167 letters from readers: versions, KJV, contradictions

Biblical Errancy Issue #167-Letters on: KJV, Recent Versions & Validity, Attacking my Motives, Wednesday Resurrection Defense, God's powers, Nothing New Under Sun, Baptize or Not, Freebie to Prisoner, Get on Internet




COMMENTARY


This issue will continue our on-going policy of devoting an entire issue to letters from some of our readers.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #693 from DA of La Puente, California Continues from Last Month (Part i)
The presence of critics such as yourself produces more accurate Bibles, not faking it. Faking it is far more common when religion rules the roost. Nobody was going to challenge the fake, so the faker could expect to get away with it. By contrast, the presence of critics means that the faker is being watched. How is he to get his fake accepted at all? You will be pouncing on it 1st thing. It is perhaps ironic that those attempting to destroy the Bible are in fact also improving it. Each act of criticism is a spur to show the criticism unjustified. & (sic) sometimes those spurs work. Errors are detected, and corrected. The modern Bible is more accurate in part because of generations of atheists who have said it was inaccurate.

Editor's Response to Letter #693 (Part i)
What a speech! Looks good on paper. Too bad it has almost nothing to do with reality as is so true of nearly everything else you concoct. Atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other freethinkers do not make a habit of going through ancient manuscripts and documents to find errors in biblical translations. Most have little or no interest in the Book and many find it to be childish, superstitious, fanciful, silly, boring, repetitious, and contradictory. Just getting them to read it is quite a challenge as I have discovered to my chagrin. For many, the less they have to do with the Bible the better they like it. So, for you to say critics such as myself are finding mistakes in ancient manuscripts and the like and causing them to be corrected is erroneous.
Second, the absence of people such as myself in the days of King James caused translations to be more in tune with the manuscripts, warts and all. The incentive to alter what the manuscripts were saying just wasn't there, even though the language was often raw and the inconsistencies anything but rare.
Third, "faking it" is not the problem; expediency is. In many respects the earliest translators were more honest and closer to the manuscripts being translated than those who imbibed much later. Because so many of the manuscripts were plagued by repulsive terminology and contradictory data that was becoming increasingly noticed by growing numbers of biblicists and non-biblicists alike, more and more apologists, especially in this century, decided to create new versions of the Bible in order to remove or ameliorate many embarrassments. Some 20th century translators have been much more involved in this skullduggery than others.
Fourth, another major factor accounting for so many recent translations is the failure of various groups and denominations to arrive at theological agreements. In order to foster their own particular theology, different denominations have seen fit to commission their own version of the Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses denomination is a prime example. Theology rather than concern for textual accuracy was the prime motivation. The Bible had to be brought into line with what they wanted
Page 167-2
taught.
Fifth,you say,"The modern Bible is more accurate in part because of generations of atheists who have said it was inaccurate." What modern Bible? What are you talking about? Are you talking about a currently circulating Bible that is an exact replica of the alleged original? If so, where is this modern Bible? I need a copy immediately. Apparently you are referring to one of the versions on the market. In that case, please, by all means, tell me which one is "the" Bible. Again, you appear to have not read our back issues. Did you read the issues that exposed the clashes that exist between the major versions on the market? I think not. If you did, then tell us which is an exact copy of "THE BIBLE"?
And lastly, you say, "The modern Bible is more accurate...." More accurate than what? The King James? Says who? Do you know that there is almost no part of the King James that is not duplicated in one or more recent translations.

