Biblical Errancy Issue #172-The Bible Has the Answ

Biblical Errancy Issue #172-The Bible Has the Answer (6 Points) (Part 2), All Black White Horse, Reader On the Real Jesus/Attacks Liberalism as Deceptive, Tactics, Question on FA, Station Replies to Censorship Charge

Nov 10, '08 2:50 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #172 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Apr. 1997

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


COMMENTARY



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



REVIEW

THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWER (Part 2)--Ninth, while outlining some fundamentalist theology on page 17 Morris and Clark make an unscriptural comment with respect to the Trinity. They say, "The teaching of the Bible concerning the Trinity might be summarized thus. God is a Tri-unity, with each Person of the Godhead equally and fully eternally God. Each is necessary, and each is distinct, and yet all are one.... The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son." Where does Scripture say the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son? If anything, it is the other way around according to Matt. 1:18-20 ("When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost"). According to Matthew the Holy Ghost gave rise to Jesus not vice versa.

Then Morris and Clark proceed to add absurdity to inaccuracy by saying, "Though these relationships seem paradoxical, and to some completely impossible, they are profoundly realistic, and their truth is ingrained deep in man's nature.... Thus, the truth of God's tri-unity is ingrained in man's very nature...." Now our illustrious duo is getting just plain silly! Speaking for myself, and no doubt millions of others, I can say categorically that there is nothing deep, or even shallow for that matter, in my nature telling me that there is a triune God who created the Son, who, in turn, created the Holy Spirit. Their attitude could easily fall under the category of religious arrogance with a liberal sprinkling of narrow mindedness.

Then they say, "the truth of the tri-une nature of the Creator is clearly implied by the profoundly tri-une nature of the Creation. Thus the physical cosmos is clearly a tri-universe of Space, Matter, and Time and each of these is co-extensive with the entire universe." One is tempted to say, "But haven't you heard of the Fifth Dimension." But seriously, this infatuation with the number three is nothing more than superstitious nonsense. Working on that theory I could more accurately say God is a duality since nearly every aspect of life has an opposite. Smart versus stupid, in versus out; up versus down, hot versus cold, tall versus short, rich versus poor, birth and death, cause and effect, growth and decay and so on ad infinitum. In fact, this kind of "logic" could very easily be used to negate the Trinity entirely. One could just as easily argue for strict monotheism by alleging that everything in existence is one of a kind, unique, sui generis, and therefore God must be one of a kind, a unity, sui generis. No two things are identical, if for no other reason than the fact that their locations are different.

One can't help but note another major contradiction in this regard. Fundamentalists and other religionists constantly accuse atheists, agnostics, humanists and other freethinkers of having "bigheads," if you will, but that is exactly what is being displayed so vividly by Morris and Clark. They say, "Thus the physical cosmos is clearly a tri-universe of Space, Matter, and Time and each of these is co-extensive with the entire universe." Talking about believing you know it all! How do they know these are the only three dimensions in the universe? For some serious scholars a Fourth Dimension is a real

possibility. Have Morris and Clark been throughout the entire universe and do they possess infinite knowledge? They have no way of verifying or demonstrating that comment. They are guilty of that which fundamentalists so freely attribute to their detractors.

Tenth, while on this concept of an eternal creator, they state on page 22, "Our minds cannot really grasp the idea of an eternal God, existing independently of the universe which He created.... But what we cannot comprehend, we can believe. Millions of people through the ages have found mental and spiritual rest through simple faith...." They may have found rest but did they find truth. That's the issue. I may find rest, comfort, and solace in believing I will live for centuries or hit the lottery for tens of millions, but that doesn't make it so.

Eleventh, additional evidence that biblicists feel the universe revolves around them comes to the fore on page 24 through Morris and Clark's reliance upon and citation of Psalm 8:6 ("Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet"). While quoting this verse they say, "It was only man who was "created in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27).... All other things were created for man's use and control. We see, therefore, that the physical and biological creations were made for the service of man. It may be noted in passing that this fact points up one of the many absurdities of the evolutionary theory. Since the creation was entirely man's dominion, it is incredible that the Creator would have forced the earth and its other organic inhabitants to endure a five-billion year preamble of confused and meaningless existence before its master was ever to try to comprehend and order it."

