Issue #163- CRI Stops Me from Replying to Archer,

Biblical Errancy Issue #163- CRI Stops Me from Replying to Archer, Versions Differ on Rising 'Again,' 'Rivers' of Egypt & Interpretations, Using Septuagint, 2000 vs. 3000 baths, Playing my tapes & am I an atheist

Nov 10, '08 12:44 PM
by ¢¾ Denise for everyone





Issue #163 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


July 1996

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


REVIEWS
In the Spring Issue of the Christian Research Journal fundamentalist professor Gleason Archer attacked my book in an article entitled A Summary Critique. This prompted us to devote the entire April 1996 issue to a critique of his analysis accompanied by a written reply which we sent to the Christian Research Institute. We were told by CRI that our response could be no longer than 200 words, although Archer's article was at least 10 times as long. We reluctantly complied and published our entire reply verbatim in our April issue. Unfortunately, the CRI editorial staff chose to omit the last part of my reply which stated: "
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."
In effect, they chose to delete just about anything that would give CRI readers a fix on our location. But just as questionable is the fact that they sent a copy of my reply to Archer and allowed him to insert an answer to my brief response. In other words, he was given exclusive access to my reply and provided time to write a response. Apparently CRI feels my articles should not be allowed to appear unopposed. When I called CRI to register my disgruntlement and request an opportunity to respond to what Archer said with respect to my observations, I was told by the Managing Editor, Ms. Cogdill, that the dialogue between me and Archer was over as far as CRI's Journal was concerned and that if I wished to converse with him any further I could call his home. I told her that I did not think it was fair for me to be denied an opportunity to reply and she said that their policy has nearly always been to terminate dialogues after the initial responses.
The bottom line is that Archer gets the last word even though he began our exchange. Since he accused my book of being inaccurate in spots, it would only be fair if I were given the last word. After all, isn't the defendant allowed to speak last in a court of law. So Archer spoke first and Archer spoke last and I was allowed to inject whatever I could.
Some readers are probably curious as to what Archer said that irks my ire; so for their benefit here is his verbatim closing statement. "I can hardly be accused of refusing to touch the arguments found in McKinsey's book, since--as I noted at the end of my review--I have produced an encyclopedia of my own (An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) that addresses a whole host of those very arguments. Therefore having dealt with such questions at much greater length in book form than I could possibly do in a brief book review, I chose rather to focus on what I consider most noteworthy about McKinsey's treatment of the Bible: his total failure to grapple with the absolutely conclusive evidence of hundreds of fulfilled prophecies that--along with other aspects of the biblical record--demonstrate God's complete control of the sweep of history from beginning to end. This evidence completely excludes the possibility of mere human genius in foretelling the future."
Archer's response is deficient in two major respects. First, he says, "I can hardly be accused of refusing to touch the arguments found in McKinsey's book, since--as I noted at the end of my review--I have produced an encyclopedia of my own." In truth, his book barely begins to cope with the incredible number of problems contained within the Bible. Those who doubt the veracity of this observation need only read his work and compare its contents with that which appears in mine.
Anyone who is reasonably well acquainted with my book and this publication should know that I have never focused on individual points or any set of particular
Page 163-2

points to destroy the Bible's credibility. Certainly not! That approach would open me up to such charges as "taking out of context," "ignoring copyist errors," "being too natural," interpreting too literally, being too petty, failing to take account of the cultural milieu of that era, etc. Instead, our approach has always been one of simply burying the opposition in a mountain, an avalanche, a veritable tidal wave of information. The great volume, the sheer magnitude, the overwhelming mass of our evidence is more than enough to dissuade all but intransigent ideologues desperately grasping for supposes, surmises, and suppositions.
Secondly, Archer alleges I failed to "grapple with the absolutely conclusive evidence of hundreds of fulfilled prophecies." Not only does Archer fail to mention the fact that most of the prophecies which he cites to demonstrate biblical prescience were shown to be unreliable in my Encyclopedia, but he neglects to note that the entire 15th chapter of my book is devoted to nothing but an exposure of predictions that landed wide of the mark. Apparently he is willing to concede, or does not wish to contest, the accuracy of my observations, but feels they are somehow overshadowed by a number of accurate predictions. I can only assume that he is operating on the premise that a good batting average is sufficient to substantiate perfection. The problem with this approach is that it not only fails to disprove what I have shown but fails to prove what he is alleging. Hardly a formula for perfection! I demonstrated why the prophecies I discussed are deficient, while he failed to corroborate any of his examples. Merely saying they are true doesn't make it so. Even if his prophecies were valid, which they most assuredly are not, the Book would still be far from inerrant and divinely inspired. Until all of the examples mentioned in my book and this newsletter are shown to be invalid, biblical inerrancy will remain a myth. If Archer feels I did not submit a sufficiently large number of bogus prophecies, then he should register his complaint with my publisher. I would have been more than glad to exhaust my reservoir of relevant data, but the book's editors would never have sent a volume of that size to the printer because of the cost involved. In classic apologetic style Archer is desperately trying to focus on those aspects of the Bible which he deems strongest while trying to ignore those parts that are either blatantly false or too weak to defend. And anyone who has done his homework with a reasonable degree of critical analysis and open-mindedness knows that the latter encompass a tremendous percentage of the entire text. People selling something naturally gravitate toward the positive aspects of their product and eschew the negative. That is endemic to all sales.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #678 from MT of Anaheim, California (Part a)
Thank you for your answers in February's edition of Biblical Errancy. If we may continue the dialogue, that would be greatly appreciated....
On page 146 (of your book--Ed.) you state that John 20:9 refers to Jesus rising twice, since it uses the words "he must rise again from the dead." I've consulted other translations, and a Greek interlinear, and the word "again" is not present. If it's only an error in the translation within the KJV, then there's not really an error in the Bible, is there? If this is the case, why didn't you mention this in your book?

