Issue #162- Haley's Alleged Discrepancies in the B

Biblical Errancy Issue #162- Haley's Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible (Part 7), DA on Nothing New Under Sun, God Creates Evil?, Our Philosophy vs. Theology, To Baptize or Not, Did Jesus Order Slaying

Nov 10, '08 12:43 PM
by ¢¾ Denise for everyone





Issue #162 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


June 1996

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


COMMENTARY


This issue will conclude our analysis of Haley's well known apologetic work that was last addressed in the August 1995 issue.

REVIEWS

Haley's AN EXAMINATION OF THE ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE (Part VII)--On page 280 Haley attempts to reconcile the clash between Matt. 6:19, 25, 34 ("Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth... Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink: nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. ...Take therefore no thought for the morrow..."), Luke 12:33 ("Sell that ye have, and give alms"), and Rom. 13:14 ("Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof" ) on the one hand and Prov. 13:22 ("A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children") and 1 Tim. 5:8 ("But if any provide not for his own, and specifically for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel") on the other. Haley states,
"...The first text simply forbids our making earthly possessions our 'treasure,' our chief good. We must not set our hearts upon them."

The first text says nothing of the sort and nothing with respect to gradations. It says you are not to accumulate wealth; it doesn't say you can do so as long as you don't make it your "chief good."
Haley continues,
"The word 'thought' in the two texts, as in our early English literature, means solicitude, anxious care.... Hence the precept is: 'Be not unduly anxious concerning your life,' etc."
In effect, Haley has changed the meaning of the word "thought" and significantly altered the message conveyed. If it has the meaning he implies, then the translators of these verses erred grievously.
Haley then states,
"The first two texts from Luke inculcate concretely the abstract principle of benevolence, but do not sanction improvidence."
Although it would no doubt be nice from an apologetic perspective if that were true, unfortunately, "Sell that ye have, and give alms" is much too absolutist to allow that escape.
And finally Haley states,
"The text from Luke 12 has, according to Meyer, a specific application, being 'addressed only to the apostles and then existing disciples'."
This, of course, is one of the oldest of all apologetic defenses. When the Bible commands people to do something that is patently offensive or unacceptable, biblicists will allege that the instruction only applies to the people being addressed at that particular time. When the command meets their approval, it is allegedly applicable to all. Apologists have a long history of trying to apply biblical maxims they like to everyone who ever lived, while restricting those they don't like to those people being addressed way back when. It's a neat little ploy and, unfortunately, many of the unwary have succumbed to its wiles.
On page 293 Haley reads between the lines in order to blend Matt. 18:15 ("Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone....") with 1 Tim. 5:19-20 ( "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear"). In essence, are offenders to be reprimanded in public or in private? Haley says,
"The first text refers to private, personal wrongs, the second, to open, public offenses against peace and good order."

Page 162-2
Where he got this idea is anybody's guess, since there certainly isn't anything in the text that would substantiate a wholly arbitrary distinction of this nature. The second says nothing about "peace and good order." All it refers to is "Them that sin" which could refer to thousands of acts having nothing to do with "peace and good order."
Haley continues by quoting the apologist Alford who says of the first text,
"This direction is only in case of personal offence against ourselves, and then the injured person is to seek private explanation , and that by going to his injurer, not waiting till he comes to apologize."
This doesn't resolve the problem because "Them that sin rebuke before all" in 1 Timothy would include those brothers who trespass against you personally and are to be rebuked privately. Moreover, there is nothing in the text that would substantiate Haley's assertion that the injured party is to seek out the injurer. Just more adding between the lines.
And finally Haley states,
"This commentator (meaning himself--Ed.), with Huther and most others, applies the second quotation to sinning presbyters or 'elders,' who are to be openly rebuked, that the whole church may fear on seeing the public disgrace consequent on sin."
This ruse would only have validity if "elders" were not "brothers." But since "elders" are included within the larger category of "brothers," then the first verse (Matt. 18:15) is referring to elders as well. When the first verse says your brother is to be rebuked in private, it means all of your brothers and that would include the elders. Yet, the second verse says elders, who are also your brothers, are to be rebuked in public, not in private.
On page 333 Haley's reconciliation of 2 Sam. 24:1 ("The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah") with 1 Chron. 21:1 ("And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel" ) is a new low in pathetic proposals. Haley states,
"It is consistent with Hebrew modes of thought that whatever occurs in the world, under the overruling providence of God,--whatever he suffers to take place,--should be attributed to his agency. In not preventing, as he might have done, its occurrence, he is viewed as in some sense bringing about the event. Hence the act of Satan might be, in this indirect way, referred back to God, as the Governor of the universe."

