Issue #160- My Reply to Archer's Attacks on my Boo

Biblical Errancy Issue #160- My Reply to Archer's Attacks on my Book (Reviling God, Depriving Life of Meaning, Is Bible Needed, Did Adam Die that Day, Taunting Jesus, Greek/Hebrew, Golgotha, Prophecy) Letter to CRI

Nov 10, '08 12:40 PM
by ♥ Denise for everyone





Issue #160 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


April 1996

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


COMMENTARY
Probably the most prominent apologetic organization in the United States is the Christian Research Institute in Irvin, California. Founded years ago by the Bible Answer Man of radio, the late Dr. Walter Martin, it publishes a periodical entitled The Christian Research Journal. On pages 47 and 48 of the 1996 Winter issue is a critique of my book entitled: A Summary Critique: The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. The article is written by Gleason Archer, professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois and author of the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties . Although billed as a critique, his narrative more closely resembles nothing more than some proofreading, since over 99% of The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy wasn't even touched. Apparently I can assume that he found nothing worth criticizing, especially in light of the fact that the final column out of the six columns used is devoted almost exclusively to an indirect approval of my critique of the Koran and The Book of Mormon. Archer's primary concern seems to be focused not so much on the accuracy of my observations relative to the Bible's validity as the hopelessness and moral depravity into which mankind will allegedly plunge if the Bible is destroyed and my anti-supernaturalistic attack upon the God of the Bible is successful. Only later does he provide specific criticisms.
In order to adequately and comprehensively cover his article, this entire issue will be devoted to an analysis of his major points and overall approach.
First, Archer begins by accusing me of going out of my way to revile God when all I did was quote scripture. Among other things I provided a long list of reprehensible deeds committed by the biblical god and for that reason Archer alleges I am engaged in "blasphemy and vituperation directed at God himself," "weighing the Almighty in the balance and finding Him wanting," and "bringing God to task." In truth, I am not bringing the biblical God anywhere, Scripture is; the evidence is. All I did was quote the Book. I didn't say it, the Bible did. It's not my idea; it's Scripture's. How is quoting the Bible "deploring God as a despicable character" and engaging in "blasphemy"? How is that a "diatribe"? "Vituperation" implies I raised my voice or became emotional. Would Archer be so kind as to provide examples of same? On the other hand, if Archer really believes in the God of the Bible, he had better hope that God is willing to forgive him for supporting a book that portrays the Almighty in such a "God-awful" manner, pardon the pun.
Second, he accuses me of attacking "God Himself. Correction! It is the biblical presentation of God that is under the microscope, not what many perceive to be the real god. Thomas Paine, for one, was a strong believer in god, but he detested the biblical description of god and its attribution of atrocious acts to him. To Archer many would say: Don't try to equate the god of the Bible with the real God. The Bible's description of god is appalling and the real god in no way resembles the god of the Bible. Thomas Paine would no doubt strongly object to the propensity of Archer to write as if it were a proven fact that the god described in the Bible is the real God.
Third, near the beginning of the first column Archer states, "the author refuses to seriously consider the elements in the Bible that cannot be explained as human authorship." Instead of providing some examples, however, he merely makes this statement and moves on.
Fourth, at the beginning of the second paragraph he states, "He is no atheist, however, for he often goes out of his way to revile God." Try as I may, I can't make any sense out of that comment.
Fifth, Archer accuses me of depriving "human life
Page 160-2
of any ultimate meaning." He claims that if God "is basically malevolent, then there is no foundation for any hope or goodness" and he quotes MacBeth to the effect that "Life...is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Why belief in God is necessary for meaning in life is something the religious community has never been able to explain. Indeed, more often than not the opposite is true. Feeling this world is all we have and we had better make the most of it, non-religious people are the most motivated to improve society and everything in it. They are the most involved, the most energetic, the most compassionate, the most progressive, the most innovative, and the most concerned with putting meaning into life.
The religious element, on the other hand, especially those closest to fundamentalism and a literal interpretation of the Bible, believe, without proof, that a better world is coming, so there is no need to become very concerned with conditions in this one. After all they reason, if you only live 80 or 90 years in this world why get involved. You aren't going to be here very long or get out of it alive anyway. Those who follow the Bible the closest are the least likely to put meaning into life and the ones most likely to rely upon the unproven, untested nebulous promise of a blissful afterlife. In place of achievable meaning in this world, they substitute unsubstantiated, wishful yearning for an alleged paradisical next.
