam. 24:9) vs. 1,100,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men in Israel that drew the sword in Judah; (e ) There were 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26) vs. 3,000 baths (2 Chron. 4:5); (f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23) vs. 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:8) during her lifetime; (g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12) vs. brother (Gen. 14:14); (h) And Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36) vs. Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1). DA said the following regarding these contradictions--Ed.],
In regard to contradictions in the Bible: Your own errors are less important here since you are not claiming perfection. Still, the critic is implying a certain superiority to what is criticized & so you need to correct some of your own errors. (a) 2 Sam. 8:4 says David took 1,700 (not 700) horses (or "...a thousand and 700.." according to the Revised Standard Version. (d) "...in Judah" appears to be an editing error. Did you intend to continue with the differences in the count for Judah and then decide it wasn't an error worth bothering about, only to forget to delete it completely? (e) There "were" neither 2,000 or 3,000 baths. Bath was a measure of capacity in 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5. "Held" is a term used in some Bibles. (f) There is a contradiction between Michal of 2 Sam. 6:23 having no sons, and Merab of 21:8 having 5, only if the 2 are the same woman. Saul surely had a substantial number of daughters as well as sons. & since ancient Hebrew didn't write vowels, different names are spelled the same way. A contradiction is still possible here, but it hardly ranks as "straight-forward" or one a serious spokesman must "grudgingly concede." (g) Gen. 14:14 says Lot is Abraham's kin. You presumably read the King James Version, or one of its descendants. However more precise works, such as the New English Bible, correct this error.

Editor's Response to Letter #633 (Part d)
Well, let's take them one at a time. (a) You say the conflict should actually be between 1,700 and 7,000, not 700 and 7,000. In other words, you aren't denying a contradiction exists; you are just saying one figure should be 1,700 rather than 700. I have no problem with that, although the King James is not the only version that says 700. If you'll read the Modern Language Version of 2 Sam. 8:4, you'll see that it agrees with the KJV by saying "700 hundred cavalry." So the KJV is not alone in its rendition of this verse. But regardless of which version you use, a contradiction exists.
(d) Thanks for noticing this editing error. The phrase "in Judah" should not have been gratuitously inserted, but nothing is changed by its admission or omission. The contradiction remains.
(e) Your criticism makes no sense. What do you mean by saying "there were neither 2,000 or 3,000 baths"? I'd suggest you reread 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5. One says 2,000 baths and the other says 3,000 baths in the same account, and that's about all that needs to be said on that issue.
(f) The KJV is a more reliable translation of the Hebrew/Greek manuscripts of the Bible than many recent translations, because its creators were not nearly as concerned with politics, expediency, and the reconciliation of biblical contradictions as are modern biblicists. Religious domination was far more prominent 400 years ago than is true today, and for that reason translators didn't worry about critics or detractors. They knew the latter would most likely keep their mouths shut out of fear for life and limb. But that is no longer true, and translators now feel compelled to make politically expedient textual changes. And (f) provides a good example of same. "Michal" in 2 Sam. 21:8 has been changed to "Merab" in some translations to eliminate the contradiction. The translation you are using reveals only one alteration among many. Nevertheless your beloved change was more than the translators of some modern versions could stomach, so they stayed with the KJV. Note, for instance, the rendering of 2 Sam. 21:8 in the Masoretic Text, the NWT, and the ASV. The NIV has your "Merab", but with the following footnote: It is in two Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac, while most Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts have "Michal." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the more opportunistic translators opted for the word "Merab" in order to escape this contradiction, even though they were fully aware of the fact that it is found in only 2 Hebrew and some Septuagint manuscripts, while all the other Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts have "Michal." That's politics, pure and simple, my friend. Now you can see why I often call the Bible and its various versions a political book.
(g) Again you are relying upon the version you prefer--the New English Bible--and acting as if it were more reliable and up-to-date than the KJV. I beg to differ. If the KJV is so unreliable and in need of modernization, then why do the Masoretic text, certainly not a KJ descendant, and such modern versions as the NWT and the ASV, agree with the KJV? And why does the NASB, certainly no bastion of liberalism, say "relative" while conceding in a footnote that, literally translated, the word should be "brother"? No, my friend. The problem lies not with defective translations but with deceptive translators.

