Issue #180-The Christ by Remsberg on Other Saviors

Biblical Errancy Issue #180-The Christ by Remsberg on Other Saviors (Pt. 1), Rivers of Egypt & Textual Validity & the Originals, Septuagint, the KJV, Ahaziah 22 or 42, Translating, Ankerberg & Censorship, Our Tactics

Nov 10, '08 3:13 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #180 December 1997, Editor: Dennis McKinsey



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



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




REVIEW

THE CHRIST (Part 1)

One of the most potent antibiblical books in the pantheon of anti-religious literature, one to which we have referred on numerous occasions, is entitled The Christ by John Remsberg. Besides exposing a vast array of errors, contradictions and fallacies in the books of the NT, another section devoted to an analysis of the parallels between the lives of Jesus and other religious figures in history is included as well. Two of the most intriguing, if not revealing, comparisons are those between Jesus on the one hand and Krishna and Buddha on the other. Although we do not normally focus on extrabiblical material, digressions are occasionally in order, as we noted in our discussions of the Koran and the Book of Mormon. In addition to the prodigious quantity of internal biblical conflicts, the following extrabiblical historical considerations should also give biblicists strong reason to pause and think. Parallels between the lives of Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus are strong testimony, indeed, to the effect that Jesus is nothing more than another pseudo-savior, deserving no more respect than his predecessors.

Beginning on page 500 Remsberg says that according to mythology, "Krishna was the eighth Vatar or incarnation of the god Vishnu, one of the Hindoo Trinity. In this incarnation Vishnu, it is said, appeared in all the fullness of his power and glory. His mother was Devaki. He is believed to be an historical character, but his real history, like that of Jesus, is almost entirely obscured by myths. He lived from 900 to 1,200 years before the Christian era. The story of his life is to be found in the Bhagavat.....

The points of resemblance between Krishna and Christ that have been printed would fill a volume. Some of these are apocryphal, and not confirmed by the canonical scriptures of India. The limits of this chapter preclude an extended list even of the undoubtedly genuine. I shall confine myself chiefly to a presentation of the most important ones relating to their births.

These, according to the Christian translator of the Bhagavat, Rev. Thomas Maurice, are as follows:

(1) Both were miraculously conceived;

(2) Both were divine incarnations;

(3) Both were of royal descent;

(4) Devatas or angels sang songs of praise at the birth of each;

(5) Both were visited by neighboring shepherds;

(6) In both cases the reigning monarch, fearing he would be supplanted in his kingdom by the divine child, sought to destroy him;

(7) Both were saved by friends who fled with them in the night to distant countries;

(8) And foiled in their attempts to discover the babes, both of the babes kings issued decrees that all the infants should be put to death."

Remsberg goes on to say that, "The subsequent careers of these deities are also analogous in many respects. Their missions were the same--the salvation of mankind. Both performed miracles--healed the sick and raised the dead. Both died for man by man. There is a tradition, though not to be found in the Hindoo scriptures, that Krishna, like Christ, was crucified.

Various incidents recorded in the life of Christ were doubtless suggested by similar incidents in the life of Krishna. He washed the feet of his disciples because Krishna had washed the feet of the Brahmins. He taught his disciples the possibility of moving a mountain, because Krishna, to protect his worshipers from the wrath of Indra, raised Mount Goverdhen above them...."

Remsberg continues on page 502 by saying, "McClintock and Strongs Cyclopedia notes the following events in the history of Krishna which correspond with those related of Christ: That he was miraculously born at midnight of a human mother, and saluted by a chorus of Devatas (angels); that he was cradled among cowherds,...he was persecuted by the giant Kansa, and saved by his mothers flight; the miracles with which his life abounds, among which were the raising of the dead and the cleansing of the leprous.

The celebrated missionary and traveler, Pere Huc, who made a journey of several thousand miles through China and Thibet, says: 'If we addressed a Mogul or Thibetan with this question, Who is Krishna? The reply was instantly, The savior of men.'

