182 Does the Bible Contradict Itself 2 Words on Cr

Biblical Errancy Issue #182
February 1998

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

REVIEW
DOES THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ITSELF? (Part 2)

Last month's issue discussed several contradictions addressed by W. Arndt in his book Does the Bible Contradict Itself? that have dogged biblicists since time immemorial. We can now continue that litany.

On page 73 Arndt attempts to reconcile the rather simple and direct conflict created by the differing accounts as to the words written on the cross. Matt. 27:37 says, 'This is Jesus the King of the Jews' Mark 15:26 says, 'The King of the Jews' Luke 23:38 says, 'This is the King of the Jews' And John 19:19 says, 'Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.' So which is it? Arndt says, "...One glance suffices to show that among the four versions there is no difference in meaning. John's account is simply more complete than those of the others.... The opponents say, however, that verbal inspiration implies absolute accuracy. They say that if the Bible had been given by verbal inspiration, then John could not have written that the superscription on the Cross was 'Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews,' while Mark simply says the superscription was 'The King of the Jews.' ...This criticism arbitrarily lays down the principle that when one quotes a statement, one must, in order to be faithful to the original, give every word of it. To state this principle is to expose its injustice. Nothing is more common in all human languages than to abridge a speech, or a remark which one is quoting...

Arndt's defense closely resembles one often used by biblicists with respect to the four different accounts of what occurred at the time of the Resurrection. We are repeatedly told situations of this nature are like obtaining testimony from different witnesses to an automobile accident. Supposedly we can only get the actual picture by piecing all the perspectives together. At least that's the theory. The fact that this entire approach is fatally flawed in several respects never seems to dawn upon the Bible's defenders.

First, the only accurate account according to this ruse is the one that is the most all-encompassing. We are supposed to believe that the one including all the others is by definition the most correct, when that is by no means true. If there are four witness to a hit and run and four different accounts as to how many people were in the car that sped away--one, two, three, or four--the police don't automatically conclude the correct number of occupants is four. There might have been two with two shadows. There might have been three with a head rest giving the illusion of four.

Second, regardless of how often speech is abridged, there can only be one correct wording. If the wording in John is correct then that in the other 3 is erroneous. Imagine the kind of legal chaos Arndt's approach would generate whenever contracts came into conflict. The one with the most words that included the others would always be deemed more valid, even though abridged contracts are often newer and more correct than the predecessor from which they arose.

Third, Arndt says, "The opponents say, however, that verbal inspiration implies absolute accuracy." That is not what opponents say. They say that verbal inspiration implies accuracy, period. And you can't have accuracy when you have 4 different versions. Each version is either accurate or it isn't. There can be no in between, no gradations of accuracy. You can't have "accuracy" and "absolute accuracy." The word absolute is redundant. Arndt's trying to deceive his readers by giving the impression that 3 of the gospels are accurate while only one is absolutely accurate. No. That's not how it works. If one is accurate, then it is absolutely accurate as well, and the others are inaccurate. In effect, Arndt is attempting to attribute gradations of perfection to parts of Scripture. That is about as sensible as saying one comment is accurate, another is more accurate, a third is highly accurate, and another is extremely accurate. And all of this schlock is being attributed to a book that is supposed to be perfectly accurate to begin with. If you are not careful when dealing with biblicists, your mind could become as convoluted, confused, chaotic, and conning as theirs.

Fourth, Arndt says, "One glance suffices to show that among the four versions there is no difference in meaning" when there most assuredly is. Neither Mark nor Luke identify the person on the cross as Jesus. At least not from the superscription per se. Both merely say "the King of the Jews" which could be applied to others who died on the cross in that day and age while claiming to be the King of the Jews. Neither says it was Jesus, the founder of Christianity, who was dying. That assumption is only made because Matthew and John use the word "Jesus" specifically.

Moreover, many people were named "Jesus" in that era. So, if the word Nazareth had not been used in John and carried over into Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there would be no reason to assume the person referred to is the founder of Christianity. How do biblicists know their one and only Jesus of Nazareth is the one who is dying? Because John, and only John, makes the connection in so far as the inscription is concerned, that's how. So when Arndt says, "among the four versions there is no difference in meaning," I beg to differ. Reconciliation is only possible by blending all four and filling in gaps created by three.

The bottom line is that there can be only one writing on the cross; only one of the Gospel accounts can be accurate and verbatim.

