Issue #155- Ararat, Mountains, & the Flood, Refigh

Biblical Errancy Issue #155- Ararat, Mountains, & the Flood, Refighting 'perfect' again, OT Resurrections?, Brusing Satan's Head, Reader Questions On Brusing Satan's Head, Lot's Daughters & Eve, Reader Affects Biblicist

Nov 10, '08 12:23 PM
by ¢¾ Denise for everyone





Issue #155 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Nov. 1995

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

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


COMMENTARY


Our increased volume of mail has motivated us to continue focusing upon correspondence.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #633 from DA of La Puente, California Continues from Last Month (Part f)
[In our sample issue a critic, MJ, objected to what I said regarding the ark landing upon Mount Ararat as related in Gen. 8:4. He stated, "I wish to make a few comments on what you said about the Flood. First you quoted Gen. 8:4 ('And the ark rested in the 7th month, on the 17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat') and then you commented, 'How could the ark have rested upon several mountains at once?'" MJ then went on to register his objection to our criticism. Commenting upon our exchange DA said--Ed.),
MJ has it all over you on the ark rested "upon the mountains of Ararat" issue. Your pointing out the distinction between mountains and mountain is clever. Your thinking it means anything is stupid.
As MJ points out, the statement reads perfectly properly as a plural. "I am in the mountains of California" is wrong because I am on the plains, not because I am in a solitary mountain. & as already noted, you have not shown this is the correct text of THE Bible. Again, the New English Bible, among others, does use the singular....
You ask if a woman turning into a pillar of salt is any more or less incredible than a ship landing on several mountains at once, and the answer is that while each is presumably impossible, landing on top of several mountains is much more incredible. It immediately springs to mind that this is not what the speaker means, that he means an area of mountains (& maybe not even a mountain at all), or that we misheard the plural. The pillar of salt, we may assume is a lie, but we don't assume the writer meant she became a pillar of the community, or was actually silt.

Editor's Response to Letter #633 (Part f)
Your train of thought, assuming there is one, often eludes me DA. At times I can't help but feel your disjointed synapses are trying to communicate something. In any event, I'll proceed on the assumption that I got your drift and respond to several of your comments. First , you stated, "I am in the mountains of California is wrong because I am on the plains, not because I am in a solitary mountain." It's difficult to make much sense out of this comment, since we are not talking about "in" the mountains but "on" the mountains. And how do "plains" or "in" a solitary mountain contribute to your point? The word "stupid" might be more appropriately applied elsewhere. Second , if "stupid" is applicable to the point I made, then why does the New English Bible buck the tide by saying "on a mountain in Ararat"? Today's English Version follows suit by saying "a mountain in the Ararat Range." Apparently some of your apologetic comrades felt the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant a change from the King James. You weakened your own argument by noting that the NEB uses the singular. Third, you say I "have not shown this is the correct text of THE Bible." Considering the fact that the NASB, the KJ, the NWT,
Page 155-2
the BBE, the NAB, the Masoretic Text, the ASV, the NIV, and the JB all say "mountains" (plural), it would appear to be incumbent upon you to prove that "mountains" (plural) is not the correct text. Before doing so, you might also provide data to the effect that your comprehension of Hebrew exceeds that possessed by those who translated the NASB, the KJ, the NWT, the BBE, the ASV, the NIV, and the NAB. I have little doubt that you'll fail egregiously in this regard because your knowledge of Hebrew does not equal that of any committee member. Fourth, I fail to see why "landing on top of several mountains" is any more incredible than a woman turning into a pillar of salt. If anything, landing on several mountains simultaneously is less incredible, since a ship of horrendous size could do so. Fifth, you say, "It immediately springs to mind that this is not what the speaker means, that he means an area of mountains (and maybe not even a mountain at all)." Are we going to go by what the writer says or your speculations as to what you think he meant, what you feel he should have meant, or what it would be nice to believe he meant? He said "mountains" and since he is a writer of perfect Scripture (the autographs), he must have known what he meant, absent evidence to the contrary. Your employment of the "That's what it says but that's not what it means" defense is anemic at best considering your admission that maybe it's not even a mountain at all. You're trolling for a way out my friend. Sixth, what do you mean by saying that maybe "we misheard the plural." To whom are you referring? Who's we? Maybe you misheard something, but my hearing is excellent. I'm reading the page in front of me and it says "mountains." Seventh, what do you mean by saying "The pillar of salt, we may assume is a lie." From whence comes this idea? You are all over the board. One minute you sound like a fundamentalist and the next you resemble a liberal Christian. If the pillar of salt is a lie, then the Bible lied, and I don't have to tell you what the ramifications of that are. And finally, to add ideological chaos to confusion you say, "we don't assume the writer meant she became a pillar of the community, or was actually silt." We don't assume she became salt? Again who is we? Speak for yourself. If the word 'silt' is your substitution for the word "salt," then I most assuredly do come to that conclusion, since that's what the text says. You appear to be one of those capricious fundamentalists who don't hesitate to abandon the literal approach when the going gets rough.

