Issue #158-Letters on: Translation Errors, Are Con

Biblical Errancy Issue #158-Letters on: Translation Errors, Are Contras Conclusive?, Arguments Over Biblical History, Translation Debate, Are Bats Birds?, Was Resurrection Unique? What is a Bath?, My Bio

Nov 10, '08 12:38 PM
by ¢¾ Denise for everyone





Issue #158 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Feb. 1996

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


COMMENTARY


This month's issue will continue our on-going program of devoting an entire issue to letters from readers.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #661 from JB of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Dear Dennis. Thanks for sending the sample issue of BE. I have read it carefully and am challenged by your tough questions and sharp analysis of "thorny" matters. I'm sure that you have received all kinds of responses concerning your commentary about the resurrection but I'll throw in my two cents worth anyway....
I will concede that there are many difficulties that may never be explained. And I will agree that there have been numerous transcription errors between the primary versions (KJV, NASB, NIV). The compositors of the KJV acknowledged the enormous task at hand and even recognized there would be some problems. However, I question how upset God might be if the author of Samuel and the author of Chronicles recorded different numbers for the horsemen that David captured. Does this mean the Bible can't be trusted? Well, there are millions of people all around the world whose faith is not shaken over such "inconsistencies." Does this mean the Bible is not Inspired? I don't think so. When we all die, I think the truth will be known.
Anyway, I would like to ask you two questions: (1) Can you estimate how much of the Bible you accept as truth or fact. (2) If every "contradiction, inconsistency, error, etc." could be reconciled to your satisfaction, would you consider accepting Christ as your personal Savior? Again, thanks for sending the information.

Editor's Response to Letter #661
Dear JB. To begin with, I'm not sure what you mean by saying "there have been numerous transcription errors between the primary versions (KJV, NASB, NIV)." Are you saying all of these versions disagree with one another? Or are your saying all of them disagree with the so-called autographs? If the former, then we agree; if the latter, then how do you know. When you ask if God would be upset "if the author of Samuel and the author of Chronicles recorded different numbers for the horsemen that David captured," I must take issue with both the premise and conclusion of that ill-conceived comment. We aren't concerned with how god would view a problem of this nature. We are concerned with what this says about the book in which it appears. It proves the book is not only errant and, thus, fallible, but could in no way be the perfect word of a divine being.
In addition, like so many apologists who realize the existence of biblical contradictions can no longer be denied rationally, you opt for the secondary expedient of belittling their importance and dismissing their impact. In truth, anyone with even a modicum of information regarding BE knows that we have presented hundreds, even thousands, of contradictions of this nature and have never been so foolish as to assume a few mathematical conflicts are sufficient to bring down the Bible. We have chosen the far more rational and potent strategy of simply drowning the book's proponents in an avalanche, a tidal wave, of facts, figures, names,
Page 158-2
dates, places, conflicts, and contradictions on virtually every conceivable subject discussed by the the Bible. The massive weight of our evidence, its sheer volume, is more than sufficient to awaken all but the most intransigent ideologue to his deluded ways. We would never be so naive as to put all our bombs into one small category. You ask "Does this mean the Bible can't be trusted?" You bet it does. I don't know of any method that could prove it better. Do you? What are you looking for?
Second, you ask "If every contradiction, inconsistency, error, etc. could be reconciled to your satisfaction, would you consider accepting Christ as your personal Savior?" Since there is no chance, whatever, of that happening, let me ask you a far more realistic and practical question. How many contradictions, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, errors and fallacies would I have to present in order to convince you that the Bible is light years from being the perfect word of a divine being? At what point would you be willing to concede that the book does not live up to its billing and is duping its adherents?
Third, as far as how much of the Bible I accept as truth is concerned, so much is fallacious and contradictory, that I have never felt any need for such a fruitless analysis and that isn't even the issue. The question is not how much I think is true but how much is so obviously untrue as to prove it couldn't possibly be divinely inspired.
Fourth, you say "there are millions of people all around the world whose faith is not shaken over such 'inconsistencies'." My friend, whether or not their faith is shaken is irrelevant to the central question of whether or not the Bible is inerrant. We are not conducting a popularity contest, nor are we judging the truth of something on the basis of its following. Millions of people believed in Hitler, but that certainly doesn't mean his teachings were valid. Millions of muslims are devoted to the Koran, but that hardly proves it's God's word.
Fifth, you say "Does this mean the Bible is not Inspired?" You mean does the existence of contradictions and similar problems prove the Bible is not inspired? Well, it's about as good a proof as I know of. Do you know of anything better? What are you looking for? What do you want? When something in Deuteronomy says something in Exodus is false; when something in Chronicles says something in Samuel or Kings is inaccurate; when something in Matthew says something in Luke is erroneous; when Paul disputes Jesus, that's as conclusive a demonstration as you can find. Again I ask, what do you want? Having dealt with this problem for many years, I'm close to concluding that if Jesus, himself, appeared and said it was all a charade, a monumental fraud, created because he just felt people ought to have something to believe in, many of his followers would accuse him of being mistaken and succumbing to some kind of sinister force.
And finally you state "when we all die, I think the truth will be known." That statement is based on the assumption that you are going to continue existing somehow in order to receive the answer--which is itself a belief restricted to faith alone, because certainly no proof is available. If your assumption is as invalid as it is unprovable and you were prescient, you could very well be the one in line for a shock.