Seventh, Archer says, "Without a good and holy God in heaven above, however, there is no solution to be found in freethinking or any other kind of thinking." Again no proof or justification is provided. Just another assertion that is supposed to be sufficient unto itself. Too bad I didn't think of that approach! Instead of devoting so much time and effort to reading and research, I could have just forgotten about all my studies, thrown away my notes, discarded my citations, and told it like it is. That certainly would have been easier.
Eighth, the first five paragraphs out of the 20 submitted are nothing but an argument that the Bible is needed and whether it is true or not is of secondary importance. Archer is more concerned about losing the Book than proving it. He just can't conceive of a world without Scripture, even though millions of people have come and gone, while surviving quite nicely without its presence.
Ninth, not until the sixth paragraph do we exit the world of generalities and enter the realm of specifics. Archer notes my observation that according to Gen. 5:5 Adam did not die until he was 930 years old, even though he was supposed to die, according to God's curse, on the day he ate the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:17). Archer says, "McKinsey ignores the fact that Adam and Eve did on that very day lose their life of blessed communion with God. Moreover, they came under a divine curse, suffered expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and entered into a state of spiritual death.' The term 'death' has more than one dimension, as McKinsey ought to have known had he studied the biblical use of this word. In fact, Paul (whom McKinsey thoroughly detests) stated that 'the mind set on the flesh is death' (Rom. 8:6). A student of the text should pay attention to the various nuances in which a term may be used rather than oversimplifying it."
This, of course, is the standard apologetic defense that is trotted out to escape a clear-cut comment, as we have noted several times in our publication. If Archer had bothered to read our back issues relative to this issue he would have seen the error of his ways. (a) Nothing is said about a "spiritual" death. It says "thou shalt surely die." Where does it imply, much less state, anything about a spiritual death. Archer says, "Adam and Eve did on that very day lose their life of blessed communion with God." Where does the text say that? He is reading more between the lines than is on them. (b) The word "die" in Gen. 2:17 comes from the Hebrew word "mûwth" (transliterated) which is used approximately 250 times in the OT. Apologists would be hard pressed to find one instance where it does not mean die in the sense that the average person understands the word. Yet, we are supposed to believe that Gen. 2:17 is somehow an exception. We are supposed to believe that 249 have it one way, while only 1 means something else. (c) David sinned against God and in 2 Sam. 12:14 Nathan says to David, "the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die" because of your sin. And the child died according to the 18th verse which says, "And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died." If the curse in 2 Sam. 12:14 is an actual physical condemnation, then why isn't the one in Gen. 2:17? (d) If Gen. 2:17 is to be interpreted spiritually, then what criterion are we to follow in order to determine if a verse is to be taken physically or spiritually, literally or figuratively, other than political expediency? Fundamentalists constantly harp upon the importance of interpreting the Bible literally but don't hesitate to abandon this approach when the going gets rough. Why should the literal approach be discarded with respect to Gen. 2:17 but not with respect to all the other references to the word "die" in the OT, such as 2 Sam. 12:14?
Incidentally, why would I "thoroughly detest" Paul in light of the fact that I have never met the man. I have no quarrel with him on a personal basis; it is his ideas and logic I find so reprehensible and contradictory.
Tenth, Archer raises another objection at the bottom of the second column where he says, "McKinsey raises a similar objection against Peter, who quoted Moses: 'Moses truly said unto the fathers. A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me' (Acts 3:22. KJV). On page 437 McKinsey reasons that Jesus could not be God incarnate, since Moses was not God incarnate, nor did Jesus ever claim to be God. Yet how could any of Peter's hearers ever suppose that he was affirming Moses as the Son of God? It was perfectly evident that Moses served as a type of the Messiah as indicated in Hebrews 3:2 ('Jesus was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all his house')."
To begin with, where did I say Jesus never claimed to be God. If Archer had focused more on what I said and less on refuting me at all costs, he would have easily seen that my exact words were: "...Moses was not God incarnate nor did he ever claim to be such." It was Moses, not Jesus, who made the denial. Apparently Archer is having trouble reading the simplest of grammar. Secondly, Peter's hearers did not have to assume that Peter "was affirming Moses as the Son of God." Archer has it backwards. Peter's hearers would naturally assume that he was referring to a prophet who was not the Son of God because Moses was not the Son of God. And since Jesus allegedly is the Son of God, in his OT predictions Moses could not be referring to Jesus. Archer's entire approach to this problem is far from what is being said.