Letter #633 Concludes (Part g)
Your answer to MJ gives another example of quibbling over nothing. The assertion that "all have sinned" conflicts with Gen. 6:9 and Job 1:1 (saying that Noah and Job were "perfect", or "blameless") does so only under certain definitions of the word. & under routine logic, we automatically reject those meanings that cause a conflict. "Perfect" does not always mean perfect. In fact, it probably rarely does. It's normal usage is that the errors and flaws are tiny, normally visible to the speaker or to anyone else likely to be viewing. Sports frequently speak of "perfect" performances that don't even meet this standard. They are merely extremely good. So it is quite correct to read that Gen. 6:9 and Job 1:1 in fact say only that Noah and Job were sinless by comparison to their fellow man, not by the stricter standards of God. Here too we can note that the translations vary and to establish a contradiction, you need to establish that "perfect" and not "very good" is the correct translation. (& you must prove that, not those who wish to call the Bible perfect must prove there is no error. For them to prove it would be proving a negative, a feat bordering on the impossible.... you must not only establish that the word not only could mean "perfect", but also that that is what the writer intended to say. I know, I know. This is making you work hard. Sorry, but that is still your burden. Somebody has got to do that work in order to establish there is a flaw, and you have nominated yourself.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #633 (Part g)
I really wish you had at least read the relevant back issues on this topic, DA, before sending such a poorly conceived monologue. First, quibbling has nothing to do with the issue. This clash nails the Bible to the wall for all to see and again shows that to deal in absolutes is to invite anguish. Second, rather than tax our readers by meticulously rehashing arguments that have been cited ad nauseum, I'll simply restate the basics. As I have said repeatedly: (a) Noah had to have been perfect or he had no more right to be on that boat than anyone else, (b) If Noah had not been perfect then the earth would have begun after the Flood with people corrupt like those who perished and the world would not have been purified. The Flood would have been for nought, and (c) The word "perfect" comes from the same Hebrew word that is used to call God perfect in Deut. 32:4. If you are going to argue that Gen. 6:9 is not asserting Noah is perfect, then I could argue with equal force that Deut. 32:4 is not arguing God is perfect. Third, you said, "'Perfect' does not always means perfect. In fact, it probably rarely does." And white does not mean white and black does not mean black! That kind of defense demonstrates the lengths to which apologists will go to defend the indefensible and provides another reason why religion is intellectually bankrupt. You are confusing a word's accurate definition with how it is used in colloquial parlance. "Perfect" means without spot or blemish, undefiled. The fact that people mistakenly apply it to things which are not in fact perfect does not change the meaning of the term. You say that the word "perfect" does not always mean perfect. Oh yes it does. It's just not always used that way. And when God's perfect book uses the term, one would expect nothing less than absolute precision. After all, that's God speaking, not your average Joe on the street. The analogy you draw between sports figures being labeled perfect and Noah/Job won't stand the strain because listeners realize the word "perfect" with respect to sports performances is actually false. That's understood, but it is not understood with respect to Noah and Job for reasons already listed. You say that "perfect does not always mean perfect. In fact, it probably rarely does. It's normal usage is that the errors and flaws are tiny...." I don't care how tiny the flaws are, if they exist at all, perfection is out the window. Fourth, you say that Gen. 6:9 and Job 1:1 in fact say only that Noah and Job were sinless in comparison to their fellow man. Then they weren't sinless! They were sinners like everyone else. They either are or they aren't. There's no in between. Fifth, you say I, "need to establish that 'perfect' and not 'very good' is the correct translation." Correction! I don't need to establish anything. You need to establish that your definition of the word "perfection," which isn't even a definition but merely a description of how the word is used, is more valid than the dictionary's definition. The people who translated the King James and other versions used the word "perfect" or a comparable term. By being opposed to their choice, you are saying you could have done a better job of picking the right term. At this juncture you'll again need to establish your credentials in Hebrew. Just how well do you know this language? You fail to realize the burden of proof lies on him who alleges. I don't have to prove the word "perfect" is the right term to use; you have to prove it is the wrong one. You are the one asserting that you could have done a better job of translating than a team of Hebraic scholars. You are the one saying they chose the wrong word and should have used "very good" or something comparable. I have no problem with their translation of the relevant Hebrew term into the English word "perfect"; you do. Sixth, you say that, "you must not only establish that the word not only could mean 'perfect,' but also that that is what the writer intended to say." How silly! That's what he said, isn't it. I take him at his word. No, my friend. You have to prove that's not what he meant, despite the fact that that's exactly what he said. Seventh , your final sentences could be more appropriately applied to yourself. You state, "I know, I know. This is making you work hard. Sorry, but that is still your burden. Somebody has got to do that work in order to establish there is a flaw, and you have nominated yourself." Apparently you're unable to realize you've described your own dilemma. Last , but not least, you said, "...under routine logic, we automatically reject those meanings that cause a conflict." Are you serious? That's your idea of routine logic? That's your idea of objective scholarship? No wonder it's crucial that children be kept as far from this ruinous mental blindness that masquerades under the name of religion as is possible. In truth, unencumbered, open minded, dispassionate observers don't automatically reject anything. They weigh, quantify, and analyze everything on its merits and only discard that which the evidence shows to be wanting. From your perspective anything that conflicts with the Bible should be automatically discarded regardless of its merits. That's nothing more than another variation on the time honored maxim: My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts.

