Biblical Errancy Issue #173-The Bible Has the Answ

Biblical Errancy Issue #173-The Bible Has the Answer (15 Points) (Part 3), Reader Concludes His Attack on Liberal Christianity, Suppression by Opponents Vs. Apathy of Supporters, Am. Atheists/Zindler Publishes My Article

Nov 10, '08 2:52 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #173 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


May 1997

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


COMMENTARY



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

REVIEWS

THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWER (Part 3) Fourteenth, On page 35 the authors got carried away in their admiration for Jesus by saying, "Thus the perfect holiness of Jesus Christ was openly demonstrated to men and angels and devils, when he was tempted in all things, yet without sin. Furthermore, because he has personally experienced the whole gamut of Satan testing, He perfectly understands every temptation and trial to which we may ever be subject." To this one can only say, Where on earth are they getting all this? Where does the Bible say that Jesus "was tempted in all things" and "experienced the whole gamut of Satan testing"? It never ceases to amaze me how often biblicists get enwrapped by their own exuberance and embellish the text.

Fifteenth, on the next page Morris and Clark add to their excessive zeal by saying, "The Virgin Birth, of course, in addition to requiring a biological miracle, would also imply that Jesus Christ was absolutely unique among men...." In light of the fact that a virgin birth is not miraculous, it could not possibly provide any evidence that "Jesus Christ was absolutely unique among men." Thousands of women routinely visit sperm banks and later deliver children without having had sexual contact with a male. Indeed, many have had no contact with the donor whatever, and would not recognize him if he walked through the doorway. This constant infatuation with a virgin birth by Christians in indicative of a mentality from a by-gone era in which scientific advancements were crude at best.

On the next page Morris and Clark state, "The objection of the modern liberal that such an event would be impossible because it is contrary to biological law is quite vacuous. This is the whole point--the Virgin Birth was a mighty miracle...." This argument is something of a straw man in light of the fact that any reasonably informed liberal knows that virgin births are not only possible but quite common. Virgin births are by no means miraculous.

In regard to this same subject, Morris and Clark state on page 37, "There are many other references in the gospels and epistles from which the Virgin Birth, even though not explicitly mentioned, is clearly inferred. For example, Paul says, "When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4). How this substantiates a virgin birth is something of a quandary in view of the fact that it does not rule out the presence of a sperm. What does "made of a woman" mean precisely? It does not say the son was made only from a woman, nor does it exclude prior fertilization by a male. And what does "sent forth" mean? In a religious context it can be interpreted in several ways. People occasionally say a child was sent to them by god or was a gift from god or could not have been had without god's help. But none of them are claiming coitus never occurred.

Sixteenth, on page 43 the authors utter that old hype that "Christ suffered and died, 'more than any man'." No, he didn't. Many people have suffered longer and more agonizing deaths.

Seventeenth, on the same page they state, "The crucifixion of Jesus Christ, by normal human standards of right and wrong, seems to have been the greatest miscarriage of justice in all the history of the world." Fortunately for them they qualified their remarks with the subjective word "seems," because I know of no objective evidence that would authenticate that comment. The killing of approximately 6,000,000 innocent Jewish civilians in WWII, alone, would seem to be a little more appalling than the death of a single individual.

Eighteenth, on page 45 they utter an odd variation on a kind of ex post facto law by stating, "Thus it finally comes to this: each one of us, individually, is responsible for the death of Christ. It was the sins of each man that nailed Him to the cross." How the sins of people who lived long after the crucifixion could be responsible for the crucifixion itself is an enigma to say the least. According to Morris and Clark Jesus is allegedly being punished for the acts of people yet to live. As if it was not bad enough having children punished for the sins of their father (Adam) under Original Sin, now, in effect, we have a kind of father (Jesus) being punished for the sins of children yet to be born. Is there no end to biblical injustices?

Nineteenth, on page 64 Morris and Clark employ the old switcheroo trick in which the burden of truth is insidiously shifted, in this case to justify miracles. They state, "To say that miracles are impossible is actually to deny that God exists." Who said miracles are impossible? This publication certainly never has. All we have ever done is ask for evidence for their existence, and since none has ever been forthcoming, the conclusion is inescapable. Since miracles can not be proven or verified, one would be foolish, indeed, to believe in something for which no corroboration can be provided, other than personal testimony. If the latter is their sole means of support, then miracles have no viable foundation. And if proof for the existence of God rests on proof for the existence of miracles, then so much for theism. Based upon the amount of miraculous data provided to-date, that pretty well disposes of any reliable belief in a supreme being.

