Issue #161- Letters on: Who Ascended to Heaven Fir

Biblical Errancy Issue #161- Letters on: Who Ascended to Heaven First?, Do Harlots Enter Heaven, Reading for Contras, Anti-biblical Tactics, Value of Pi, Critic of Biblicists, Translating 'Replenish'

Nov 10, '08 12:42 PM
by ¢¾ Denise for everyone





Issue #161 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


May 1996

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


COMMENTARY


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

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #667 from DA of La Puente, California Continues from the March Issue (Part d)
[On the second page of the 150th issue we stated, Haley's "reconciliation" of John 3:13 ( "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven") with 2 Kings 2:11 ("Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven") is exceptionally weak. He states, "In the first text Jesus, setting forth his own superior authority, says substantially, 'No human being can speak from personal knowledge, as I do, who came down from heaven. No man hath ascended up to heaven to bring back tidings'." But the text says nothing of the kind. Where does Jesus say anything about speaking from personal knowledge or bringing back tidings? DA leaps to Haley's defense by saying--Ed.],
Your treatment of John 3:13 is another case where you seem to be thinking "I hope the reader won't bother to check up on me." because you just ignore the context that makes it quite clear Jesus is doing as Haley says, asserting his eye-witness knowledge, not saying Hea-ven is empty.

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part d)
You are really out of the ball-park on this one, DA. You'd be wise to hope people don't read your defense. First, who said anything about Heaven being empty? What does that have to do with the issue? We are talking about who has "ascended" to heaven and who hasn't . Whether or not someone is there is both irrelevant and immaterial. Second, where does Jesus imply, much less state, that "No human being can speak from personal knowledge, as I do, who came down from heaven." Your defense is beyond taking things out of context. You just blindly followed Haley who created one of his own. He is reading more between the lines than is on them. Where does Jesus say no one else can speak from personal knowledge regarding this matter? I see nothing in either verse having anything to do with someone having more knowledge than someone else. And third, Haley states that this means "No man hath ascended up to heaven to bring back tidings." Would you kindly show me where the word tidings or something comparable appears? You would have done well to have steered clear of this jewel, but you couldn't resist slugging the tar baby.

Letter #667 Continues (Part e)
Nor is there a conflict between Matt. 21:31 ("The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you") with 1 Cor. 6:9-10 ("Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God"). Really amazing here. You casually print the obvious explanation and then somehow think you are refuting it. Perhaps what you are refusing to see is that Matthew is merely comparative. It does not say any sinners will or won't get into heaven. Rather it ranks their chances. Harlots are
Page 161-2
more likely to make it than chief priests.

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part e)
The only aspect that is really amazing DA is your apparent belief that your amateurish rationalization is going to somehow carry the day. You state, "what you are refusing to see is that Matthew is merely comparative. It does not say any sinners will or won't get into heaven. Rather it ranks their chances. Harlots are more likely to make it than chief priests." Matt. 21:31 is comparative and does says that both the harlot and the priests will get into heaven in sequence. But the conflict is not between one part of Matthew 21:31 and another. It's between Matt. 21:31 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10. The latter says sinners, specifically harlots in our case, will not get into heaven, period, and there is no sequence. You created a bogus conflict and then destroyed its viability, only to expose your own duplicity.

Letter #667 Continues (Part f)
A problem you have is you tend to read any 2 statements so that if there is a possible conflict, there is a conflict. This is, of course, the reverse of how one reads a text, Bible, contract, studybook, whatever. If there is any way to read the text that avoids the conflict, that reading is adopted. Finding a possible conflict is only the first step in showing there is a real conflict, and the burden of proof is on you to a large extent.

