Issue #165- Reader Detects a New Strategy, My Stra

Biblical Errancy Issue #165- Reader Detects a New Strategy, My Stratgy and Opposition, Free Inquiry's Fight Back Manual, More Original-Text Arguments, Septuagint Again, Citation Errors, Reconciling Contras & Originals

Nov 10, '08 12:46 PM
by ¢¾ Denise for everyone





Issue #165 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Sept. 1996

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


COMMENTARY

We recently received a letter from a long time supporter in Louisiana who felt obliged to comment on what he felt was a change in approach on my part. Because of his comments I climbed upon a soap box and proceeded to write a response that was considerably longer than normal. This, in turn, prompted me to conclude that his observations would be addressed more appropriately in a commentary rather than a letter to the editor section. In any event, he stated,
"Allow me a thought on strategy. I believe I detect a new note of aggressiveness that I fear may prove counter productive. Religious superstitions are and will die of their own weight over a period of time. Whether this period of time is decades, centuries, or millennia I don't know but their demise is a certainty as long as scientific and rational thought progresses. Your own scholarly contribution is not yet fully appreciated but I have no doubt it will be. I just hope scientific and rational thought progresses fast enough for you to enjoy the accolades. Alas, I doubt it. But I have no doubt that the best strategy to convince others of the correctness of your position is to adopt a passive rather than an aggressive stance. Aggressiveness will not convince those who can not be convinced and will only further steel them and give them emotional ammunition in protecting the lord, the savior, et Al. So a strategy of foregoing aggressiveness loses nothing with them. However, aggressiveness may alienate some with the potential to be persuaded. They may well at first blush interpret aggressiveness as evilness and whatever open mindedness they might have may be turned off by the natural reflexive mechanism that religion has ingrained into them since childhood. On the other hand, if you are passive, merely defensively picking apart the statements of the bible and the arguments of religion generally, then "evilness" will less likely become a factor and, in fact, your reasonableness will be counter to what they have been led to expect from the godless."