Letter #662 from MT of Anaheim, California
Dear Mr. McKinsey. In your book page 343 says that Luke was in error by saying Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria. I have heard that a Sir Fredrick (sic) Kenya (sic) found evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, once around 6 BC, the other 4 A.D. Is the true? ("Sic" means the word was misspelled and was left that way--Ed.)
Also, on page 338, you said that Darius the Mede is not mentioned in any ancient document, yet the Ryrie study Bible says the "Nabonidus Chronicle" identified Darius the Mede with a governor named Gubaru (page 1305). I'd like to know what you think about this....
You said on page 336 that history knew nothing of an Assyrian king named Pul. Page 578 of the Ryrie bible says that Pul was "tiger-Pileser III (sic) mentioned in 1 Chron. 5:26. Do you think this is just speculation?....
I also heard a "scholar" say that the walls of Jericho, when escavated (sic), fell down just as Joshua describes. Could you comment on that?
Ryrie says on page 9 of his study Bible that the word in Gen. 1:28 translated "replenish" should actually be translated as "fill," and cannot be used to support a pre-Adamic race. Yet, in your book you said the word was "replenish" and in this particular passage implied a repopulation of the earth. Could you comment on that?
If you could answer any of these, that would be great. I have been subscribing to your newsletter for (I believe) half a year now. I was a Jehovah's Witness, then a fundamentalist Christian. Any information would be helpful.

