159 Did Jesus Say Slay People, Math, Pi, a

Issue #159
Mar. 1996

On page 5 in the May, 1995 Issue (#149) we made a comparison between Christianity and Islam that could very well merit reconsideration. In response to a letter from Maryland I said, "Islam is an exceptionally dangerous religion because the Koran actually advocates the eradication of its opponents. With all their faults, New Testament writers never went quite that far." Having reconsidered this issue, it could very well be that NT writers did go that far, depending on how Luke 19:27 and the surrounding verses are interpreted.

Specifically, in Luke, Jesus related a parable about a nobleman who went on a trip and left three servants with some money that they were to increase by trading. The first increased his ten pounds and the second increased his five pounds, but the third did not increase his at all. This upset the nobleman after he returned and the following conversation occurs beginning with the third servant speaking at verse

:21 "For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man; thou takest up that thou layest not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
:22 And he (the nobleman) saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth I will judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring thither, and slay them before me .
:28 And when he (Jesus) had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem."

The crucial question is: Where do the words of the nobleman end. At what verse does he stop speaking. It is extremely important whether or not the last thing he says is verse 24, 26, or 27 because if Jesus is speaking for himself in verse 27 then he is one of the most intolerant and ruthless figures to have ever emerged from the pages of literature. On the other hand, if these two verses are merely a summation of the situation by the nobleman, the Christian dilemma is lessened dramatically.

Although we have been aware of this problem for many years, it's never been directly discussed because the text has always been viewed as too ambiguous. Is Jesus saying verse 27 or is he merely relating the words of a nobleman in a parable? That's the issue.

Another one of our subscribers GK, wrote an article in the FFRF's Newsletter, Freethought Today , the gist of which was that, "The quote is directly attributable to and about Jesus. Although apologists contend that this is merely a 'quotation within a quotation'... Biblical scholarship demonstrates otherwise." To prove these comments express the attitude of Jesus, he cites several commentaries from Christian sources. GK states that all these commentaries "substantiate my conclusions regarding the muddled verses that clearly portray Jesus insisting 'slay mine enemies at my feet'...."

The commentaries he cites to prove verse 27 is not part of the pounds parable are as follows:
(1) Dummelow Bible Commentary, N.Y., 1922, page 765, notes that verse 27 has nothing to do with the servants who managed money, but 'describes the final punishment of those who reject Christ.'
(2) The International Critical Commentary, 1902, Vol. 27, 5th edition, on page 443, notes. 'St. Augustine more than once points to verse 27 in answer to the objection that the severe God of the OT cannot be identical with the God of Love in the NT. In the Gospels, as in the Law, the severity of God's judgments against willful disobedience is plainly taught....'
(3) Cook Commentary of the Holy Bible, 1878, Vol. 1, London, page 440, specifically attributes verse 27 to '...(Jesus) literal coming of the end of the world...,' and is not applicable to the parable's servants' management of their master's pounds.
(4) Elliott Bible Commentary, Vol. VI, London, page 338, notes that verse 27 is distinct from the parable of the pounds and 'Spiritually it represents, in bold figures drawn from the acts of tyrant kings, the ultimate victory of JC over the unbelieving and rebellious.' GK concludes by saying, "The above references should adequately demonstrate on which side 'scholarship' comes down on this particular issue." GK's interpretation of verse 27 is certainly in keeping with JC's belligerent comment in Matt. 10:34 ('I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword').

In the interest of balance, however, it should be noted that some people disagree with GK and their views are aptly stated by the following letter to the Humanist News of Minneapolis-St. Paul. A woman stated, "In the interests of accuracy I would point out that GK has quoted very carelessly. Jesus is telling a story, a parable, and in the parable the king says, 'But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.' Yes, Jesus did say the words, but I believe they must be taken in context. It is very different, to my mind, to say that Jesus wanted his enemies brought before him and slain, or that in a story, which made a particular point, a character in the story said it."