Letter #693 from DA Concludes From Last Month (Part j)
Letter #674. Most distressing. Not because JS calls me a nut. Of course I am. Otherwise I wouldn't be writing you. But he says you used to be less willing to attack people's motivation. In other words, you have gone downhill with time. Not only is attacking motivation a classic fallacy, you are decidedly inaccurate in guessing the motivation of those who write you.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #693 (Part j)
You admit you are a nut! Well, at least we don't have that hurdle to clear. You say you are a nut; other-
wise, you wouldn't be writing to BE. I can readily un-
derstand your motivation. You are seeking therapy and you've come to the right place for precisely the ill that ails you. Our first prescription is that you read all of our back issues followed by a long rest. You will need it in order to recover from the shock of exiting the realm of fantasy and entering the sphere of reality. For many that is more than their constitution can endure. Hopefully you can bridge the chasm without too much trauma. That should certainly go a long way toward expelling that biblical malignancy currently in posses-sion of your psyche.
Secondly, apparently you didn't notice that I made no comment in support of the observation by JS, and the reason is quite simple. I wasn't aware of any change in the policy I have followed for nearly 14 years. Being involved in motivations, ulterior motives, and psychological stimulations have never been much of a factor on my radar screen. They are not only too hard to fathom but too irrelevant to consider. BE can be employed for self-induced therapy, but its author does not view himself as a psychologist or psychiatrist.
Letter #695 from NB of Tucson, Arizona (Part a)
Dear Dennis. I hadn't intended to write you, but two things have happened since I last wrote, which I feel should be brought to your attention. First, in con-nection with your response to letter #684 (Part c), BE #164-2. Yes, I know you have dealt with the question of how Jesus could be in the tomb "3 days and 3 nights," if he was crucified on a Friday and rose again on Sunday. I would first ask you: where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was crucified on a Friday? An-swer: nowhere. I bring this up because the other day I happened to be surfing the cable TV channels, and on one of the local public access channels, there, of all people, was Jimmy Swaggart, the prototypical charlatan preacher. And yet, he had the most plausible explanation of the "resurrection dilemma" I've ever heard: JESUS WASN'T CRUCIFIED ON A FRIDAY AT ALL; HE WAS CRUCIFIED ON A WEDNESDAY. Why do I say this? Well, as Swaggart pointed out, Jesus was actually crucified on what was called "The High Sabbath of the Passover". This was the evening before the start of Passover, which began (and still begins) on the 14th day of Nisan, not necessarily on a Friday.... I say again: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED ON A FRIDAY? I have seen your 'explanation many times in BE over the years, but not once have you addressed the explanation that Swaggart made. Can you do so now?

Editor's Response to Letter #695 (Part a)
Dear NB. I'd be glad to, although we thoroughly covered this issue and the Wednesday defense long ago. You might want to read the appropriate issues.
First, you ask where does it say he was killed on a Friday. Well we might begin with the 15th chapter of Mark which, while describing the crucifixion, says in the 42nd verse,
"And now when the evening was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath."
Since the sabbath is Saturday, the day before the sabbath would be Friday. After describing the cru-cifixion Luke 23:54 says,
"And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on."
And while describing the crucifixion John 19:31 says,
"The Jews, therefore, be-cause it was the preparation, that the bodies should not re-main upon the cross on the Sabbath day ... besought Pilate that ... they might be taken away."
So Friday was the big day, not Wednesday. That's why Christians celebrate Good Friday, not Good Wednesday.
Second, what on earth is the "High Sabbath of the Passover"? I can't find that phrase anywhere. It's not in Strong's Concordance. Either I missed something or Swaggart decided the way to escape the problem was to concoct a concept. What are you talking about and where is it in Scripture?
Third, as I showed long ago the Sabbath was always on a Saturday, except for some special sabbaths dis-
Page 167-3
cussed in the Book of Leviticus that only occurred in the 7th month. Since Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover which only occurred during the first month, these special (possibly non-Saturday) sabbaths are ruled out and only the normal Saturday sabbaths are
ruled in.

Letter#695 Continues (Part b)
The second thing has to do with the problem of "an
omnipotent God being able to set a task which he him-
self is unable to do" , such as creating a rock so heavy not even God can lift it, or creating a two-sided trian-gle, etc. Setting aside the fact that two-sided triangles do in fact exist in "Elliptic Geometry," you had a pretty good go-around on this with my friend.

Editor's Response to Letter #695 (Part b)
Before we proceed I would rather not set aside your assertion that "two-sided triangles do in fact exist." I was a math major in college for a short while and I never saw a two-sided triangle in any kind of geometry, plane, solid or otherwise. According to my Webster's New World Dictionary a "triangle" is specifically defined as "a geometrical figure having three angles and three sides. Any three-sided or three cornered figure ...etc." How could you have a two-sided figure which by definition is three-sided? How could you have a two-sided three-sided figure? Sort of like having an all black, white horse, isn't it? The lengths to which some people will go to defend that book are downright unnerving.

Letter #695 Concludes (Part c)
But what brings this up now is that as I was watch-ing the proceedings of the House of Representatives on C-SPAN on July 11, Rep. Toby Roth was droning on about some obscure bill, when he suddenly chose to reveal that he was taught by Jesuits, and the Jesuits taught him that "not even God can square a circle". I almost dropped out of my chair.... They're the last persons I would expect to assert that there is something that "not even God can do." ...I'm wondering if there is any light that you can shed on this notion of the Jesuits that there is something that their God can't do.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #695 (Part c)
Rather than dropping out of your chair, rising to cheer would have been more appropriate. Isn't it nice to know that the Jesuits are not quite as divorced from reality as they're depicted?