Editor's Response to Letter #678 (Part a)
One of the most common errors made by apologetic critics of the King James is their failure to compare it with other versions of Scripture. Rarely is this version out on a limb all by its lonesome as is so commonly alledged by many biblicists. You say you consulted a Greek interlinear and other translations, but did you read the American Standard Version of 1901 or the Bible in Basic English or the Living Bible of 1971 or the New American Standard Version of 1977. As the teen-agers of today would say, I think not. All have the word "again." The ASV and the NASB are especially powerful support for the King James. So now it becomes a question of whose source is more authoritative. Remember what I said long ago? You could be the world's greatest Greek/Hebrew scholar and still find experts disagreeing with your interpretation. If you press your point, instead of reconciling the problem, you will only succeed in proving the verse needs to be expunged from the Bible. That's the best you can hope for. The sentence becomes worthless, because you don't know how it should be translated. And if you purge John 20:9 from the Bible because of diametrically opposed translations, you are going to play havoc with a sizable portion of the entire book. Literally hundreds of verses are translated oppositely by different versions of Scripture. A competitive struggle pitting my scholars and versions against your scholars and versions will encompass the whole enterprise. And in all of this chaos the layman will be left hanging.

Letter #678 Continues (Part b)
Also, on page 297 of your book--The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy--, you state that Ezek. 29:15 contains a false prophecy. The text says "Egypt shall be the basest of the kingdoms, and neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations; for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations." Technically, this is not a false prophecy. First off, your saying that Egypt ruled over the Sudan is saying
Page 163-3
Egypt ruled over a single nation. The prophecy says that they shall no more rule over the nations, plural.

Editor's Response to Letter #678 (Part b)
Aside from the fact that your "first off" is also your "last off," I am having some difficulty understanding why more than one nation is needed. I interpret the verse as saying that Egypt will never again exalt itself over any other nation and by using the word "nations" it means all nations. If your interpretation were correct, then why would the text say "they shall no more rule over the nations," when they never ruled over the "nations," (plural) to begin with. Of course, if you know of several nations Egypt ruled, then by all means speak up. If you do, however, please be fully cognizant of the fact that that will destroy your original thesis that Egypt did not rule over other nations (plural).

Letter #678 Continues (Part c)
On page 303, you make a point about the "rivers of Egypt" in Ezekiel 30:4-16 being a problem. Could this text possibly mean the tributaries of Egypt, within the delta of the Nile? Was there a Hebrew word for tributaries.

Editor's Response to Letter #678 (Part c)
How could you have tributaries within the delta of the Nile. Webster defines a tributary as a stream flowing into a larger one. Water in the delta would be the Nile's own water flowing into the Mediterranean by many channels. Those aren't tributaries.
Secondly, you are asking me if there is a Hebrew word for tributaries? If you will excuse me for saying so, MT, you appear to be on a fishing expedition. You want me to provide you with information to prove your case. You, not I, are obligated to prove there is a Hebrew word for tributaries and, far more importantly, prove that the Nile had tributaries in Egypt.
And finally, even if there were some streams flowing into the Egyptian Nile, you must prove they are rivers, not mere rivulets. A small creek no bigger than a ditch does not constitute a tributary. You have a whole heap of proving to do my friend.