I am tempted to ask myself: Does this "solution" really merit a response? If this kind of explanation were viable, then the entire infamous career of every reprobate in world history, let alone biblical figures, could be blamed on God. After all didn't Haley say,
"whatever he (God--Ed.) suffers to take place,--should be attributed to his agency. In not preventing, as he might have done, its occurrence, he is viewed as in some sense bringing about the event."
We go from blaming God for nothing to blaming him for everything. Talk about getting a bum rap!
On page 434 Haley refers to the famous biblical scene that is portrayed so vividly in the movie known as The Ten Commandments. After citing Ex. 7:20-21 ("And Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river...and all the waters that were in the river turned to blood. And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt..") he immediately grappled with the perplexing problem presented by verses 22 and 24 ("And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the Lord had said.... And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river"). Cecil B. DeMille conveniently skirted the latter text because of the obvious dilemma created by the whole scene, namely: If Moses changed all the river water into blood, how could the Pharaoh's magicians have immediately followed suit by doing the same? The water was already blood, so how could it have been changed into blood by the magicians, unless it had first been restored to water. Haley would have done better if he had followed Cecil B and dodged the issue entirely instead of saying,
"We may take the word 'all,' in the 19th and 20th verses, in the loose popular sense, as implying far the greater part: the exceptions being so few and insignificant that the author overlooks them entirely. Some water remained unchanged, upon which the magicians operated, and which the Egyptians drank during the interval."
All this "explanation" amounts to is a denial by Haley that "all" means all. He would have us believe it means "nearly all." And all white horses are not white either!
Haley continues by saying,
"Kurtz thinks that only Nile water, whether in the river or in vessels, was changed, the water in the wells being unaffected."
That's true. The text does say that only the waters of the river were affected. But that doesn't solve the problem because the magicians did likewise with the same water--the Nile water. Water in the wells or other vessels is irrelevant. We are only talking about the water in the river.
And finally, Haley concludes his anemic defense by relating arguments used by two apologists. He states,
"Mr. R.S. Poole suggests that only the water that was seen was smitten, that the nation might not perish. Mr. Alexander thinks that 'the water when filtered through the earth on the bank of the river, was restored to its salubrity'. This agrees with the statement that 'all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink' in verse 24."
It's a good thing that Haley says Poole "suggests" and Alexander "thinks," because that's about all their defenses amount to. Poole may "suggest" that "only the water that was seen was smitten," but that is not textually supportable. Verse 20 says "all the waters that were in the river turned to blood," not just most of it. And as far as Alexander's ploy is concerned not only is it not sustainable biblically but the entire river would have had to have been filtered almost instantaneously, since the ma-
Page 162-3
gicians followed with their trick in quick succession.
Why doesn't Haley just skip all this "scientific" falderal and say God turned the river back into water miraculously and instantaneously. After all, since we are playing fast and loose with the preposterous anyway, why not go all out. There is no sense in trying to appear rational when the Bible is at stake.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #667 from DA Continues from Last Month (Part g)
(On page 2 of the 151st issue I quoted Eccle. 1:9 (RSV) which says, "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun." Then I wanted to know how many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945 and how many people walked on the moon before 1969. Rev. BB provided a weak response and DA now provides even weaker support of Rev. BB by saying),
The Rev. has it all over you. Eccla. (sic) 1:9 is essentially correct in saying "There is nothing new under the sun." Your counterexamples only work on the technical level.
Walking on the Moon is a particularly lame example. We haven't been back for 20 years now. May not be back for another 20. It got a lot of press, but what changed? Our heroic endeavors were in fact just ostentatious spending, little different from the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt. Nothing new here but the trappings.
The Atomic bomb is better, but what is unique about it? Never been used before...? True of any weapon for some date or another. A new way to fight a war? True of all sorts of weapons. (The stirrup did wonders for calvery (sic). Gunpowder crunched it, as well as castles. & the airplane did quite a bit too.) Uniqueness lies in how it did it? Also true of all these other weapons....