As proof they say, "Providential miracles still occur today. Every believing and practicing Christian knows from personal experience that God does answer prayer...." They do? How? If only they would be as forthcoming with evidence as they are with unsubstantiated assertions! They may feel it; they may believe it; they may wish it; they may even crave it with every fiber of their being, but that does not prove it's real any more than my believing I am the reincarnation of Abe Lincoln is proven by mere assertion and intense belief on my part. In order to provide an argument of substance, they'll have to produce something more heady than personal testimonies, which seem to form the foundation of their theology.

Twentieth. In their never-ending quest to portray science as either an ally or a deferential protagonist of religion in general and the Bible in particular, the authors state on page 62, "The fact is, however, that true science has always confirmed the Bible." Now they are being just plain silly, because facts are very much to the contrary. Not only has BE discussed this issue in some detail, but the 11th chapter of our book clearly describes numerous clashes between science and the Bible.

As a specific example of cooperation, they say in regard to the long day of Joshua, "That the earth should stop rotating on its axis for a time is no more inexplicable than that it should start rotating in the beginning." Leaving aside the fact that there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence, whatever, that the earth ever stopped rotating on its axis, the critical point to note is that biblicists appear to be wholly incapable of understanding what this would have entailed. Although not a scientist by trade, I can say with a high degree of confidence that if the centrifugal force caused by the earth's rotation at approximately 1,000 miles an hour were to cease, the results would be incalculable and result in the death of virtually every living organism on the planet. The power of gravity would take quantum leaps, causing every living thing to be pulled downward with horrendous force. Imagine what that would do to pumping hearts, expanding lungs, flowing blood, moving legs, flapping wings, swimming fins, undulating tails, and atmospheric/oceanographic pressures!

Twenty-first, on page 80 Morris and Clark say, "The God of the Bible is a God of order and of grace, not a God of confusion and cruelty." Too bad they didn't read Issues 115-120 of BE before making this inane comment, because evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Indeed, the God of the OT not only exhibits cruelty on a regular basis but many other negative traits as well.

Twenty-second, interesting enough, on page 137 we have one of the few valid and substantive admissions by Morris and Clark. They state, "It is in the Bible, and the Bible alone, that we have any real information about Christ or his teachings." If only they had been around to back me up when I confronted biblicists alleging Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonious, Pliny the Younger, and others provide extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago.

Twenty-third. On page 153 they say, "While some modern errorists present Christ going to the cross under protest against the unthinkably cruel Father, Scripture shows the Father and son in perfect harmony throughout redemption." Since these alleged errorists have interpreted Scripture correctly, there is no error on their part. If there is any error, it lies in Morris and Clark's determination to present the relationship between God and Jesus as harmonious throughout, when it was by no means one of "perfect harmony." In Matt. 27:46 Jesus said on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" According to some, these words actually mean in Hebrew: "My God, my God why hast thou sacrificed me?" Prior to the crucifixion Jesus fell on his face in the Garden of Gethsemane and said, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." The word "cup" in this instance comes from a Hebrew word which means "fate" or in this instance "death." If there is anything these verses do not demonstrate it is a harmony of wills and views between Jesus and God.

Twenty-fourth, on page 167 we are told that, "The Bible claims, many hundreds of time, to be the written Word of God." To that one can only say: It does? Where? Except possibly for 2 Tim. 3:16 ("All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness") and 2 Peter 1:21 ("For the prophecy came not in old times by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"), one would be hard pressed to find any verses of this nature. John 10:35 ("If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..."), 1 Cor. 2:13 ("Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth: comparing spiritual things with spiritual"), and John 16:13 ("Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come") are quite weak and could hardly be used to make a strong case.

The comments in Timothy and Peter also conflict with verses such as 1 Cor. 7:6 ("But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment"), 7:12 ("But to the rest speak I, not the Lord..."), 7:25 ("Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful") and 2 Cor. 11:17 ("That which I speak, I speak, it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting") which all but state some of Scripture is not divinely inspired. Any assertion to the effect that the Bible says hundreds of times that it is divinely inspired is a gross exaggeration to say the least.