Letter #633 Continues (Part e)
You may wish to argue that (g) is still an error in "a" bible. But this is to set up a straw man. We need merely open 2 of the many bibles on the market to demonstrate at least one of these is in error, and we don't need a newsletter to point out such an obvious point.
A Bible is not THE Bible. It is something acknowledged to have been done by mortal, and fallible, hands. Errors in a Bible no more challenge the perfection of THE Bible than a smudge of ink on your newsletter would change the meaning of what you were trying to write.
We can note here that the Bible presumably doesn't exist, and may never have existed, all versions being in some degree or other in error in "copying" it. This can be interesting for the philosopher, but of no importance to us. The same is true of any document, including your newsletter and this letter. Each step in communication is subject to error. You didn't mean exactly what you wrote, and what you wrote is not exactly what is printed, and what is printed is not read as printed.... But when I write back to you, I have to overcome those errors and write about THE newsletter, not the physical one I hold in my hand. Else we are simply talking about different things and I am wasting my postage even more obviously than normal.

Editor's Response to Letter #633 (Part e)
In your rush to appear erudite and sophisticated you have not only thrown out the baby with the bath water, but flip-flopped in the process. With an added twist you are merely submitting a variation on an apologetic defense that has been addressed repeatedly in this newsletter. Again, I wish you had done your homework by reading our back issues. Most apologists adopting your line of defense will say that although all the physical bibles in our possession have errors and contradictions, the originals do not. You, however, have gone one step further by implicitly denying the Bible ever existed, by saying "the Bible presumably doesn't exist, and may never have existed, all versions being in some degree or other in error in 'copying' it." How you can copy something that never existed to begin with is enigmatic. And if the Bible never existed to begin with, then there is no THE Bible to go to. All we have under your scenario are manuscripts claiming to be the best version of the Bible to use, while in reality being copies of nothing. But earlier you stated, "Errors in a Bible no more challenge the perfection of THE Bible than a smudge of ink on your newsletter would change the meaning of what you were trying to write," all of which strongly implies you feel there was an original THE Bible. Your position is muddled, to say the least. Do you or do you not believe there was an original, genuine, bona fide copy of THE BIBLE, or at the very least manuscripts that would have comprised THE BIBLE had they ever been assembled into one book? If you say there was an original copy, then you are in the same predicament as countless other apologists we have confronted over the years, and I would definitely recommend you read past issues of BE to see our responses to them. If you say there was no original Bible, then you couldn't have a book that was divinely inspired according to Christian theology, because it never existed and, thus, could not have been written by God. According to Christian theology only THE BIBLE was written by God. All you could have is a writing resembling hundreds of other writings to one degree or another, which you feel is more reliable than the others, and you choose to call the Bible. But it couldn't be THE BIBLE. (To Be Continued )

Letter #634 from GN of Scottsdale, Arizona (Part a)
Dear Dennis.
I requested your Encyclopedia for my birthday. It arrived and I've been immersed in it ever since. I LOVE it. I read somewhere that we should tell you of any errors, etc. so that the next edition will be even more accurate than this one. I found a few things that are obviously slips or typos, and then I have a few comments that you might be interested in.
(The 16th point on page 116 in The Encyclopedia contends that every jot and tittle of the Old Law is to be upheld until heaven and earth passed away and all was fulfilled. It notes that Jesus violated the Old Law on numerous occasions and contended he would be severely punished according to Rev. 22:18-19 ("I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life." GN says in response--Ed.),
The book of Revelation is what is referred to at Rev. 22:18-19, not the entire bible. The bible was not yet put together into a book when Revelation was written. I think we would need Jesus deviating from the prophecy of the book of Revelation in order to make the point valid.