'All that converting the Hindus to Christianity does for them, says Robert Cheyne, is to change the object of worship from Krishna to Christ.'

Of Krishna's gospel, the Bhagavad-Gita, Appleton's Cyclopedia says, 'Its correspondence with the New Testament is indeed striking'."

Remsberg continues by saying, "Its admitted by Christian scholars that Krishna lived many centuries before Christ. To admit the priority of the Krishna legends is to deny, to this extent, the originality of the Gospels. In order to break the force of the logical conclusion to be drawn from this, some argue that while Krishna himself antedated Christ, the legends concerning him are of later origin and borrowed from the Evangelists. Regarding this contention Judge Waite, in his History of the Christian Religion says, 'Here then, we have the older religion and the older god. This, in the absence of any evidence on the other side, ought to settle the question. To assume without evidence that the older religion has been interpolated from the later, and that the legends of the older hero have been made to conform to the history of a later character, is worse than illogical--it is absurd'."

Remsberg continues by quoting Sir William Jones, one of the best Christian authorities on Sanskrit literature, and the translator of the Bhagavad-Gita who says, "That the name of Krishna, and the general outline of his history were long anterior to the birth of our Savior, and probably to the time of Homer, we know very certainly.' (Asiatic Researches, Vol. 1, page 254).

And Remsberg concludes by saying, "The parallels between Krishna and Christ to be found in the Hindoo scriptures and the Christian gospels are too numerous and too exact to be accidental. The legends of the one were borrowed from the other." And it does not require vast intellect to determine who borrowed from whom. Next months issue will conclude our discussion of the striking similarity between the lives of Jesus and prior alleged religious saviors.


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #750 from DA Continues from last month. (Part f)

The essential of a contradiction is A, Not A. But if you cant say what A is, how can you expose any contradictions? So you are under the burden of proving that Ezek. 30:12 says rivers, and that rivers can not be used to describe the branches in a major river delta.

Editors Response to Letter #750 (Part f)

You state, "If you can't say what A is, how can you expose any contradictions?" Now lets don't be coy by trying to shift the burden of proof with respect to all of scripture, DA, because that is the import of your contention. It's your book not mine. You and your compatriots present me with a version of an original writing, which no one has ever seen and many doubt ever existed, and then ask me to prove it has errors and contradictions. When I provide literally thousands of contradictions and fallacies, such as your rivers situation, which was addressed last month, you say that can not prove that that is what the original says. But I am under no obligation to do so. Quite the contrary, you are the one required to prove the original has something else. And until you do, the dilemmas remain. How do you know that that is not what the alleged original says? That's what the manuscripts have. Certainly that's what is to be found in the King James Version of Ezek. 30:12. You say, "But if you cant say what A is..." I am not the one who can't say what A is; you are. You are the one casting doubt on what lies in front of us, not I. You are the one insinuating there has been an inaccurate translation. You are the one implying that a more accurate translation could have been made. You are the one implying the manuscripts from which the version in front of us were derived are inaccurate and that scholars didn't translate correctly, you who admit you can't even read or write either Hebrew or Greek.

Those who adopt your defense can't seem to realize that in their irrational exuberance to save the Bible they have only succeeded in destroying its credibility by bringing into question all of scripture. Operating according to your theory biblicists can never be sure any verse is an accurate translation of the alleged original. And if that can't be known for certain, how can they be sure they are reading God's word. The answer is that they can't.

Yet, despite these considerations you try to assure believers that there is nothing to worry about with respect to scripture by saying in the next part,

Letter #750 Continues (Part g)

Everybody agrees on 99% of the text. Only nit pickers (like us) worry about the rest.

Editors Response to Letter #750 (Part g)

Now, wait a minute! You just stated in regard to our rivers contradiction, which represents thousands of contradictions, that a contradiction can't be proven because the original might have said something else and eliminated the contradiction. Don't you realize that that is only another way of saying the entire book is suspect because there is no way of knowing for sure what the original says.