Twenty-fifth, while confronting the problem of how evil emerged and why God created Satan, Morris and Clark state on page 307, "God did not create Satan as an evil being. However, the angels, like man, were created as free spirits, not as unthinking machines. They were fully able to reject God's will if they should choose to do so." How could they be "fully able to reject God's will," if God created them. If they were God's creation, then every aspect of their being had to have been correctly formed, in which case they could not have chosen to do the wrong. This is nothing more than a variation on the "Adam was created perfect so how could he have sinned" problem which we have discussed on several occasions. No matter how much biblicists may worm and squirm, they will never be able to escape this fundamental dilemma in their theology. Morris and Clark say they were "fully able to reject God's will if they should choose to do so." But how could they choose to do so when a perfect being created them. Are they trying to tell us that the omniscient, perfect Almighty created a being that chose to do evil? God created something that was not perfect? God created something that chose to reject perfection? The perfect being made something that was either flawed or chose to do a flawed act, which, in turn, only proves it was flawed? The perfect being created the imperfect? If the perfect being created the imperfect, then he only proved he isn't perfect and couldn't be god. And if the perfectly created being chose to do the imperfect, then it only proved it wasn't perfect to begin with and couldn't have been created by God because everything God does by definition is perfect.

Twenty-sixth. In recent years increasing numbers of biblicists have been soft-peddling the whole idea of hell and what it entails. In order to keep church pews more occupied and scare as few as possible, many ministers and priests have chosen to replace hellfire and damnation with something more amenable and less frightening. To alienate as few as possible, they have projected an image of hell that is more in keeping with polish than perdition. The idea of "burning in hell" has been superseded by the more acceptable "separation from God" concept. On page 311 Morris and Clark are asked how a loving God can send anyone to eternal punishment in hell and they reply by saying, "God will not force people into heaven against their wills. Such people will actually be less miserable in hell than they would be in heaven." Not if they are burning they won't! They state, "Essentially hell is the place where all aspects of the presence of God will be completely withdrawn forever. Hell is thus eternal separation from God. As the Scripture says, it is a place where men shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power (2 Thess. 1:9). Unfortunately for them, hell involves much more than mere separation from God as is shown by: Matt. 3:12 ("His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire"), Matt. 18:8-9 ("...it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire"), Mark 9:44 ("Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"), Rev. 20:10 ("And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever"), Rev. 14:11 ("And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day or night"), and Matt 25:46 ("And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal") The original concept of hell as a place of eternal torture by fire and brimstone is far more Scripturally sustainable than much of what they are tying to pawn off today, and all attempts to make it more palatable are biblically unsound. When it comes to permanent punishment, the hellfire and damnation preachers had it right from the beginning.

Twenty-seventh, on page 317 Morris and Clark return us once again to that old nemesis of "judging the already saved." They state, "There is only one thing in life about which each man can be absolutely certain--and that is that he must eventually come before God in judgment." But why he must appear is never explained. According to fundamentalist theology you are saved the moment you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. And if that's true, then why come before God for judgment to begin with? What is there to judge? It's all over. Sentence was pronounced and your destiny eternally fixed the day you died, based upon whether or not you accepted Jesus prior to your death. If you did, you are in; if you did not, you're out. Works and deeds are relevant, but immaterial.

Twenty-eighth and lastly, on page 335 Morris and Clark leap into a contradiction they would have done well to have fled. They are asked if the end of the world is near and respond by saying, "According to Scripture, the earth as such will endure forever. For example, Psalm 104:5 says: 'He (meaning God--Ed.) laid the foundation of the earth, that it should not be removed forever'." But they immediately follow this up by quoting verses saying the opposite such as: 'The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up' (2 Peter 3:10) and (Matt. 24:35) in which Jesus said: 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away' ".... Reconciliation of this dichotomy according to them lies in the fact that "the earth will some day be drastically changed and renovated....The earth and its atmospheric heavens will thus not be annihilated but will be completely purged by fire, cleansing it of all age-long effects of sin, decay and death...." Our illustrious duo appear to have difficulty understanding simple English. The text says the earth shall be "burned up" and that entails far more than mere purification and cleansing. When your house is burned up or down, that means your house is no more. It was totally destroyed and has ceased to exist. Our apologetic authors, on the other hand, would apparently have us believe that your house was merely cleansed of impurities by fire. Hardly! Your house is not "renovated" or "purged" by fire when it is burned up; it's annihilated. Why should the words mean anything less with respect to the earth itself, especially when Matt. 24:35 says the earth will "pass away"?

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #712 from MJ Concludes from Last Month (Part c)

(Last Month we published the second part of MJ's article entitled Why I Am Not a Liberal Christian. We will now conclude MJ's assault upon liberal Christianity--Ed.).

You--the LIBERAL CHRISTIAN--cannot legitimately accept Jesus as a source of divine wisdom, if you disagree with so much of his basic teachings:

1. The liberal Christian believes in tolerance, but Jesus was intolerant towards unbelievers.

2. The liberal Christian does not accept the inconceivably cruel concept of Hell, yet Jesus believed in it and taught it.