How does Heb. 3:2 make Moses a type of Jesus? Does Archer mean to say that every time two people are compared to one another in the Bible, one is a type or antitype of the other? Heb. 3:2 is comparing two men to each other on a particular aspect; it is not equating them generally. The text says that both are faithful and that is all. That hardly warrants making one the precursor of the other.
Eleventh, in the 3rd column Archer states, "McKinsey actually joins with those who taunted the crucified Savior on the cross, saying, 'He saved others; He cannot save Himself' (Matt. 27:42). On page 36, where the author quotes Matthew 27:46: 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' McKinsey asks incredulously, 'How can Jesus be our Savior when he couldn't even save himself' The crucifixion accounts, of course, make it quite clear that Jesus was perfectly able to save Himself had He so wished. In fact, Jesus stated that He could easily have summoned 12 legions of angels to rescue Him from the cross (Matt. 26:53)." Archer tends to interpret comments in a manner that coincides with his predilections Where did I ever say "He saved others." He deliberately attributed to me a comment made by those denouncing Jesus.
But even more importantly, Archer has a pronounced propensity to accentuate one side of a contradiction while ignoring, minimizing, or discounting the other. He quotes Matt. 26:53 ("Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than 12 legions of angels?") to prove that Jesus could have saved himself had he so chosen, as if this destroyed the impact of Matt. 27:46. Hardly! Matt. 26:53 may say that he can save himself had he so chosen but Matt. 27:46 shows he could not. Archer also conveniently failed to mention my quote from Gerald Sigal who poignantly denied that Jesus came into the world to willingly die for mankind on the cross. Sigal stated, "If that was true, why did he hesitate and pray for the reversal of the fate prescribed for him. Matt. 26:39 says, 'going a little way forward, he fell upon his face praying and saying, My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.' Jesus' exclamation: 'Yet, not as I will, but as you will,' undoubtedly indicates that had it been his choice, he would not have undergone execution. And why did Jesus, the god-man, need an angel to strengthen him in Luke 22:43?" In other words, instead of recognizing this problem for what it is--a contradiction--Archer chose to just ignore one side and stress the other. He acts as if Jesus never made the comments found in Matt. 27:46, 26:39 and Luke 22:43. It's a neat feint if you can pull it off and no doubt many have succumbed over the centuries.
Twelfth, at the end of the 3rd column Archer states, "McKinsey's inadequacy in Hebrew and Greek appears in his naive treatment of the Sixth Commandment. He asserts that more recent English translations have altered the King James 'Thou shalt not kill' to 'You shall not murder' in order to excuse capital punishment (p. 84. Both the Hebrew tirsah and the Septuagint Greek phoneuo, however, specifically refer to first-degree murder."
(A) If Archer had read our back issues he would be aware of the fact that this criticism has been addressed on several occasions. What he is saying, in effect, is that he knows Hebrew better, or could have done a better job of translating, than those who composed the King James Version. According to him implicitly, modern scholarship has supposedly updated the more archaic King James translation. Of course, he neglects to mention the fact that many relatively recent translations such as the RSV, the NAB, the ASV, the JB, and the Lamsa Version used 'kill" as well. All say "kill" rather than "murder" in Exodus 20:13. There is a big difference between killing and murdering If every killing is murder, then soldiers, police, executioners, and those killing in self-defense are nothing more than criminals. The word "murder" is encompassed within the word "kill" because, although every murder is a killing, not every killing is a murder. The two are not identical and it is very important to note that the translators of these modern versions chose "kill" over "murder." In so doing, they chose a very definite concept. By saying "murder" should have been used rather than "kill" Archer is accusing these translators of being incompetent, and I seriously doubt that his years of teaching Hebrew exceed that of many scholars who have combined to produce several of the most prominent versions on the market.
(B) Archer says, "Both the Hebrew tirsah and the Septuagint Greek phoneuo, however, specifically refer to first-degree murder." He might want to discuss this matter with James Strong whose Exhaustive Concordance says the word "kill" in Ex. 20:13 comes from the word "râtsach," not "tirsah" and it means "to dash in pieces, i.e., kill (a human being), especially to murder:--put to death, kill, manslay, murder." Not only is Archer disagreeing with Strong over the Hebrew source but in no sense is Strong saying it refers to first degree murder only . So Archer finds himself not only at odds with the translators of several major versions but with the creator of probably the most famous concordance in the United States A little more research would no doubt expose additional scholars at odds with Archer's interpretation.