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part f)
Oh my goodness! Are you serious? Now the crux of your problem really comes to the fore. Your thought processes are not only out for all to see but out of kil-ter, as well. I certainly wouldn't want to have you as an attorney. My friend, anyone who doesn't read everything with a critical eye is opening himself up to agony galore. I read everything like a lawyer reading a contract and I am especially attune to contradictions, inconsistencies, conflicts with known facts, and statements that just don't fit in. That goes to the very essence of an FBI investigation. They cross check data, separate witnesses during interrogation to see if their stories conflict and make every attempt to interview more than one source or witness (as many as is feasible in fact) in order to compare as many views as is possible. You made the utterly ludicrous comment that, "If there is any way to read the text that avoids the conflict, that reading is adopted." That's no problem; that's easy. Just read one source or interrogate one person. That will certainly eliminate all conflicts between sources. All you have to do is hear or read what one source has to say while ignoring or avoiding areas or subjects of potential conflict. in his or her story.
Second, you say I "tend to read any 2 statements so that if there is a possible conflict, there is a conflict." You got that wrong too. I tend to read any 2 statements that conflict and say there is a conflict until it's resolved. I see the conflict and ask for a reconciliation; you see the conflict and say there must be a reconciliation. That is a fundamental disagreement on how to reason. Do you follow this philosophy with respect to everything in life or only when it comes to the Bible. If the former, then I fear for your prognosis. Frankly, I don't think you do. You are like so many religious people with whom I work with on a daily basis. They reason rather well regarding everyday activities but seem wholly unable to think critically when Scripture comes on the scene. You are probably like the computer programmer, aeronautical engineer, and thousands of other employees who can think logically with respect to occupational activities but are completely unable to transfer these same critical thinking skills, skills that seek out conflicts and contradictions and are so crucial to good job performance, into Scriptural analysis. It's as if you and they have a mind block, a wall, erected by the Bible in general and Jesus in particular.
Third, you accuse me of contending that, "...if there is a possible conflict, there is a conflict." and then you assert that, "This is, of course, the reverse of how one reads a text, Bible, contract, studybook, what-ever." It is? If I were unscrupulous, I'd like to sell you some insurance policies. Unethical telemarketers ought to have a field day with your number. You have left yourself open to every fraudulent activity or concept imaginable. You are going to make no attempt to detect any contradictions, conflicts, or discrepancies in what you are told until they are practically shoved down your throat. After all didn't you say, "If there is any way to read the text that avoids the conflict, that reading is adopted." Your prescription for thought scares the holy scripture out of me. I can't think of any train of reasoning that could be worse.
Fourth, you say, "Finding a possible conflict is only the first step in showing there is a real conflict" when I would be seeing little or no conflicts at all if I relied upon that approach. The chances of me finding a possible conflict are slim to none under your scenario. Most conflicts would only be discovered by happenstance rather than design, study, or critical analysis.
And finally, you add insult to injury by saying, "...the burden of proof is on you to a large extent." In other words, instead of you who are making the claim or submitting the clash proving no contradiction exists, you want me to prove it does. Talk about backward reasoning. That's like the religious fanatic who demands that I prove he is not followed by a green man whom he can plainly see. You submit two statements or accounts that are contradictory on their face and you want me to prove they are contradictory rather than you being required to provide a reconciliation. How many times do I have to say: THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON HE WHO ALLEGES. THAT IS THE ACHILLES HEELHEEL FOR ALL RELIGIOUS/SUPERSTITIOUS THOUGHT. In fact, it is the death knell for all unsubstantiated thought, religious or otherwise. You might just as well say that conflicts between mythology, Alice In Wonderland, Santa Claus, and The Easter Bunny on the one hand and everyday life on the other are to be accepted as reconcilable until proven otherwise. If I read two statements that are contradictory on their face, the contradiction stands until you provide a reconciliation. It does not mean there is no contradiction until I prove one exists. (To Be Continued)