Letter #696 from DA of La Puente, Cali-fornia (Part a)
(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 be-fore 1969. Rev. BB provided a weak response and DA provided even weaker support of Rev. BB. DA now wishes to redeem his ego by saying--Ed.),
Eccle. 1:9
"...nothing new under the sun."
You claim that "For the first time in history man set foot on the moon. That's what's new! That's what changed!"
So what? As the poet put it, "I went out the same door I came in by." What has really changed? You get up in the morning, go to work, come home, go to bed. How has going to the moon changed your life? Or changed much of anything? It was just a great feat, not a change. But when we classify it as a feat, we find that great feats happen all the time. The details may vary, but they are indeed
"nothing new under the sun."
A man goes to the moon. A man sails around the world. Both just feats, and both nothing new, despite never having been done before.

Editor's Response to Letter #696 (Part a)
I say "that's what changed" and you respond with "so what." Instead of denying it's new, you focused on discounting its importance. Apparently you are un-able to realize that its importance is irrelevant. I don't know what its value is and for purposes of this discus-sion I couldn't care less. Who cares how it has changed our lives? I said it was new. I didn't say it was important. As usual you employed your fast foot shuffle and changed the point at issue. You say "it was just a great feat, not a change." How wrong can you get! You are unbelievable DA. It's been years since I have confronted such an intractable ideologue. You will argue with blatant facts staring you in the face. You don't even have enough savvy to know when to hold them and when to fold them. If you are going to make a stand for Jesus, believe me this is not the place to dig in. It certainly was a change. Footprints were left on the moon's surface and they weren't there before. You are trying to make the issue one of importance as opposed to innovation. I don't care how important it was. It was new, wasn't it!
And to top it all off, your final comment is the mother of all brain twisters--"both nothing new, despite never having been done before." You want us to believe that although its never been done before it's not new? Speaking of the moon, sometimes your thought processes are so far out in space I can't help but feel the astronauts took your reasoning skills on their ride to moon and left them there.

Letter #696 Continues (Part b)
(On page 3 in the 152nd Issue I noted the conflict
between Jesus' comment in Matt. 28:19 (
"Go ye there-fore 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 I 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 sought to reconcile this contradiction in issue #162 and now wishes to return to the encounter by saying--Ed.),
Among other things, your conflict depends on "baptise" being the top priority, indeed, sole priority. We have no showing of that. Quite the contrary.
If a CEO gave a sales pep talk and told everybody to sell, sell, sell, we would routinely assume he is not talking to his accounting department, who are expected to remain at their desks and do non-selling activities, as are many other employees. Even within the sales de-partment, many told to sell are expected to be doing other duties either full or part time. No contradiction exists when the CEO then selects as employee of the month somebody who has done very little sales.
Jesus fits in nicely as the CEO here. He issues or-ders to baptise, preach, give alms, love god, man.... There is, accordingly no clear requirement that a partic-
ular follower, Paul in this case, has to follow a particu-
lar order to the exclusion of the others, and Paul tells us his prime directive was to preach.

Editor's Response to Letter #696 (Part
b-)
1 don't know which is worse, DA, your wholly un-
textual assumptions, your poor logic, your bad writing, or your bogus analogies.
First, where does "priority," much less top priority, come into the picture? The text says nothing whatever about any order of magnitude of importance. My argu-
ment has nothing to do with, and is in no way dependent upon, "baptise being the top priority, indeed, sole priority."
Second, from whence comes this departmentaliza-tion nonsense? Jesus gave an order to his followers in Matt. 28:19 and there is nothing whatever in the text to justify your contention that his instruction was only in-tended for a certain segment. Where did Jesus make this division or distinction?
Third, if what you said were true, then Jesus spe-cifically told some group or other that they were not to engage in baptizing. Where, when, and to whom did he say that? If he did not single out anyone or any group, then Matt. 28:19 must have been intended for all his followers.
Fourth, since we are on this poorly conceived anal-ogies business, we should note that you say, "No con-tradiction exists when the CEO then selects as em-ployee of the month somebody who has done very lit-tle sales." What does employee of the month and volume of sales have to do with the issue? How are they analogous? And if anything we wouldn't be talking about "employee of the month;" we would be talking about "sales employee of the month." Remember we are talking about one mission-baptism-or in the case of your analogy sales. And that excludes the accounting department. But you tried to cover yourself with some more fancy footwork by saying the "CEO then selects as employee of the month somebody who has done very little sales." In other words, somebody in the ac. counting department who is also selling. But to the extent that he is selling he is not an accountant. You are back to having everyone do everything and have nullified your whole argument.
Fifth, you say, "There is, accordingly no clear re. quirement that a particular follower, Paul in this case, has to follow a particular order to the exclusion of the others." Oh I am afraid there is, unless you can prove the instructions given by Jesus in Matt. 28:19 only ap-plied to a specific group of his followers and excluded Paul. And that you can't do because no part of Scrip-ture will support you.
Sixth and lastly, your final sentence only adds to your sophistic pile. What Paul said about preaching is not even the issue. It is neither relevant nor material, while what he said about baptism is both relevant and material. Always trying to channel us down back al-leys, side roads, detours, and off the beaten paths, aren't you! Tangents are your speciality. Paul said he was not sent to baptise when Jesus sent every follower to do just that according to Matt. 28:19.