In response to this letter I said, I appreciate the positive aspect of your observations but I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you would "detect a new note of aggressiveness on my part" Perhaps it's because of my comments in last month's issue regarding some extra biblical statements by a leader of the Christian Coalition in Florida. To be perfectly frank, I don't feel any more aggressive now than I did the day I started. Actually, I am not very comfortable with the word "aggressiveness.to begin with." The first definition of aggressive in Webster's New World Dictionary is that of being inclined to start fights or quarrels. His Thesaurus equates it with being warlike, bellicose, destructive, rapacious and barbaric. I would hardly consider those words to be an accurate representation of what I am doing The word "aggressiveness" has an aura of hostility and animosity. We don't hate or demean our detractors, but we do sincerely feel sorry for them. They just don't realize how deeply and all pervasively they have been indoctrinated. It came to them as if through their mother's milk and they have never known anything different. A crude analogy would be one of having been born and raised in a cesspool. By the time you have reached adulthood you would not only fail to notice the smell but be quite convinced the aroma was normal If those same people who defend the Bible with such vigor today had been born in Iran or Saudi Arabia, they would believe and adhere to the teachings of Mohammed with all the compassion and conviction they now apply to those of Jesus and the Bible. But they just can't see what is so obvious to any objective external observer.
We has always had an active and assertive program of taking facts to the opposition, but I don't consider that being aggressive. You say, "I have no doubt that
Page 165-2
the best strategy to convince others of the correctness of your position is to adopt a passive...stance." I just can't agree. Sitting back and resting on your laurels won't get the job done. You have to take the message to the other side. As I have said before, you can't expect them to come to you when they are already convinced they have the truth and believe your views are not only false but those of the devil. Passivity is the death knell for ideologies that seek to grow. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, spend millions of dollars on propagandizing each year. Do you seriously think they would continue these programs if they weren't gaining adherents and effectively spreading the word? Do you know of any companies or corporations that don't spend valuable funds to advertise their message? They spend billions each year fully aware of the fact that passivity to them would be comparable to a death sentence. Political parties spend untold sums to get their ideas out to as many people as possible and also spend millions to frustrate and thwart dispersal of their opponent's message. From telemarketers to the visual media, nearly everybody is selling something and passivity is the last thing on their minds. Passivity is precisely what a good salesman does not exhibit.
Apparently you are operating on the theory that as long as your views are correct you don't have to worry. Eventually the world will beat a path to your door. I am sorry to say but that is completely wrong! If people with money are opposed to what you are disseminating; if people of power and influence don't want your message to get around, your entire program can be kept in a detached state of limbo almost indefinitely. Being right does not guarantee automatic victory. Not by any means. Just because you are correct does not mean your program is going to prevail. The word "religion" is nothing but a euphemistic veneer for superstition, mythology, and folklore, but that has not prevented it from having been around for a long time, nor has it forestalled its continued growth. Money, power, and influence have far more to do with what prevails than accuracy, truthfulness, and realism.
Problems in this regard have even fallen on my own doorstep.I have personally encountered problems in this regard. I have been in radio debates with fundamentalists in which, to put it mildly, I have embarrassed the competition. In several instances, it was more than a defeat and clearly showed that my ideas deserved as much of a hearing on the airways as my competitor, if people are to hear the truth. But do you think I was called back? No way! They weren't about to provide me with any more access to the public than I had already received. Talk show hosts have told me on the air that they definitely wanted to have me back but I never heard from them again. Why? Either callers, sponsors, station management, owners, or influential people managed to work their will, which shows beyond doubt that accuracy, truthfulness, and precision alone are not sufficient by any means to carry the day. It takes more than that, believe me. As I said, I know from personal experience, first hand, no less. If you doubt what I am saying, just go out and present a powerful, accurate, and convincing case against the Bible and Jesus and see how far you get on the airways.
Not only do you have opposition from powerful and influential people as well mass objection, but you have the additional problem of dealing with the profit margin dilemma. Talk shows are especially egregious in this regard. They aren't nearly as interested in accuracy as they are in ratings and the bottom line. Even though what I have to present is true and my arguments are potent and convincing, stations don't care, if it's turning off listeners and viewers. I am not making them sufficient money and that's their primary concern. The same problem is encountered with getting a book published. Consequently, the word that gets out, the voice that gets heard, is the one that tells people what they want to hear rather than what they ought to hear. As is true of so much in this society that which circulates best is that which appeals to the lowest common denominator. Talk about a program made to order for the dumbing down of America.
Not only does the bottom line strongly influence what gets heard but you are not going to get your message distributed throughout the land, no matter how accurate it may be, if those in charge of the organs of dissemination or those who can afford dissemination costs are not providing assistance. In fact, they could very well be not only be a positive hindrance but very supportive of the Bible and religion in general, in which case truth will remain buried for a long time, unless somebody struggles to bring it to the surface.. TV preachers, for example, spread an incredible number of lies, distortions, misinterpretations, and out of context remarks and do so totally unopposed, simply because they have the wherewithal. Do you see them fading into the sunset? Where do you see truth overtaking them? No my friend, passivity does not cut it. Assertiveness supported by the means to get the job done is where it's at.
You say, "Religious superstitions are and will die of their own weight over a period of time." Too many freethinkers have been kidding themselves with that remark for too many centuries. All these years of growth have made the trunk of their religious tree extremely heavy, that's true, but unfortunately it has become very thick and solid with money, power and influence. Regarding religious superstitions, you say that "their demise is a certainty as long as scientific and rational thought progresses." A certainty yes, but in what century? Unfortunately, if you don't push them, they are not going to fall over, especially when they have hundreds of millions of dollars, the media, and vast resources propping them up. You are talking like an optimistic determinist who believes that goodness will triumph in the end. This kind of thinking is indicative of
Page 165-3
one who has been religiously influenced to believe that a kind, beneficent being presiding over the universe will not let evil prevail. But unfortunately it will reign supreme as long as good men and women remain passive. What is that old canard: All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
Recently I received an advertising pamphlet from the largest circulating secular humanist magazine in the world, Free Inquiry. Although I am not an authority on their editorial policies I detect from the pamphlets contents a significantly heightened concern about the inroads being made by biblicists . It is entitled Fighting Back! A Manual for Free-Thinkers and among other things it says, "There's a time for reading philosophy. There's a time for reformulating your own ideas. And there's a time to stand up for your ideals. NOW is the time to stand up and fight back. If not now, when. You are currently facing a serious and immediate threat to your liberties and constitutional rights. Armies of zealots are invading the very fabric of your freedom to live and think as you like. They block abortion clinic entrances. They threaten to control public schools. They censor textbooks and curricula. They use the mainstream media with impunity to infuse fear of free thought. And they indoctrinate the susceptible with notions that are clearly counter to our constitution. (Even more, they are counter to the truth--Ed.). This is no horror story taken from a novel. It's happening now...and it is growing in strength. It's not a lively, heated debate..it's action, deeds--and has even gone so far as murder.... Your freedom and liberties are getting less secure with each passing day. A look at newspapers and TV news makes the vulnerability of your freedom crystal clear...." All of these inroads and assaults are to be expected when Christian organizations are led by people who say that the United Stated Constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion.
My main criticism of this document is that it does not mention the importance of combating the Bible and biblical indoctrination wherever possible. Rather than fighting biblicists at a rather superficial level, wouldn't it be more realistic to demolish the base from which all their leaps spring. Unless the fundamental beliefs of these zealots are altered, weakened, or destroyed, freethinkers are going to find themselves on a never-ending treadmill of running from pillar to post putting out one brushfire after another. Even more importantly fires are going to arise faster than they can be extinguished because there are more of them than us.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #690 from NB of Tucson, Arizona (Part a)
You seem obsessed with me, for some reason, devoting far more space that I personally think I am worth

