Issue #171-The Bible Has the Answer by Morris & Cl

Biblical Errancy Issue #171-The Bible Has the Answer by Morris & Clark (8 Points) (Part 1), "Why I Am Not a Christian" by a Reader, 8 Pts. Against Liberal Christianity, Dealing with Liberalism, BE has Website

Nov 10, '08 2:37 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #171 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Mar. 1997

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


COMMENTARY



This month's issue will begin an analysis of the apologetic work entitled The Bible Has the Answer by apologists Morris and Clark.



REVIEW

THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWER (Part 1)--Nearly two decades ago one of the leaders of the Institute of Creation Research, Henry Morris, and a companion, Martin Clark, wrote a book in which are contained the answers to over 100 questions regarding the validity of the Bible. Although Morris has a distinct interest in "science" as he views it, the range of questions contained within the work is considerably broader. The work has occasionally been quoted in BE, but a thorough critique of that which has not been addressed is long overdue. Although Morris and Clark apparently view themselves as capable defenders of the Bible, a rather substantial body of evidence exists to the contrary. The most appropriate means by which to prove as much is to unveil the sizable number of fallacies found within their apologetic work.

First, they are asked on the very first page, "How do you know the Bible is true?" They begin by saying they know the book is valid because of the large number of accurate prophecies contained therein, a defense which we debunked long ago. Then they say, "Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientists confirmed them experimentally." Some of those listed are: the roundness of the earth (Isa. 40:22), the almost infinite ex-tent of the sidereal [of or pertaining to the stars--Ed.] universe (Isa. 55:9), the vast number of stars (Jer. 33:22), the equivalence of matter and energy (Heb. 1:3), the law of increasing entropy (the disorder or randomness of a system tends to increase--Ed.) (Psa. 102:25-27), the paramount importance of blood in life processes (Lev. 17:11), the atmospheric circulation (Eccle. 1:6), the gravitational field (Job 26:7), and many others."

In true apologetic style Morris and Clark chose to interpret some verses as they desired, ignored those which are contradictory, and dwelled on those which are quite obvious to even a child. With these considerations in mind, let's address their examples.

(a) Isa. 40:22 ("It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth") may imply the earth is round but our illustrious scholars ignore the fact that Isaiah also said earlier in 11:12, "he...shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." If the world is round or a globe, how can it have corners? If one is to be interpreted literally why isn't the other?

They also conveniently ignore the misstatement found in Matt. 4:8 which says, "Again, the devil taketh Jesus up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world." How could any-one see the entire world from the top of a mountain, no matter how high it may be?

(b) Isa. 55:9 ("For as the heavens are higher than the earth....") doesn't say anything substantive about the extent of the universe. It merely says one is higher than the other. If I say the roof in my house is higher than my floor, that is hardly equivalent to alleging "the almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe." One can say without fear of exaggeration that that is stretching things a bit.

(c) Jer. 33:22 ("As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured....") is rather obvious to anyone who takes time to go out on a clear night and stare into the sky. Not much illumination is required for that observation.

(d) To say that Heb. 1:3 ("Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high") proves the equivalence of matter and energy is little short of incomprehensible. The verse is both irrelevant and immaterial.

(e) Psa. 102:25-27 ("Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure. Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou are the same, and thy years have no end.") doesn't prove anything definite in regard to entropy because the latter is more in the nature of a process than an event, while these verses could easily entail a sudden alteration. When you change your clothes or raiment that could be considered a sudden occurrence as could be the process by which the earth and the heavens perish scripturally. The verses are just too indefinite, too vague, to definitely allege they are asserting entropy in some manner.

(f) Lev. 17:11 ("For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul") is not particularly informative or insightful either because the results of someone bleeding without surcease are obvious to all. Simple medical data assures us blood is needed for life.

Secondly, Morris and Clark slipped in the word "processes" earlier in order to make it sound as if Leviticus was ahead of its time and making reference to the circulatory system. The verse says blood is necessary for life, but nowhere does it say blood circulates throughout the body and contributes to "life processes" such as breathing, feeling, and thinking.