3. The liberal Christian believes there are many ways to God, but Jesus says he is the only way.

4. The liberal Christian sees the God-directed barbarism of the Old Testament as repugnant, yet Jesus accepted the Old Testament with reverence.

5. The liberal Christian sees many stories in the Bible as instructive myths, but, as a matter of course, overlooks the malignant lessons inherent in those very stories!

The flood story warns us against immorality in general, yes, but it also teaches that, except for Noah and his family, every other person in the world, every sweetheart, every best friend, every mother's beloved child, every child's beloved parent, all deserved to drown.

That's a judgment, and a god, that I for one do not accept.

The flood story also conveys a total disregard for animal suffering. Who among us, if we see a dog drowning, is not distraught with compassion? Yet a peripheral lesson of the flood story is that animal suffering, even on a massive scale, is irrelevant, hardly worth mentioning.

Are these valid lessons!? Is this a valid God!?

Take the Adam and Eve story. It warns us against pride, yet, but it also pushes blind obedience as a pri-mary virtue. Curiosity, asking questions, seeking knowledge, are discouraged. Dialogue is discouraged.

The God of Genesis wants undiscerning obedience, the same thing, coincidentally, that oppressive rulers want, which suggests to me that oppressive rulers are behind this story, not God.

In fact, I think the underlying purpose of the Adam and Eve story, is not to teach about the sin of pride, but is to teach obedience. The writer is presenting a mythological tale that encourages people to obey authority without questioning. It's the original propaganda story from those in charge.

It teaches that if you don't do as God wants, your lives will be immeasurably worse off. And it sneaks in the presumption that WE, the writers for the powers that be, will be the ones, of course, to let you know just what God wants.

Fallible human beings claiming to speak for God. It's the oldest trick in the book.

Also contained in the Adam and Eve story is the lesson that women are inferior and subservient. Genesis 2:18 refers to Eve as a "helper comparable" to man, not a companion equal to him. And Genesis 3:16 is very clear as to who is in charge: Your desire is very clear as to who is in charge: "Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

Is this a valid lesson? I can hear liberal Christian women hemming and hawing right now.

Then there's Abraham's willingness to senselessly kill his son in order to be obedient to God. Abraham did not ask any questions; and for this he is highly praised. Blind obedience is presented as "great faith."

You and I both know that if someone told you today that he was going to sacrifice his son to God, you would call the police and a mental hospital, not praise his "great faith."

I think the real purpose of many Bible stories is not the overt lesson about human nature, but is a subliminal call to group obedience.

Solomon and the cutting in half of the disputed baby story, is not so much a lesson in the nature of a mother's genuine love, as it is an encouragement to trust and follow leadership.

When you think about it, this story, as an insight into human nature, is preposterous - what woman in real life would be both so mean, and so stupid, as to say, "Go ahead, cut the baby in half, Solomon"? The characterization here is at the comic book level.

And upon rereading the story I see that the message is not as subliminal as I thought. First Kings 3:28 is fairly explicit: "And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice."

Again, in my opinion, the real reason these stories are presented is for control, to validate the authority of those in charge, to claim divine sanction for human agendas, and not for the intrinsic value of the story's wisdom, or the presence of any real divine intention behind it.

But, whether or not Bible stories are used as a control mechanism, my point here is that they contain profoundly harmful adjunct lessons, which liberal Christianity blithely ignores.

6. Most liberal Christians regard one's actual behavior as more important than one's beliefs. Yet a major theme of the Bible is its emphasis not on behavior, but on belief.

The heroes of the Bible include: Abraham the liar, Lot the incest commiter, Moses the murderer, David the adulterer, Solomon the fornicator, Paul the bigot (Titus 1:12). These are all faithful believers rather than men of righteous behavior. The God of the Bible favors the "believer," or groveler to Him, over the man of good character.

The liberal Christian is not justified in embracing a book that emphasizes a type of "righteousness" he himself would find repugnant.

7. A problem the liberal Christian has, is how, if he rejects certain passages, will he decide which passages to reject, which passages to accept? The answer, I think, is the general guideline of accepting those passages which are reasonable, compassionate, and just.

Yet, if he is honest, and does not distort the plain meaning of words in normal discourse, he will find there is too much that is not reasonable, compassionate or just.

The liberal Christian is not justified selecting passages he likes, and ignoring ones he doesn't like (such as the God-directed atrocities in the Old Testament, or Jesus's teachings on remarriage or Hell).

Ambiguity, complexity, and shades of gray in evaluating passages, are a given to the liberal Christian. And so each liberal makes his own judgments by his own lights, which is fine, except that it defeats in large part the presumed purpose of a book of God in the first place, which is to give some clear answers and to reduce ambiguity!