Letter #639 from NB of Tucson, Arizona (Part a)
[On page 4 in the 148th issue we noted that the Bible erred when it said the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:13, 19). Rev. BB said in response to this, "Once again, you have a translation difficulty, and all you have 'proven' is that that the KJV is generally a less reliable translation of the Bible." I responded by noting that the NASB, the NEB, the ASV and other versions have the same terminology as the KJV. Taking the side of Rev. BB, NB said in response to our dialogue--Ed.),
Dear Dennis I have a few comments regarding BE #148. First, in discussing Letter #605 you say: "the terminology of the NASB, the NEB, the ASV and 'other' versions is no different from that of the KJV." I beg to differ. You didn't mention the NIV, but I assume you read it.

Editor's Response to Letter #639 (Part a)
Dear NB. I said the NASB, the NEB, the ASV and other versions are in agreement with the KJV. I didn't say that included every version on the market.

Letter #639 Concludes (Part b)
...Now as to resurrections. On page 148-3 you say you "mentioned more than 3 resurrections and they all preceded that of Jesus." Pray tell, what were they? I know of only three in the OT, and two of them (the translations of Enoch [Gen. 5:24] and Elijah [2 Kings 2:11] were not really "resurrections", in the sense that neither Enoch nor Elijah rose from the "dead." Which brings us to the resurrection by Elijah of the son of the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:22). Would you please cite at least two others in the OT?...