And thirdly, the entire verse has been twisted in such a manner as to serve apologetic motives. Leviticus is contending that the loss of blood atones for sins and by being shed it provides life to the soul. In that ethereal and secondary sense it is providing life for the flesh. Leviticus is referring to a kind of spiritual life giving, not the kind of life provided via blood flowing from the heart to the kidneys to the liver to the intestines, etc.

(g) Eccle. 1:6 ("The wind blows to the south, and goes around to the north; round and round goes the wind and on its circuits the wind returns") is another one of those verses that is nowhere near as perceptive as Morris and Clark would have us believe. Any reasonably intelligent child knows that atmospheric winds blow in different directions and return.

(h) And lastly, it is also mentally taxing to determine how Job 26:7 ("He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing") proves the Bible taught the existence of a gravitational field. It would be considerably easier to prove a field of gravitation exists by simply pushing something off a table.

The lengths to which the imaginations of apologists will go to assist their belief in biblical prescience with reference to science are truly something to behold. As with messianic prophecy, they have scoured scripture with a fine tooth comb and gleaned every verse or group of connected verses that could possibly be warped in such a manner as to serve their ends.

Second, Morris and Clark address the following question on page 4: In what sense and to what extent is the Bible the Inspired Word of God? As part of their answer they say, "Those modern-day preachers and professors of religion who seem to take delight in finding supposed mistakes in the Bible thus in effect are calling God a liar!" This comment would only have validity if the Bible were in fact the word of the divine being in whom religionists place so much faith. Until they prove as much, which can't be done because of a veritable ocean of evidence to the contrary, this comment remains pure nonsense. Morris and Clark are following in the footsteps of many apologetic predecessors by assuming the very point in dispute. They assume the Bible is the word of a supreme being and proceed from there, when more than enough evidence is available to destroy their premise. If anyone is being called a liar, its those who compiled the book to start with.

Third, on page 7 they say, "Science has never disproved any statement of the Bible--rather, most scientists have simply repudiated it because of their unwillingness to submit to God's authority as Creator and coming Judge."

(a) This is typical of the bogus rationale so often employed by apologists. They seek to blame the messenger rather than reality creating the message. To begin with, as we have so often said, scientists are not required to disprove anything. He who alleges must prove. When the Bible says people rose from the dead or a stick turned into a serpent or a woman turned into a pillar of salt or a donkey talked or a woman was made from a man's rib or the sun stood still, it is obligated to prove as much. And until the requisite proof is forthcoming, these contentions remain, what they have always been, figments of people's imaginations.

(b) The unwillingness of scientists to accept mere testimony and words in a book as proof is not evidence of a superego and an unwillingness to accept the authority of a higher entity on the part of scientists. It is proof that scientists are rational, logical beings making nothing more than a simple request for something more substantial than somebody's attestation. Is that too much to ask? Of course not.

At the bottom of page 8 they say, "Not one statement has ever been disproved by any real facts of science or history." Utterly false! A far more accurate way to state

this would be "Many biblical statements have not been proven by any facts of science or history." As long as the burden of proof is kept on the shoulders of those with whom it justifiably remains, the religionists are going to remain dead in their "tracts."

Fourth, at the bottom of page 10 they make another grandiose assertion by saying, "The Bible is a marvelous unity in all its diversity.... Every part throws light on every other part...." If there is anything the Bible does not display it is "unity in all its diversity," let alone "marvelous unity." It would be far more accurate to say that nearly every part throws exposure, rather than "light," on every other part.

Fifth, while discussing on page 12 whether or not the King James Version should be abandoned in light of all the modern versions, they finally offer a credible generalization by saying, "After all, why should one commit to memory a particular verse of Scripture if even the authorities don't agree on what the verse says?"

