Issue #166-Letters on: Pro-religious laws, Readers

Biblical Errancy Issue #166-Letters on: Pro-religious laws, Readers Decries CRI, Meaning of 'Again' in John 20:9, Do Prostitutes Enter Heaven, Where is Burden of Proof, Reader Abandons Logic, Compiling the KJV/Its Validity

Nov 10, '08 2:02 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #166 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Oct. 1996

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


COMMENTARY


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

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #690 from NB Continues From Last Month (Part j)
Let me change the subject a bit, and congratulate you for you Editor's Note on the Florida situation on prayer in the schools. Were you also aware that in Alabama, textbooks must now carry a disclaimer that evolution is "a controversial theory"? Or that New Hampshire is considering requiring "parental permission" before teaching evolution? Or that last spring the Tennessee legislature narrowly defeated a law making it illegal to teach evolution as fact? And that the Tennessee Senate approved, by a vote of 37 to 1, a non-binding resolution urging businesses and families to post copies of the Ten Commandments on their walls and to "live by them?" (The only dissenting vote was cast by the Tennessee Senate's only Jew.).... Looks like you've got your work cut out for you.

Editor's Response to Letter #690 (Part j)
No. I would say it looks like anyone who cares about the Constitution, and especially the first amendment to the Bill of Rights, has his work cut out for him. I wasn't so much concerned about prayer in the public schools of Florida as the far broader question of freedom from religion in general. In Saudi Arabia and Iran freedom from religion does not exist. Women must dress in religious garb, prayer is mandatory, as is religious education in the schools. Your taxes are used to support religion, all criticism of religious teachings is suppressed and failure to attend the mosque of your choice is punished one way or the other.. Algeria, Egypt, and Turkey could very well adopt this repressive philosophy and, make no mistake about it, many Christians are surreptitiously working to adopt similar medieval nonsense here. We both know they put "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and "In God we Trust" on our coins. How could one have more blatant violations of the First Amendment?
Your congratulation is most appreciated but you seem to make light of the overall situation. I have no idea what your religious orientation is but you should realize that liberal Christianity and Judaism are viewed by fundamentalists as being in league with atheists, agnostics, and humanists and will no doubt be opposed in the same manner when conditions warrant.. Who knows, they might even be physically treated in the same manner if given the opportunity.

Letter #690 Concludes with an Addendum (Part k)
Having said all that, I am herewith renewing my subscription to BE for another year. Contrary to the popular myth, Voltaire never said "I disagree with every word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", but it is a philosophy to which I heartily subscribe.



Page 166-2
Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #690 (Part k)
A fair and impartial hearing is all we ask. If only all biblicists were of like mind..

Letter #692 from RN of Moscow, Idaho (Part a)
Dear Dennis.... Your treatment by the Christian Research Journal is outrageous but typical of fundie outfits. They exist not to do research but to reinforce the wishful thinking of themselves and their ad-herents. A similar "research" organization is the Institute for Creation Research. Neither the CRI nor the ICR has any standing in the world of scholarship. As the Rev. Nick Cardell, the Unitarian-Universalist minister at Syracuse, N.Y. told me, "There are Bible scholars, and there are fundamentalists."
I had a similar experience recently with the editor of the Spokane, Washington Spokesman-Review . He just threw my carefully researched reply in the waste paper basket.
No doubt Gleason Archer--pardon me, I should have said Dr. Gleason Archer;; the fundies sure like their academic degrees--has already read your exposures of his joke book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Although it was copyrighted in 1982 neither a supplemental volume nor a revised edition has yet appeared. This is strange because in his preface (page 12) he invites readers to send further contradictions and errors--pardon me, difficulties --to his publisher. In the meantime, since 1983, you have published Biblical Errancy every month and your huge book entitled The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy in 1995. DOCTOR Archer obviously has read them but we won't hear anything more from him.

Editor's Response to Letter #692 (Part a)
From what I have been able to judge I think your last sentence is on the mark. Very few fundamentalists are willing to participate in an on-going discussion. Hit and Run is much more their style.