In the first place, Morris and Clark are afflicted with philosophical myopia because they are receiving their belief that everything is man's plaything from a book that is itself flawed throughout. How can they be sure this is not another flaw?

But even more importantly, their egocentric version of history has led them to believe that confusion reigned on the earth prior to man's appearance. How so? The laws of nature and the laws of physics worked quite well and life progressed inexorably. So where was the confusion? Life evolved from lower to higher forms and intelligence increased steadily. So where is the meaninglessness? Sounds like progress to me, be it ever so slow. Why must man be present to have meaningful existence and no confusion? In fact, some people feel the opposite is true; confusion only arises with the arrival of man. The problem lies not with any absurdity on the part of evolutionary theory but with the degree to which the warped variation of solipsism exhibited by anti-evolutionists has perverted their thought processes.

Eleventh, while discussing their hero our deceptive duo state on page 28, "He, alone, of all men who ever lived, conquered death itself. By all the rules of evidence, His bodily resurrection from the grave can be proved the best-proved fact of all history." Is there no end to apologetic hyperbole, falsifications, and exaggerations? Their own book, the Bible, shows that he was not only not the only person to conquer death but he wasn't even the first. We made this point years ago and listed many biblical figures who returned to life before him.

And to say that "His bodily resurrection from the grave can be proved the best-proved fact of all history" is too ridiculous to discuss. I have photograph after photograph, artifact after artifact, living witness after living witness, document after document, confession after confession, audio recording after audio recording, video recording after video recording to prove that the Holocaust actually occurred. Christian adherents to belief in a real Jesus and a real Resurrection can only dream about having that much evidence in their favor. Support of that magnitude would be beyond their wildest imaginings. Christians have no living witnesses, no artifacts, no photographs, no video, no audio and their only documents and testimonies are confined to a book that is so obviously prejudiced and tendentious in its portrayal of what allegedly occurred that no one with any real concern for accuracy and objectivity would dare accept it without extra biblical corroboration.

Twelfth, on page 31 Morris and Clark really jumbled their jive when they said regarding the birth of Jesus, "Although He was born in the family of David, it must be remembered that neither of His earthly parents was connected with Him genetically. He was conceived by the Holy Ghost and simply placed in the womb of the Virgin Mary." In effect, our apologetic friends are admitting there is no biological link between Jesus and David. And if Jesus is not a physical descendant of David, then there is no way he could be the messiah. The messiah must come out of the loins of David according to Scripture; that is an absolute requirement. Realizing the seriousness of their admission, Morris and Clark hastened to add the following footnote. "This does not imply that Christ was not born of 'the seed of David' (Romans 1:4), since He was nurtured from the moment of conception until birth in the womb of Mary, who was herself of David's seed." How this explanation reconciles the problem is any-one's guess. Whether or not Mary is genetically connected to David is immaterial. We are concerned with the connection of Jesus to David through her. That's what matters. And Jesus, by their own admission, has no physical connection to her. Mary may have been of David's seed, but Jesus was not, and that's all that counts. In the same footnote they say, "The special formation of His body assured its complete freedom from inherited physical defects as well as from a sin-nature inherited from Mary." It may have freed him from inheriting any sin nature, but it also relieved him of any valid claim to the messiahship. What he gained in the right hand he lost from the left.