Unfortunately they quickly follow this up with a comment that can only lead one to believe that they have not read very many versions on the market today. They state, "Furthermore, the English of the King James is not nearly so archaic or difficult to follow as its critics allege. In fact, it is in general written in a much simpler vocabulary, with a higher percentage of one- and two-syllable words than almost any of the modern translations. The honest reader will find it at least as easy to understand as any other." Since this statement deviates dramatically from reality, one can't help but wonder what modern versions they have in mind and how many they have read. How one can say the Revised Standard Version or the Good News Bible, for example, are not clearer and easier to read than the King James is anyone's guess.

Sixth, while trying to answer the question of how they can be sure God exists, they state on page 14 that, "Many people today would like to escape the authority of God and therefore have tried to convince themselves and others that science has done away with God and creation. Men would like to believe that they are accountable only to themselves...." As usual the fundamental premise upon which their "logic" rests is fatally flawed. Rather than acknowledging the obvious intelligence and logic inherent in the question--How do you know a God exists and what is your evidence--they choose to cast aspersions on the inquirer's motives. They don't confront the question; they attack the intentions of those posing the inquiry. Even if it were asked by someone with the worst of motives, it remains no less valid, logical, and sensible.

More often than not the question is solicited by those with perfectly understandable and proper concerns and doubts. After all, when people contend a god must exist because of what is said in a book that also tells you people rise from the dead, sticks turn into serpents, people walk on water and donkey's talk, one can certainly understand their reluctance to believe other claims that are equally bizarre and deficient in evidence.

Seventh, although this publication is not normally concerned with the existence of a god, we can't help but note some other comments by Morris and Clark that just can not be allowed to slip past the guards. On page 14 they state, "Yet the evidence for God is so clear and certain.... The very essence of the scientific method, in common with all human experience, involves the basic principle of Cause and Effect. That is, no effect can be greater than its causes. 'From nothing, nothing comes!' There must therefore be a First Cause of all things which has at least all the characteristics which are seen in the universe which has been produced by it." In so far as I am aware, the Law of Cause and Effect simply states that for every effect there must be a cause. But how does this prove there must be a first cause? Why must there be a first cause? And if everything must have a cause, then why doesn't that apply to God as well? They are relying upon what is commonly known as a non sequitur.

Morris and Clark state, "The First Cause must have intelligence, because there are intelligent beings in the universe...." This argument is about as sensible as saying the First Cause must be a car because there are cars in the universe. Why can intelligence only come from intelligence? The physical entity from which human intelligence emanates could easily have evolved over an incredible number of years into the complex organism it is today, the human brain.

They also state, "Similarly the First Cause must have emotional attributes since such things as emotions are surely present in the world. The highest and noblest emotion, most men would agree, is that of love, and thus the Cause of love must itself be One who possesses love in a very high degree." This is another poorly thought out conclusion. Love is only one of many emotions that exist in the world. If the First Cause must possess Love because love is the highest and noblest emotion on the positive side, then this First Cause must also possess hate, because hate is the highest emotion on the negative side and is equally powerful. Why must this First Cause only have positive as opposed to negative traits? Morris and Clark even stated earlier that the First Cause must have "at least all the characteristics which are seen in the universe which has been produced by it" and that would include the 7 deadly sins. Moreover, if the First Cause must possess Love because love is present in the world, then the car analogy comes into play again.

Eighth, and finally they say in regard to this First Cause concept, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics is that of Increasing Disorder, and it says that the universe is running down and wearing out. All processes tend toward a state of decay and ultimate death. Eventually, if present processes continue, the universe will die. And, since it has not yet died, it cannot be infinitely old and must have had a beginning at some time in the past." Morris and Clark are masters of the non sequitur. They constantly draw conclusions that do not logically follow from their premises. What does the eventual death or nondedeath of the universe have to do with how it was created or not created? Even if we assumed it were going to die, why couldn't it still have never had a beginning? Their book is a veritable cornucopia of barren conclusions resting upon fanciful foundations.