Editor's Response to Letter #690 (Part a)
Why would you think I am obsessed with you, since you have received considerably less print than many other people. I am inclined to believe you've allowed a subconscious yearning to supplant reality. As far as you receiving more attention than you are worth is concerned, those are your words, not mine.

Letter #690 Continues (Part b)
But I feel I must reply to your comments on my letter #679. First, I know you never claimed specifically to know a lot of Hebrew and Greek, but you are constantly criticizing your readers for their ignorance of the original texts, so what else could I assume.

Editor's Response to Letter #690 (Part b)
You could assume you misinterpreted the point I made. I never said people could not read the original texts, be they in Greek or Hebrew. I said they couldn't be found for certain in order to be read. That's a significant difference. Since everyone agrees the originals no longer exist, there is no way people can know for certain what the original text said, assuming there was an original text.
Letter #690 Continues (Part c)
When I said you "still" had not corrected the incorrect citations, I was noting that the original incorrect citations were in BE#158. By the time of BE#161 you still hadn't commented on them. (Remember--Ed.) you have an incorrect citation for Kings and another for Chronicles, and by my count that makes two. Whether I have commented in a "derogatory" manner is open to interpretation, but then I never accused you (as you did me) of "transparent sophistries".

Editor's Response to Letter #690 Continues (Part c)
As I told you when you made this same point earlier, I was not aware of two incorrect citations on my part. I am now aware of them and they have been corrected. But you keep acting as if I am either too lazy, too stubborn, or too uncritical to make the corrections. If there is anyone with an obsession it is someone who keeps returning to the same arguments in a futile attempt to patch up holes they made earlier. You are commenting in a furtively "derogatory" manner and you know it. And as far as "transparent sophistries" is concerned I would only ask readers to read the contents of this letter as well as your prior one and judge for themselves.



Letter #690 Continues (Part d)
I'm well aware that the Septuagint is just another translation, but it does have some authority. At the very least you could have commented on why you think the Septuagint's translators chose to omit the bit about 2000 "baths", If they weren't using the Masoretic Texts, what texts were they using?

Editor's Response to Letter #690 Continues (Part d)
To begin with, I think you could do with a refresher course in the history of textual formation. How could the Septuagint's translators have used the Masoretic text when the Septuagint was written around 250 BC and the Masora did not come onto the scene until approximately 400 years later.
Second, if I am obligated to comment on why I think the Septuagint's translators chose to omit the bit about 2000 "baths," then you are obligated to explain why so many translations inserted it. And you can start with the Jewish Masoretic Text.
And lastly, as far as I am aware the Septuagint translators were using Hebrew manuscripts to make a Greek translation of the OT. But how does this have any more bearing on the issue than any other translation?

Letter #690 Continues (Part e)
As to 1 Cor. 10:8 ("Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day 23,000"--Num. 25:9 says is was 24,000"). The copyist defense may be old, but some things improve with age. You don't actually disprove that defense, you merely attack those who try to use it. This is the "argumentum ad hominem" and it is far earlier than any issue of BE.

Editor's Response to Letter #690 (Part e)
I'm sorry to differ! I discredited that ploy long ago in no uncertain terms. You, not I, are obligated to prove somebody copied something wrong. The versions that are available and the manuscripts from which they came have the contradictions staring us in the face. And until you produce some tangible, bona fide, hardcore evidence that something was copied incorrectly, the contradictions stand. How do you know the contradictory manuscripts are not an accurate reflections of what the original says? Speculation is not going to save your idol. If speculation is sufficient, then I am of the opinion that I am a reincarnation of Napoleon. Now prove my belief is invalid. The copyist defense does not improve with age; it just ages those who try to prove it.