Thirteenth, Archer continues by saying, "McKinsey also blunders with regard to the name of the hill where Christ was crucified (p. 96), for he imagines a discrepancy between Golgotha and Calvary. Apparently he is unaware that Golgotha means "skull" in Aramaic and that Calvarium means exactly the same thing in Latin. He overlooks the fact that Latin was the language of the Roman government in Christ's time." I was well aware of the fact that this criticism would be made when I inserted this conflict into the text, but I felt readers ought to be aware of this discrepancy. If Archer had been more concerned with honesty and less with refutation, he would noted that I specifically stated, "Some apologists disputably allege Golgotha is the Hebrew rendering while Calvary is Latin." But Archer conveniently chose to omit any reference to my qualification.
Fourteenth, Archer continues by switching from a critique of my book to a one-sided monologue extolling the Bible's alleged prophetic accuracy and degrading the predictive capability of mankind, all the while totally oblivious to all the problems associated with Bible prophecy so clearly outlined in my book. He states, "McKinsey also dabbles with prophecies that he construes to be unfulfilled, but his judgment is mistaken in every case. Beginning with the promise of the Satan-crushing seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), a plan unfolds. God announced to Abraham that the Egyptian sojourn of his descendants would last four hundred years before they return as a nation and take possession of Canaan (Gen. 15:13-14). After the Israelites conquest, God's prophets continued with messages of assurance in times of national crisis. Such was the promise of a son of Isaiah, who would be born of a virgin, and within whose lifetime Judah would be saved from Assyrian forces (Isa. 7:14-16). After the Battle of El Tekah, 185,000 of the Assyrian troops suddenly died by a plague, forcing Sennacherib to abandon his siege of Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 36)."
Archer completely ignored: what I said on pages 153 and 191 in the Encyclopedia with respect to Gen. 3:15, what I said on page 174 about Ex. 12:40 refuting Gen. 15:13, and what I said in regard to why Isa. 7:14 was not referring to a virgin or Jesus. In the latter instance, for example, Archer is saying a son of Isaiah would be born of a virgin and within his lifetime Judah would be saved from the Assyrians. The son was to be a sign to Ahaz and, among other things, I asked how the birth of Jesus, who is allegedly this son, could be a sign to Ahaz who lived 600 years before Jesus. This, too, Archer chose to ignore.
Actually Archer isn't even interpreting this verse precisely from a fundamentalist perspective because he failed to correlate it with the birth of Jesus by leaving the entire event back in the time it occurred. That is probably, in part, because Isaiah refers to "a virgin, ...within whose lifetime Judah would be saved from Assyrian forces" and since the Assyrian Empire disappeared over 600 years before Jesus was even born Archer deemed it more expedient to remain with the Ahaz era.
Fifteenth, continuing with his prophetic parade of preferred predictions he says, "An even more remarkable prediction is found in the ninth chapter of the Book of Daniel, which foretells a period of 483 years be-tween the issuance of a decree 'to restore and build Je-rusalem' (later granted by Artaxerxes I in 458 B.C.) ' until Messiah the Prince.' Four hundred eighty-three years after 457 B.C. comes out to A. D. 26, when Jesus began His teaching ministry in Israel. For this fulfillment there is no possibility of a pious fraud, since the Book of Daniel was composed centuries earlier than the date of fulfillment." Talk about playing fast and loose with the facts! This is a prime example of the sophistry so often associated with apologetic rationalizations.
(A) Archer rigged the time at which the clock was supposed to start running. The decree was issued by Cyrus according to Isa. 44:28 ("That saith of Cyrus. He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid") and that occurred in 536 B.C., not 458 B.C.
(B) He slipped in a rather neat little deception that you would have missed had you blinked. He stated "a period of 483 years between the issuance of a decree 'to restore and build Jerusalem' (later granted by Artaxerxes I in 458 B.C.) 'until Messiah the Prince.'." Notice! He started the clock running when Artaxerxes "granted the decree" not when it was issued much earlier by Cyrus. The prophecy is not referring to when the decree was actually executed but when it was issued. And that occurred long before Artaxerxes came on the scene. Archer is desperately trying to alter the beginning date so as to make it coincide with the arrival of Jesus.