Letter #678 Continues (Part d)
Also, you state other prophecies and claim that they are false, yet their future fulfillment is still possible. For instance, on page 304, in your sixth point, you state there's a false prophecy. What prevents this prophecy from being fulfilled in the future? How do you know that it's false, merely because it hasn't occurred yet? The same goes with points nine, ten and eleven.

Editor's Response to Letter #678 (Part d)
You seem to be saying that the prophecies you are referring to could more accurately be called unfulfilled, rather than false, prophecies. That would be a valid observation if it were not for the fact that you neglected to note my introduction to this material at the bottom of page 303. I stated, "The third and final category of prophecies are those that have never materialized. Some biblicists, such as those in the Church of Christ, contend that all the prophecies in the OT have already been fulfilled. If so, one cannot help but ask when the following, which have little or no possibility of being fulfilled, occurred." These prophecies were discussed because some biblicists contend they have already been fulfilled. Therefore, in so far as these biblicists are concerned they are false since they haven't occurred.

Letter #678 Concludes (Part e)
I'm not an inerrantist, nor am I a Christian, although at one time I was a Fundamentalist type. Right now, I'm agnostic, and though I found many good points in your book, I also found these things as being inaccurate. Thank you in advance for your response.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #678 (Part e)
Instead of giving me an opportunity to explain these suspected difficulties, you summarized to the jury by saying, "I also found these things as being inaccurate." Always consult both sides before drawing your conclusions. If you had done so, I don't think you would have been so anxious to rush to judgment.

Letter #679 from NB of Tucson, Arizona (Part a)
Dear Dennis. I have some comments re your comments on me in BE #161, but first I'd note that it ill behooves someone to accuse another of "transparent sophistries", when that someone writes sentences like, "My friend, anyone who doesn't read everything with a critical eye is opening themselves (sic) up to agony galore (p. 161-2, response to Letter #667): You claim to know a lot of Hebrew and Greek, but did you ever learn elementary English grammar?

Editor's Response to Letter #679 (Part a)
Your correction of my sentence is duly noted, but did it have to be done in such a derogatory manner? We have made proofreading errors in the past and will probably do so again. We aren't perfect and have never claimed to be such. Speaking of someone accusing others of being imperfect, when did I ever say that I "know a lot of Hebrew and Greek" ? Could you cite chapter and verse for that observation? Now who is being imperfect? I have never engaged in the linguistic approach because it is not going to bear anywhere near the amount of fruit its supporters anticipate. Remember what I said about being the world's greatest Greek/Hebrew scholar?
Letter #679 Continues (Part b)
In re your comments on me in the middle of the right-hand column of page 161-4, you still haven't corrected the incorrect citations you gave for 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles in BE #158-5, but I'll let that pass. If you don't know the distinction between a singular and a plural English pronoun, I guess it's too much to ask that you correctly give the correct Biblical reference when you comment on my letter.

Editor's Response to Letter #679 (Part b)
I think the wound on your ego accounts for more of these corrections than anything else. You say I "still haven't corrected the incorrect citations" I gave for 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles in BE #158-5." To begin with, this is the first time it has come to my attention.
Secondly, in so far as I can determine only one mistake is involved. Second Chronicles 45:5 should have been 2 Chron. 4:5. Where are the incorrect "citations" (plural).

Letter #679 Continues (Part c)
...Back to page 161-4, whether or not the numbers in Hebrew were spelled out or not, you failed to note that 1 Kings 7:26, which makes the "2000-bath" assertion, is missing altogether from the Septuagint. You might at least have commented on why the Jewish scholars who compiled the Septuagint chose to omit this verse from the older texts. You didn't.

Editor's Response to Letter #679 (Part c)
The Septuagint is nothing more than a translation like the King James, the NASB and hundreds of other versions. If I make this kind of notation with respect to the Septuagint, I might as well make it with respect to hundreds of others as well. Where would this stop? Are you saying the Septuagint is somehow more authoritative than any other translation and deserves special consideration? If so, upon what basis are you making this judgment? The reference to 2,000 baths is in the Jewish Masoretic Text. Should I have noted that?

Letter #679 Continues (Part d)
Now, how about 1 Cor. 10:8, in which Paul said (NIV): "We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did--and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died". The reference is to Num. 25:9, which says: "but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000" ...Some interpreters have tried to reconcile this by asserting that 23,000 was the number of those who died "in one day" , while the total number of deaths in the plague was 24,000. It hardly seems like that if "only" 24,000 people died "in the plague", then 23,000 of them would have died "in one day". You may have commented on this in some previous issue of BE, but if so, I am not aware of it. In any case, would you say that Paul couldn't read the Hebrew (even though he wrote in Greek, so as to reach his audience-the Corinthians-directly)? Or might it just be possible that even in transcribing Hebrew numbers, spelled out or not, some confusion might have occurred over the centuries as to which Hebrew letter was meant?