One of our subscribers from Seminole, Florida agrees with her and states, "I think I have found a minor error in your book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, though it is undoubtedly more the fault of your quoted source than yourself. On page 160, Gerald Sigal's The Jew and the Christian Missionary is quoted and uses Luke 19:27 as evidence that JC advocated killing enemies. Unfortunately that's not quite accurate, at least to my knowledge. In Luke 19:11-12, it identifies these words of JC as part of a parable concerning 'a certain noble man.'...although it was JC speaking, he was quoting Herod's attempt to reclaim his throne and quash rebellious peasants after he had made his journey, which can hardly be held against him."

In any event, we included this major issue because of its potential impact on the alleged perfection of Jesus Christ. If, in fact, Jesus told people to bring his enemies before him and slay them, his decency and humaneness, indeed his credibility itself, is dealt a staggering blow. On the other hand, we have refrained from focusing on this critical comment because of the ambiguity of the text. Although definitely in keeping with some comments by Jesus, it's at variance with others. For now we are content with having made our readers aware of the controversy and, perhaps, motivating them to do some independent research. Anyone who can definitively prove Jesus was referring to himself in Luke 19:27 will have all but decimated any Christian claims to tolerance, open-mindedness, and civil discourse. In effect, Jesus would be saying: Believe my way or die. Judging by the number of religious executions that occurred during the Middle Ages, that could very well be how many Christians interpreted it.



Letter #666 from CK of Bloomfield, New Jersey (Part a) (CK wrote letter #630 in the September issue and now seeks to again claim that the bowl with a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30 in 1 Kings 7:23 can be explained by using the rounding defense, as can the difference between 470,000 and 500,000 in 1 Chron. 21:5 and 2 Sam. 24:9, respectively).

Dear Mr. McKinsey. Returning to the subject of my letter #630 I have looked through your Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy and found many Biblical discrepancies of number that, indeed, cannot be explained away by rounding. (However, he does not think that allowing the rounding defense in the 10-cubit-versus-30-cubit case and the 500,000-versus-470,000 case would automatically allow biblicists to explain away the other contradictions. Apparently he feels these are exceptions and quotes a letter from a college professor who agrees with him).
In establishing the larger point (of the Bible's complete unreliability), let's not use spurious arguments that only make the case less compelling. Even a completely unreliable book does not always err. This is not a game to score personal points, but a means of convincing people of the truth.
(Another letter by CK dwells on the same point) I appreciate your new printer--it makes everything easier to read. I am frustrated, however, at my inability to get across my mathematical points. If two reporters cover a meeting at which, say, a precise tally of attenders showed 2133 persons in attendance, and one reporter chose to say it was attended by 2100 persons and another reported 2000, both would be correct. Also, they are independent. The second reporter didn't take the first reporter's already rounded 2100 and round it again to 2000--each used a different level of rounding right from the get-go. There is not a set of 100 missing people. Likewise 470,000 and 500,000 are two independently rounded versions of the same number, which for sake of argument, might very well be 469,254 for all we know. To say the burden of proof lies on the alleger would be onerous for the newspaper reporters mentioned above--what can they do, provide an affidavit from the ticket sellers?--but then how can you trust them?....You state that the Bible does not imply, much less state, that the figures are the result of rounding or approximating. In any real-world measurement there always is rounding....