Letter #669 from DMP of Bellingham, Washington
Dear Dennis. As you know, although I am a longtime B.E. subscriber, I have seldom written. (The reason I mention this is so that you will know that this is a special occasion of sorts.)
With regard to your commentary in the January, 1996 issue, there are many, many things with which I agree. I certainly agree that people can (and many do) work their way out of a religion. I agree that dialogue with religionists is not always a waste of time. I agree that before a religionist will accept what we have to of-fer, he must be shown the error of his ways. And I agree that presenting biblical contradictions, problems, and errors can be an effective tool.
On the other hand, you seem to place your efforts on a higher plane than that of others whose focus is different. In answer to Rowell's criticism that focusing on biblical contradictions is a waste of time, you say, "What does he suggest as a substitute: Glittering generalities, nebulous theological debates, extensive listings of biblical atrocities and immoralities, disputed historical contentions, or vague philosophizing on the nature of man's condition and the existence of some sort of divine being concerned with our welfare?" I have compiled fairly extensive lists of biblical inconsistencies, atrocities, vulgarities, absurdities, and unlikely precepts. I distribute them free, via the Internet. Why do I do this? Because these things were effective with me in helping me to become nonreligious.
I have a good friend who is very active in promoting debates and preparing nontheists for debates with theists. Why does he do this? Because this sort of thing was influential in his atheism.
Farrell Till is a friend of mine. Dan Barker is an acquaintance. As you know, both are former ministers. Their deconversion stories are somewhat different in terms of the influential factors.
The point is that there are many effective techniques for reaching religionists.

Editor's Response to Letter #669
Dear DMP. I have no quarrel with your comments. You are certainly correct. In fact, I know of people who have lost their confidence in the Bible and Christianity because of one lone verse. Not long ago I read a book in which the author said he left because Jesus claimed the mustard seed was the least of all seeds and he knew that was definitely false. There are, indeed, many roads to Rome. The real question becomes one of determining which will more likely be taken. If you can dissuade people by the approach you suggest, then by all means proceed full steam ahead. I'm certainly not going to stand in your way. In fact, I would be more than glad to help widen your path. As I told one of my atheist subscribers who travels the nation debating the existence of a god, if he finds that to be effective and influential don't quit by any means. I just don't believe that that method will reach the largest audience or pin down religionists in a manner that forestalls escape.
In addition, I don't believe you are destroying the Bible's credibility as much as you are merely highlighting its excesses. All of the topics you referred to have been discussed in BE at one time or another. But I don't see atrocities, absurdities, and vulgarities as the core about which the best strategy should revolve. Judging from what I have read in his newsletter and several phone conversations we have had over the years, I think Farrell would concur in my analysis.
An assault upon the Bible should rely upon a strategy that is far broader than what you suggest. My book, for example, covers almost the entire spectrum of biblical topics and the whole gamut of biblical dead-ends.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #670 from JS of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan
Dear Dennis. I have the following comment about letter #666 from CK (Issue #159). CK dredges up all kinds of arguments for why 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chron. 4:2 do not "prove" that pi is exactly 3.0000, when we know today that pi is approximately equal to 3.14159265358979323846264338327950. The problem with all of CK's arguments is that they only "convince" in retrospect. CK should remember that as late as 1897 (yes, 1897, only 99 years ago), the state of Indiana almost adopted House Bill 246, which would have required every textbook in the schools of that state to teach an incorrect value for pi! (Apparently JS means 3.0 in order to comply with biblical teachings--Ed.) The House of Representatives passed it unanimously 67 to 0. In the Senate, the committee on temperance (which got the bill instead of the committee on education; this because its supporters were fundamentalist Christians, of course) voted unanimously to pass it onto the full Senate.
It was only at this point that a mathematics professor raised enough stink to bury the bill; it never passed and never got to the governor's desk. Thus, as you say Dennis, thankfully, airplanes do not fall out of the sky in Indiana, nor do bridges tumble!
People like CK should be ashamed of themselves for forgetting the price paid by scientists on behalf of science. It was Holy Writ that induced Virgilius to be burned at the stake for the crime of claiming that the earth was round; it was the Bible that induced Giordano Bruno to be burned at the stake for insisting that the stars are not stationary.
And now, after-the-fact, puny brains like that of CK come along and claim that: the Bible was never wrong in the first place, if only read properly, it would be discerned that none of these passages means what it says, and that none means what they have been interpreted to mean for centuries. I'm sure all the martyrs for science are now comforted by this fact. Thank you CK. Presumably the day will come when the Bible believers will insist that the Bible does not "really" say Jesus was resurrected and Dennis McKinsey is being nit-picky when he ridicules those portions of the Good Book that claim he was!.... Keep up the good work.