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #639 (Part b)
I have never referred to the translations of Enoch and Elijah as resurrections and you appear to be of like mind. So why did you even mention them, unless you're feebly trying to build a straw man. They weren't dead, so how could they have been resurrected? To answer your specific question, besides the 1 Kings 17:22 example you mentioned, I have always cited 1 Sam. 28:7, 11, 15, 2 Kings 4:32, 34, 35, and 13:21, as other examples of OT resurrections.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #634 from GN of Scottsdale, Arizona Continues from Last Month (Part e)
[The first messianic prophecy referred to on page 153 in our book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy is Gen. 3:15 which says, "I (God--Ed.) will put enmity between thee (the evil serpent--Ed.) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed (allegedly Jesus--Ed.); it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." Christians interpret this as meaning a woman (Mary--Ed.) will give forth a seed (Jesus--Ed.) who will fight the devil's descendants.--Ed. GN says in this regard,
There is no proof that Jesus bruised the head of Satan. Jesus was the one crucified (more than a heel wound), and we can surely see the works of evil manifest in the world daily. This prophecy certainly was not fulfilled in any way. Jesus is the one who died suffering the more serious of the two wounds by dying.

Editor's Response to Letter #634 (Part e)
What can I say other than your observation has merit.

Letter #634 Continues (Part f)
[Among the list of God's deeds found on page 171 in the Encyclopedia is the assertion that he delivered a man, Job, into Satan's hands. GN says in response--Ed.),
God not only delivered "a man, Job, into Satan's hands," he delivered the INNOCENT man, Job, into Satan's hands. It's not the first time that god had little regard for the innocent. God had no qualms about demanding the murder of the innocent Isaac to test Abraham's heart (one has to wonder what kind of heart god wants in a man), nor did he anguish over the death of the innocent firstborns in Egypt. Handing innocent men, women, and children over to death is one of the great pleasures of the O.T. god. How about the murdering of David's innocent baby by God for the sins of David? Talk about abortion. At least a fetus isn't born yet.

Letter #634 Continues (Part g)
[Among the list of reprehensible deeds by the patriarchs on page 184 in the Encyclopedia we referred to the fact that Lot offered his virgin daughters to a mob in Gen. 19:8. GN says in response--Ed.],
Lot offered his daughters to be RAPED and perhaps worse. If you could add the word RAPE, the incident would carry more weight.

Editor's Response to Letter #634 (Part g)
I didn't use the word because the text does not directly say they were raped, although that is certainly a reasonable assumption.

Letter #634 Continues (Part h)
[On page 186 in our book we listed reprehensible deeds performed by major biblical matriarchs. GN felt we omitted some good examples and stated--Ed.],
Sarah also wanted Hagar and her son thrown out into the desert to be abandoned because of her jealousy, and don't forget Esther who got herself all oiled up to go to bed (before marriage) with a pagan king. Rachel was a drug addict as proven by her desire for the mandrakes that Leah's son had found. Mandrakes are a narcotic.

Letter #634 Continues (Part i)
[In the Encyclopedia we note that God said to Eve because of her behavior, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children." GN says in response--Ed.],
How could god "multiply" a pain that Eve supposedly had never felt before?

Editor's Response to Letter #634 (Part i)
Interesting question!

Letter #634 Continues (Part j)
[On page 234 in the Encyclopedia we cited Psalm 55:23 which says among other things that "bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days." GN felt we neglected to mention the fact that--Ed.],
Jesus was supposedly "righteous" and yet he "fell" and did not "live out half his days"--just like the wicked.

Editor's Response to Letter #634 (Part j)
If I'm not mistaken, I did mention Jesus in this regard.

