Biblical Errancy Issue #175-Religious Editor of Te

Biblical Errancy Issue #175-Religious Editor of Tentmaker Recommends Our Book, 'Defraud Not' & 10 Commandments, Reader Describes Net Debate with Biblicist Mainly on Ezra 2 Vs. Neh. 7, Liberalism Again & Jesus Seminar

Nov 10, '08 2:59 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #175 July 1997, Editor: Dennis McKinsey


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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



COMMENTARY

This months issue will open, as did last months, with a review of our Encyclopedia by an editor with his own publication followed by letters from our readers.


REVIEW

One of our long-term subscribers, RH, sent us the following message written by a fundamentalist who publishes a small but thick periodical entitled The Tentmaker and with whom I have had lengthy telephone conversations. RH prefaced his letter to me by saying, I found a relatively complimentary review of your book on a Biblicist's web page. Maybe people will buy by his recommendation! (The highly religious author of the message said,--Ed.)

"The first two books we will briefly talk about come from the publisher Prometheus Books. This company specializes in books most Christians would categorize as 'secular humanist'.... I have read some of the books from their catalog. I have discovered that many of those writing for this publisher have been deeply burned by the Christian religion. Much of what they write against Christianity is true! They expose many of the charismatic faith healers as frauds. Randy the Magician, exposed Peter Popoff by showing his so-called word of knowledge was nothing more than a radio receiver implanted in his ear. Gerard Straub, a former producer for the 700 Club reveals what life is like in this evangelical empire. There are several books on the subject of the horrors perpetrated upon mankind by the institution of religion. Several books deal with the subject of the Bible, its contradictions, errors, and its ill effects upon reasonable people. I am probably going to get some flack from some Christians for what I am about to recommend. So be it. Much of what these writers have to say about the church past and present is true. These writers have looked at church history and many have participated as active members in mainstream churches and walked away disgusted or hurt. We should have a heart to hear their cry. We should have the willingness to correct those things clearly wrong, and most of all, we should be humble enough to admit when we are wrong and change. But when I was in the mainstream church, we read books by so-called cult experts who would read these books for us so that we could know what they believe without getting our little minds dirty. These cult expert writers and ministries will one day be exposed for being cults themselves! It is time for us to grow up. We must be accountable for our own actions, and we must see if these things be so ourselves.

The books I am reviewing from Prometheus Books are entitled The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey and The Bad News Bible by David Voas. These two books are new additions to the several books Prometheus Books publishes which are aimed at discrediting the Bible as the word of God. Now, listen to me very carefully, especially those of the fundamentalist persuasion. Don't twist my words. Hear my heart. There are some in our readership that should go to the library and check out these books if available. There are some of you who should purchase these books, read them, and wrestle with the contents until you can give a reasonable explanation or answer to the things contained in these books. You should then minister to these people in love showing them where they are correct and incorrect. The trouble with this is that most Christians do not know the Bible or church history well enough to do so. I am not exaggerating when I say that many of these anti-Bible books writers know the Scriptures better than most pastors.

The Bad News Bible is written from a fictional viewpoint of Jesus' brother James. James, when he is through commenting on what is today incorrectly called the 'New Testament,' shows that the words of Jesus (or his ghostwriters) specifically deny much of Sunday School theology, and only the most selective quotations can give anyone confidence in salvation. Jesus doesn't live up to the Good Shepherd reputation. The promise of a heavenly afterlife comes from Paul, whose views on sex, women, and the family do little for his credibility. Judgment Day could come at any moment. While David Voas is very incorrect about who Jesus Christ is, he makes some very keen observations about much of what is taught as Biblical truths which are nothing but the traditions of men.

The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy was written by a high school counselor (a position I have not held for many years--Ed.). He has appeared on many radio and television programs in de,bates. McKinsey 'thinks the Bible is a deceptively inaccurate conglomeration of mythology and folklore masquerading as a valid picture of historical reality.' According to the publishers the book 'vividly proves the Bible to be its own worst enemy.'