Letter #671 from YW of Aspen, Colorado (Part a)
Dear Mr. McKinsey. I have been receiving Biblical Errancy since November and I really enjoy it.... I don't know Greek (I wish I did) but I know Hebrew fluently. If used to teach Hebrew to new immigrants in Israel, and, while living there, I met and befriended many missionaries, as well as Israeli and Palestinian converts to "Born Again" Christianity. I was a a teen-ager at that time, just out of high school, and I almost fell into their trap. They really seemed nice and loving at first. They wanted me to accept their view, but they hated my questions. When they realized that I was not going to be one of them, and that I had questions they just could not logically answer, they turned quite vicious. They said that I was a 'scoffer" (quoting Psalm 1 with a pasted-on smile) but all I wanted from these self-styled pillars of virtue were some good answers to the valid questions I had, instead of the pat answers they are used to giving. Even though I tried to remain friends with them, this ended-up being impossible, due to their insisting that I had become possessed by the devil. I had initially thought that they were sincere about seeking truth and hating lies, but I guess not.
One thing I noticed, which is sort-of funny, sort-of sad, and rather pathetic, is that Israeli Christians, even though they knew Hebrew fluently, often carried English Bibles as well. When discussing the key mistranslated Old Testament verses which they say prophecy about Jesus, ("The virgin shall conceive...", "They have pierced my hands and feet....' etc.), I always tried to keep them debating from the actual Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, even though they were fluent in the original language of the book in question, whenever those verses would come up, they would pull out their KJV or NIV or some other translation. When questioned about why they did this, the "company line" that they had been programmed to say went something like "I prefer the KJV because in it the Lord brings out the true meaning of this passage so clearly." This evasion of the obvious facts in deference to proscribed dogma and doctrine, in addition to their rejection and fear of logical criticism, leads me to believe that they had no interest whatever in the truth.
Most Christians accept the Bible as the "Word of God" without ever having read it. At any Bill Graham crusade or the like, a thousand John and Jane Does will come down to the pulpit, 'accept the Lord," and will then start reading the Bible, accepting it as all-encompassing, universal truth, without ever having previously read a word, and without bothering to verify its claims. What secular book is ever granted this honor?
Well, here are a couple of comments I wanted to make regarding the Hebrew of some passages discussed in the current issue of BE.
On page 158-5, NB tries to defend the contradiction between the 2000 baths in 1 Kings and the 3000 baths in 2 Chron., claiming that the ancient Hebrew numbering system is illogical. Although he is somewhat correct in regards to the inefficiency of the Hebrew "letters for numbers" system, when it comes to mathematics, these letter-numbers are as efficient as any other system for denoting numerical values. Either way, it is irrelevant, since in 1 Kings, in the Hebrew text, (at this point a Hebrew word which my computer can't type is inserted--Ed.)--the actual WORD "two thousand" is used, and NOT (another Hebrew word--Ed.) the number "2000". In 2 Chronicles the word three thousand is used and not the number 3000.
If NB had been as knowledgeable as he made himself out to be, he would have known that the Hebrew numbering system is only used in the Bible to mark out chapters, verses, etc. and that these markings were added much later than the actual text, in order to help readers find their place. The Bible itself spells out all numbers in words.
Regarding the word translated into "replenish" in many English translations, I would like to point out the following: The prefix "re-" implying "to (do) again" (refill, rewrite, remodel, rebuild, etc.) comes from Latin, and is a feature in all Latin languages, as well as in English, which has been greatly influenced by Latin. The Hebrew language has never had such a feature, so MT is correct when he says that the word (another Hebrew term--Ed.) means "and fill" . The "-plenish" half of the word comes from the French plein, which means "full."). Since there is no equivalent to "re-" in Hebrew, and there is no such single word as "replenish," you would have to say "fill again" in Hebrew.