And while we are on the subject, no religionist has ever rationally explained to me why God, who is not known to exist, does not have to have a cause, while matter, which is known to exist, requires a creator. If God's existence can have an infinite retrogression, why can't that apply to the existence of matter as well? Why does matter have to have a creator while God doesn't? Why couldn't it always have been?

(To be Continued Next Month)

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #712 from MJ of Andover, Mass. (Part a)

(The following letter is from MJ who spends a lot of time discussing and debating religion and the bible with biblicists and distributing audio recordings of the encounters. He meets them in all sorts of locations and dialogue flows. He wrote us the following letter entitled "Why I Am Not a Liberal Christian"--Ed.)

Dear Dennis. I think your viewpoint is that if one wants to refute Christianity, you need to refute conservative Christianity, because that is essentially what Christianity is. My viewpoint is that since the majority of Christians are actually LIBERAL Christians, it is equally important to try to refute liberal Christianity, even though that job is akin to nailing jello to the wall.

At any rate, here is my effort to do so. You may want to take a section or two to comment upon in BE.

Let's say a man, such as myself, has been taught from a young age that the Bible is God's Word. And that this man, as an honest seeker of Truth, is determined to find out if this received wisdom, is really true.

He studies the Bible, listens to every teacher, respects every viewpoint, broods over every issue.

He wants to believe. But some passages make no sense. Some of the teachings miss the mark. Some of the theology is irrational. And some of God's behavior is very questionable. After many years, he knows that he can no longer in good conscience commit to Christianity.

He re-reads the Bible, only this time not through the lens of faith, but with a critical eye; and he finds that the book contradicts science and itself; its ethics are immoral; it is filled with God-directed cruelty and barbarism; its prophecies are not only unimpressive but demonstrably phony, and the problem of evil is not dealt with adequately.

He concludes that the Bible cannot be God's Word, and that orthodox Christianity is false. But because he has always seen the Jesus story as a powerful revelation of wisdom and love, he looks--with all his heart, soul, and will--for a way of understanding the Bible so that its central underlying message is still valid, still viable.

He becomes a liberal Christian. He adopts more sophisticated ways of interpreting. He no longer sees the Bible as God's directly inspired Word, but as man's flawed interpretation of his relationship with God, which interpretation, nonetheless, contains inspired messages, particularly in the person of Jesus.

He no longer sees Jesus as literally God on earth, omniscient, a miracle-worker, a perfect human being. Instead, Jesus is quite human, vulnerable, and flawed. Yet he is still the Son of God, in the sense that he best represented what God wants. He correctly presented God's essential message--that God cares about us, that everyone has worth, that man should love his neighbor. By his exemplary life, Jesus affirmed the fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man.

At the same time, his wisdom was not infallible. He was actually wrong in some of his beliefs - like expecting the world to end in his generation, or thinking that demons caused illness.

And some of his teachings may have been overstated by the writers. Did Jesus really say that he, rather than his message is "the only way"? That seems oddly ego-centric for one thing, and fundamentally unfair for another. To say he is the only way, is to exclude all those who have never heard of him, as well as all sincere and decent followers of other religions. A fair God would not condemn such people.

Clearly, what writers say Jesus said, is not necessarily what he did say. Possibly he was both wiser and more careful in his actual statements than what he is reported to have said.

Such overstated passages, as well as folkloric miracle stories, and contradictory narratives, and muddled advice, and irrational theology, could all be the product of flawed writers; yet Jesus could still be the primary source of divine wisdom in human history. The seeker

continually looks for the kernel of truth behind the alleged words of Jesus.

He discounts much of John's later, longer, and theologically developed gospel, and tends to look at Mark's earlier, shorter, and more straightforward gospel as the most reliable.

But...even here, he finds disturbing and wrong-headed ideas, which, in the final analysis, he cannot put under the category of things Jesus didn't really say. Because if he did, the Biblical Jesus would be gutted; and all that would be left is a white-washed Hollywood movie version of Jesus.