And thirteenth, one of the more powerful but rarely noticed aspects of this whole Jesus-is-God-in-the-flesh mythology is the degree to which it turns God into a racist. Morris and Clark state, "One of the most remarkable features of the gospel records is that they give no information whatever about the physical appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. Whether he was tall or short, lean or heavy, dark or light in complexion, bearded or clean-shaven--no one knows.... We do not even know that His features were 'Jewish' in character." Although all of this is correct, they failed to note that his features are not nearly as important as the fact that he had to have some definite physical characteristics and that generates a major dilemma. No matter what Jesus looked like, he couldn't have looked like Martin Luther King (Negroid), John F. Kennedy (Caucasian) and Mao Tse-tung (mongoloid) at the same time. In order to enter the world as a man, God had to make a racial choice. He had to prefer or select one race over all others.

I have always been intrigued by the fact that blacks in the Catholic Church, for example, will worship before a crucifix with a white man attached. They seem completely oblivious to the fact that they have been acculturated to accept a non-black as their savior without even being aware of the unavoidable racism attached. How many whites would be willing to worship before a cross with a crucified black man nailed thereto? No doubt this consideration contributes in some degree to the transition of so many blacks from Christianity to Islam. They view the former as a white man's religion.

The situation with respect to women is no better. Women have been so accustomed through biblical pronouncements and cultural conditioning to think of men as the superior wing of the species, that it never dawns on millions to ask themselves why God chose a man to be their savior rather than a woman. Any self-respecting woman should find that aspect of Christianity alone to be not only offensive but degrading. It's as if women can't do anything of real significance on their own. They have to have a man to bail them out. One could pose the same question to women that was earlier asked of blacks. How many men would be willing to pray before a crucifix on which a woman is nailed? Regardless of how women view the situation, god had to have made a sexist decision before entering the world. He could not have entered as a man and woman simultaneously, and since he chose to enter as a man, rather than a woman, the conclusion is inescapable. (To Be Continued Next Month)

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #714 from NL of Annapolis, Maryland

...You know that I am an ardent admirer of your great works, including your excellent logic (I always want to incorrectly say "logics"), and I do not wish to appear in agreement with the writer of Letter #693, but I have previously and again now challenge your claim that you do not have to prove it when you say that X contradicts Y, while you CORRECTLY demand HE WHO ALLEGES MUST PROVE.... Now you say that a black white horse is a contradiction. Assuming that you are a white man, and work with your white horse in a coal mine all day and come out on a pitch black night, I believe that you could very well be a black white man riding a black white horse. So much for you not needing to prove a contradiction....

Editor's Response to Letter #714

You have been a loyal supporter of BE for years NL and we have rarely disagreed, but on this point an exception is clearly justified. Your analogy isn't even apropos to the original contradiction All you have is an all black horse coming out of the mine. Where is the white? Your attempted reconciliation of this problem is without substance. Originally the horse was white, and now it's black. That is not only not contradictory, but it is quite possible and has even occurred on occasion. What I want to see is a horse that is all black and all white simultaneously, not sequentially. I want to see white and black at the same time, not one after the other or side by side as on a zebra. You completely missed the dilemma and took out on a tangent

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #712 from MJ Continues from Last Month (Part b)

(Last Month we published the first part of MJ's article entitled Why I Am Not a Liberal Christian. We concluded it by saying, "Next month MJ will describe the real biblical Jesus." He will now proceed as promised--Ed.)

One: He believed fully in the OT and its cruel God. He said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He said "not a jot or tittle" of it would be changed (Matt. 5:18).

Two: Disrespected his parents. He said "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" to his mother (John 2:4). He offers no apology whatever after disappearing from his parents for three days when he was 12 (Luke 2:50).

Three: Was ethnocentric. He said he was "not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt.15:24). He said it is not good "to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (Matt. 15:26).

Four: Accepted slavery. He relates a parable in which he supports a servant being "beaten with many stripes" (Luke 12:47). He implicitly supports the institution of slavery in Luke 17:7-10.

Five: Supported an ascetic view of life. He praises self-made eunuchs (Matt. 19:12). He said "he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternity" (John 12:25).