If the liberal's own judgment is the ultimate authority, then he cannot pretend that Jesus is the ultimate source of wisdom.

8. And lastly, the resurrection is presented as real in the Bible, not as a story or myth.

Mark 16:4 says, "He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after he had risen."

In John 20:27, Jesus tells doubting Thomas, "Reach your finger here."

In Luke 24:37 it says, "But they were terrified...and supposed they had seen a spirit." Then verse 39: "Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

The writers were presenting an actual physical resurrection, not a "resurrection of the spirit," as the liberal would interpret it.

If the writers meant what they wrote in the way they wrote it, and denied they were presenting myths ( "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty"--2 Peter 1:16), then you are putting your trust and faith into people who are in fact...liars.

Real wisdom does not come from such men.

A seeker concludes that the liberal Christian interprets the Bible more sensibly, but not correctly or honestly.

The conservative Christian interprets the Bible more correctly, but that correct interpretation shows that the Bible is a spiritually false document, written by fallible, foolish, immoral men, and is in no way God's word.



Letter #719 from AL of Aurora, Colorado

Dear Dennis. I have received sample issues of BE from you with appreciation and thanks. This world, darkened by superstitious, imbalanced, controlled information, needs severely people like you who are selfless, brave, and wise enough to stand against the fast stream of ignorance. Our children are brainwashed from a very young age. They don't have an opportunity to learn and investigate what is right and what is wrong? Their parents are frightened by a false doctrine of rewards and punishments. The people who speak thousands of times, even millions of times, of love do everything they can to blind their loved-ones, to nullify their ability to think, reason, investigate, and discover the facts. I don't see any love in their hearts.

So please keep doing what you are doing now. A lot of people have the same ideas and feelings as you. Your labor is honored by those who have had their eyes opened. Don't be suppressed by the selfish and ignorant ones who haven't had their eyes opened.



Editor's Response to Letter #719

Dear AL. Suppression by my opponents doesn't hinder my agenda as much as apathy, timidity, and lethargy on the part of too many critics of religion in general and scripture in particular.



Letter #720 from AH of Chicago, Illinois

Dear Mr. McKinsey. A few weeks ago a friend of mine took all of my back issues of Biblical Errancy to use as sources for the final exam in his religion class. When he got them back, I think they had more red ink than black, but he got an "A". I'd like to start a subscription for him, so I can keep my issues a little longer!



Editor's Response to Letter #720

Dear AH. Sounds like your friend is using BE in one of the ways intended. May more "A's" follow!



Letter #721 from JW of Palm Springs, Florida

Dennis. I have the prior issues of BE from #1 thru #156 and need to complete my collection of them all. Please send the remaining back issues and also a Word and Verse Index. I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate your work. Webster's Dictionary doesn't provide the words of my gratitude to you and your wife for all your efforts. Thank you, Thank you!



EDITOR'S NOTE: As you probably already know the imperious trio who ruled the American Atheist Center in Austin, Texas, M.M. O'Hair, her son, John, and her granddaughter, Robin, disappeared over 18 months ago under very mysterious circumstances and have not been seen since. Speculation has run wild as to what happened. I have been told foul play has been ruled out, despite the fact that they left suddenly without their passports and killing people by bombings, etc., doesn't seem to bother some right-wingers and/or fundamentalist ideologues. I wonder!

In any event, a new leadership has assumed the helm and I have found its membership to be far more amenable to cooperation, sensitivity, teamwork, and affinity than ever existed in the past. Others might want to test the new waters as well. One of the leadership's most intelligent decisions was to appoint Frank Zindler as the new Editor/Managing Editor and his wife Ann as the Associate Editor of their magazine. Although I don't know others in position of authority, I have known Frank for over a decade and have found him to be intelligent, highly informed with respect to languages, science, and religion, and accommodating. He has been the only leader the Ohio Atheists have ever had in so far as I am aware and we have been able to converse on many occasions, since he only lives a few miles from my home. Frank's wisdom is further accentuated by the fact that he has seen fit to include one of my articles in the Spring 1997 issue of the American Atheist, something which would have been unthinkable under Madalyn O'Hair with whom I had less than cordial relations to say the least. My article starts on page 20 and is essentially a synopsis of that part of chapter 25 in my book pertaining to Apologetic Defenses. I am most appreciative of the gracious invitation by Frank to write an article. Submission of the text was, indeed, a unique opportunity to tear down walls and build bridges. I would encourage everyone to obtain a copy, especially if you have not read the pertinent part in my book or this publication.