I have been in correspondence with Mr. McKinsey over the last few months and I would like to make a few comments. This man knows the Bible as well as any fundamentalist preacher, probably better. He certainly knows church history better. One night we spent over 2 hours debating over the telephone on my nickel, or should I say on some of those nickels some of you have sent in. (Thanks) He has combed the Bible very thoroughly. Let me tell you; those of you who really want to be able to share scripturally the hope within you, who want to truly understand the scriptures, who want to test your faith without hiding your head in the sand should purchase this book and spend several weeks wrestling with some of the points he makes. My heart goes out to this man and to many like him who have not received good answers from Christians. Shut off the TV and get knowledgeable enough about the things of God to be able to talk to this man and millions like him who are not satisfied with lazy superficial answers!

The famous atheist, Bertrand Russell, rejected Christianity not because it was not true, but because he read the Bible through the eyes of modern traditional teaching. The orthodox view of things does make the Bible contradict itself in many ways. We need to acknowledge our errors. We need to fess up about our faulty 'inerrancy' doctrine and admit our English translations are not as pure as we have said they were. In short, we need to get honest. I believe when we do, people like David Voas and Dennis McKinsey will see the light and will be a very valuable part of the body of Christ. While both books are overpriced, (as are many Christian books) I recommend those who are not afraid to have their foundations tested or who have a heart to reach those who can argue and reason well, to purchase these books, especially McKinsey's. They will greatly sharpen your skills and probably rearrange some of your theological furniture. It is time to put off our stupidity and put on the mind of Christ. These books will force you to press much deeper than perhaps you have in the past. To order, call or write: Prometheus Books 59 John Glenn Dr. Amherst, New York 14228 1-800-421-0351 Bad News Bible-$25.95; The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy-$49.95 (or contact me at my address on page 6--Ed.).

We appreciate the considerate observations from the author of The Tentmaker and only wish more biblicists were as forthright and perceptive. I would, however, enter a significant caveat. There is a far greater possibility of Christians seeing the fraudulent nature of the Bible and coming to their senses than me "seeing the light" and "becoming part of the body of Christ," especially in view of the fact that the Bible and Jesus have little light to shed.


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #729 from NB of Tucson, Arizona

Dear Dennis. Regarding your reply to Ken Bonnell (BE #169, page 4), you say that you were correct in asserting "defraud not" is not a commandment.... But Jesus doesn't say "the ten commandments. Indeed, he omits the commandments" about "graven images," taking the Lords name in vain, and coveting. Are we then free to disregard those just because Jesus didn't mention them?

In the OT outside of the Torah, the word "commandment(s)" is found only in Psalm 119, and there four times (verses 73, 127, 143, and 151), referring to Gods commandments. Esther is the only book in the Bible that doesn't once mention the name of God. Verse 3:3 refers to "the kings commandment." If you know of any version in which Jesus specifically says the "ten Commandments," please cite it.

Editors Response to Letter #729

Dear NB. Don't you do any research before firing off a letter? Apparently not! Not only are some of your comments erroneous but I am having difficulty even seeing the relevance of others.

First, you say "In the OT outside of the Torah, the word 'commandment(s)' is found only in Psalm 119, and there four times (verses 73, 127, 143, and 151), referring to Gods commandments." Did you make any attempt whatever to check this out? Obviously not, for if you had gone to page 210 in Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, you would have seen literally scores of instances in which the word "commandments" is employed outside the Torah throughout the OT.

Second, you say "He omits the 'commandments' about 'graven images,' taking the Lords name in vain, and coveting. Are we then free to disregard those just because Jesus didn't mention them?" Who said anything about disregarding anything? That's not even the issue. Our basic disagreement is one of determining whether or not Jesus was referring to the "Ten Commandments" when he included "Defraud not" in a list of commandments. You say he was not, while I say he was. I said in the January issue and will repeat again, "In Mark 10:19 and Matt. 19:18-19 Jesus lists the commands that were written on stone and are specifically referred to as the Ten Commandments in Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13, and Deut. 10:4. So we are only talking about THE Ten Commandments, not commandments in general."