Letter #696 Continues (Part c)
(Still trying to dig his way out DA seeks to defend his statement in the June issue that since "Paul was not present at Matt. 28:19, I was under the burden of showing that Paul was in fact ordered to baptize." I re-
plied by saying, "So Paul was not present at Matt. 28? Well, 1, 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." Now DA says--Ed.),
Possibly. Possibly not. In each case we need to decide if the orders in question still apply, and that can't be done on an automatic basis.
You of course like to call this dodging, but it is the normal practice with any set of orders. They routinely deal with both the temporary and the permanent. Some of the orders are void after a certain time, do not apply to certain groups, etc. It can be dodging, but it is also the normal practice of all mankind and can't be sus-tained as a contradiction.

Editor's Response to Letter #696 (Part c)
Boy are you trying to tip toe past this one! You know you have a marvelous facility for getting yourself out of a hole only to fall into a canyon. Remember when I told you, "Don't you think any further ahead
Page 167-5
than the next sentence?" But you have done went and did it again. The principle you just laid down will play havoc with the Bible and its defenders. There are liter-ally thousands of maxims, rules, instructions, and teachings in the Bible that would be up for grabs, if your policy were to prevail. How are you going to separate that which applies to everyone from that which applies only to those being addressed at that particular time? What's your criteria and who is going to make that determination? You will all but destroy the author-ity and effectiveness of biblical teachings in thousands of instances. In far too many cases, if someone did not like a teaching being thrown in his or her face, they could easily respond by saying, it only applies to, or was only meant for, people being addressed at that par-
ticular time thousands of years ago. It's no longer ap-plicable. Don't you realize you are arguing for situa-tional ethics which fundamentalists deplore. But, then, maybe you are not a fundamentalist, although I am in-clined to believe otherwise.
Secondly, when Jesus gives instructions to his fol-lowers, they are intended to apply to all of his follow-ers, unless you can find Scripture to the contrary. Matt. 28:19 is a good example of a universal command. There is nothing in the verse or related verses that would restrict the baptismal instruction to a select group of people. If you say it did not apply to all of his followers, then I could apply the same principle to most of the NT and nearly all of his admonitions. With defenders like you the Bible wouldn't need critics like
me-

Letter #696 Concludes (Part d)
(On the fifth page in the June issue I asked DA, "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?" DA says--Ed.),
First Cor. 1:11-17 seems to say that.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #696 (Part d)
I can't help but notice that you inserted the word seems" because you are not very convinced of your own argument. And with good reason because in the 14th and 15th verses to which you allude Paul gives a more explicit reason by saying,
"I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I baptized in mine own name."
He does not want people to think he is baptizing in his own name rather than the name of Christ. In other words he is more concerned with people thinking he is getting a "bighead" than dividing the church.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #697 from FN of Huntsville, Texas
(In the August issue FN sent us a letter which said, "I am a freethinker incarcerated in the Texas penal sys-tem which doesn't pay its inmates. We are provided the basics only, except for orthodox religious literature.... I am unable to compensate you at this time.... Any issue outdated or otherwise in any condition of your "Biblical Errancy" publication will be read and shared with the few freethinkers here..." I re-sponded by saying, We sympathize with your plight and for that reason have decided to give you a six month subscription gratis. This prompted FN to send the following letter--Ed.).
Thanks for the six months. It's not often that I even receive an answer much less a book, magazine, or newsletter. There seems to be, even among freethinkers, an attitude that only misfits are in prison and if the state has'em in there they need to be and do not warrant consideration any longer. With the non-thinkers I understand--but when freethinkers act in such a manner it's surprising....
"Of course, every man in jail is in favor of liberty, as a prejudice,--but it takes a far grander man who is not in jail, to fight and suffer for a man who is." R.G. Ingersoll.