Editor's Response to Letter #671 (Part a)
Your observations are well taken, especially the one regarding writing out numbers with words instead of with actual numbers in Hebrew. Good point! It would be rather difficult to confuse words rather than the actual numbers.
Regarding the "replenish" issue, I have no problem with your correction. But if what you say is true then a sizable number of Hebraic translators made a major mistake. If they translated as "replenish" what you feel should have been translated as "and fill," then they erred grievously because the two are by no means equivalent. "And fill" in no way denotes a repetitive act. If the original author of the script would have said "fill again" if "replenish" were intended, then the translators of this verse blundered.
But I think you are going to have a hard time selling this to some of your compatriots because The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text published by the Jewish Publication Society of America uses the word "replenish" in both Gen. 1:28 and 9:1. And the translators of the 1901 ASV, which is considerably less political than most recent translations, uses "replenish."

Letter #671 Concludes (Part b)
Although the KJV is not copyrighted, the NIV and all those new translations are. There's big money in religion in general, and in bibles in particular, and I tend to doubt that profit-driven Bible translators who have their own agenda (and know it's all a load of crap, anyway) have really bothered to go back to the original text word-for-word. The KJV is held in very high esteem among Protestants and I'll just bet my right eyeball that an open KJV has been on the table during very recent translations. And so this mistake (and others) in the KJV have passed into subsequent translations.
Regarding "replenish," I think part of the original mistranslation in the KJV is due to the fact that in everyday speech, "filling" means the replenishing of common items, (glasses, plates, containers, etc.). When you think of it, how often does one say "Fill the world!" or "Fill something that has never been filled before!" Most items that we fill have been filled before, unless they are brand new. I guess the most common usage of the word "to fill" where it does not mean "to replenish" is in "filling a hole," and then only if the hole was there from the start. If you yourself or someone else dug the hole, you are, in fact, replenishing it.
The disturbing thing concerning the above mentioned mistranslation is this: There are Christians who have taken this mistranslation (as well as the 2 versions of creation seemingly mentioned in Genesis) and extrapolated it to mean that before our present world-order (which according to them began 5700 years ago with Adam and creation) there existed an entirely different order of being which we know nothing about. These Christians then use this very convenient contrivance to sweep under the carpet any geological discoveries that may conflict with their world-view. Thus, if the world seems to be older than 6000 or so years...it is! Dinosaurs are "dragons' that existed in this former creation. It all happened in that nebulous "pre-Adamic" world! Wow! And all this from a mistranslation of one little word!
I hope you don't mind me pointing out the above. I am somewhat of an amateur linguist, and I speak, read and write a number of languages. I hate seeing an argument not carried out to its entirety because of a simple Bible mistranslation or linguistic error. Wishing you the best, Atheistically yours.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #671 (Part b)
The issue appears to be one of deciding who is the better translator. Although you are proficient in Hebrew, YW, I'm still inclined to accept "replenish" as the more reliable translation. If I have to pick between the KJV, the ASV and the Jewish Masoretic Text on the one hand and most modern translations on the other, I'm inclined to go with the former, knowing the politics of it all. The KJV and the ASV were written when religion ruled the roost and translators didn't have to worry about critics such as myself. Nowadays things are different. This whole problem highlights a comment I made many years ago; namely, you could be the world's greatest Greek/Hebrew scholar and you'll still find experts disagreeing with your translation.

Letter #672 from JC of Corpus Christi, Texas
Dear Sir. I saw what appeared to be a good program on T.V. today, and decided to write and request more info and some literature. I did not realize that there were so many Bible errors until I tuned into your first time program.