Letter #692 Continues (Part b)
The argument over the word again in John 20:9 ("For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead") in some translations seems to me to be a matter of usage rather than literal meaning. In The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, c1990)--the only worthwhile book ever issued by that publisher--we read ek nekron anastenai = from the dead to rise up.
The Greek prefix an is similar to the Latin prefix re, which Jerome uses in his Vulgate: a mortuis resurgere. We have many English words derived from Latin which begin with the prefix re, like resurgent, resurrect, replace, restore, etc. The prefix re doesn't necessarily mean that the action had taken place before, any more than the word again. For example we can say, "The Book fell off the shelf, but I put it back again" or "Jesus died, but he rose again...."

Editor's Response to Letter #692 (Part b)
Although I am in general agreement with the first part of your letter, this second half is another matter. I think you got lost in the shuffle somewhere, RN, and only succeeded in disproving your own argument. You began by saying "The argument over the word again in John 20:9 in some translations seems to me to be a matter of usage rather than literal meaning." Apparently you are saying the word "again" does not mean the event is being repeated. But then you say, "The Greek prefix an is similar to the Latin prefix re, which Jerome uses in his Vulgate: a mortuis resurgere." The prefix "re" means again and all you are doing is providing evidence that those who used the English word "again" when they translated from the Greek were correct. You further verify the accuracy of their translation by saying, "We have many English words derived from Latin which begin with the prefix re, like resurgent, resurrect, replace, restore, etc." All of these words mean the event is happening more than once which provides additional support for use of the word "again" in the original translation. But then you say, "The prefix re doesn't necessarily mean that the action had taken place before, any more than the word again." It doesn't? I think it does. Your own examples which you subsequently submitted prove it does. You say, "For example we can say, 'The Book fell off the shelf, but I put it back again' or 'Jesus died, but he rose again'." These examples are clearly saying the act is being repeated. If no repetition were involved, then the word "again" could be omitted in each.
The problem with your analysis is that you make comments and then turn around and provide evidence to disprove your own assertions. Moreover, your disproof is far more accurate than your original allegation. I know you have been a long-time supporter of BE and I hope you take these observations in the comradely manner intended.

Letter #692 Concludes (Part c)
A couple of nits. Ad nauseam is correct. Remember, fundamentalists give us nausea.
Instead of the roundabout construction--which you always get correct, I might add--"As far as...is concerned." it is easier and just as correct to say, "As for.... Then you don't have to be concerned at the end. Keep up the good work.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #692 (Part c)
Your observations are well taken. I just hope I can
Page 166-3
remember them. Writing is something you can never
get perfected. It is an on-going process of constant improvement.

Letter #693 from DA of La Puente, California (Part a)
(DA never lays any groundwork for what he is about to discuss but always leaps right in as if we had just spent several hours discussing it. In referring to the contradiction we mentioned between Matt. 21:31 ( "The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you") with 1 Cor. 6:9-10 ("Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God") he begins by saying,
You sent another issue (May, 1996--ED.) so I send you a few corrections. Matt. 21:31 Harots (sic) are more likely to make it into heaven than chief priests. vs. 1 Cor. 6:9-10 sinners will not get into Heaven. Okay, we try again to explain (sic.). a) As a technical point, 1 Cor. 6:9-10 doesn't mention prostitutes, the subject of Matt. 21:31. (Adultry [sic] is the sin of the married, the male in particular, and the prostitute may or may not be married.) Of course, the author would, correctly, insist the proper reading would include prostitutes, and a number of other unmentioned classes of sinners, but you do like to be technical on words, and on such a basis, there is no logical conflict at all.

Editor's Response to Letter #693 (Part a)
Your main point is that 1 Cor. 6:9-10 doesn't mention prostitutes. It doesn't? You'd better check again. What do you think fornicator means. Webster's New World Dictionary says fornication is "any unlawful sexual intercourse, including adultery." You made the mistake of focusing on the word "adultery" when "fornication" is much broader and encompasses the former. Either you erred or you were trying to deceive, because the word adultery is subsumed within the word fornication and for that reason the contradiction stands.

Letter #693 Continues (Part b)
A comparative does not mean either will in fact do anything. It merely ranks. If a plane has 50 seats and 60 people already in them, an announcement that women and children will be ranked ahead of men among any additional customers is perfectly correct, if hardly important since neither will board.

Editor's Response to Letter #693 (Part b)
To begin with, how do you get 60 people into 50 seats. I think that highlights your facility with biblical defense in general In any event, who said a comparative did anything other than rank? I didn't. But later, when these people die, the inaccuracy of the prediction will be borne out, unless, of course, no prostitutes or chief priests will ever enter heaven. Is that what you are contending? If you are, then you are portraying Jesus as something of an incompetent. Why would he say, "The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you" when neither is going into heaven?