Now you are reversing thrusters and saying "Everybody agrees on 99% of the text." What text? The text to be found in the various manuscripts? Hardly! The text to be found in the various versions? Don't be absurd. You obviously did not read all of the clashes between versions noted in some of my earlier issues, especially issues 66 through 70.

If, on the other hand, you are alleging the originals are without contradictions, then your dilemma becomes even more pronounced. How can you possibly be sure of what the alleged original said when you have never seen it and the original no longer exists, assuming it ever did. Moreover, you stated earlier, "If you cant say what A is," and you are alleging you can't. Remember, A can represent any verse in scripture.

If Scripture could speak it would no doubt say, With friends like you who needs enemies?" In an attempt to make it look as if critics like me can't pin anything down with certainty because the original is unavailable, apologists like you don't realize you have unwittingly turned all of scripture into a nebulous mush that is about as solid as jello in an earthquake. If can't be sure of the word "rivers" and thousands of other words and phrases, then you can't be sure of Scripture, period. Your loss is greater than mine, because I lost an argument while you lost the Bible. Your attempt to salvage Scripture reminds me of what they said regarding the village of Ben Suc in Vietnam. It had to be destroyed in order to be saved.

Letter #750 Continues (Part h)

(Continuing to reply to my comments on his letter in Issue #168 DA says--Ed),

Amazing how you can misquote me right after quoting me correctly. I make the obvious statement that the Septuagint is an eyewitness to Biblical events BY COMPARISON to the KJV, which you quote and then you start accusing me of saying the Septuagint was an eyewitness. Simple nonsense. The Septuagint was a, say, 5th hand witness while the KJV was 10th hand. & by comparison to the KJV, the Septuagint is an eyewitness. That the Septuagint concerned events centuries or millennium before it is irrelevant here. Obvious logic that even you ought to see....

Editors Response to Letter #750 (Part h)

You ought to play poker DA, since you can engage in more bluffs than any biblicist I know. You work on the theory that if you talk definitively and authoritatively with intimidating terminology, the opposition will back down under the mistaken assumption that they are in over their heads and you are more knowledgeable than they. Whenever your ego is involved you frenetically rustle up a ruse internally, while trying to maintain an aura of confidence, serenity, and control externally.

Lets get the facts straight. In Issue #168 you stated (verbatim), "The Septuagint is, however, over 1500 years older than the KJV (maybe 250 B.C.), making it an eyewitness by comparison." To that I replied, "You refer to the Septuagint as being an eyewitness by comparison. Oh my goodness! Have you no sense of historical perspective and contemporaneous events? There are more years between the Septuagint and the events related by it in Genesis than there are between the Septuagint and the King James Version. You want people to believe the Septuagint is nearly an eyewitness to the The Creation Myth, the Adam and Eve tale, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.? Where on earth did you learn your biblical history? I don't even know of any fundamentalist seminaries that are that far off base."

This reply instigated your above comment in which you allege that was accusing you of "saying the Septuagint was an eyewitness," which you characterize as engaging in "Simple nonsense." For you, of all people, to make reference to simple nonsense is vapid, indeed, in light of the fact that you are the one who could do with some assistance in the logic department! What did I say? Did you read closely or with your usual superficial glance? I said (verbatim) "You want people to believe the Septuagint is nearly an eyewitness...." Notice I said NEARLY. did not say you claimed the Septuagint was an eyewitness.

Secondly, you say, "The Septuagint was a, say, 5th hand witness while the KJV was 10th hand. & by comparison to the KJV, the Septuagint is an eyewitness." The Septuagint was not an eyewitness, either directly or indirectly, or by comparison to anything. It either was an eyewitness or it wasn't. And the fact is that it was not. Its analogous to being pregnant. You either are or you aren't; you cant be partially pregnant. You are trying to surreptitiously attribute an eyewitness stature to the Septuagint that it simply does not merit.

Thirdly, you say, "That the Septuagint concerned events centuries or millennium before it is irrelevant here." Wrong again! It certainly is relevant. You only wish it weren't. Time frames are quite relevant because they demonstrate conclusively that the the Septuagint does not have this quasi-eyewitness status which you feel its due.