Six: Supported wishful thinking over hard work. He claims you can receive whatever you pray for (Mark 11:20-24). That is simply not true. He claims you can literally move mountains by faith (Matt. 21:17-22). Virtually every liberal Christian assumes the moving of mountains passage is figurative; but it's not. Read the context. He was NOT speaking figuratively, any more than he was in Luke 17:6 when he speaks of removing "this mulberry tree" by faith.

Christians are brainwashed to selectively ignore context, and to interpret figuratively with no justification. The proper line of reasoning is not the Christian mind-set of: "it's obviously not true literally, so therefore it must be figurative." Rather, the honest line of reasoning is: "the context is literal, so therefore this is, in fact, nonsense, mere rhetoric unworthy of someone claiming to speak for God." You cannot literally move a mountain by faith. Jesus is just selling dreams.

Seven: he believed in a utopian world, one very much at odds with reality. He claims in Matt. 6:26 and 6:34 that God will feed you just as he feeds the birds, when in fact God frequently does neither! Starving Somalians would hardly find Jesus's discourse here edifying. And Jesus obviously did not know that the actual starvation rate of sparrows is often 50%.

The Encyclopedia Americana, 1992, Vol. 3, p. 795 says, "The first year is the most difficult one in the life of a bird. In most species the mortality rate for young birds during the first year is about 50%, but in some species it may reach as high as 80% to 90%."

New Scientist, Jan., 1969, pp. 121-122, reports that one third of adult birds and four fifths of their offspring die of starvation every year.

An honest seeker must worship only the Real God, not some product of wishful thinking that doesn't square with the harsher aspects of reality. As soon as you deny reality, you are no longer worshiping the Real God. It's His world. He created it, and He is clearly not omnibenevolent, only, in this seeker's conviction, ultimately benevolent.

Eight: Contradicted himself. He said "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matt. 26:52), yet he tells his apostles "he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

He says not to call people fools (Matt. 5:22) yet he himself does so in Matt. 23:17.

Nine: Constantly overstated things. He claims lust is as bad as adultery (Matt. 5:28). He claims anger is as bad as killing (Matt. 5:21-22). First John 3:15 says, "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer." That is hardly true; there is a major difference.

The Christian would claim that Jesus is using hyperbole to point out that what is in your heart is what counts. Agreed, but in making that point any valid teacher of morality would not so carelessly jettison the critical distinction between a murderous thought and a murderous deed.

Ten: Gave bad advice. He advises forgiving 70 times 7 times (Matt. 18:22), which makes repentance a joke and forgiveness meaningless.

He claims remarriage is equivalent to adultery (Matt. 5:22). Yet this claim does not seem to stop many liberal Christian ministers from justifying second marriages, either their own or their parishioners'.

Eleven: Was intolerant. He ends a parable with, "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). Note well that the purpose of a parable is to teach proper insights and attitudes and note that the nobleman in the parable represents Jesus.

In Luke 10:14-16 he equates rejecting him to rejecting God.

Twelve: Lastly, and probably worst of all, Jesus taught Hell. In Matt. 25:41 he says, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." And in verse 46 "these will go away into everlasting punishment...."



There you have the biblical Jesus. Instead of being someone who inspires the seeker's respect or affection, he's a religious fanatic.

The seeker also becomes convinced that what goes on in liberal seminaries - putting a positive spin on any dubious passage about Jesus - is a pervasive rationalization process. Because the Christian structure is there and well-established, everyone is locked into an ultimately positive assessment of Jesus and Christianity.

Christian hermeneutics always asks, "How do we make sense of this passage?" and never asks "Does this passage make sense?" A verdict of nonsense is the consistently overlooked option. Divine wisdom is presumed erroneously.

And even when the liberal does agree to a verdict of nonsense or error, he claims it made sense in the cultural context of that time, and therefore somehow has some validity. The seeker, on the other hand, claims that divine wisdom must transcend culture and that no cultural context justifies Old Testament immoralities such as concubines, genocides, and burning witches. What is spiritual error today was spiritual error then, it's just the same!