Editor's Response to Letter #679 (Part d)
You are supporting my observation, NB, when you say that "It hardly seems like that if 'only' 24,000 people died 'in the plague', then 23,000 of them would have died 'in one day'." I made that very point many moons ago. Welcome to the world of sensibleness.
As far as the initial part of your "explanation" is concerned you appear to be justifying a contradiction rather than reconciling it. If Paul made a mistake because he couldn't read Hebrew, then that's his problem, not that of his critics, and he's destroyed biblical inerrancy.
The second part of your explanation is nothing more than an exhumation of the old copyist defense which has been covered ad nauseum in prior issues. I would urge you to read the back issues of BE that focus on this ploy and effectively decimate its viability.

Letter #679 Continues (Part e)
Also, what then about Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 6? The NIV uses Arabic numerals for both of these, and some differences between these has been noted. Hardly strange, considering that the latter was written about a century after the former. There are many numbers involved here, and I have never claimed that the scribes, who were responsible for copying the manuscripts and making sure that the copies were correct, were divinely protected from error, as the Roman Catholic Church claims of the Pope when he speaks on a matter of faith and morals. So it is quite possible that (to use the passive voice so favored of Washington bureaucrats) "mistakes were made".

Editor's Response to Letter #679 (Part e)
Remember when you said, " If you don't know the distinction between a singular and a plural English pronoun, I guess it's too much to ask that you correctly give the correct Biblical reference when you comment on my letter?" Well, then, is it too much to ask that I request the same accuracy of you? After all, turn about is fair play. The conflicts to which you are referring are between Ezra 2 and Neh. 7 not Ezra 2 and Neh. 6. You'd do well to heed your own advice.
Secondly, as far as Nehemiah being written about 100 years after Ezra is concerned, that would be of no consequence if it were a thousand years. The fact is that the numbers are contradictory and they remain contradictory until you can prove that that is not how they were originally written. And how can you find out if they were written that way in the original? You can't, because the original no longer exists. You are relying very heavily upon the copyist defense and it is not going to bail out the leaking lifeboat if that is what you are counting on.
If, on the other hand, you concede that one of the figures is false and should be changed so as to match the other, then you are faced with the impossibility of deciding which is the incorrect figure. Your only possible escape is to expunge both verses from the Bible because they are contradictory and you have no way of telling which is correct. And, as I told MT earlier, if all conflicting verses are treated in this manner, then you are going to have to expunge, delete, and destroy a sizable portion of the entire Book. The purge will be awesome. If you decide to take this path, I would strongly recommend reading all 162 issues of this publication to find what needs to be eliminated. Happy researching and be sure to buy plenty of No-Doze.

Letter #679 Concludes (Part f)
Anyway to assert that everything in the Bible is false because there is a discrepancy between 2000 and 3000 "baths" is like saying that the Titanic had a problem with a few of its rivets.
Well, at least, you credit me with being "somewhat correct". I wonder if that's something like being "somewhat pregnant"?
Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #679 (Part f)
I would challenge you to show me anywhere in the entire history of this periodical that I ever asserted "that everything in the Bible is false because there is a discrepancy between 2000 and 3000 'baths'" ? With all due respect, NB, that comment reeks with ignorance. Who on earth with a scintilla of sanity would say that an entire book is false because one contradiction is contained therein?
Moreover, you definitely need to read what I said in the first column of page 2 of this issue regarding Archer's attack on my response to him. Remember my reference to words like "avalanche," "mountain," and "tidal wave"?
The problem with the Titanic was not the absence of a few rivets but the removal of much of an entire side. And that is about the same condition in which the Bible finds itself. Nearly one half of the book is destroying the validity of the other half.
And finally you say, "I wonder if that's something like being 'somewhat pregnant'?" No, it's more like being somewhat healthy. Some organs feel fine while many you feel like doing without.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #680 from SB of Los Angeles, California
Dear Dennis. ...I hope to eventually read all the back issues as I have the time. As I mentioned in an earlier letter, I am a recent convert to a religion-free life. I now subscribe to several free-thinking newsletters and believe BE is by far the most informative, direct, and focused in exposing the Bible for the absurd nonsense that it is.

Editor's Response to Letter #680
Dear SB. We appreciate your generous comments and would suggest that you also look into The Skeptical Review which is published by a gentleman and a scholar, former fundamentalist preacher Farrell Till (P.O. Box 707 Canton, Illinois 61520-0717 (309) 647-4764. It is an excellent critique of the Bible that adheres to a format very similar to ours.