Editor's Response to Letter #666 (Part a) Your comment with respect to the reporters is just about the whole ball game my friend. The attendance at a ball game was 2133 and you say that if "one reporter chose to say it was attended by 2100 persons and another reported 2000, both would be correct." One misses it by 33 and another by 133 and you're telling me they are both correct. Too bad I didn't have you as my math teacher when I took calculus in college and got a C. Defenders of the Bible just can't seem to realize that we are dealing with God's inerrant word, not some reporter's guesstimate. We are dealing with a flawless book and yet I'm supposed to believe that erroneous figures are somehow accurate.
All this emphasis on rounding is quite secondary to the central issue which is that the figures don't agree. I am well aware of the fact that rounding occurs in the real world and I repeat my assertion that the burden of proving these are roundings lies on the alleger. What really counts, however, is that 470,000 is not 500,000, period. Whether either is a product of rounding doesn't really matter. Either the figures agree or they don't. And the fact is they don't. And that's about all that needs to be said on that matter. All of the letters I have received over the years with their highly abstruse and convoluted mathematical calculations intended to resolve these contradictions are nothing more than apologetic smoke and mirrors seeking to prove black is white. The only spurious aspect regarding this issue is that emanating from defenses thrown up by those desperate for an out.
As far as a bowl having a circumference of 30 with a diameter of 10 is concerned the same principle applies. Anyone who thinks this is an accurate biblical calculation should make some ball bearings that are 10 centimeters in diameter and 30 centimeters in circumference (quite a trick!) and put them into an aircraft in which they intend to take the next flight. The unwillingness of apologists to accept this challenge should reveal the extent to which they really have confidence in their own contentions. They know as well as I how long that aircraft would stay in the air. They expound this nonsense but that doesn't mean they are willing to put their lives in jeopardy or die for it.

Letter #666 Concludes (Part b) Please note that it is my love of mathematical truth, as well as criticisms I have received from even non-believers that some of your criticism is too picky, that persuade me to write this. But it really bothers me that persons on the same side of the Bible issue have to be at cross purposes like this.
I will be making inquiries this week with my cable provider concerning the community access channels. Do you have any listing of the topics that each episode on your tapes covers? When you say that we must make the necessary arrangements, does that mean also converting 1/2" tapes to 3/4" if that is what the cable company needs? That certainly sounds more daunting than merely delivering the tape to the cable company.

Editor's Response to Letter #666 (Part b) From the perspective of many biblicists, CK, any criticism of the Bible is too picky. Despite many allegations to the contrary, no criticism of the Bible found in this publication has ever been "too picky." I have never inserted a criticism without having first taken account of this potential response. If they think I am going to exclude salient points merely because "they" think they're too trivial or they've been told as much, then they had best reconsider. I have no intention of judging the value of a contradiction or forestalling its inclusion on the basis of evaluations by apologists.
I realize you are basically a supporter of our cause but I feel compelled to respond in a manner commensurate with the temper of the letter received. Unfortunately all of your mathematical arguments boil down to one simple contention--two different numbers are the same number--and that's just not going to fly.
In any event, I would like to thank you for trying to get our cable access tapes aired in your area. Our tapes are in 1/2 inch format so if your station requires 3/4 inch tapes then you will need to make the conversion. That can't be avoided I am sorry to say.
We don't have a table of contents for the programs, although they closely follow the sequence of chapters in my book. Again, thanks for the assistance and I hope my response didn't sound too acerbic.

Letter #667 from DA of La Puente, California (Part a)
(DA makes no attempt to introduce our readers to the topic he is debating so I am repeatedly left with the task of orienting our subscribers to what is being discussed. Apparently he thinks I am the only one who will read his letters (that's understandable) and I have memorized all of my back issues which is virtually impossible. In this issue he says),
Dear McKinsey. Meant to write a letter an issue. Well, you will have to be "satisfied" with several issues in one letter.
#150. (He means issue #150) At least you are not entirely letters to the editor this time. (How I could be a letter eludes me. DA needs to polish his writing skills). Your claimed conflict between 2 Tim. 3:12 ("All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution") and Prov. 16:7 ("When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him") is a trivial version of a more serious question (How to reconcile a good god with evil events.) At that trivial level, the believer in a perfect bible can easily wiggle free of your arguments.
To start with, there is no logical conflict between the 2 statements. Tim. refers to "all that will live godly..." while Prov. refers to "when a man's ways please the Lord.." The 2 can be said to be the same, but there is no logical necessity of that, and thus no necessity for a conflict here. The same applies to the other half of the statements. "suffer him" are not mutually exclusive. (It is not unusual for example to at least claim peace and friendship for the victim you are about to execute. This practice may be a tad devious since they don't try to let the victim go, but it does show that you can be persecuted by those at peace with you.)
& your asserting at considerable length that these are universals does not make them so. Prov. in particular does not say that none can be persecuted, nor at any time. It would seem on the face of it to be a generalist statement.