Letter #693 Continues (Part c)
When we add (the following verses in--Ed.) context, Matt. 21:32 and 1 Cor. 6:11, we find both are saying the repenting sinner...is not barred from Heaven. The reformed prostitute is getting into Heaven before the unreformed chief priest....

Editor's Response to Letter #693 (Part c)
If the person is reformed, then that person is no longer a prostitute. If that person is no longer a prostitute, then that person is no longer entering heaven as a prostitute. And if that person is no longer entering heaven as a prostitute, then you have completely ignored the original contradiction by simply rewriting the script. Remember the original problem? Matt. 21:31 said harlots will go into the kingdom of heaven while 1 Cor. 6:9-10 says they won't. You tried to resolve the problem by saying a prostitute reformed and then entered heaven; so there is no problem. Yes there is. Because that person reformed, she did not enter heaven as a prostitute. What are you trying to say--Once a criminal always a criminal?

Letter #693 Continues (Part d)
"THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON HE WHO ALLEGES." a) You have heard the sermon note "Argument weak here, yell like hell."? b) tho actually you are quite correct. the alleger must prove the alleged. & you the one alleging the contradiction. You are the one saying there is a green man, to use your earlier example. If I make a statement like the Bible is true, I am the one doing the alleging and under the burden of proof. But contradictions within the Bible, exist or don't exist, without regard to the truth of the Bible. So when you say that X contradicts Y, you are the one who must prove it. Your claim that "...two statements...are contradictory on their face." is not sufficient proof.

Editor's Response to Letter #693 (Part d)
I didn't know I was yelling and I fail to see how my position is weak. Because I ask someone to prove their point, my position is weak? You never cease to amaze me DA. Have you ever thought of enrolling in Rational Thought 101. Then, after your snide remark you turn 180 degrees and say I am "quite correct." How could my argument be weak, when you just admitted I was quite correct?
Then you say that my claim that two statements are contradictory on their face."is not sufficient proof." I beg to differ. When one statement says Jesus is god and another says he is not; when one statement says all men are sinners while another says Job was perfect; when one statement says Jesus was the first person to go to heaven and another says Elijah went there earlier; when one statement says go to all the world and another says go to the Jews only; when one statement says you are saved by works and another says it is by faith alone; when (well you get the idea). When you have contradictions on their face, such as these, I don't have to prove there is a contradiction. That's obvious. You have to prove there isn't.
You allege that when I say that X contradicts Y, I must prove it. No I don't. It's obvious to anyone who is not an intransigent ideologue and can read simple English. Taking your "reasoning" to its logical conclusion, if I said I had an all black white horse and you said that was a logically impossible contradiction, I could turn to you and say, prove it. You are living proof of why children should not be allowed to get near religion. Anything that can warp your thought processes that much is just plain dangerous. Sanity is no longer a factor. The Bible and Jesus have taken over. When you allege that my claim "...two statements...are contradictory on their face." is not sufficient proof, you leave the world of reasoning, rational thought, and logic and enter a phantasmagoric realm of deception, denial, and duplicity in which you really can have an all-black white horse, 2 + 2 can equal 5, a perfect God can be imperfect, a dead man can be living, millions can be saved without accepting a mandatory universal savior etc. Even the most intractable fundamentalists rarely deny there is a contradiction, or what they would call a seeming contradiction, on the face of what I present. Instead, they try to reconcile, rationalize, explain or harmonize the conflict. But they are not so unbalanced as to deny what is staring them in the face. You, on the other hand, appear to be determined to deny even the most elemental laws of logic in your on-going crusade to salvage the Bible. The kind of strategy you are trying to foist on others is very similar to that which is found among inmates of mental institutions. When you tell me you can have an all black white horse or X can be X and not X simultaneously, and when you also tell me that I must prove that you can't, then further discussion becomes useless, because I have no intention of wasting my time talking to the human equivalent of a door. The latter moves, acts as a hindrance, and doggedly shuts things in and out but that's about all.
Letter #693 Continues (Part e)
(In the May issue I stated, "The KJV and the ASV were written when religion ruled the roost and translators didn't have to worry about critics such a myself--Ed.). DA says in response,
a) the writers of the KJV had to worry about critics, like the King, who could throw them in jail among other things. That's a little more serious than a bad book review which is all you can manage.