Editor's Response to Letter #662
Dear MT. Scholars can say anything they like and often do. That, along with the fact that none of us were there and we're forced to rely upon the historian we prefer, is why I have never put much stock in the historical approach to biblical refutation. As far as your individual points are concerned, let's take them one at a time.
First, you say that you heard "that a Sir Fredrick (sic) Kenya (sic) found evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, once around 6 BC, the other 4 A.D." "You have heard" is rather vague. Whom did you hear it from and did this source provide some evidence? People can say he was governor as many times as they want, but the question is whether or not they can prove it. Virtually no one denies he was governor once. But your source is obligated to prove additional mandates.
Second, you say the "Ryrie Study Bible says the 'Nabonidus Chronicle' identified Darius the Mede with a governor named Gubaru." Have you seen this Chronicle or are you just taking the word of an avowed apologist. Biblicists are notorious for playing the switch-or-duplicate name game and this could very well be a good example of same. The burden of proof is on Ryrie because he is asserting that two completely differ ent names are of the same person. This also applies to the Assyrian king named Pul being the "tiger-Pileser III (sic) mentioned in Chronicles.
Third, for thousands of years some scholars have been saying the walls of Jericho fell down as the Bible relates. That's not surprising, but keep in mind that they are obligated to provide tangible evidence of same. Until archeology or a related discipline furnishes something of real substance, you are under no obligation to accept their account. Have you seen their excavation data? Was it subjected to independent verification and analysis? Have you had access to and studied the records and documentation of those who refute this story? Or are you just taking the apologists' word for it?
Fourth and lastly, you say that "the word in Gen. 1:28 translated 'replenish' should actually be translated as 'fill,' and cannot be used to support a pre-Adamic race" according to Ryrie. Then Ryrie is saying he knows Hebrew better than the groups of scholars that translated the King James and the American Standard versions, both of which say "replenish." Also, Ryrie is tied in a knot by the same statement in Gen. 9:1 which says "replenish" or "repopulate" not only in the KJV and the ASV but the Jewish Masoretic Text and the Living Bible as well. There's a big difference be-tween "replenish" and "fill." The apologetic argument that the KJV is out-of-date simply won't stand the strain in light of the fact that relatively recent translations such as The Living Bible and the American Standard Version say the same.
Remember above all else that the Bible is a political book that is changed, increased, diminished and rewritten as conditions dictate. Anytime you open any version of the Bible, first notice how key words are translated. Does it use "young woman" or "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14? Is the Hebrew word translated as "kill" or "murder" in the 6th commandment (Ex. 20:13)? How extravagant is the number in 1 Sam. 6:19? Is "without a cause" inserted into Matt. 5:22 and the word "yet" into John 7:8? Has the word "openly" been removed from Matt. 6:6? Does Matt. 19:9 omit "whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery?" Does 2 Tim 3:16 say "all scripture is inspired" or does it say "all scripture that is inspired?" Does 2 Peter 1:1 say "of God and our Savior Jesus Christ" or does it say "of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"? And how does 1 Tim 6:10 handle money as a source of evil? These may seem like lesser matters to some, but they are of critical importance to those who really study scripture. You can nearly always tell a book's liberal or conservative slant by observing these key junctures. More often than not you can even tell the degree of conservatism or liberalism in the book's authors. They all have an agenda and it's just a matter of finding where they are trying to lead you. If you think versions of the Bible are put together by objective, dispassionate, neutral, unbiased scholars, I strongly recommend reconsideration of your position. If you have a version that you deem to be neutral, by all means send me a copy. I await its arrival with bated breath. But be prepared to hear about the error of your ways.

Letter #663 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 in Lev. 11:13, 19. Rev. BB attacked this as a translation difficulty caused by the KJV, but we noted that the NASB, the NB, the ASV and other versions have the same words. In agreeing with Rev. BB, NB says, "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.
In response to NB I said, "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. Exhibiting a noticeable degree of imprudence, NB now wishes to resume the encounter.--ED.)
Dear Dennis. I see that after ignoring several of my previous letters and a delay of several months, you finally got around to commenting on one of my letters (#639 in the Nov. 1995 issue which is 155). It isn't clear from your reply whether or not you read the NIV regarding Lev. 11:13-20, or you might have noted the succinct footnote to Lev. 11:19 in the NIV which says, "The precise identification of some of the birds, insects, and animals in this chapter is uncertain."