Letter #634 Concludes (Part k)
Dallas Theological Seminary Professor Charles Ryrie claims Paul is not the accepted author of Hebrews - "author unknown".... If one doesn't even know who authored a book, how would one know if they were honorable people or not. This is one of my arguments about Moses writing the Law. Why would God choose a murderer to tell man the will of God?.... I'm very interested in all aspects of the bible and its teachings. If I am not correct in the above, please let me know so that I can correct my records. I do not want to make mistakes when talking to religious friends and foes. I want to thank you so much for publishing the Encyclopedia . It will be a great help to me. You really have the gift. Much affection.
Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #634 (Part k)
I left out parts of your letter GN because I felt they weren't as strong as the ones included. But much of what you say has merit. Thanks for the compliments and keep up the good work.

Letter #640 from FA of Santa Rosa, California
Dear Dennis. Thank you for your correction on Joshua 15:42-44 on page 6 in the last issue. The reason I included Joshua 15:33-36 as 14 names instead of the 15 listed was that in my KJV, between Gederah and Gederothaim, the word "and" has a marginal reading of "or." I took this to mean that the two names were interchangeable names of the same city.

Letter #641 from RR of Altamonte Springs, Florida
Dear Dennis McKinsey. I certainly agree with the writer of letter #619 in the May 1995 issue of BIBLICAL ERRANCY. When I saw THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRANCY in the Prometheus catalog, I ordered it immediately. It took a few months for it to come, but I have been reading it for several weeks now. IT IS FANTASTIC!!!
This kind of book has been needed for years (centuries) to try to correct the misunderstanding of what the BIBLE is and what it contains. I am amazed at the people who never examine their "book" nor consider how it came to have such high regard. People are simply brainwashed from infancy to believe all that "stuff."
Noah's ark is a very attractive story - with all the animals, etc. for even very little babies and young children. What a travesty! I liked what you said about Noah in the May 1995 BB #149. How true - if God had plans to correct his "mistakes" of creating such horrible sinners previously, then to start over with Noah would have been a good idea (??) but only if Noah had been a perfect example.
I was once a Seventh-day Adventist, having been taught to "love" the Bible from childhood. But after 40 years I began to question and use my brain to say WHY WOULD GOD DO THAT? WHY WOULD GOD (JESUS) SAY THAT? And after about ten years of studying philosophy, etc. I now agree with you completely.

Editor's Response to Letter #641
Dear RR. Thanks for the accolades. Many Christians fail to see that it would be ridiculous for God to have drowned everyone but Noah in order to cleanse the world and then to have started over with someone who was corrupt like all those who drowned. This is additional proof that when the Bible said "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations," it meant just that. He had to have been perfect.

Letter #642 from LC of Lufkin, Texas
I bought you book and am very happy with it. Although I have a complete set of your newsletters, I find it much more convenient to have your work all together in a single volume. Thanks so much for all that you have done, and continue to do, in exposing the negative side of the Bible.

Letter #643 from PD of Lapeer, Michigan
Dear Dennis. Two weeks ago I went to an Office...Store in Flint and as I was getting out of the car a minister approached and asked if I was saved, believed in Jesus and all the other non-sense that they believe it is their responsibility to intrude into other peoples' lives. He handed me one of his pamphlets as well. If he has the right to hand tracts to me, then I likewise have an equal right to hand him something in return. He was in for a surprise because I carry your BE tracts in my wallet.
I must have been muttering under my breath about the nerve of those people because a young woman who works in the store overheard me and came up to me and said she was in full agreement. She went on to tell me that she lived in a small four-square block housing development with four fundamentalist churches competing against each other and relentlessly trying to have her join their church. Each of them according to her is somewhat in disagreement with each other. She indicated she'd like to be able to turn the tables on them somehow or, at least, become more knowledgeable on the religious positions. I mentioned to her that I handed the preacher in the parking lot a couple of pamphlets on biblical errors and questions. She said she'd like to see one, so I gave her my last two. When I was back in the store a couple of weeks later she told me she and her friends liked what they read.
I believe she is just out of high school. She's never heard of freethought, rationalism, humanism, and doesn't know how, who, or where to go for information. The local library was of no real help to her. I agreed to help her and gave her a few issues of your publication and will help her as long as she so desires. Perhaps she will write you although she may be apprehensive not wanting her parents to know.
Now, I would like to restock my BE pamphlets. Is the price still ten cents apiece? I would like 50 of each; so let me know the cost....