(C) What does the prophecy say? It says 483 years from the decree "until Messiah the Prince." And when did Jesus come on the scene. When he was born, naturally, not 26 years later when he allegedly began his ministry. Archer just arbitrarily picked the age of 26 in order to, again, make the prophecy look cogent, when he has no more idea when Jesus began his ministry than I do. Where does Scripture say Jesus began preaching at age 26 or at any age for that matter? Except for a brief reference to a temple encounter around age 12, almost nothing is known about the life of Jesus until he was around age 30, although this, too, is somewhat nebulous. Other prophetic difficulties with the Book of Daniel are covered in the Encyclopedia but Archer chose to ignore them.
In fact, Archer's entire strategy with respect to the prophetic problems enumerated in my Encyclopedia was to avoid them and concentrate, instead, on those that he felt were most convincing, as if a few alleged hits nullified a mountain of duds. Instead of focusing on all the problems enumerated in the Encyclopedia, he chose, instead, to scramble over to those deemed most secure. Unfortunately, they aren't very strong either.
Sixteenth, continuing his prophetic journey, Archer says, "Another prediction (allegedly accurate--Ed.), found in Deuteronomy 28:68 ('And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you') foretells the mass transportation of the Jewish survivors of the capture of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by Titus, who (according to Josephus) shipped 97,000 to the slave market in Alexandria, Egypt. Instead of recognizing this as proof of divine foreknowledge, McKinsey complains that it violated God's earlier promise to Moses that His people would never return to Egypt. Deuteronomy 28:68, however, acknowledges that this compelled return would be an exception. The fact remains that here is a promise that dates back to 1445 B.C. (if it is genuinely Mosaic) and extends to A.D., a total of 1,515 years!"
Three major deceptions plague this analysis. (a) Nowhere in the text does the word "Titus" appear. Archer arbitrarily assumed that since the events surrounding 70 A.D. fit rather well into what he is trying to sell, why not use them. (b) If he had bothered to read what occurred earlier, he would have seen that the text is not referring to the transportation of Jews to Egypt by Titus but the return of the Jews from nations "from the one end of the earth even unto the other." Four verses earlier, Deut. 28:64 says, "And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods.... And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest.... " followed la-ter by verse 68 which begins "And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships...." And (c) Archer tries to lightly sluff off a major contradiction between Deut. 17:15-16 ("One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the Lord has said to you, ' You shall never return that way again") and Deut. 28 :68 (which was quoted earlier) by saying, "McKinsey complains that it violated God's earlier promise to Moses that His people would never return to Egypt." Why would I complain? Quite the contrary, I'm rather amused by the fact that a biblical contradiction is so clearly evident. If anyone should be complaining it should be apologists trapped in a cul de sac with no escape.
In addition, Archer alleges that Deut. 28:68 "acknowledges that this compelled return would be an exception." No it doesn't! It doesn't somehow permit itself to be an exception to the absolute laid down in Deut. 17:15-16. It just relates an exception which thereby creates the contradiction. Archer is acting as if Deut. 28:68 has permission to overrule Deut. 17:15-16.
Seventeenth, near the bottom of the 5th out of 6th columns Archer continues his prophetic journey by referring to a couple of passages in Isaiah. He states, "Two other remarkable prophecies are found in Isaiah. The first passage (13:19-22) foretells the utter destruction and desertion of Babylon, which was the largest and wealthiest city in the world at the time. The entire area around Babylon absorbed so much salt from millennia or irrigation that it became impractical to do any farming there. No farming; no inhabitants in the city. The fulfillment of this prediction defies any naturalistic explanation." For some reason Archer failed to actually quote Isaiah 13:19-22 which says, "And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. But the wild beast of the desert shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged." As we noted in an earlier issue of our publication, these prophecies have never occurred. (a) Babylon has never gotten the Sodom and Gomorrah treatment; (b) there has never been any time since Isaiah that Babylon was uninhabited; (c) Arabians still visit there; (d) Shepherds still make their folds there; (e) it has never been known for its dancing satyrs and dragons in the palaces and (f) apparently its days have been prolonged, since Babylon still exists, although significantly changed.