Editor's Response to Letter #663 (Part a)
Dear NB. First, you appear to be obsessed with the NIV. Apparently you want me to accept an admittedly imprecise NIV footnote while ignoring the actual text of the NASB, the NEB, and the ASV.
Second and even more importantly, you didn't even read your own footnote very carefully. As you noted it says, "The precise identification of some of the birds, insects, and animals in this chapter is uncertain." But that doesn't mean the identification of every one is uncertain or that the bat, the last animal listed and the one with which we are primarily concerned, has been incorrectly identified. It says the precise identification of some is uncertain. How do you know your footnote applies specifically to the bat in verse 19 and if it doesn't your footnote is immaterial.
Third, what really makes your explanation lamentable is that your own beloved NIV says "bat" in the 19th verse. The version you cite the most undermines your own position. It says "These are the birds you are to detest...." and then lists 19 birds followed by the 20th which is a bat. Why not be more rational and stop trying to defend an obviously indefensible scientific error in the Bible. In the long run you'll feel better and look less silly. You said, "It isn't clear from your re-ply whether or not you read the NIV regarding Lev. 11:13-20, or you might have noted the succinct footnote to Lev. 11:19 in the NIV." I read it years ago. The problem lies not with my failure to read closely or critically but with your failure to read and comprehend. If you had been more observant and less defensive, you would never have walked into this tar baby.
And finally, I never ignored your letters and take exception to the underlying implication. As I said in my November issue, our failure to respond to letters is attributable to the sheer volume of mail we receive rather than any reticence on our part. Delayed responses can only be eliminated by adding pages, costs, and/or time, all of which are unacceptable options.

Letter #663 Continues (Part b)
(In the second part of Letter #639 NB continued to assert that the resurrection of Jesus was unique because there were no OT resurrections prior to his other than possibly that of Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarephath in 1 Kings 17:22. Yet, I cited 1 Sam. 28:7, 11, 15, 2 Kings 4:32, 34, 35, and 13:21, as other examples of OT resurrections. Continuing his assault NB says--Ed.),
Regarding the OT resurrections, at the time I wrote that letter I had not done enough research, but several months ago I noted the resurrection of the Shunamite by Elisha (2 Kings 4:34-35) and the "miracle at the tomb of Elisha" when a dead man was tossed into the grave of Elisha, and was revived when he touched the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21), but WHO raised him?...
OK. Along with the resurrection of the son of the Widow of Zarephath, that makes three. As to 1 Sam. 28:7-19 that looks for all the world as if the Witch of Endor had conjured up a "vision" for Saul's benefit, and I find it very hard to accept that as a genuine "resurrection."
So that makes 3 (or maybe 4) OT "resurrections" if you don't accept the translations of Enoch and Elijah as "resurrections" (Yes, they never "rose from the dead", but neither did they "taste of death"). So do your "more than 3 resurrections" consist of a grand total of one?

Editor's Response to Letter #663 (Part b)
You started inaccurate NB, proceeded downhill, and concluded incoherent. Following your thought processes puts a strain on mine.
First, I certainly believe your admission that "at the time I wrote that letter I had not done enough research." Unfortunately you still haven't.
Second, you ask "but WHO raised him?" when that isn't even the issue. My original question eons ago was: Why was the resurrection of Jesus so spectacular, when so many people rose from the dead before him. Who raised who isn't even material to my original question, especially in the light of the fact, as I have stated repeatedly, Jesus was raised by someone else, like everyone else.
Third, you admit that the Shunamite, the dead man who touched Elisha, and the widow's son were raised. You dismiss the Witch of Endor as conjuring up nothing more than a "vision" and then say, "So that makes 3 (or maybe four) OT 'resurrections' if you don't accept the translations of Enoch and Elijah as 'resurrections' (Yes, they never 'rose from the dead', but neither did they 'taste of death')." Where on earth are you going with this? You keep admitting more and more resurrections while simultaneously claiming the resurrection of Jesus was sui generis.
Fourth, as I said earlier, you don't read very closely. If you had read my original question with a more discerning eye, you would have noticed that I referred to the numerous resurrections occurring prior to the resurrection of Jesus. I never said they were confined to the OT alone. I mentioned the saints arising in Matt. 27:52-53, Jairus' daughter in Matt. 9:18-25, the widow at Nain's son in Luke 7:11-15, and Lazarus in John 11:43-44. To be perfectly candid. How many resurrections do you want? What are you looking for? Millions?
Fifth, you are back on this Enoch/Elijah thing again with a comment that is not only irrelevant and immaterial but inane. You say, "Yes, they never "rose from the dead", but neither did they "taste of death". What does that have to do with anything? I have never mentioned them with respect to the resurrection. You, however, seem infatuated with their ascensions.
And lastly, your final comment is jewel of vacuity. After stating what you said in my third point, you say, "So do your 'more than 3 resurrections' consist of a grand total of one?" What on earth does that mean? I would only hope that in the dark cavernous recesses of your deluded mind there is at least a faint glimmer of light associated with this comment because I'm certainly aware of none in mine.