Letter #690 Continues (Part f)
I plead guilty to a typographical error in citing "Nehemiah 6" instead of "Nehemiah 7. I was using the NIV (silly me) and I only noticed the heading "Nehemiah 6:16" at the top of the page and I didn't notice that Chapter 7 started in the middle of the left-hand column. But I am not publishing a newsletter which purports to debunk the Bible, as you are. I shall, in the future, "heed my own advice", but it is you, not I, who can ill afford to make mistakes in your citations. I am more than willing to admit that I made a mistake, though the correction was obvious and in any case it didn't destroy my argument, a statement that you may not always be able to make.

Editor's Response to Letter #690 (Part f)
You are trying to sound profound and only floundering in the process. But, of course, you did admit you were being silly at one point didn't you. You say that your incorrect citation did not not destroy your argument, but when I make that kind of mistake it does destroy mine. I fail to see the distinction. Perhaps that's because there is none. No one can afford to make mistakes in their citations, neither you nor I. That is not a prerogative bestowed upon those engaged in dialogue. You allege that "it is you, not I, who can ill afford to make mistakes." I couldn't disagree more. Letters to the Editor are no more exempt from this obligation than the writings of the editor himself. We all have a responsibility to be as precise as possible and anyone who sends us a letter with incorrect citations and erroneous comments should feel thoroughly ashamed for having possibly deceived an audience willing to give that writer a hearing. I am not only quite willing to admit any incorrect citations I have made but more than eager to make the needed corrections. My assistant and I proofread, but we can't get them all. Not when you are dealing with a periodical as packed with facts and figures as this one is and when all assistance is voluntary. If I had the staff and money of CRI, you can safely assume incorrect citations would be history.
Moreover, we don't just purport "to debunk the Bible." We do debunk it.
And finally, you say in reference to yourself, "I made a mistake, though the correction was obvious and in any case it didn't destroy my argument, a statement that you may not always be able to make." Run that by me again! I "may not always be able to make" but you will? You are somehow exempt but I am not! Talk about a double standard! If a statement is applicable to me, then it is equally applicable to you. Your "logic" leaves me bewildered



Page 165-5
Letter #690 Continues (Part g)
I have no desire to try to prove how the accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah were "originally written". It is you, not I, who claim infallibility. I only suggest possibilities. It is you who must, in your "ipse dixits"
(arbitrary or dogmatic statements--Ed.), have "truth on your side", while I don't really care all that much about it. When I suggest that the possibility may exist, I don't say that I can prove that such a possibility actually happened. Contrary to your oft-stated assertion, the burden is on you to prove that you are right. Merely deriding your critics won't do the job. The critics may be wrong, but it will take more than your say-so to prove it.