Another maneuver dear to the hearts of liberals involves redefining the meaning of words in order to make concepts more palatable to modern sensibilities. For example, the word "dragons" become "jackals"; "everlasting fire" becomes "separation from God"; "castration" becomes "celibacy", etc.

Our seeker decides that the liberals may be interpreting the Bible more sensibly, but not correctly or honestly. And he concludes that liberal Christianity is not Page 172-5

a valid option. (Next Month MJ will conclude his critique of liberal Christianity--Ed.).



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

Your analysis is quite good and often poignant, MJ. I especially like your comment that "Christian hermeneutics always asks, 'How do we make sense of this passage?' and never asks 'Does this passage make sense?' A verdict of nonsense is the consistently overlooked option." How right you are!

Another astute observation on your part is found in #6 where you say, "The proper line of reasoning is not the Christian mind-set of: 'it's obviously not true literally, so therefore it must be figurative.' Rather, the honest line of reasoning is: 'the context is literal, so therefore this is, in fact, nonsense, mere rhetoric unworthy of someone claiming to speak for God'." Excellent point! You are quite adept at encapsulating rather broad issues in relatively terse and accurate summations.

Nevertheless, I still have a reservation and an augmentation. My reservation pertains to your comments in point #7 that "an honest seeker must worship only the Real God and as soon as you deny reality, you are no longer worshiping the Real God. It's His world. He created it, and He is clearly not omnibenevolent, only, in this seeker's conviction, ultimately benevolent." I realize your theistic philosophy is very much in the tradition of the deist Thomas Paine who also rejected the Bible, Jesus, and Scripture's presentation of "God" while believing in an ultimately benevolent supreme being, but I would only again ask that you provide some corroboration for your beliefs. I see no evidence of divine benevolence, ultimate or otherwise.

My augmentation pertains to your statement that a seeker "becomes convinced that what goes on in liberal seminaries - putting a positive spin on any dubious passage about Jesus - is a pervasive rationalization process." Based upon my experience, this is no less true of fundamentalist seminaries. Indeed, rationalizing, justifying, and obfuscating lie at the core of their strategy as well.



Letter #716 from RH of Hubbard, Ohio

Dear Dennis.... In talking with a local minister, I got bogged down on the Graf-Wellhausen Theory. I forgot your admonition to stick with the biblical text. In the end I did, but I don't believe I was too convincing.... My wife is on the pulpit committee of the First Baptist Church. She is sworn to secrecy and I

am in the dark as to what is going on, but the trend is to more radical, rightwing, thinkers. Our best seminaries (?--Ed.) are suffering from too few students. The very conservative ones are enjoying full student bodies.....



Editor's Response to Letter #716

You might want to keep in mind what I said about repeatedly returning to encounters with additional information each time. As I have often said, don't expect

to convert somebody in 30 minutes from something they have believed for 30 years.

I must say, however, that in recent years I have been steadily approaching the conclusion that your biggest problem is going to be one of getting religionists in general and biblicists in particular to listen to anything of a critical nature, whether it be on the Bible, atheism, agnosticism, Jesus, science, Creationism, history or whatever. As I have often said, there is none so deaf as he who won't hear and nowhere is this more evident than in regard to religion. Fortunately not all biblicists are that way but there can be no doubt it applies to far too many.



Letter #717 from Norman Slocum, 308 McColsky Ave., Brandon, Florida 33510

Dear Mr. McKinsey. I was wondering if any readers could help me find information on the following organizations: Walk Away and Fundamentalists Anonymous. I recently found information on the Internet about Walk Away but I was unable to find any addresses or subscription or membership information. Fundamentalists Anonymous distributed tapes through AHA (American Humanist Association) two years ago, which I purchased. But I've seen no further publicity on it since then. Is it defunct? Any assistance given by you or your readers will be appreciated.



Editor's Response to Letter #717

Dear Norman. I know very little about FA and even less about Walk Away. I contacted FA years ago but was disappointed with their response, perhaps I should say lack thereof, to my inquiries, as well as my offers to work in concert. So they went their way and I went mine and never have the twain remet. Others may be able to provide you with some information and for that reason we included your full name and address.