Third, how is the fact that the Book of Esther does not mention the name of God even relevant to what we are discussing?

Fourth, are you saying Jesus was referring to OT commandments in general when he said "Thou knowest the commandments?" If so, then why did he start listing those in Exodus 20 and Deut. 5 which are associated with the Ten Commandments?

Fifth, why did he start listing them at all, since he would have had to enumerate over 600 commandments?

Sixth, why would he say "thou knowest the commandments" when he was referring to over 600 rather than 10? Do you think he actually expected the person to whom he was talking to know more than 600 statutes?

Seventh, just because he failed to list 5 of the ten does not mean he was not referring to what people regard as the Ten Commandments. Are you saying he had to list them all in order for you to be convinced he was referring to the Ten Commandments?

And finally, according to you Jesus was not referring to the Ten Commandments in Mark 10 and Matt. 19. Both say "Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, and honor thy father and thy mother." Are you really trying to tell me we are not dealing with the Ten Commandments and Jesus was not referring to the Ten commandments? Who are you trying to delude? If Jesus was not referring to the Ten Commandments but only to some OT commandments in general, then would you be so kind as to give me a list of what you consider to be THE Ten Commandments and back it up with chapter and verse? Apparently you have a new list of THE Ten Commandments and I eagerly look forward to reading them, as, no doubt, does most of Christendom.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #730 from JN of Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Much earlier in this ongoing saga of Biblical errancy I presented some simple numerical problems found in the Bible. Here's another. In Ezra 2 (KJV) there is a long list of the number of people in the sub clans who returned from a captivity. The total is listed as 42,360, but when you add up the actual enumerated sub clans, the total is really 29,818. In comparison the same story in Nehemiah 7 also lists the total as 42,360, but when these are added up, the total is actually 31,089. This is yet another obvious example of a mathematical error in the Wholly Babble which cannot be dismissed by fundamentalist apologists. Regarding this problem a critic of mine on the Internet, RPHL, replied to me by citing Norman Geisler who said on page 214 in his book "When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook of Biblical Difficulties."

"First, it is possible that each of these is a copyist error. One of the most problematic areas of transcription for the Jewish scribe was copying numbers. It is certainly conceivable that out of these rather large lists of names and numbers there would be a number of copyist errors."

I replied by saying that this is just a convenient assumption based on zero evidence. No "original" manuscripts are available with which to make a comparison with the copies. Moreover there is no problem in transcribing numbers for the Jewish scribes because, contrary to often heard assumptions, numbers were written out as words instead of numerical figures. The fact that contradictory numbers exist in the copies is strong evidence that the originals had them too. I can see contradictions in the copies, but you cant see the originals. I have positive evidence; Geisler has none.

Moreover, apologists brag that there was extreme fidelity in the copying of "scripture" citing, for example, the ancient manuscripts of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But when challenged with actual discrepancies and errors in various texts, these same apologists blurt out, "problematic areas" and "copyist errors."

RPHL continued to quote Geisler who says, "Second, it is also possible that Ezra and Nehemiah compiled their lists at different times. Ezra may have compiled a list of those who left Babylon with Zerubbabel, while Nehemiah compiled his list of those who actually made it to Jerusalem."

I told the desperate RPHL that he was resorting to BLATANT LYING about the text by quoting Geisler. (Is anybody surprised?) Here's what Ezra and Nehemiah ACTUALLY say: Ezra 2:1 says, "Now these are the people of the province who came up from the captivity of the exiles, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had taken captive to Babylon (they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own town..." Neh. 7:6 says,..."These are the people of the province who came up from the captivity of the exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had taken captive (they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own town..."

The language is practically identical. BOTH say "these are the people...who came up..." BOTH say nothing whatever about those "who left" or those "who actually made it." I told RPHL that he was INVENTING a text, a sin!

If one reads further, BOTH texts, not just Ezra, mention the people leaving Babylon with Zerubbabel. I told RPHL that he was resorting to a misleading statement, incomplete facts, and frank LYING.