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part a)
You are at it again, DA, so let's take them by the numbers.
First, in typical apologetic style you changed the problem by saying, "Your claimed conflict...is a trivial version of a more serious question (How to reconcile a good god with evil events.)." You are actually talking about an internal clash raised within 2 Tim. 3:12 itself. We aren't talking about the problem of evil in general but of persecution by enemies in particular. The issue is narrowly focused and specific.
Second, I am glad you are willing to admit that believers must wiggle free rather than confront head-on.
Third, and even more important, you say, "To start with, there is no logical conflict between the 2 statements. Tim. refers to "all that will live godly..." while Prov. refers to 'when a man's ways please the Lord..' the 2 can be said to be the same, but there is no logical necessity of that, and thus no necessity for a conflict here." Yet, you provide no evidence of same. Apparently we are supposed to take your word for it. When Prov. says "a man's ways please the Lord" it is referring to all those who live godly. How, then, does that differ from Tim referring to all those that live godly?
Fourth, your comment that, "It is not unusual for example to at least claim peace and friendship for the victim you are about to execute. This practice may be a tad devious since they don't try to let the victim go, but it does show that you can be persecuted by those at peace with you" makes no sense. What kind of an answer is this? Your obsession with defending the Bible at all costs is a sight to behold, DA. It is an exercise in mental gymnastics to even follow your "train of thought." Who cares what people claim or who is faked out? Are we talking about assertions or reality? What does the verse say? Prov. 16 says that if your ways please the Lord, your enemies will not harm you. If the man killed you, obviously he was your enemy, regardless of what he claimed or you thought.
Fifth, you say, "it does show that you can be persecuted by those at peace with you." How can you be persecuted by somebody who is at peace with you? The very act of persecuting you shows that he is not at peace with you. And you have all but ignored Prov. 16 which says, "When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him"
Sixth, you say, "& your asserting at considerable length that these are universals does not make them so. Prov. in particular does not say that none can be persecuted, nor at any time. It would seem on the face of it to be a generalist statement." What are you talking about? Prov. 16 clearly states that any man whose ways please the Lord will be at peace with his enemies, i.e., will not be persecuted by them. In other words, as far as a man whose ways please the Lord is concerned, Scripture is making an absolutist statement and creating another tar-baby for the Bible and its defenders, such as yourself.
And lastly, you say, "It would seem on the face of it to be a generalist statement." Are you or are you not saying it is an a general statement? If you are, then we are in agreement and you have contradicted your comment that "your asserting at considerable length that these are universals does not make them so." If you are saying this is not a general statement, then we have already shown the error of your ways.

Letter #667 Continues (Part b) Your comments on Isa. 26:19 ( "The dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise") and 1 Cor. 15:52 ("The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible") versus Job 7:9 ("He that goeth down to the grave, they shall come up no more") and Isa. 26:14 ("They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise" ) also shows more of the lawyer than the logician. Job 7:9 is Job speaking, not the author of Job. His statement thus has no more standing than would a character in a story who statement that 2+2=5 hardly means the author made an error.
Isa. 26:14 refers to certain enemies of the ancient Jews while 26:19 refers to the Jews. No conflict there either. Your making it sound like one reflects poorly on your credibility.