Letter #750 Continues (Part i)

(In the 168th issue I said to DA, "You say 'The Septuagint is, however, over 1500 years older than the KJV.' That's supposed to prove it is more accurate? Following that logic the King James Version should blow away all these modern versions because its over 300 years older than they are. It is over 300 years closer to the actual events." DA now says--Ed.),

Nor will it do to try to say that since the Septuagint is superior to the KJV for being closer to the event, the KJV ought to be superior to modern versions since it is older than they are. The modern versions are based on 6th and 7th hand witnesses and are thus in effect perhaps a thousand years older than the KJV we had described as a 10th hand witness.

Editors Response to Letter #750 (Part i)

First, you say "we" had described the KJV "as a 10th hand witness" Other than yourself, who is this we to whom you are referring? I certainly hope you are not including me. From whence came that bizarre figure? Some esoteric tome?

Second, how do you know modern versions are based on 6th and 7th hand witnesses and where did you get those numbers? I have never seen them in the literature either.

Third, the word "perhaps" shows you are guessing and remember what I said recently about the book Who Moved the Stone regarding employment of words like "probably" and "perhaps"?

Fourth and finally, you act as if the KJV is self-contained and derived from nothing. In fact, it is based upon prior manuscripts. And how do you know those OT writings upon which it is based are not older than the manuscripts upon which the modern versions are founded? In fact, how do you know they are not older than the Septuagint and the manuscripts from which it is derived, which would all but decimate your entire theory.

Letter #750 Concludes (Part j)

(In the 168th issue I noted the contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 which says Ahaziah began to rule at age 22 and 2 Chron. 22:2 which says he was 42. DA now says--Ed.),

You run through some possibilities a) 42 correct and 22 wrong, b) 22 correct and 44 (sic) wrong, and c) both say 22 or 42 in the original, to which you say I have no way to prove either figure. Quite the contrary. Second Chron. 21:5 and 20 both say Joram, Ahaziahs father died at age 40, as does 2 Kings 8:17. A son older than the father is something we can best reserve for science fiction, so we can throw out 42.

Jacob Myers in the 2 Chronicles volume of the Anchor Bible (p. 125) tells us "The chief LXX witnesses have '20', while there is some minor support for '22', which may be due to the influence of the Masoretic Text (MT) of 2 Kings 8:26. The MT of Chronicles may represent the conflation of two traditions and exhibits a striking example of the effort to preserve two divergent traditions. Originally the numbers were kept separate, e.g., 20 or 22, and only later added together." Which meant that the correct answer was d) and that 2 Chronicles 22:2 did not say 42 in the original. 42 is an error in the translation, not in the bible.

Editors Concluding Response to Letter #750 (Part j)

The major error involved would not be with the translation but with those who actually took your rationalizations to heart.

First, since when did Jacob Myers and the Anchor Bible become the final authority? Just because Myers says it, that is sufficient? Apparently you have more than one god.

Second, Myers admits he is guessing because he says, "The MT of Chronicles may represent the conflation of two traditions." Use of the word "may" proves as much. Consequently, when he says, "Originally the numbers were kept separate, e.g., 20 or 22, and only later added together," he is engaged in conjecture. He also uses the word "may" with respect to the influence of the Masoretic Text (MT) of 2 Kings 8:26. Again, recall what said in regard to Who Moved the Stone and all its suppositions?

Third, you say, "42 is an error in the translation, not in the bible." You don't know that. Now you're guessing. Have you ever seen the originals? No. Do you know of anyone who has? No. Do you have any writing that can definitely and beyond question be proven to be an exact replica of the original? No. Of course not. In other words, you don't have much of anything other than faith and prayer, and we all know how demonstrable they are.

Fourth, you don't seem to realize that the Septuagint, in which you place so much reliance, is a translation, a version, just like the KJV and scores of others and is subject to all the aches and pains associated with every work claiming to be an accurate reproduction of the alleged original. Its not the final authority, its not divinely inspired, and its not inerrant.