Editor's Response to Letter #690 (Part g)
Keep trying. Maybe eventually you will get it right.
First, when did I ever "claim infallibility"? Give me the exact time and place. I don't want any glittering generalizations. I want a specific citation and you have nearly 14 years of back issues to select from.
Second, you say that you don't really care that much about having truth on your side. Well finally it comes to light! That's the most accurate and candid remark you have made. I can certainly believe that judging from your statements so far. Apparently you finally got something right after all. Now, why can't you be that truthful and open in all of your remarks? You can begin by admitting that you are desperate to unearth or concoct any defense of the Bible that can somehow be made plausible.
Third, you say you have "no desire to try to prove how the accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah were 'originally written'." In other words, you are not going to be so foolish as to try to reconcile them. And I can understand that. I wouldn't want that assignment either. I am in no mood to generate a migraine or foment insomnia.
Fourth, I don't really think you are in any position to accuse others of tossing around "ipse dixits", in view of the fact that they seem to be endemic to your stock and trade.
Fifth, you are still lingering under the delusion, along with many of your cohorts I might add, that the mere concoction of possibilities is sufficient to reconcile contradictions. According to you the mere act of suggesting something could have occurred is enough to prove whatever is suggested is valid and is to be accepted as possible until skeptics or doubters prove it did not happen. For some reason or other the inherent fallacy in this line of reasoning is not getting through to you. Why do I have to keep going back over plowed ground again and again. Don't you understand that this is nothing more than a variation of the "Prove God does not exist" ploy? Why is that so difficult to understand? Worm and squirm as you may, you are never going to escape from the dirt. You are not going to elude my fundamental premise that the burden of proof lies on he who alleges. As I have said so often, it is the death knell of all religious/superstitious thought. If the mere possibility of something happening is all that is necessary, then I could have a field day with the Bible and it supporters. Happy times would, indeed, have arrived. My obligations and research burdens would be drastically reduced, my imagination would be unfettered and scenarios could flow like waters from a mighty stream . I could say Paul was a pedophile since he constantly told people to greet others with a holy kiss. And since Jesus was never married, he regularly visited brothels. Peter was the devil in disguise in light of what Jesus called him and the OT's authors were actually agents of the devil who intentionally wanted to make god look bad by depicting him as they do in the OT. Jesus's mother was a prostitute and Joseph was nothing more than a nice guy trying to cover up for her immorality. Although Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit, that was nothing more than a symbolic reference to having had intercourse without permission. And Moses was allowed to lead the Israelites out of Egypt only because he agreed to sleep with the pharaoh's wife who then persuaded her husband to let them go. To say that my inventiveness could go absolutely wild in this regard is an understatement. The possibilities are almost infinite. Every one of these accounts could have happened. Prove they didn't. In fact, according to you they are to be given credibility until biblicists can prove they didn't occur, which is virtually impossible. Under your "logic," and as a biblicist, you have no right whatever to criticize those who suggest these scenarios because you cannot prove they did not occur.
Additional evidence that you did not internalize what went before is shown in the fact that I told you earlier that even if there had been a copyist error, you have no way of knowing which fact or figure is inaccurate. Consequently you are left with no alternative except to expunge both from the Bible. For example, you noted the fact that 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chron.4:5 are identical except the first says 2000 baths while the second says 3000. You say, in effect, "No problem, somebody just copied something wrong." Sorry, my friend but it's a monumental problem of staggering proportions. You have no way of knowing which was copied wrong, even if we assumed a copyist mistake was the source of the dilemma. And because you have no way of knowing, you are left with no alternative but to extract both from Scripture. One of them is definitely a lie, to put it bluntly, and since there is no way of determining which is the culprit, the only way to retain the Bible's alleged perfection is to delete both. Of course, once you start down this path you are going to all but massacre the Book. By the time you are done, there won't be enough Scripture left of real substance to fill a thimble. With defenders like you the Bible wouldn't need critics like me.

Letter #690 Continues (Part h)
Of course, I never accused you of saying specifically that "everything in the Bible is false because there is a discrepancy between 2000 and 3000 'baths'". I was being facetious and you should have recognized it as such.

Editor's Response to Letter #690 (Part h)
What do you mean you never accused me of saying "everything in the Bible is false because there is a discrepancy between 2000 and 3000 'baths'" . For goodness sake man, don't you have any integrity. Is your blind allegiance to the Bible and Jesus so all consuming that nothing else really matters and the ends justifies the means. You said, and I am quoting verbatim, "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." And I responded by saying, 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?
And please don't try to hawk any of this "I was being facetious" nonsense. Who are you trying to kid? You made a stupid statement and now you are trying to back peddle out of it by saying it was all just a joke. You even went out of your way to make an analogy with the Titanic. Remember what I said long time ago. Pick your words very carefully, like apples from a tree, because what you pick you may have to eat. I have eaten a few in my day and even gagged on a couple; but you learn from experience. I'm not perfect but I'm light years ahead of my competition.

Letter #690 Continues (Part i)
Nevertheless, as a matter of logic, a single counter example is sufficient to disprove an entire argument. If the Bible is supposed to be "inerrant", as the majority of fundamentalists/evangelicals routinely claim, then one single contradiction disproves the whole proposition. You don't need "avalanches", "mountains" and "tidal waves". to prove the errancy of a document for which the claim is made that it is "inerrant". One will do quite nicely, thank you.

Editor's Response to Letter #690 (Part i)
For once we agree. I have no problem with these comments whatever. In fact, that is precisely the point biblical exposers have been making for centuries. Now if you can just get your compatriots to see the accuracy of your observation, my task will have been accomplished. Unfortunately, tidal waves and avalanches are necessary for those who insist on fighting on every point and keeping their finger in the dike like the Dutchman. For millions of biblicists, to concede anything is to concede everything and only by drowning them in a baptism of contradictory revelations can they be "born again." (To be Concluded Next Month)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #691 from TS of Prescott Valley, Arizona
I've just received my introductory copy of BE. It's great!.... Your weekly T.V. shows are like a breath of fresh air here in an area that is saturated with superstition. Too bad you're not shown on a daily basis.


Editor's Response to Letter #691
Thanks for the compliments and I'd like to see our programs shown daily as much as you. You might want to see if more showings during the week can be arranged. Stations respond to interest. We would sure appreciate the assistance.