Editor's Response to Letter #672
Dear JC. I am glad you tune in. One of our subscribers in your area is doing an excellent job of getting our tapes played on your local public access channel. We have received several requests for information from your region showing you are by no means alone. I'd mention our supporter's name, but I'm not sure he wants the publicity. He's proving very nicely that all it takes is determination and sticktuitiveness.

Letter #673 from CH of Honolulu, Hawaii
Dennis. There are several cable access stations (channels?) here that have 1/2 & 1 hour periods blank. They just show announcements or repeat the same old shows over and over.
The only Atheist program is American Atheists and it is irregular and unpredictable or repetitive. Do you provide different types regularly? I'd be glad to be a local sponsor. They actually want a local producer here, but I'm sure we can work on it!
We need something to counter the numerous and increasing "christian" programs that are filling up the cable stations. Having been brainwashed into a "christian" cult since being a teenager, it took me years to get rid of all this mental garbage!
We need to start young to prevent young people from getting involved with all this christian religious nonsense!

Editor's Response to letter #673
I couldn't agree with you more. You are singing my tune. I have been urging people since last summer to help our cause by playing our tapes in their areas. Playing tapes is effective because I receive requests for materials from people who would not go around the corner to hear any atheist, agnostic, or humanist who ever lived. As I have said so often: You have to take the message to them. They are not going to come knocking at our door, especially when they are convinced they already have the truth and nobody has shown them the error of their ways. I certainly appreciate your willingness to assist. It takes effort and is certainly not going to fall into our basket like acorns from a tree. As of now we have 46 one-half hour tapes arranged sequentially and ready for distribution.

Letter #674 from JS of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan
Hi Dennis.... As usual, the publication is looking better all the time. I liked your response to the nut who wanted you to print less letters of praise! In the past you did not seem to ever attack peoples' motivation, only the merits of their arguments. Now I'm glad you're adding this extra and important dimension....

Letter #675 from JS of Shoemakersville, Penn.
Thank you for your prompt reply to my inquiry regarding your publication. In the free issue you sent me you included a brief bio. You said that you weren't raised in a religious or fundamentalist environment, so you "have no ax to grind." I, unfortunately, was raised in a "Pentecostal" church, and I do have an ax to grind. I'm 36 now and the "mid-life crises" regrets of my youth are magnified even further due to the many places, people, and activities I could have experienced, but didn't, because they were "sinful" or "worldly" or "of the flesh" etc. I hope you are successful in getting your voice heard in this nation in as big a way as those speculation-dealing TV preachers. I plan to do all that I can to spread the "gospel" (good news) of self-determination (in regard to planning and pursuing one's life, instead of "seeking God's will" or "waiting on the Lord and his leading"--which in reality are all imagination-based ways of "thinking", fueled by hunches, feelings, associations, teachings, preconceived notions, prejudices and subjective/relativistic "reasonings"). I don't want to see anyone else waste their youth like I did.
I am buying your book and it will probably be my main weapon while I "fight the good fight" for truth, no matter how unpleasant it may seem when it's found.

EDITOR'S NOTE: (A) We'd like to request that all letters to the editor discussing the contents of prior letters to the editor begin with a short recapitulation of what was discussed in the prior letter. We receive too many letters in which I must spend time reintroducing our readers to prior material. Writers who start discussing something that was analyzed 1, 2, or 3 months earlier often forget that they are addressing an audience that has slept since then. Some writers are jumping into what concerns them so quickly that I don't even know what they're referring to.
(B) We would again like to ask everyone to help us by playing our video tapes on any public access stations to which they may have access. This is very important and we need as much assistance as is possible. Those who do not live in an area with public access cablevision can still get our tapes played by finding a friend or relative who does live in a public access area and then asking that person to request his or her station to play our tapes. In many instances, just getting a tape into a cable access area is sufficient. Some stations welcome them because they counterbalance all the religious propaganda that is currently flooding cable access. Where there's a will there's a way. More often than not persistence will carry the day.