RPHL said, "In some cases, people who left Babylon with the intention of going back to rebuild Jerusalem may have turned back or died along the way. In other cases, a family may have enlisted recruits to bolster their numbers. Perhaps family members in other lands got word of the migration and rendezvoused with their relatives along the way from Babylon to Jerusalem."

To this I said, you and Geisler are idiots as well as liars. Ezra and Nehemiah BOTH HAVE THE SAME TOTALS, so even if they are writing at different times, which is not true as I explained above, IT CANNOT EXPLAIN THE ERROR WHICH CONSISTS OF THE SUBTOTALS NOT ADDING UP TO THE TOTALS GIVEN!!! The error consists in Ezra and Nehemiah's ADDITIONS. It doesn't make any difference as to WHEN they did their estimates.

For your benefit, I'll repeat the mistakes to you and EXPLAIN the mistakes which you and Geisler FAILED to see: In Ezra 2 there is a long list of the number of people in the sub clans who returned from a captivity. The total is listed as 42,360 (Ezra 2:64-"The whole company numbered 42,360" --NIV), but when you add up the actual enumerated listed sub clans of the whole company, the total is really 29,818. There is a shortage of 12,542 (42,360 minus 29,818).

In comparison, the same story in Nehemiah 7 lists the same total, 42,360, (Nehemiah 7:66-"The whole company numbered 42,360" --NIV), but when the enumerated sub clans of the whole company are added up, the total is actually 31,089. There is a shortage of 11,271 (42,360 minus 31,089).

RPHL replied that if one takes the time to study how Hebrew numbers were written by ancient scribes, it is easy to see how copying errors could have crept into the text.

I said those numbers were written out as words, viz, forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty, NOT 42,360. So it's NOT easy to see how a copyist error was made.

RPHL said in reply, "The appearance of numerical copying errors does not falsify the inspiration of the Bible, or prove that it is unworthy or unreliable in what it teaches concerning spiritual matters. Critics such as you fatally assume that since there are copying errors in the manuscript copy, there are errors in the original as well."

To this I said, "It's YOU who are fatally ASSUMING that the originals are error free when not only do you NOT have any evidence for it (you have no originals) but you have NEGATIVE EVIDENCE for it in the form of the copies that are available for all to inspect. In contrast I have POSITIVE EVIDENCE for my position that the Bible is ERRANT because I have written texts in front of me that DO CONTAIN NUMEROUS ERRORS, not only in numerical instances but in nearly every other sphere of discourse--scientific, social, political, and theological.

It is well known that most if not all human documents contain errors of one sort or another. It is unusual for a writing, particularly a writing as long as the Bible to contain absolutely no errors whatsoever. That would be an unusual or extraordinary condition. The ONUS OF PROOF IS ON THE PERSON CLAIMING THE EXTRAORDINARY. Yet, you have zero evidence for your position.

The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is certainly applicable to the errors under discussion. This rule of evidence recognizes that testimony found to be false in one matter should be considered unreliable in other matters. If you insist the claim of inerrancy is true, then please come up with a truly inerrant Bible. As far as I know, no such item has ever been published.

RPHL replied by saying, "Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy of the original is without error. We can expect minor errors to make their way into copies."

My response was that this whole idea of inspiration only in the originals but not the copies is frankly stupid. Not only is it stupid--it is really an ad hoc alibi on the part of inerrantists because they have no EVIDENCE whatsoever to support their idiotic claim.

Imagine: The almighty "God" dictates his "word" to ancient sheepherders while ensuring it is written down precisely and correctly, and then goes on vacation or dozes off, forgetting to ensure that the copies are precise and correct too. He is supposed to be OMNIPOTENT, meaning he can do ANYTHING, in which case it should be EASY for him to ensure good copies. But he doesn't. God is supposed to be GOOD also. It would be GOOD for him to make sure all humans get his holy word intact. But he fails at this task too.

How utterly silly and stupid. You, RPHL, and Geisler are wasting your lives at this pathetic enterprise!