Letter #663 Concludes (Part c)
[The 9th question on our pamphlet entitled THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? asks if Solomon's house contained 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26) or 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:4). NB says in response--Ed.],
And the last time I looked, you still hadn't learned that a "bath" (1 Kings 7:26; 2 Chron. 45:5) was an old Hebrew unit of capacity (about 10 gallons), not a "room" as we might think of a "bath." And yes, I'm aware of the fact that 2 Kings says there were "2,000 baths" and 2 Chron. says 3,000. It would take at least a full issue of BE to discuss the vagaries of the Hebrew' crude method (and the many possibilities for error) of writing numbers (using modified letters of the Hebrew alphabet).

Editor's Response to Letter #663 (Part c)
I'm well aware of the fact that a bath is a unit of capacity and not a room, but that is immaterial to the central question. What a bath is or isn't is of far less importance than how many of them are involved. Whether it is a room or a unit of capacity doesn't matter as far as the contradiction is concerned. If it's a room, then you would have contradictory figures with respect to how many rooms there were. If it's a unit of capacity then you have contradictory figures with respect to how many units of capacity there were. Either way defenders of the Bible, such as yourself, are in a quicksand bog. You may be aware of the conflict between 2 Kings and 2 Chron. but you are incapable of understanding its significance.
Secondly, your comment that "It would take at least a full issue of BE to discuss the vagaries of the Hebrew' crude method (and the many possibilities for error) of writing numbers (using modified letters of the Hebrew alphabet)" is nothing more than a ruse, absent evidence to the contrary. Mere utterance doesn't make it so. You're facing two comments that clash and the contradiction stands until you can reconcile the irreconcilable. Apparently I'm supposed to assume that no contradiction exists simply because you allegedly have evidence to the contrary. That's a backhanded way of telling me: Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. The contradiction is obvious, it's blatant, it's clear, and it's going to stand in the mind of sane men until you come up with something far better than your transparent sophistry. If you really had a plausible reconciliation, I have little doubt that you would reveal some of it. I wish I had recorded every apologist who has told me he has an ideological super bomb lying beneath the table which is only held in check by his sympathy for others and respect for intellectual discourse. The only real bomb involved is your response.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #664 from KB of Los Angeles, California
Dear Dennis. Congratulations on the move for the better! I'll post your new address in the Atheist, Humanist, and Christian sectors of America Online. Also, the new typography is a great improvement.
Some time ago I volunteered my help in getting your programs on Los Angeles area cable TV stations, but I have not heard back. I need to have information as to what format (half - inch VHS, three quarter inch professional type or equivalent) in which you have your programs. If you have them only in the VHS format, then there are very few stations that can broadcast them. Enclosed is a copy of the requirements for American Cablevision that covers the cities of South Pasadena and San Marino, indicating technical requirements.
American Cablevision has an additional requirement not mentioned on the sheet, and that is that there must be a resident of their area that requests that the program be shown. If you have anyone on your mailing list with an address in either South Pasadena or San Marino, please have that person write a letter to the station requesting the program....

Editor's Response to Letter #664
Dear KB. We certainly appreciate any assistance you can render and apologize if we did not reply to your letter in due course. I have become incredibly busy in recent years because of the added burden asso- ciated with created with producing TV shows. Technically speaking, all of our programs are recorded on Professional Quality Super VHS 1/2 inch tapes and then copies are made on regular Professional Quality VHS tapes and sent out. You are correct when you say that some stations require tapes be sponsored by someone living in the cable station's audience. Perhaps someone can help us in this regard. It might be better, however, if the people you are seeking contacted me first and I will forward their names and addresses to you for further instructions. As I mentioned in a prior issue, we can send our tapes to you for viewing, but you will have to tailor them for the specific requirements of your area. Cable stations vary too widely in what they want.