Editor's Response to Letter #643
Dear PD. Our pamphlets are still 10 cents each and thank you so much for using them in the manner intended. You probably affected that woman more than you realize.
Letter #644 from KJ of Blaine, Minnesota
Dear Mr. McKinsey. I have ordered several of your publications and commentaries which have been extremely informative and beneficial to the research that I have undertaken to try to enlighten my husband (a Jehovah's Witness for 6 years) about biblical issues. I wish that I could have known about your literature much sooner, but I have only recently changed my beliefs from Christian to humanistic/agnostic.
Forrest Carroll, editor of the Family of Humanists Newsletter, sent me a suggestion from TG (Freethought Observer). TG noticed a letter (in your June, 1995, issue of BE) from RG of Brooklyn, Ohio, who was an "ex-JW who wasted the first 35 years of his life on religious nonsense." TG thought that you might be able to put me in touch with RG and that he might be able to give me some advice on the best ways to help my husband. The only information I've gotten from ex-JW's has been from people who are involved in some other fundamentalist Christian group. I would really appreciate learning about the insights of an ex-JW who is no longer religious. Perhaps RG could send me a short letter explaining why he left the JW organization and what points or issues I should concentrate on when I have discussions with my husband about the Bible and the WT Society. Please forward my letter (or a copy of it) to RG in Brooklyn, Ohio. Thank you so much for your assistance in this matter, and thank you for all your wonderful work over the years in the struggle to inform people about biblical errancy.

Editor's Response to Letter #644
Dear KJ. We are only too happy to respond to your request and hope RG can provide you with the kind of information you so obviously desire. I sympathize with your plight and can only imagine the agony of being married to a fundamentalist Christian. I work with fundamentalists and cringe nearly every time I hear their answer to personal, societal, national or international problems. It isn't so much their description of problems and their disdain for same that alienates me as their suggested causes and proposed solutions. I am as opposed to pornography, prostitution, drug legalization, and sex/violence in the media as they are but our suggested causes and solutions for these ills differ dramatically. Teaching and preaching are far less effective than environmentally improving and enhancing. Religious people just don't realize that the ills of mankind will never be abolished by getting the garbage out of people but only by getting people out of the garbage.

Letter #645 from SM of Torrance, California
Dear Dennis. Please send me a copy of your book. I have purchased many copies of your newsletter, and used them six months ago when I debated a local pastor at UCLA on the issue of biblical errancy. He was so overwhelmed with all the examples I provided, it was almost embarrassing.

Editor's Response to Letter #645
Dear SM. Keep up your excellent work. You are using this publication in precisely the manner intended. If only you could be cloned!

EDITOR'S NOTE: (a) Some of our critics seem to be under the mistaken impression that our failure to respond to their letters in a timely fashion exposes fearfulness, apprehension, and timidity on our part. Rest assured that we are not at a loss for answers. That'll be the day! Our real dilemma lies in the fact that we are being inundated with correspondence. It's never been as voluminous, both pro and con. One stack of letters alone is half a foot high. We only ask writers to be patient and hopefully most will receive a response.
(b) We still need volunteers to help circulate our cablevision public access tapes. Incidentally, we'd be very interested in not only hearing from everyone regarding their negative and positive experiences with respect to airing our programs but also their opinions of our presentations per se.

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