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part g)
You have an amazing facility for focusing on the irrelevant, DA. Eccle. 1:9 doesn't just have it all over you; it's walking on you as well. What does the technical aspect have to do with anything?. Did anyone ever walk on the moon prior to 1969? Yes or no? They either did or they did not. There is no inbe-tween. If they did, then my example is worthless. If they did not, then your explanation is worthless. The lengths to which you apologists will go to defend the indefensible are truly awesome. It is disconcerting to think that we even have to share the same general geographical area with people whose thinking processes are so completely divorced from reality and utterly tendentious.
And who cares how many times we have been back since 1969? That's irrelevant and immaterial also. You say, "It got a lot of press, but what changed?" I just told you what changed. Don't you even try to listen? There is none so deaf as he who won't hear! For the first time in history man set foot on the moon. That's what's new! That's what changed!
Then you say, "Our heroic endeavors were in fact just ostentatious spending little different from the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt." With all due respect, we are again being showered with more of your irrelevant drivel. What do motives have to do with the issue? I don't care why they went to the moon; the fact is they went, and that's what counts.
As far as your atom bomb explanation is concerned, you appear to have switched sides and joined sanity. What position are you trumpeting? Instead of proving the atomic bomb was not unique, you merely allege that uniqueness is initially applicable to every weapon that has been devised. You say that is "True of any weapon for some date or another." Specifically you refer to gun powder, castles, airplanes and stirrups. Precisely! At some time or other they were all new; so I rest my case. Thanks for making it for me. I'm glad you saw the light.
(At this point DA submitted 3 paragraphs that are so rambling, incoherent, and immaterial that it is simply not worth putting our readers through the agony of trying to decipher the mess.)

Letter #667 Continues (Part h)
(On page 4 in the 151st Issue I responded to Rev. BB by saying, "Whether or not God created evil bears directly on his character which, in turn, impacts on the validity and reliability of everything contained in what is supposedly his book. Stated differently, how could a book be perfect, if it arose from an imperfect, evil-creating author?" DA responded by saying--Ed.),
How could a book be perfect, if it arose from an imperfect, evil-creating author? Several ways. You are assuming that evil-creating is an imperfection, which it often is from our biased view. That it is from a perfect view is by no means clear. A painting can easily depict evil without that being deemed a flaw, just as the painting can be flawed without depicting evil....

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part h)
Your comparison is not analogous because the painting is a result; not a cause. The painting did not create anything. It did not create the evil depicted in it any more than the evil depicted in it created the painting. The painting and the evil within were created together, unlike God and evil which are supposed to be completely independent. You say, "A painting can ea-sily depict evil without that being deemed a flaw...." That's just it. The painting is depicting evil; it is not creating it, as God allegedly is. And the painting is not alleged to be perfect as God is alleged to be.
One of the most serious mistakes made by all religionists, and you are a prime example of same, is that they try to act logical to prove the illogical. Many, especially those in the ultra fundamentalist camp, occasionally go so far as to try to sound logical in order to prove that reason is a nearly worthless medium to rely upon when it comes to analyzing the crucial issues of life. This really came home to me when I read Peter Ruckman's book entitled Science and Philosophy. I have never read a book before or since that is so thoroughly anti-intellectual and worthy of the fires of Gehenna. Putting its philosophy into the minds of our youth would be like deadening their cranial nerves to all extra-sensory data--a kind of bloodless lobotomy. Using reason to disprove reason is about as feasible as using water to wash away wetness.

Letter #667 Continues (Part i)
(In the same response I stated Biblical Errancy has never propounded any kind of theology, since the very phrase "logical theology" is an oxymoron. Our philosophy is based on logic and proof; whereas, theology is based on hope and theory. DA responded by saying--Ed.),
In point of fact, BE has (propounded a theology--Ed.), at great length and with more vigor than logic. You can't help it when you propond (sic) on religious topics. A negative theology is still a theology. The distinction ("our philosophy" "theology") is flawed. Theology is a subpart of philosophy, not something in opposition to it.

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part i)
Your poor reasoning skills and non sequiturs never cease to amaze me, DA. That makes about as much sense as saying to me, after I have spent a solid hour denouncing fascism in every way imaginable, "Oh, then obviously you must believe in fascism." Apparently you are unable to distinguish a "negative theology" from a negative view of theology. It is not a matter of me having a theology that is essentially negative; it is a matter of me rejecting theology, period. Are you so religiously imbibed that you can't see a major distinction?
And because I said "Our philosophy is based on logic and proof; whereas, theology is based on hope and theory" you try to suck me into your religious swamp by saying "The distinction ("our philosophy" "theology") is flawed. Theology is a subpart of philosophy, not something in opposition to it."
We are not talking about philosophy in general because many philosophies are as illogical as theology. We are discussing BE's philosophy in particular, and it is based on logic and proof. In so far as the latter are concerned, theology is a subpart of that wing of philosophy which has little to do with either logic or proof.