And finally, you quote Myers as saying, "The chief LXX witnesses have '20', while there is some minor support for '22',...." Good grief! Have you no sense of logic? You are unwittingly discrediting your own argument. You admit "The chief LXX witnesses have '20', while there is some minor support for '22', as opposed to "20," which strongly implies the correct number is neither 22 nor 42; its 20.

You also say, "Which meant that the correct answer was d)" but you fail to clarify what you mean by d). I did not have d) as an option. If you meant to say b), then, as said, you debunked your own argument by quoting Myers.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #754 from Louis W. Cable of Lufkin, Texas

Dear Dennis. I thoroughly enjoy your critical analyses of the works of Christian apologists. These critiques are indeed devastating, and they give freethinkers some very potent ammunition for rebutting Bible thumpers. I grew up with these types and know them well. Some of your subscribers may not have had the dubious benefit of that experience. If ever you have met a true Bible believer you couldn't help but notice the air of self-righteousness they so arrogantly display. His way, he will tell you, is the only way; his truth is the only truth; his life is the only life worth living. Everyone who does not agree with him is doomed. Isaiah was surely speaking of these people when he said in 5:21, "Woe unto those who are wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight."

In BE #176 you critiqued The Case of Jesus the Messiah by the apologists Ankerberg, Weldon, and Kaiser. Once again you demolished bogus claims of prophecy fulfillment. However, the last paragraph was disappointing; you were much too generous. Ankerberg is, in my opinion, a charlatan. He has (or at one time had) a TV show in which he purported to give equal time to those in disagreement with his claim of Bible inerrancy. The show is not shown live. It is taped for later presentation. Despite his claim of impartiality, Ankerberg, or someone on his staff, apparently edits the tapes to show his opponents in an unfavorable light. He and his cohorts always 'win."

P.S. If you print this letter, please give my full name, Thanks

Editors Response to Letter #754

Louis. In one of our issues years ago I made essentially the same point with respect to editing by the programs creators and was sent a letter from the shows producer assuring me censorship did not occur. Still, I have no doubt that their ability to edit every program all but guarantees a more favorable outcome from their perspective than would otherwise be the case.

Several years before BE appeared, I called the producer and challenged the shows objectivity. All I can remember with respect to the specifics of our conversation, other than its intensity, is that when I mentioned the accuracy of Robert Ingersoll, the producer immediately alleged Ingersoll was "full of prunes." That's a direct quote. I had to muster every ounce of self-restraint in my repertoire in order not to tell him what the Bible was full of.

Letter #755 from JU of Dewey, Arizona

Dear Friends. I was delighted to discover a television program on our local Prescott channel 7 that discussed Biblical Errancy. I live in a fairly conservative community and find that I am overwhelmed by the continuous bible thumping from the right wing Christian religious groups. One particularly vehement group is the "Potters House" cult that has infiltrated our school board and threatens to undermine the whole school system.

I am writing you to get information or a list of sources so can gather ammunition in the form of good information to strike back against these fanatics. Any information you can provide will be appreciated. If you have an Internet web site or if there are web sites that have discussions about Biblical Errancy, let me know that too. Thank you.

Editors Response to Letter #755

Dear JU. Thanks for your compliments and rest assured the entire anti-religious community knows how you feel. Most of us are convinced that we not only live in the Bible Belt but on its buckle.

As far as web sites are concerned you can read nearly all of Biblical Errancy's back issues at: members.aol.com/ckbloomfld. And we will be glad to send you a free list of materials we have available. If you devour everything contained therein, you should be well equipped to cope with practically any biblicist you may encounter.

Letter #756 from KB of Los Angeles, California

Dear Dennis. BE#177 arrived Friday, Sept. 5. Those items in NBs letter (#743) pertaining to "In God We Trust" on our monies and "under God" in the pledge of allegiance are things that should be committed to memory by freethinkers of every stripe. I find myself having to explain why I put black lines through the letters on the backsides of my paper currency. I know that am putting the idea into someone's mind that it wasn't "always there," especially those born after 1955.