Letter #681 from WB of Waterloo, Iowa
Dear Mr. McKinsey.... A little commentary: One is always being told that god is omniscient. If this is so, then wouldn't this imply that everything has already happened, being it is knowable? Would this not reduce us to a trolley car status in that we can only go where the track leads and that no decision was actually made by us? In effect, the movie has already been made, all dialogue has been said, all actions completed.

Editor's Response to Letter #681
Dear WB. You are relating the old free will versus determinism problem which I struggled with for so many years as a youngster. It is not only an inescapable enigma as long as one postulates a god but a dilemma without a resolution. I don't think, however, that it means everything has already occurred, only that what will occur has already been fixed.

Letter #682 from DW of Saskatoon, Canada
Dear Mr. McKinsey. A friend loaned me your Biblical Errancy tapes (the first five?) which I have copied. Would you grant me permission to try to get them shown on the local television station? They are excellent and should be shared with the community.
At the risk of being considered critical of such excellent tapes, do you have an index for these tapes. It would be so handy to refer to various topics like Noah's Ark or the controversial coming of Christ without having to go through the whole collection again. If such reference is available, I would be pleased to reimburse you for sending it to me. Please send me your newsletter and I would be happy to subscribe.
I see in one of your tapes that you do not consider yourself an atheist. At the risk of quibbling, and this is just a quibble, do you consider yourself an atheist as far as the tooth fairy goes. If you don't believe either story, what is the difference? While I will entertain any evidence for a divine entity, I order my life as if there were none and, hence, for me an atheist is the correct label for a person who does that. Thank you again for your excellent work. I hope to hear from you soon.

Editor's Response to Letter #682
Dear DW. Your compliments are most appreciated. As far as playing our video tapes is concerned, you not only have my permission but my encouragement. By all means proceed as you deem appropriate.
As of now we have no index of our tapes, but I intend to compile one eventually.
Although your question with respect to atheism is somewhat nebulous, I think you are asking me if I put God in the same category as the tooth-fairy. My position on the existence of an alleged God has been stated many times. Those who bring up the idea are obligated to prove its valid; I am not required to prove it's not. And until evidence is forthcoming, there is no reason to place any reliance on its reality. Unlike most atheists, I am not saying there is no god; all I am saying is that theists have not proved there is.

Letter #683 from DW of Trotwood, Ohio
Please send me all information available about your Wednesday TV series Biblical Errancy Commentary. Are reprints of the programs available? I enjoy your TV program very much.

Editor's Response to Letter #683
Dear DW. You are living proof that our TV programs are not only needed and effective but are reaching people who would not otherwise be aware of the tremendous number of problems within the Bible. People such as yourself prove that our programs should be played in as many areas as is possible. All we need are those willing to help. I suspect that more people are viewing our programs than we realize, although that does not necessarily mean they agree with everything being said. But they are willing to give us a hearing and at this stage of the game that's progress.

EDITOR'S NOTE: While driving in my car several weeks ago I happened to hear a report on National Public Radio that Florida's governor was about to make a decision regarding prayer in the state's schools. Because that is a rather common occurrence these days, I didn't find that nearly as disturbing as a subsequent comment made by one of the leaders of the Christian Coalition. While explaining his position he said, "The Constitution provides freedom of religion BUT NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION." Normally I don't comment on extrabiblical current affairs but that statement is just too sinister, too potent, too revealing, to allow to proceed unchallenged. If that is the philosophy that is gaining ascendancy among the nation's fundamentalists and evangelicals, then the seriousness of what we have been saying over the years and the importance of this publication are undoubtedly being borne out. That is religion on the offensive, make no mistake about it. That is a sophisticated and surreptitious way of saying, "You are going to have religion in general and the Bible in particular crammed down your throats whether you like it or not." Perhaps the spokesperson for the Christian Coalition was only speaking for himself. But I don't think so. More than likely this individual inadvertently exposed the contents of a Pandora's Box which increasing numbers of fundamentalists are assembling in reserve for society at large and carefully keeping out of public view.
And to add insult to injury, very recently members of the largest protestant organization in the United States, the 15,000,000 member avowedly fundamentalist Southern Baptist denomination, voted at their national convention to institute an assertive program to convert Jews to Christianity.
If Freedom from Religion is not endemic to the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court should ever so decide, an aura of religious intolerance, denunciation, aggression and even suppression could begin to cover this nation like that fog, so vividly portrayed in the movie "The Ten Commandments," creeped in over the land of Egypt when the Pharaoh refused to release the Hebrews.