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part b)Your "reconciliation" of this problem is not some-thing one would expect from either a lawyer or a logician. If that transparent defense were allowed, every erroneous statement in the Bible could be attributed to the character who made it rather than the author of Scripture who is supposedly God. If Moses, David, Solomon, Paul or Peter made one of their usual absurd remarks, you could just say, "Well that's just them speaking, not God." In that event, the inerrancy of Scripture would be all but decimated and every reader would be unrestrained with respect to which parts can be attributed to characters within the Bible as opposed to the alleged author of Scripture itself. In trying to save the Bible you have all but destroyed its credibility. You say, "Job 7:9 is Job speaking, not the author of Job." How do you know it's not God speaking through Job? After all God is allegedly the author. What is your criterion for determining when God is speaking as opposed to one of the characters in a book written by God who is merely speaking for himself? I have heard this defense on several occasions and it's no more valid now than when first proposed. Chaos will reign supreme if you stick with this argument. You have not only thrown out the baby with the bathwater but the tub as well. Everyone, pro and anti Bible, will be free to pick and choose what he or she wishes to attribute to God directly, as opposed to the biblical figure who is speaking. This ruse has already been surreptitiously adopted by a sizable portion of the Christian community and that is a major reason why more than 1,500 separate Christian denominations currently glut the market. If Job 7:9 can not definitely be attibuted to God then what part of Scripture can? For all practical purposes, virtually the entire book is up for grabs.
You say, "Isa. 26:14 refers to certain enemies of the ancient Jews while 26:19 refers to the Jews." It's interesting how you ducked the real issue in true apologetic style. What difference does the composition of the groups make in this instance. First Cor. 15:52 ("The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible" ) says the dead shall be raised while Isa. 26:14 ( "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise") says they won't. Either they will rise or they won't. Either way, one of these verses is false. You say Isa. 26:14 only refers to certain enemies of the Jews, as if this altered the central issue. All you are saying is that a certain group of people will not rise from the dead which directly contradicts 1 Cor. 15:52. Your attempt to focus on the conflict between Isa. 26:14 and 19 has no weight because even if Isa. 26:19 refers to the Jews, as you are assuming, it does not say ONLY the Jews will arise. First Cor. 15:52 incorporates Isa. 26:19 and is all inclusive. That's why the main clash is between 1 Cor. 15:52 and Isa. 26:14, not Isa. 26:19 and Isa. 26:14. Apologists are always yelling about the importance of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, yet they conveniently jettison this poignant maxim when the outcome is unacceptable. Instead of interpreting Isa. 26:19 in light of 1 Cor. 15:52 and seeing that the former was referring to a part of humanity that would rise, while the latter says all will, you preferred to dwell only on the former as if they were the only ones who would arise, which they aren't. It's a neat trick if you can pull it off, but you didn't make it.

Letter #667 Continues (Part c) (Regarding the Psalm 78:69/Eccle. 1:4 versus Luke 21:33/2Peter 3:10 clash and my comment that "if it has an end, then it can't be forever" DA says),
In English , and then only in general. Even in English we often use 'forever' to refer to very long periods of time, and sometimes to periods of time that are merely indefinite and may be quite short.... The Bible is a translation. Errors by the translators are not errors in the Bible, merely errors in the translation. So you must show that 'olam' means precisely 'without any end at all.' The meaning of 'forever' is not important here.