Editor's Response to Letter #693 (Part e)
What a desperate comparison. The King and his aides hand-picked the men who were on the translation committee. The general views of those chosen to compile the KJV were already known before the committee was even assembled. And yet we are supposed to believe the King is going to imprison men he, himself, chose?
Even more importantly, the King had the final say on what the book contained. After all, it had his name on it, so it had better say what he wanted. Anyone who was not translating to his specifications could have been easily dismissed or outvoted.
Thirdly, and most important of all, you again performed your quick-foot shuffle by shifting the focus from what I said to what you wanted to twist into the issue. If you had read with more concern for care and less for carp, you would have noticed that I said, "translators didn't have to worry about critics such as myself." Was King James a critic such as myself? Was there the remotest possibility he would ever become a critic "such as myself?" Of course not. He was extremely religious and had no intention of criticizing the Bible in manner I propound.
And your final comment is indicative of one who is more concerned with offense than clarity. Are you saying my review is bad or the book being reviewed is bad? I would agree wholeheartedly with the latter but not the former. If the former would you be so kind as to provide some citations that would make this observation valid. In true biblicist style, you just saw what you incorrectly perceived to be a good opportunity to make a snide comment with little regard for lucidity.

Letter #693 Continues (Part f)
b) The KJV was written under a set of rules, the 1st of which was political. (That the officially approved Bishops Bible was to be the approved text on points of dispute.) The idea that the KJV was free from political taint has to be rejected. If anything, it probably suffered more from politics than more recent works.



Page 166-5
Editor's Response to Letter #693 (Part f)
I have no doubt the KJV was wrapped in religious politics and various individuals and groups were pushing for their version of every verse. But all of them had a pro-Bible perspective. None of them were openly critical of the Bible per se. So we are not talking about inter-religious politics; we are talking about the politics associated with the KJV's composition vis a
vis potential critics and detractors such as myself. And because the influence of critics such as myself in 1611
was significantly less than exists today, the Book's translators did not have to worry about "writing out" or excising contradictions by adding to, subtracting from, or altering the text. Because these translators were not "under the microscope" from people such as myself nearly as much as would be true today, expediency could be of less concern than fidelity to manuscripts.
In your last sentence, you say "if anything, it probably suffered more from politics than more recent works." As far as inter-religious politics is concerned, that may or may not be true. I wasn't at the negotiations, either then or now, so I am in no position to pontificate. Apparently you were.
On the other hand, as far as the Bible versus critics such as myself is concerned, I have little doubt what you say is false. The NIV, the Living Bible, and the Bible in Basic English are prime examples of books composed with extra-biblical politics in mind. If you don't wish to believe what I am saying, that is your choice. But there is no doubt in my mind, based upon the words, phrases, and paragraph structure employed, that the translators had people such as myself, skeptical Christians, and people of other religious viewpoints in mind when they assembled them. That is not quite true, however, for such books as the RSV and the ASV.

Letter #693 Continues (Part g)
(After going back over material we discussed in May regarding whether or not "replenish" means people lived before Adam, DA says--Ed.),
"Good to have YW to supply a little Hebrew for us (Letter 671).... I of course point out he is telling you what has been said before, that your beloved contradiction doesn't exist.
Of course, a sizable number of Hebraic translators made a..mistake." They were/are human. They goof (sic). In a way, you seem to insist the KJV is perfect. What do we have to do to convince you it is hopelessly inferior to scads of more recent Bibles.