Letter #667 Continues (Part j)
(While asking for assistance is playing our tapes, I said, "I have never received any negative feedback, except for some textual comments." In his on-going insidious attempt to undermine this publication and promote its discontinuation DA says--Ed.),
In that case, why bother? The rule of thumb is that if you are not criticized for what you say, you didn't say much. You are arguing here how useful these tapes will be, but your argument in fact suggests they are worthless.

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part j)
As usual you got out of my comments whatever suited your purposes and discarded the remainder. What did I say? I said I received negative textual comments and that's more than enough to justify our programs and refute your accusation.
Even more importantly, you say, "The rule of thumb is...." Where did you get that rule? No doubt it's your own creation, since a paucity of criticisms could very well be attributable to the accuracy and invulnerability of the points presented.
And most importantly of all, if you had read the article with greater concern for precision and less for revision, you would have noticed that the entire context of my observations had reference to serious threats and reprisals, not textual, scriptural, or inerrancy matters. But, of course, in true apologetic style you chose to distort as you deemed fit. After all, why be concerned about truth when the credibility of the Bible and Jesus are at stake. Cause supersedes candor.

Letter #667 Continues (Part k)
(On page 3 in the 152nd Issue I noted the conflict between Jesus' comment in Matt. 28:19 ("Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost") and Paul's assertion in 1 Cor. 1:14, 17 ("I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius. ...For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" ). DA seeks to reconcile this contradiction by saying--Ed.)
There's a conflict? Paul was not present at Matt. 28 and thus you are under the burden of showing that Paul was in fact ordered to baptize. & context also argues against any conflict here. Paul did baptize a little, but he insists he has other duties. & he is thankful he did not baptize more because he fears that might have caused a division in the church.

Editor's Response to Letter #667 (Part k)
It was all I could do to keep from laughing at this reply, DA. So Paul was not present at Matt. 28? Well, I, along with millions of others, wasn't with Moses on Mt. Sinai or with Jesus when he delivered the Sermon on the Mount, so I guess that relieves us of those responsibilities. Don't you think any further ahead than the next sentence?
Then you compounded this nonsense by saying I am under "the burden of showing that Paul was in fact ordered to baptize." What did Jesus say? He told his followers to go and baptize. And who was a more prominent follower of Jesus than Paul?
Context does not abolish the problem by any means. If anything it compounds your dilemma. You contend "Paul did baptize a little" when Paul says in the very verse you are trying to reconcile that Jesus sent him not to baptize. All you are doing is proving that Paul directly defied a specific command of Jesus. And you only bury Paul further by saying Paul "is thankful he did not baptize more" which clearly violates what Jesus ordered. With friends like you Paul need not seek opponents.
As far as having other duties or causing division in the church is concerned, Jesus did not allow for baptismal exceptions in those instances. Where are they delineated in the script? And how do you know Paul was afraid he would divide the church by baptizing? Would you be so kind as to cite chapter and verse for that observation as well?

Letter #667 Concludes (Part l)
(On page 3 of the 152nd Issue I said, "For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, hell's punishment is infinitely greater. There is nothing someone could do in the short space of 80 or 90 years that could possibly warrant eternal punishment." DA replies by saying--Ed.),
Quite wrong. One can argue that being stir-fried for the entire period is excessive for winking at a pretty girl, but the mere fact the "crime" happens in a finite period while the punishment is eternal is fully consistent with justice. The simple example is putting money in the bank, or loaning it. The interest on it goes on forever (at least in theory), so you eventually pay or receive an infinite amount of money for a merely finite sum....