It seems the only way to salvage an acceptable Jesus is indeed to ignore the Biblical Jesus, and go with the white-washed, idealized version, the version that most people in fact harbor.

But that would not be an honest endeavor - making up your own Jesus. The actual, the historical, the Biblical Jesus, is the Jesus we must deal with.

Once again throwing away all preconceptions, reexamining hundreds of issues, reviewing the entire mass of evidence, our seeker is finally forced to concede that Jesus, despite some revolutionary insights and remarkable courage and conviction, is really...a misguided religious fanatic.

He recognizes this conclusion is at odds with common wisdom. But he sees how Christians, both conservative and liberal, are culturally biased. They are indoctrinated to instinctively give Jesus a positive spin. Every average teaching is a pearl of wisdom, every non-sense saying is somehow an arresting insight. Jesus's faults, fanaticism, and questionable teachings are consistently overlooked.

But this popular conception of Jesus, this idealized version, is not the real Jesus. The real Jesus is the Biblical Jesus. And the Biblical Jesus....

(Stay Tuned. Next month MJ will describe the real biblical Jesus--Ed.)



Editor's Response to Letter #712 (Part a)

Dear MJ. I empathize with the general tenor of your commentary, but by failing to challenge liberal rationalizations at key intersections you appear to be inadvertently promoting liberal Christianity more than criticizing it. You are trying to walk a fine line and in doing so a few comments and omissions pushed you onto the wrong side of the fence.

First, you say "He becomes a liberal Christian. He adopts more sophisticated ways of interpreting." They aren't so much more "sophisticated" as they are unscrupulous. They jettison the clear meaning of the text for an interpretation that is more to their liking psychologically. The fact that their alteration is biblically unsustainable is of less importance to them than emotional contentment.

Second, you say, "He correctly presented God's essential message--that God cares about us, that everyone has worth, that man should love his neighbor." I don't understand why you believe this is God's central message. Are you getting this from the Bible? If so, how do you square that with the fact that God chose the Jews over all others to be his chosen people and allowed babes, infants, and other innocents to be slaughtered? Or maybe you are getting this from the world at large around us? If so, then how can you explain the incredible number of infants, babies, and other innocents who die throughout the world every day because of starvation, malnutrition, disease, neglect, and abandonment? This world reeks with pain and injustice.

Third, you say, "By his exemplary life, Jesus affirmed the fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man." As you probably remember, we proved in a series of commentaries that the life of Jesus was far from exemplary in many ways. Instead of providing rectification you defaulted credit to Jesus he never earned.

Fourth, you say, "he has always seen the Jesus story as a powerful revelation of wisdom and love." You should make it unmistakably clear that this is the viewpoint of liberals and not yourself, because the message of Jesus is far from wise and loving in too many instances. Indeed, at this point you would have done well to have provided some examples to the contrary.

Fifth, you say, "Did Jesus really say that he, rather than his message is 'the only way'? That seems oddly ego-centric for one thing, and fundamentally unfair for another." True, but that is what he said in John 14:6 and elsewhere, whether it is ego-centric and unfair or not. You say "a fair god would not condemn people" who have not heard of him or people in other religions. But, again, looking at the world today what leads you to believe this alleged God even exists or is fair if he does? I see virtually no evidence of divine justice or concern ruling the roost. Indeed, the world is absolutely inundated with inequities in practically every aspect and location imaginable. It is truly staggering. In any event, I look forward to your description of Jesus as I know from past experience it will be well considered.

Sixth, you say the Bible contains inspired messages according to the liberal. I would have quickly followed that up with a comment along the lines of what Robert Ingersoll said on page 233 of Vol. 11 of his Works. "...if the Bible is true, it needs no inspiration, and...if not true, inspiration can do it no good.".