Editor's Response to Letter #693 (Part g)
First, as we noted in May, YW claims that the Hebrew should not have been translated into the word "replenish." In effect, he is saying he knows Hebrew better than some Hebrew scholars in so far as this translation is concerned. Maybe he does; but then, again, maybe he doesn't. That is an issue to be settled between biblicists themselves and is not my problem. All I am saying now is what I said then. The word "replenish" generates a contradiction.
Second, when you say my "beloved contradiction doesn't exist" you are whistling through the graveyard. You only have YW's word to go on. You are telling me "a sizable number of Hebraic translators made a..mistake" and you admit you don't even know Hebrew. Rather presumptuous, don't you think? What are your qualifications as a Greek/Hebrew translator? None!
Third, I didn't know it was my beloved contradiction. I have no more affection for it than thousands of others that are readily available. Why would I show it any more attention than the rest? Do you have any data to substantiate this gratuitous observation or is it based on mere "gut reaction"?
Fourth, you say I "seem to insist the KJV is perfect." When did I say the KJV is perfect or even imply as much. I said there is virtually nothing in the KJV that is not in one or more modern versions. You and some of your apologetic compatriots try to give people the impression that this translation disagreement is a battle between the KJV in one corner and all the modern versions in the other, which is far from reality. How many times have I listed one or more 20th century versions of the Bible that corroborate the KJV translation of this or that? The KJV is by no means all alone and if you wish to retain some integrity I would suggest that you stop trying to paint it as such. You are more than willing to throw it in the dumpster every time you encounter a bind.
Fifth, you say, "What do we have to do to convince you it is hopelessly inferior to scads of more recent Bibles." It is? Name some of these scads. You might want to make that argument to Dr. Peter Ruckman, David Otis Fuller, Edward Hills, John Burgon, Robert Barnett and Norman Ward, all of whom are King James Only advocates and have written extensively on the fallacy of the point you just flippantly proffered. From their perspective it is the only one that is accurate. All the others that should be dumpsterized. I am by no means as willing to discard the King James as you are when it comes to biblical analysis. Just because you want to throw it out of the building don't expect me to open the window.

Letter #693 Continues (Part h)
Of course YW has his own errors when he ventures past his knowledge.
(He says--Ed/), "profit-driven Bible translators who have their own agenda.." This is something of a contradiction. Unless their agenda is profit (quite possible, but not what YW seems to have in mind), they are either not profit-driven, or do not have their own agenda.
"..and know it's all a load of crap.." After his experiences, he ought to realize they know nothing of the sort. People can be very firm in believing what they want to in spite of the most obvious facts. You and I know that (tho we have a minor disagreement over who is the pig-headed jackass.)

Editor's Response to Letter #693 (Part h)
Your criticisms of what YW said are between you and him. He might decide to respond. Your final remark is more in the nature of an admission than an accusation, wouldn't you agree. After all you did admit to being a nut in Part j of this letter (in the next issue), didn't you? Although that kind of characterization is quite prevalent in your letters, I think you have pretty well located to whom it aptly applies. After all, who am I to contest an observation made by someone who is in a better position to know than anyone.
(To Be Concluded Next Month)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #694 from RN of Moscow, Idaho
Dear Dennis. I enclose a check for $20 for which please send me a couple of your videos.... We hope to show them on the public access channel on the local TV cable. (What follows is my analysis of "THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS"--Ed.)
Most Christian bookstores sell what is known as "harmonies of the gospels." These books purport to put the contents of the four gospels into one continuous account. This is supposed to serve two purposes: one, to be a sort of "reader's digest" of the gospels for people who have little time to read; two, to smooth out, or "harmonize," the contradiction among the gospels.
Although several dozen of these harmonies are currently available, new ones continue to be written in the hope that someone will finally determine what "really" happened in the gospel stories. But this is a vain hope, because back in the middle of the second century A.D. the gospels already contradicted each other. And if they were not the original manuscripts, they were certainly very early copies of them.
So about the year 160 a Christian writer called Tatian compiled the very first "harmony of the gospels." He picked out the events and sayings that appealed to him and left out the rest. But other Christians did not agree with his choices, so they have been playing the same, old, no-win game of "harmonizing the gospels" ever since. The gospels cannot be harmonized because they have contradicted each other from the very beginning.
(What follows is my analysis entitled LIES ABOUTTHE BIBLE--Ed.)
LIE: The Bible is without error or contradiction
FACT: The Bible is filled with errors and contradictions from cover to cover.
LIE: The Bible consists of exactly 66 books.
FACT: The Jewish Bible has 39 books; the Catholic Bible, 72; some Protestants Bibles, 66. The 1611 KJV has 72 books in it.
LIE: The Bible is the "Word of God."
FACT: Nowhere does the Bible make such a claim
LIE: The OT contains many prophecies about Jesus of Nazareth.
FACT: There is not a single reference to Jesus in the OT
LIE: The OT teaches that there is life after death.
FACT: In the entire OT no one dies and goes to heaven. And there is no hell in the OT religion. Death is the end. (Except in Daniel, ca. 167 B.C., the latest book in the OT)
Beware of evangelists who lie about the Bible. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They just want your mind and your money.