We have always been much more concerned with creating and fostering an informed group of dedicated, motivated fighters and communicators than promoting support groups to not only hold our hand and provide comfort in a religiously-dominated society but provide assurance that our anti-Bible and/or anti-religious philosophy is justified. The absence of qualms, reservations, and insecurities allows me to proceed on a for more rational, effective, and proactive basis.



Letter #718 from AH of Chicago, Illinois

(In the 711th letter in the Feb. 1997 issue TS from Prescott, Arizona, noted that our tapes were not coming through very well on the local channel and was suspicious of foul play. The director of that station learned about his letter in BE and wrote us the following reply which we are publishing in the interest of evenhandedness--Ed.)

Mr. McKinsey: A member of the Prescott Access Center informed me of a complaint against the center published in your most recent newsletter. This particular complaint suggested that staff members at this facility were involved in censoring programs from the Biblical Errancy series. I want to assure you that is not the case. The situation in question involved an episode that was pulled from one tape machine and placed into another due to technical trouble with the tape playback. The episode was interrupted only for a minute or two. However, viewers of your series have probably noticed that several episodes have experienced video difficulties. Those difficulties are primarily the result of tapes sent to us for playback -- I understand that episode's copies are third generation and copied on home video equipment. I also understand that copies are not made from the master due to the cost of tapes used to create the masters. I would be happy to discuss your options in recording masters and making copies, so that you might make higher quality copies for channels cablecasting your series. You can reach me during regular business hours Monday through Friday. In the meantime, episodes from your series that meet technical requirements will continue to be cablecast on Prescott Access Channel 13. The program content of your series is not now nor has it ever been an issue, and censorship will not be tolerated while I manage the Prescott Access Center.



Editor's Response to Letter #718

Dear Director. I have no way of knowing the facts of the situation but as far as the technical production aspects are concerned your understanding is essentially correct. We use cable access equipment and all recordings occur in their cable access studio. All programs are recorded on SVHS tapes (Super VHS) of broadcast quality. We then record regular tapes from these Supers in the studio because the only VCR's we have access to that will play Supers are in the studio. We then use these regular tapes in home video equipment as masters for copying tapes we send out. In effect, you are correct. Those receiving programs are viewing 3rd generation tapes. That is the only way we could operate. The station mandates that all tapes be recorded with Supers and we do not have any equipment that will play Supers. This, in turn, forces us to record a regular tape from the Super in the studio in order to get an original to take home and use as a master. We knew from the beginning that that would adversely affect the clarity of the programs, but we were not sure how much. Apparently it is more than we anticipated in some instances. What we need is a VCR that will play and record Super VHS tapes and this kind of unit costs between $600 and $700. Then we could take the Supers home immediately after the programs are recorded and use them as our masters. That would mean those purchasing tapes would be receiving 2nd generation tapes rather than 3rd generation and they would be getting programs recorded from higher quality SVHS tapes rather than regular tapes. In the meantime, could you give me some idea of the programs, if any, that need to be recopied and what changes you would suggest? Making TV programs is not the easiest activity in which I have been involved. Technical problems, financial considerations, scheduling conflicts, enlisting volunteers, finding time, and writing scripts are taxing to say the least.



EDITOR'S NOTE: Although additional assistance has come on board a couple of volunteers playing our programs have failed to proceed beyond the first few programs without explaining why. We are extremely interested in knowing why these individuals stopped playing our programs in their areas and if they would contact us in order to clarify the situation it would be greatly appreciated. I don't know if it was because of intimidation, quality, time, or what, but I'd sure like to know. To those who ceased playing our programs I say, please contact us ASAP. There is no way we can rectify a situation without first discovering the nature of the problem. As you know, I place a very high priority on playing these programs throughout the nation and any obstacles need to be overcome with all due haste.