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part c) Unfortunately there comes a time in an ongoing publication like this that we should draw a line for the sake of our readership and say: If you had read our back issues you would have seen the error of your ways and not written such imprudence. I have demolished this defense on numerous occasions and there is no need to tax our readers' patience any longer, although I probably will, because I can't resist the temptation. What I said on the 2nd page of the 150th issue, which you have apparently chosen to ignore, encompasses not only this issue but many contradictions and defenses that are quite similar. I said, "Stripped to its bare essentials, all Haley is saying is that 'forever' doesn't mean forever. It has an end which happens to be hidden. But if it has an 'end,' then it can't be forever. He's hoping his readers will swallow this doubletalk. All three verses in the first group say 'forever.' What would the authors have had to say in order to convince Haley that when they said 'forever' they meant 'forever,' not merely an indefinite period with a hidden end. It is often hard to imagine how the Bible's authors could have written something to make the Book's defenders admit it means exactly what the words state. One can't help but feel the Book's defenders are telling its authors: You don't really mean that; to which the authors would no doubt reply: Oh yes we do. In this instance, there is no word or series of words the authors could have used that apologists would not have perverted in such a manner as to make them mean something less than 'eternal' or 'forever'."
You say, "Even in English we often use 'forever' to refer to very long periods of time, and sometimes to periods of time that are merely indefinite and may be quite short." Then the statement is false. Why is that so hard to understand? We aren't dealing with everyday parlance in which people understand you mean something less than forever when you tell someone you will love them forever. We are dealing with God's perfect book. And that's in a very different realm. The Bible is a kind of contract. What do you think an opposing attorney would say to you if your client signed a contract in which the final clause said it was to be permanent and you said your client only meant a couple of years? You and I both know he would have a field day. That's what would happen. If your kind of textual alteration were permitted, you'd all but destroy the Bible's believability. How would you know what is to be taken at face value and what is to be interpreted according to the expediency you're proposing? And who makes that determination? As I have said before, if your premise prevails, you will have as many Bibles as you have readers. Essentially your argument is nothing more than a variation on the overdone apologetic defense of: That's what it says but that's not what it means. If that's not what it means, then it shouldn't have said it. It also has elements of: "You are being too literal"--another hackneyed defense. I always work on the assumption that the Bible means what it says and says what it means, a principle you ignore regularly.
You say, "The Bible is a translation. Errors by the translators are not errors in the Bible, merely errors in the translation." How do you know we are dealing with errors in translation? How do you know it was not translated correctly? What are your Greek/Hebrew qualifications and do they exceed those of people on the translating committees. I know almost nothing about you, but I would seriously doubt they even come close. Translators chose the word "forever" on several occasions and unless they are utterly incompetent, they are fully aware of its implications and Webster's definition.
Then you say, "So you must show that 'olam' means precisely 'without any end at all." No my friend. You must prove it's not eternal. The burden rests on your shoulders. You must prove that several committees of experts translating several versions don't have their acts together and you know how to translate better than they--you could have chosen a better word than they. If the word "olam" (forever) in Psalm 104:5 and Eccle. 1:4 means what you say, then any first year college student in Greek/Hebrew could have done a better job of translating. More accurate words and phrases would have been: a long time, quite a while, a long period, or something comparable.
And then you say, "The meaning of 'forever' is not important here." I beg to differ. The meaning of every biblical term is "important here." What you really mean is that you don't want it to be important here. That way, you can alter its meaning and escape through the back door. I know how you apologists detest absolutist terms being intrepreted absolutely, but that's the bind you enter when you unwisely choose to defend the indefensible. As I have said before, people prone to your kind of defense need to write their own version of the bible and send me a copy which I would be glad to critique.
I also know how you don't like reading our back issues and recoil at the prospect of buying any more than the minimum. But that's the price you have to pay for progress and enlightenment. (To Be Continued )

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #668 from CK of Bloomfield, New Jersey
Dear Mr. McKinsey. Yesterday I called up my local cable company to inquire about having your tapes played on the community access channels. The person in charge of this programming said that as her cable company covers 30 towns in northern New Jersey, they cannot accept programming that is not produced locally. Perhaps as a concession to me as a customer they would run one tape once. I don't know what would happen if subscribers from more than one of the communities (as many as possible) were to request the same tapes be played, and I don't know if you have other subscribers to team up in the Northern New Jersey territory of ComCast Cable .

Editor's Response to Letter #668
Dear CK. We appreciate your help and know that obstacles of this kind occur regularly. Who will or will not accept locally produced programming appears to be more an intuitive reaction on the part of a station's management than any decision by the FCC or elsewhere. I think they respond more to public pressure and determination than anything else. Just keep pushing; don't lessen your resolve; watch the station continually, and look for programs that are not locally produced. If they appear, spring into action by asking the station's management: "If them, why not me?"