Regarding the tapes of your programs locally, they (programs 9 through 16) are in the hands of Verdugo Hills Cable (now a branch of Media One). When left them in the middle of last month, the engineer there did not have an immediately available time for them, but he said he would book them in as soon as he could find the slot....

#177 arrived with one of those postal service bar codes pasted across the text above the line on the mailing side. If this is happening generally, it might help if you had the columns on page 6 about two lines shorter. See the enclosed copy. I used a mirror to read what had come off on the back of the P.O.s slip, rewrote it, and will paste it over the damage.

Keep up the good work and let me know when you have additional (programs 17 and beyond) ready....

Editors Response to Letter #756

Dear KB. We've finally completed all 100 recordings after nearly four years of effort. Every edition of our TV program, BIBLICAL ERRANCY COMMENTARY, is now available and we hope you will play the entire series as soon as practical. Thanks for the aid.

As far as bar codes are concerned, you are not the only person who has had one posted over the final lines on the 6th page. Within the last several months we have received the same grievance from others. I apologize for putting too much writing on the last page and will try to rectify the situation.

Letter #757 from JB of Mesquite, Texas

Do you distribute any tracts. I recently became an unbeliever through my own study of the Bible. However, I would have become an unbeliever much sooner if I had been exposed to the kind of material you publish. If you have anything available in tract format, it will help me to start many believers down the road of unbelief. During 23 years of believing, I had never before come across any refutations of the Bible that I couldn't dismiss out of hand, because the evangelical world view is remarkably impervious. However, when I discovered on my own that biblical inerrancy is untrue, the very foundation of my world view was undermined and no longer impervious to reason. Many (most?) believers will never recognize biblical errancy on their own, and I believe that some of your material in tract format can give them the leg-up they need to climb out of the pit of irrationality they now obliviously dwell in.

Editors Response to Letter #757

A cardinal principle upon which our philosophy and this publication rests is that freethinkers must first knock the props out from under the biblical superstructure before biblicists are going to seriously weigh and contemplate another world view. You have only succeeded in buttressing that premise. For some reason or another the full import of what you are alleging, JB, just doesn't register with thousands of freethinkers. I have made this point repeatedly, but the latters adherence to the externals of court battles, legal briefs, letters to the editor, appeals to the Constitution, citations from the writings of the founding fathers, invocations of the First Amendment, scientific evidence, exposures of religious history, comparisons to other religions, historical discoveries, etc. is all but intractable. They just don't comprehend the full import of your comments.

Freethinkers also seem oblivious to the full implications of your assertion "that you would have become an unbeliever much sooner if I had been exposed to the kind of material you publish." Instead of realizing biblicists are going to say, "I don't care what kind of extrabiblical evidence you have; if it contradicts the Bible then it has to be false because the Bible is the word of God and what you have is not," they seem intent on pursuing an anemic strategy that is plagued by a history of impotence and failure. Their tactics are not unimportant; just less important in so far as combating our main opposition is concerned.

Because our strategies are clearly in concert, you should find our materials to be of great assistance. We have two tracts in particular, each of which asks biblicists to confront over 20 key questions in regard to Jesus and the Bible. Hopefully you will be able to distribute them in abundance.

Letter #758 from GL via email

Dennis. I just wanted to say thank you for all the information that you have made available. I was involved with a church, born again, and accepted Jesus as my savior, and let me tell you I had questions that would come up when I read the bible and was given some answers that I just could not understand. And that's if I even asked them because was I afraid that was questioning the validity of "the word of god." I have found from my experience that Christianity is based on one thing and one thing only and that is fear. That is what gets people into it and that is what keeps people in it. People are too afraid to question their beliefs because of fear of punishment, even when they have valid doubts. I was one of them. I just want to say how thankful I am that you created your web site. Keep up the great work.