Editor's Response to Letter #634 (Part a)
I became aware of your observation many years ago but have always accepted the apologetic contention that Rev. 22:18-19 applies to the entire Bible. If that is how they view it, that's fine with me. If your assertion that it does not apply to the entire Bible is valid, I have no problem with that either, since I could also cite Deut. 4:2, 12:32, and Prov. 30:6.

Letter #634 Continues (Part b)
(The 13th point on page 134 in our book says, "In Matt. 21:22 Jesus seems to answer all our problems by saying, "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." John 14:14 holds out the same ephemeral promise by saying, "If ye ask anything in my name, I will do it." Yet, his promise is dashed by much more realistic comments found in Lam. 3:44 and Isa. 1:15 which say, respectively, "Thou (God--Ed.) hast covered thyself with a cloud, that our prayer should not pass through" and "When ye spread forth your hands, I (God--Ed.) will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear...." Those who think their prayers are going to be answered on a routine basis have discovered, like millions of Christians, that that is little more than a pipe dream. Millions of believers have prayed to Jesus millions of times, only to be met by disappointment and failure. His promise of the universal efficacy of prayer has proven as miserable a sham as his promise of all power to those with faith. GN says in response--Ed.), Regarding Isa. 1:15 an apologist would simply say that god would naturally not answer the prayers of those people because their hands were full of blood. The other excuse that they would likely come up with is that the O.T. verse in Isaiah was before Christ had reconciled man to God.

Editor's Response to Letter #634 (Part b)
An apologist can say anything he likes, GN. The question is whether or not it can be proven. In fact, can any evidence be offered? True! The last part of Isa. 1:15 says "your hands are full of blood" But what difference does that make? Matt. 21:22 and John 14:14 just as clearly assert you can do anything and no restrictions or limitations of this kind are involved. For understandable reasons, apologists only emphasize verses that have qualifiers. If you have one verse that says you can do anything and another that says you can do anything with provisos, which one is going to prevail? That a conflict exists is obvious. But there is no reason whatever to assume the former should be rejected or held subservient to the latter, as apologists repeatedly favor. Since the former encompasses the latter, shouldn't the former be adopted? After all, isn't that the rule of thumb followed by apologists, using the auto accident example to rationalize the different resurrection accounts? The larger number encompasses the smaller, and is therefore always to be deemed more reliable.

Letter #634 Continues (Part c)
(The 23rd point on page 136 in our book states that in Mark 8:35 Jesus said, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." What gospel? How on earth could Jesus have made this statement when there was no gospel during his lifetime? The gospel did not come onto the scene until years after the Crucifixion. GN says in response to this--Ed.),
Could Jesus have been using the word gospel to simply mean "good news?" If that is the case, then he could have made the statement about the gospel while still alive and it would make sense....

Editor's Response to Letter #634 (Part c)
You are altering the script, GN. It says "gospel," not "good news." Essentially your defense amounts to: That's what it says, even though that's not what's being said. If "good news" was meant, then "good news" should have been used. Are we going to go by speculation or the words lying before us in black and white? Because theories are a dime a dozen, more than guesswork is required.

Letter #634 Continues (Part d)
(On page 143 the 46th example states, "In Mark 9:50 Jesus says, 'Salt is good: but if salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it." In response to this GN says--Ed.),
The sentence should say, "If salt has lost ITS saltiness, not HIS saltiness."