RPHL then said, "Minor errors do not change the meaning of the text, or the spiritual message behind it."

To that I said, "Now you are suggesting there ARE errors in the original, but they don't make any difference. Your little charade is exposed...."

We can EASILY detect errors in mathematics because the rules of math are precise and errors of addition, for example, like those we are discussing here, are OBJECTIVELY quite noticeable. The same goes for scientific errors....

The alleged almighty good "God" has utterly failed at his job of transmitting his intentions to his creation.

RPHL concluded by saying, "If you received a letter in the mail that you had won a sweepstakes, and the sentence saying-"OU HAVE WON THE FIVE MILLION DOLLAR READER'S DIGEST SWEEPSTAKES"-had one typo would you be able to understand the sentence? Of course. And if you received another letter the next day with another typo-"Y#U HAVE WON THE FIVE MILLION DOLLAR READER'S DIGEST SWEEPSTAKES,"-you'd be even more sure, despite the minor typo. It is the same with minor errors in the bible... the manuscripts may be imperfect in their copies, but they contain the compete truth of the original Word of God. This complete truth is the message of salvation through Jesus Christ.

And I concluded by telling RPHL that he had to get this little tag line in at the end in order to assure a brownie point or two from his almighty imaginary guru. The sweepstakes analogy fails because we KNOW what sweepstakes letters are like, having numerous ORIGINALS of them with which comparisons can be made. As I told him earlier, he has NO ORIGINALS of the Bible and in that regard he is just whistling in the dark.

Letter #731 from MJ of Andover, Mass.

(The March, April and May issues had 3 parts of a lengthy article by MJ in which he explained why he was not a liberal Christian and why he supported a deistic philosophy very similar to that propounded by Thomas Paine--Ed.).

Dear Dennis. The middle section of my essay/letter "Why I Am Not a Liberal Christian" is a description of the liberal position, a position I tentatively held at that phase of my philosophical journey. I trust that the last part of the essay makes it perfectly clear that I do not hold that position today. I intentionally structured the essay in that way, presenting the liberal position in an ostensibly positive light, in order to refute it in the last part of the essay. Your criticisms of that section are for the most part the same conclusions I eventually came to.

One comment I would make is that claiming "but that is what Jesus said," holds no water for liberal Christians. Their position is that one does not know just what Jesus actually said. The "Jesus Seminar" enterprise was all about that - liberal theologians voting on what he most likely actually said. The text is not sacred to liberals; the Bible is not a perfect book. To them it's a flawed account of man's relationship with God, and every individual has to interpret it, and pick and choose, according to his own lights. For me that liberal position initially seems plausible, IF "problem" passages are minor. But a fair-minded examination shows it's not just minor passages (that plague the Bible--Ed.); its major issues also (Jesus teaching Hell, Jesus teaching the end of the world in his generation, etc.). If the main thrust of Jesus' teaching can be discarded, ignored, or easily revised by liberals, then you do not have an honest endeavor. And, as I've said, liberals are just making up their own theology and religion. The Hollywood movie version of Jesus, with no scenes of Jesus thundering on about Hell, or praising eunuchs, or prohibiting remarriage, but only being Mr. Wonderful, is really the theology of the average liberal Christian. And the theology of the professional liberal Christians (ministers) is built on, as you say, "unscrupulous" interpretations under the guise of "sophisticated" hermeneutics.

P.S. I've had to take another detour from working directly on my tapes. I've been spending time reading, thinking, writing, about the existence of God, in general. I'm just about done with that. I'll send you a copy in a week or so. Best wishes.

Editors Response to Letter #731

Dear MJ. The tapes you send me get better and better with each group, as does your entire approach to interaction with religionists and biblicists. I would like to make a few observations with respect to your accurate comments regarding liberals.

First, you say the liberal position "is that one does not know just what Jesus actually said." I beg to differ with the liberals in this regard because all we know about what Jesus said is in scripture. Far be it from me to agree with the fundamentalists on much of anything, but their rejection of the general approach exhibited by those in what is known as the Jesus Seminar is justified. To the latter I would utter my old refrain: How do you know what is true once you begin to admit certain parts are false.