Editor's Response to Letter #697
FN. I don't know why you are in there and am not really concerned. But I do know there is an extremely high probability you will be out with the rest of us someday. So, there is no sense in letting your mind go to waste, when you have time to learn the truth. It could very well help forestall a possible reincarceration. If we had the money, we would distribute more free subscriptions to inmates. Serving time doesn't mean you exit life.

Letter #698 from EE of Dayton, Ohio
... I pray and hope that there will be more Biblical Errancy programs in the future. Your programs are definitely what should be taught during Wednesday evening and Sunday morning Bible classes. I believe that the information you express on your program may get many upset but do not let their words upset you or revile you. Isa. 51:7 and Luke 6:22 explain that we should not fear the reproach of men, neither be afraid of their revilings or abuse.
"Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you and cast out your name as evil."
May Peace Be Upon You.

Editor's Response to Letter #698
Dear EE. You are living proof that some Christians not only watch our TV programs but definitely feel they are needed. Showing programs on TV is not an exer-
cise in futility by any means, as some have alleged. I often hear freethinkers assert that talking to biblicists is a waste of time because "you can't change those people." I have never agreed with that contention and never will. As I have said before. I have never been to an atheist meeting in my life in which nearly all of the participants did not come out of some sort of religious background. And if they can make it over the wall so can others.


EDITOR'S NOTE: I would STRONGLY encourage everyone in sympathy with the goals and philosophy of this periodical to buy a computer and a modem, obtain a service provider, and learn how to carry our cause to the world of biblicism by going on-line. Let's face it. Most freethinkers have very little, if any, contact with Bible adherents. Those are not the circles in which we circulate. But with the Internet a whole new world is opened up in which you can meet hundreds of firm believers in the Bible, whom you certainly don't know and would never meet otherwise, but who are greatly in need of the information only you can provide. I urge all of our subscribers and readers to make an effort to learn how it's done. Believe me; it's well worth the time if you are into dialogue. Four years ago I thought of the Internet as little more than a fad and I had almost no interest in pursuing it further, after some brief encounters. Boy, have I changed. I am now having some difficulty trying not to become excessively involved. I am constantly getting electronic mail (e-mail) requests from my subscribers to provide them with information to debate some apologist with whom they are interacting on the Internet. Many of you have been with me for years and couldn't help but have a vast and potent body of anti-bible information that other freethinkers could use. Many of you have bought and read my book as well as scores of issues and audio tapes. Some of you have used our material to develop your own tactics for biblical encounters. Some of you just love to debate scripture. No matter what your inclination or capabilities, those battling the religious crowd on the Internet need your assistance and what better way to help than by joining in. You are badly needed, because our troops are significantly outnumbered.
While on the Internet you can go into Christian newsgroups, or what are really bulletin boards, and post some powerful stuff. You can respond when they reply, pick a topic where you think they are weak, and pounce on points where they have left themselves open. You can focus on the Bible, Jesus, atheism, humanism, or any one of hundreds of other religious topics. It is all up to you. Some of the apologists I've encountered know the book, so you will have to do your homework. But once you are on-line you can debate people throughout the world on virtually every religious/biblical topic imaginable. The sky is the limit. BE could even act as a clearing house should you so desire by providing your e-mail address to others of our persuasion who need your assistance or vice versa. We are in terrible need of teamwork and the Internet is an excellent way to proceed. And don't think you are too old or inept to learn. It is not that hard. Nor is it that expensive. You'll need to purchase a computer that can use a modem, a modem (a device that allows you to communicate to the world through your telephone line), and pay a monthly bill to a service provider who will hook you up with thousands. Well known providers are America On-Line and CompuServe. You can possibly avoid the monthly bill by finding a library or some other agency that provides the service free. But by all means get involved. This whole enterprise has real potential.
Even as I was writing this, I received some e-mail from a strong supporter outlining his response to a biblicist who claimed biblical critics interpret Scripture too literally. His response was good and could be relayed to other BE supporters to use as the need arises.