Editor's Response to Letter #634 (Part d)
I agree with you, GN, that's what it should say and some versions do, but not the King James which I was using. Rule #1 in all textual criticism is to check your sources FIRST. As I've said before, picking words is like picking apples. Be very careful, because what you pick you may have to eat. Speaking as one who knows, if you don't do your homework, you can get awfully bloated and mighty sick. (To Be Continued )




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR


Letter #635 from FA of Santa Rosa, Cali fornia
(The 18th point on one of our pamphlets is: According to the text there are 29 cities listed in Joshua 15:21-32 (RSV). But one need only count them to see that the actual total is 36. Rev. BB latched onto the verse in the NIV which says "29 towns and their villages" to prove that 29 of the names were towns and the other 7 were villages. In the third part of my response I showed that Joshua 15:21 clearly states all 36 names were those of towns and none applied to villages. FA says in reaction to our exchange--Ed.),

Dear Dennis.
In your response to Letter #605 cc (Issue #150), I must say that neither Rev. BB nor you carefully read Joshua 15. While you are absolutely correct and Rev. BB is completely wrong, it requires no more proof than that found in the rest of Joshua 15.

•Josh. 15:33-36 lists 14 names and says "fourteen cities and their villages."
•Josh. 15:37-41 lists 16 names and says "sixteen cities and their villages."
Josh. 15:42-44 lists 9 names and says "nine cities and their villages."
Josh. 15:48-51 lists 11 names and says "eleven cities and their villages."
Josh. 15:52-54 lists 9 names and says "nine cities and their villages."
Josh. 15:55-57 lists 10 names and says "ten cities and their villages."
Josh. 15:58-59 lists 6 names and says "six cities and their villages."
Josh. 15:60 lists 2 names and says "two cities and their villages."
Josh. 15:61-62 lists 6 names and says "six cities and their villages."

Following the same sequence, Joshua 15:21-32 clearly lists 36 names but says "all the cities are twenty and nine, with their villages." The Bible is wrong! Once again the Bible proves itself wrong and is your best argument and Rev. BB's worst enemy. While you used "a text out of context," you proved your case the hard way. Now you have the context to prove your case the easy way. Congratulations on your brilliant arguments.

Editor's Response to Letter #635

Dear FA.
I decided not to use your approach because there are 15 names mentioned in Joshua 15:33-36, not 14, as you assert. You are using an inaccurate textual count. Rev. BB might have used this as additional proof that the names of villages are included in the lists of names. Then, again, perhaps you are correct and I did prove my case the hard way, since all the others clearly support your conclusion. Incidentally, you might want to correct your observation that "Josh. 15:42-46 list 9 names and says 'nine cities and their villages'." The citation should be Joshua 15:42-44, not 15:42-46.

Letter #636 from an Unidentified Writer near Rockford, Illinois
On page 150-6 of BE in Letter #622 reference is made to "a little grammar of biblical Hebrew." Do you know the name and author and where I might be able to get it or any other information on this "grammar"?

Editor's Response to Letter #636
Letter #622 was written by a subscriber in Firenze, Italy. You would have to contact him for that information.

Letter #637 from FVH of Flagstaff, Arizona
I would like to subscribe to your Biblical Errancy publication. I need sources to refute statements made by people who write letters to the editor of our paper expounding the absolute inerrancy of the Bible.

Editor's Response to Letter #637
Welcome aboard! We are only too happy to provide information to someone who is confronting biblicists on their own turf via the media. You are engaged in that which goes to the very raison d'etre of this periodical.

Letter #638 from RW of Topeka, Kansas
Please send me information on your publication. In this area of the country, we need all the information we can get to help counter the "apologists" and similar Christian reconstructors of both scripture and history.

Editor's Response to Letter #638
Again we are glad to oblige. That's what we're here for.

EDITOR'S NOTE: (a) We are still seeking people who are willing to play our cable television tapes on their local public access channel. Please call or write anytime.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) HEAR YE, HEAR YE! WE HAVE MOVED INTO A MUCH BIGGER HOUSE AND I NOW HAVE AN ENTIRE ROOM FOR MY OFFICE. Our new address and phone numbers are:

25OO PUNDERSON DRIVE, HILLIARD, OHIO 43026 (614) 527-1703


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE TO: BIBLICAL ERRANCY
$12 US/$14 Canada for One Year
$23 US/$27 Canada for Two Years
2500 Punderson Drive, Hilliard, Ohio 43026
(614) 527-1703
Back Issues $1 Each
Payable To: Dennis McKinsey