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #667 (Part l)
You ought to be in comedy because this is another chuckle-generating reply. I enjoy some of your rationalizations because of the unintended sense of humor attached.
Since when does a crime earn interest? The punishment is to fit the crime, not infinitely exceed it. There is no analogy here whatever. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. For punishment to match the crime, it must be tailored to, and be as specific as, the crime. In no sense can the punishment surpass the crime if justice is to prevail.
As far as your reference to money is concerned, punishment is not administered by signing a blank check in which the amount is to be filled in later. I can only pity any defendant who comes into court and sees you on the bench. He might as well forget about justice. With biblicism presiding, the only thumb involved will be the one under which the defendant is placed.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #676 from JW of Hialeah, Florida
Dear Dennis. In your debate about the parable (or not) of Luke 19:27, you wrote, "If, in fact, Jesus told people to bring his enemies before him and slay them, his decency and humanity, indeed his credibility itself, is dealt a staggering blow."
I do not understand your conjecture. It appears demonstrably clear that if we take it as a parable, Jesus becomes far more atrocious, his decency even more questionable in view of a parable lesson. The credibility of his morals yields a far more staggering blow to Christendom's ethic.
The intent of a NT parable aims at teaching a lesson that its beholders should take seriously. If not, what should we make of the parable about the Good Samaritan where Jesus ends by saying "Go, and do thou likewise" (Lk. 10:37)? Or the parable about the lost coin in Lk. 15:8-10)? Should we chalk up any of Jesus' parables to, "Oh, it's just a parable, we shouldn't take it seriously"? The Parable of the Ten Pounds aims to teach a lesson about disobeying your "Nobleman" (obviously Jesus meant to put himself as nobleman). Believers can replace "servants" with themselves or someone else, but what could they possibly replace for the conclusion of the lesson: "slay them before me"?
"Slay" means to kill by violent means. Representing "slay" with "kill," "slaughter," "exterminate," "put-down," etc., certainly does not lessen the end result to the enemy.
One could not use milder concepts like "punish" because "punish" and "slay" mean entirely different things. It would also damage Jesus' credibility to suggest that he did not choose the proper parable idea to convey his intent. If he meant "punish" he could have chosen "chastise" or "discipline." etc. But he did not.
If, instead, we take Luke 19:27 as literal instead of parable, then the slaying would have to occur in front of Jesus during his limited physical life. After he died on the cross, an apologist could claim the slayings should have ended at his death. But, as parable, it transcends the physical. It becomes transcendent to Jesus who no longer lives in the physical realm. His presence resides in heaven and in the hearts and souls of all believers. The Bible has a clear message as to where "before me" occurs. For followers to accept the lesson of their Jesus, they would have to slay their enemies before Jesus where He resides in their soul or in heaven! No wonder the Inquisitions and the Crusades occurred.
"Kill them all. God will recognize his own."--said by Arnald-Amalric, 1208 (when asked by the Crusaders what to do with the citizens of Beziers who were a mixture of Catholics and Cathars)....
If we take the entire Bible in context, Jesus' parable certainly agrees with the ordering of slayings by God in the OT. If you add the concept of the Trinity, then you connect Jesus directly with all the slayings of men, women, and children by God-Jesus Almighty. Furthermore, the NT, unmistakably, has Jesus admitting to willful slaying: "I will strike her children dead." (Jesus in Rev. 2:23 NRSV). Certainly Christians should not doubt the will of Jesus, should they?
If an apologist wishes to back out of this problem by saying that Jesus did not intend to put himself as the target of the Nobleman, then the parable becomes even more atrocious. We can then put any "Noblemen" in this context. Imagine dragging the unlawful up to President Clinton and slaying them at his feet; or putting yourself in place of the nobleman and ordering your followers to slay your enemies. No matter which way a believer tries to extricate himself from this difficulty, parable or not, it leads to problems. The only out comes from (asserting--Ed.) that Jesus did not say those words and, indeed, the Bible errs, or perhaps the Christian religion bases itself on unsupported conjectures and deceptions and relies on faith instead of reason and evidence.

Letter #677 from GN of Washington D.C.
Dear Dennis.... I admire you as a person who uses logic and analysis rather than myths and fairy tales to prove his points.... If I am trying to discount the Bible as a book of lies, how would I go about doing so if the Christian I am debating agrees that the Bible is not perfect? Could you give me more verses that show the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? Some claim that the Bible is merely man's work, inspired by God. Thank you again for your kindness and help.
Editor's Response to Letter #677
Dear GN. Good question! Essentially you are asking me how one should debate liberal Christians or those who do not look upon the Bible as inerrant. As I mentioned long ago, once people leave biblical inerrancy, they can journey down many paths. Before you can expose all of the problems associated with their new approach, you must first determine where they are. Find out if they believe in the Resurrection, Original Sin, the Atonement, the Trinity, miracles, etc. You have to get a feel for their theological and biblical philosophy before you can reveal their new problems. Liberals are all over the place ideologically. So I would be foolish, indeed, if I tried to provide a comprehensive blueprint encompassing all facets of liberal Christian beliefs. During a radio interview many years ago, the host, a United Church of Christ minister, supported me so much that I couldn't help but wonder why he was a minister of the gospel at all. He not only repeatedly backed me up but provided additional information to buttress my points. I am told by those in a position to know that churches and seminaries have many people of like mind. During a TV debate with a catholic priest several years ago, he agreed with so many comments our side made with respect to the Bible that I was tempted to invite him over to sit at our table. Among other things he admitted the book contained fables and folklore and could not be considered inerrant.
As far as specific verses alleging the Bible is inerrant are concerned, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, John 10:35, 1 Cor. 2:13, and John 16:13 are among those most often cited by biblicists. Only the first two, however, are worthy of serious consideration.