Seventh, you say, "Clearly, what writers say Jesus said, is not necessarily what he did say. Possibly he was both wiser and more careful in his actual statements than what he is reported to have said." This comes precariously close to a defense of Jesus in light of the fact that you provide no contradictory data. This, too, like some earlier assertions, should not have been allowed to go unchallenged. All that Christians know about Jesus comes from scripture and all that Jesus is known to have said comes from scripture. So, if you want to know what Jesus said, you will have to go to scripture. Anyone who dislikes or denies what Jesus is alleged to have said will have to take it up with the writers of scripture because they are the source, the only source. And since it is safe to assume the gospels' authors are in a much better position to know what Jesus said, if anything, than modern critics, it is incumbent upon liberals and other dissenters to provide evidence to the contrary. On this point I would agree with the fundamentalists. To merely go through the Bible and say willy nilly that Jesus said this and not that simply because the latter don't seem like the kinds of comments he would have made is not going to fly. If liberals think Jesus is "both wiser and more careful in his actual statements than what he is reported to have said" then they are going to have to come up with something far more substantive than what I have read so far.

And eighth, you relay the liberal position by saying, "Such overstated passages, as well as folkloric miracle stories, and contradictory narratives, and muddled advice, and irrational theology, could all be the product of flawed writers" without asking how a perfect book emanating from a perfect being could have flawed writers. And you add to this by allowing the following liberal defense to also go unchallenged. "Jesus could still be the primary source of divine wisdom in human history. The seeker continually looks for the kernel of truth behind the alleged words of Jesus." Jesus "could" be a lot of things, but the question is what does the evidence show. All we have to go by is the Book. Who says these are the "alleged" words of Jesus? The Bible says these "are" the words of Jesus. There is nothing "alleged" about them. Again who are these sources who claim they know more about what Jesus said than those who wrote the gospels. What are their credentials and from whence comes their evidence?

In essence, the problem I have with your account is that although the summary in the last 5 paragraphs is commendable too many liberal defenses and explanations in the body of your letter were allowed to pass unchallenged and unrefuted. You provided a good synopsis of why the liberal position is without merit but you did not adequately explain why their specific arguments were without substance. If their positions are allowed to pass unchecked or unanswered, that could very well give readers the impression that you are either implicitly agreeing or you have no effective counteracting response. I hope you take these admonitions in the spirit intended, but I couldn't in good conscience fail to articulate them.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #713 from MJ of Andover, Mass.

Dear Dennis. Just got the December issue of BE and I am glad to see the letter by RH of Dayton, Ohio, addressing the issue of how to deal with slippery LIBERAL Christians. I've found that fundamentalist and liberals are such different animals that they require quite different lines of argument. You can argue about Noah's ark for hours with the former, but the latter will dismiss the issue as irrelevant before you even finish a sentence.

I thought RH's letter (about the limits of broad interpretations of Jesus's promise that prayer will be granted in Matt. 18:19) presented an excellent case against the liberal who tends to accuse critics of Christianity of literalist interpretations, when in fact we are simply trying to hold the passage within the range of what it was intended to mean.

I'm guessing the liberal's response to RH's letter would be that Jesus did not necessarily say that: Matthew said that Jesus said it; and we must make allowances for Matthew's understandably excessive zeal. At that point I would press the concept that if the bulk of Jesus's key teachings are not what Jesus actually said, if the Biblical Jesus as understood by the writers is not the "real" Jesus, then they are making up their own Jesus and creating their own theology. Call it something else, but don't call it Christianity.



EDITOR'S NOTE: Two Important Announcements.

(a) Thanks to the generous help of a loyal supporter we now have an HP Scanjet 5p Scanner which will allow us to scan documents right onto the computer screen without typing in all the details. We are now asking everyone who wants their letters or other material to be included in BE to send them to us in typewritten form only. The scanner will not pick up handwritten information reliably.

(b) Thanks to the devoted assistance and hard work of Charlie Kluepfel in New Jersey the first 127 issues of BE are now available on a web site. We hope to add the others eventually. By agreement with Internet Infidels anyone who goes to them for information exposing the Bible in general and Jesus in particular will automatically be referred to our new web site at: members.aol.com/ckbloomfld