Second, this kind of a la carte approach to biblical research on the part of the Seminar participants is naturally going to gravitate toward expunging comments by Jesus that put Christianity in general and Jesus in particular in a bad light. Theirs is a kind of sleight-of-hand from the other end of the spectrum. Instead of stoutly defending questionable, if not outlandish comments by Jesus, as is practiced by fundamentalists, participants in the Seminar have opted to either expunge, abandon, or radically reinterpret what is being said by Jesus.

Third, if votes by scholars are going to determine what Jesus did and did not say, then, in effect, only that part of the Bible approved by them is divinely inspired. That's only another way of saying man wrote the Bible rather than God. Its mans book, not Gods. They are gratuitously rejecting manuscript evidence not in accord with their preferences and predilections.

And lastly, you say that according to the liberals every individual has to interpret it, and pick and choose, according to his own lights. If that is true, then you will have as many Bibles as you have readers, because one interpretation will be as valid as another. In any event, judging from the general tenure of your comments, I would say we have come to essentially the same conclusions.

Letter #732 from DS of Tustin, California

Dear Dennis....I get tired of being serious with the fundamentalists and most often try a little humor. In Matt. 9:13 and Mark 2:17 Jesus said, "those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick do; I came not to call the righteous but the sinners." I tell them with a straight face that I don't have to believe in Jesus because he did not come for me. They always reply that he came to save all because we are all sinners. I quote the above to show that there must be some righteous or else Jesus wouldn't have mentioned them. I then say that I am one of the righteous and assert that if he came for them, they must be the sinners. That anyone could think that way usually leaves them stunned and I, in turn, have a big smile.

Letter #733 Via email from MKU

Your web site is by far the most remarkable commentary on the factual accuracy of the Bible I have ever seen...... and....it is unbelievably BIG. The material has genuine depth. In making this information easily available online, you are doing an immense service. Thank you.

Letter #734 from JW of Palm Springs, Florida

I don't believe in reincarnation but if there were such then Thomas Paine would reside at 2500 Punderson Drive in Ohio. Man, you are something else. I've read most of your last delivery of issues and cant put you down. So right, so comical, so on the money. You are a breath of fresh air. I wish my Father could have shared your philosophy. He passed away. Will write later.

Editors Response to Letter #734

Your compliments JW, like those of MKU, are most appreciated. Although there is an obvious self-serving aspect to all letters of this kind I can't help but feel a need to include them because they not only elevate my spirits but those of everyone sympathetic to our cause. Goodness knows, with the smothering influence of religious and biblical propaganda in this country, there is precious little else to improve our morale.


EDITOR'S NOTE:

(a) HEAR YE HEAR YE: Our old provider increased his rates and reduced even further the small number of newsgroups to which he furnished access. Consequently ON JULY 1, 1997, OUR NEW EMAIL ADDRESS WITH OUR NEW PROVIDER WILL BE: klomckin@infinet.com (all in lower case).

(b) We plan to complete our recording of 100 half hour TV programs by the end of this summer and so far we have received sufficient assistance from some unsung heroes to buy all of our original tapes from the station. However, we still need an additional $600 to purchase the sophisticated recorder that is needed to play and record from our better quality Super VHS originals. Any assistance that can be rendered by our readership in this regard would be greatly appreciated. The station has the option of recording over our originals any time they so choose and the sooner we obtain them the safer. We know the quality and clarity of the programs we distribute can be significantly improved with better equipment and better originals and the quicker this becomes operational the better. But the outlook in this regard remains in the hands of our supporters.

When it comes to critical issues of this nature I am reminded of an interesting story regarding four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

Unfortunately, when it comes to playing our programs on public access TV throughout the nation or rendering financial assistance, many, but not all, have chosen to remain on the sidelines. Hopefully those to whom this applies will now alter their philosophy and choose not only to participate but contribute.