Letter #665 from DS of Davenport, Iowa (Part a)
As a long-time subscriber to BE I was delighted that you put much of it together in your book. I sent to Prometheus for it as soon as it was announced and after waiting forever it finally came. One disappointment is that it did not have a dust cover. Dust covers usually have a thumbnail sketch of the author. I would like very much to have a short biography on you Dennis, not long and involved, but similar in nature to what would be on a book jacket. In short what do you do for a living, what is your education, why did you tackle this specific mission and so on.
My own quick bio is that I am a retired skilled worker...and I am devoting my retirement to the promotion of civil liberties. I am a veteran of WW-2 and Korea. One often told pulpit lie is that there are no atheists in foxholes. I submit that a submarine is a reasonable equivalent and I was an atheist when I was riding the boats and still am a half-century later.

Editor's Response to Letter #665 (Part a)
I sent biographical information and a picture of myself to Prometheus but they chose not to include either. I am not sure why, but it was their call to make. In essence, a bio would have stated that I'm 55 years old and have a bachelor's degree in philosophy and master's degree in the social sciences from Indiana University. I attended law school in the 1960's and was in the MBA program for a brief period, neither of which retained my interest. I taught secondary social studies for 9 years and was a secondary guidance counselor for 12 years. During the 1970's and 1980's I was a sociology instructor at a community college, a civil rights investigator and a governmental researcher. I've been married to my only wife for nearly 20 years and my oldest of 3 children is 11.
Having not been reared in a religious environment, let alone a fundamentalist one, I have no ax to grind in that regard. Despite the assumptions of some, "getting it off my chest" in reprisal for a strict fundamentalist upbringing plays no part whatever in my considerations. I have just always had an interest in philosophy and religion. Chess, tennis, non-fiction reading, and writing are my favorite pastimes, although writing has been all-consuming lately.

Letter #665 Continues (Part b)
I was reared as a Christian Scientist and my mother died when I was fourteen, a victim of cancer and Christian Science. Her only treatment for cancer of the uterus was Miss Perkins, a CS practitioner, "working for her."
This caused me to seriously study religion, CS in particular and Christianity in general. My first attempt to study the bible was to start with Genesis and try to read it through. As you've probably guessed I bogged down in the middle of Leviticus and said to hell with it. Later when I was in the navy I got hold of the University of Chicago's American Bible Translation. I used it for study and went through the NT first.... Although I found contradictions by myself, I stumbled on to Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason and was really off and running. I debate local ministers on bible inerrancy and the existence of god on occasion and find your encyclopedia very useful. I have found it most practical to stay away from the subject of atheism and concentrate on the bible.

Editor's Response to Letter #665 (Part b)
You are probably already aware of the fact that the Christian Science denomination is an exceptionally jeopardous outfit that is responsible for the deaths of many through prayer overdose. It may be Christian but it's reliance upon metaphysical mutterings instead of responsible and qualified medical care creates a canyon between it and science. I can't help but recall the recent Twitchell case in which two indoctrinated parents rejected medical assistance for their baby and caused it to die from an easily remedied bowel obstruction. By not being able to evacuate, can you imagine the sheer agony, the torture, that child must have gone through--all because its parents succumbed to absurd biblical teachings and medieval nonsense.
Your evolution away from religious superstition resembles that of many, and I am glad to see that you are using our material in the manner intended. Keep up the good work.

EDITOR'S NOTE: WE HAVE FINALLY REACHED THE LEADING EDGE, BECAUSE YOU CAN NOW CONTACT US ON THE INTERNET AT: KLO_MCKINSEY@MEC.Ohio.Gov. We welcome your E-Mail, but at this stage of the game I certainly can't guarantee a response.