And lastly, Archer concludes his prophetic odyssey to nowhere by giving me the impression that I don't think he really read all of the book to begin with. Apparently, although I may be wrong, he read about as much as he could take and then adopted a hit-or-miss approach. I say this because, among other things, he alleges Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 "clearly explained the passion week of our Lord Christ and the substitutionary nature of His death." Then he says, "Both John 12:38 and Romans 10:16 refer to the fulfillment of this prophecy. It is untenable to say these fulfillments are human inventions or forgeries." He seems to be entirely unaware of all the problems we enumerated with respect to these verses. It is hard to believe that he would have made such a grandiose faux pas after having read the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.
The most appropriate summation of Archer's approach to the prophetic dilemmas cited in my book is that rather than assaulting the incredible number of dead-ends that have no honest reconciliation, Archer chose, instead, to dwell on those that struck his fancy. But ironically, even his own choices fall flat by failing to exhibit the perspicacity they allegedly possess.
The 6th and final column is little more than a cheering section for my treatment of the Koran and The Book of Mormon. After relating many points made with respect to both, Archer concludes by referring to my "often-valid criticisms of Mormon and Muslim scriptures...."
Archer summarized his entire excursion by saying, "McKinsey's Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy mainly reflects the author's obsession with twisting the Word of God and ridiculing its supposed discrepancies. I find the book a waste of time. Suffice it to say that most of the passages he works on have been satisfactorily handled in my book, An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties."
Leaving aside the fact that my book proves the Bible is anything but the word of a perfect being, and Archer's Encyclopedia doesn't address the overwhelming majority of its criticisms, the only twisting involved is that exhibited by Archer's sophistry. A real waste of time consists in reading clearly contrived explanations concocted by someone who has devoted most of his life to defending at all costs a belief system the refutation of which would devastate its possessor.
The most glaring disclosure to be drawn from Archer's article, aside from the fact that the first column irrelevantly decries what would become of mankind were the Bible to be proved a fraud and the last column applauds our analysis of two extra-biblical books, is that most of the remaining material doesn't even discuss what is covered in our Book. After having discovered the anemic nature of Archer's exposition, I can understand why. As was noted earlier, his commentary more closely resembles some proof-reading than any kind of real critique. In view of the fact that over 99% of our book isn't even discussed, his alleged "critique" actually amounts to little more than a backhanded endorsement. If you're not inclined to touch it, that's an indirect attestation to its potency.

LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
CRI did not send me a copy of the Journal in which Archer's article appeared nor did they bother to tell me my work had been criticized by Archer. If it had not been for a couple of my subscribers sending me a photocopy of the article I might not have ever known of its existence. Only after I contacted CRI and asked for an opportunity to reply did they volunteer to send me a copy. I was told my response would have to be restricted to approximately 200 words which is little short of ridiculous in light of the fact that Archer's analysis utilized 10 times as many words. I was also told that my reply could only appear in the Letters to the Editor section. Their spokeswoman suggested that I write a much more extensive response in my own periodical, so I agreed, despite the injustice involved. What follows is the verbatim response I sent to CRI for inclusion in the next edition of their Journal:

The most glaring disclosure emanating from Archer's review of my book is that over 99% of the volume isn't even addressed. The first column irrelevantly decries what would become of mankind if the Bible were proved to be fraudulent; the sixth and final column does little more than applaud my treatment of the Koran and The Book of Mormon , and most of that which remains focuses on a few prophecies, nearly all of which aren't discussed in my book but struck Archer's fancy. The April 1996 Issue (160th) of our monthly publication entitled BIBLICAL ERRANCY will show that not only the prophecies which Archer himself presented, but the few specific contradictions he does attempt to rationalize can't stand the strain of critical analysis. Virtually the entire issue will be devoted to an itemized refutation of nearly every point in his litany. Although he says reading the book "is a waste of time," I have little doubt that he doesn't even believe that himself. But he's hoping you will. Billed as a "summary critique," Archer's presentation could more accurately be described as some minor proof-reading in what amounts to little more than a backhanded endorsement. If you're not inclined to touch it, that's an indirect attestation to its potency. For those who really desire to know the facts by reading the most comprehensive refutation of the Bible available, I strongly recommend that they not only obtain a copy of The ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRANCY from either myself or Prometheus Press but a copy of the April issue of our periodical as well. We can be reached at 2500 Punderson Drive, Hilliard, Ohio 43026 (614) 527-1703.