On page 114 Arndt discusses the contradiction between Deut. 8:2 ("And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord, thy God, led thee these forty years in the wilderness to humble thee and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldst keep His commandments or not") and Acts 1:24 ("And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show which of these two Thou hast chosen"). He states, "When the Bible says that God knows the hearts of all men, and again, that God proves men to know what is in their hearts, does it not contradict itself? The matter has puzzled Bible readers time and again. The answer, however, is not so difficult as might be thought. To begin with, there is no passage in all the Scriptures which says that God does not know all things."

Wrong again! Many verses show God either does not know something or is seeking to obtain information. That is the clear import of Psalm 14:2 ("The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God"). Why would he look down to see if he already knew? Ezek. 20:3 says, "Thus saith the Lord God; Are ye come to inquire of me? As I live, saith the Lord God, I will not be inquired of by you." Again we see God seeking information. In Num. 22:9 ("And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee?") we again find God seeking information. In Hosea 8:4 ("They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not... ") and Gen. 18:21 ("I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know") God directly states he lacks some information and, unless he is lying, the conclusion is clear. When he says He does not know something, that should settle the matter and would have done so long ago had anyone else been involved. But because his followers can not conceive of him being deficient in any respect, they don't believe him. I, on the other hand, take him at his word. It's only reasonable that if he said it, he meant it. Biblicists are actually saying to God: You don't really mean that God, now do you Oh, yes he does. Don't they believe Scripture! They sure do when it fits their needs and complies with their predilections. One could also consult Gen. 3:9, Gen. 4:5-6, 4:9, 2 Chron. 32:31, and Amos 9:3 for additional confirmation of God's lack of omniscience. As is so often true, once biblicists have a concept embedded in their psyche, God himself can't change their minds.

Arndt continues, "Those statements which speak of God's proving the hearts of men do not say that He is ignorant with respect to the thoughts of their hearts. We cannot say that here we have a case of direct denial, one passage affirming what the other negatives. Again, when the Bible says that God puts men to the test to know their hearts, the meaning evidently is that God subjects man to certain visitations, which will reveal that what God knew beforehand concerning their hearts is absolutely true. It means that evidence is furnished which corroborates God's judgment."

What did God say in Hosea 8:4 ? God stated, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not..." God stated, " I knew it not" he stated it directly. What more do you apologists want?

At the end of Gen. 18:21 ("I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know") God directly states that he will then know, which means he did not know beforehand.

Frankly, I don't know what it would take to convince you biblicists that God can come up short in the knowledge field. You won't even accept God's own words, words that did not come from me or other atheists, but straight from God's "divine word."

Even in the verse Arndt quoted, Deut. 8:2, God said "he humbled thee to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart." In other words, he sought to obtain information. God is making a test in which he is not sure as to what the outcome will be. How could it be clearer?

Arndt also engages in the kind of guessing for which Morison is so famous by saying "the meaning is evidently that...," when there is nothing evident about it. Why would God perform tests to discover what he already knows?



Letter #761 from DC of St. Paul, Minn. (Part a) I just reviewed your Issue #2 of Biblical Errancy. It is obvious you went through a lot of work. However, it was also very quickly obvious that you apparently have not read any scholarly or theological works in regards to these matters.

Editor's Response to Letter #761 (Part a) I will do you the courtesy of forgetting you ever made a comment that ridiculous. Having been in this business as long as I have and having read hundreds of rationalizations and obfuscations, I sometimes wonder if I would not be better off if your comment were true.

Letter #761 Continues (Part b)

To be blunt, even a simple perusal of a few would have eliminated some of your remarks. The issue had a number of simple errors such as in your reference to 2 Kings 13:21 when you talk about a "grave" when it was a tomb; or, in referring to Ingersoll as "one of the greatest Biblical commentators in American history" (Who bestowed that honor? Certainly not anyone who has ever read, produced, or evaluated commentaries); or, in alleging that Adam was born (Gen 1:27); all these reveal a superficial research and analysis on those points.

Editor's Response to Letter #761 (Part b)

Talk about superficial research and to be even blunter, you don't know what you are talking about and your shallow comments reveal that all too vividly.

First, if you had bothered to read any of the literature, other than that within your narrow purview, you would have noticed that the NEB, the NAB, the NASB, the RSV, and the Modern Language all say "grave." Are you saying your scholars are more knowledgeable than those who composed these versions?

Second, you ask who bestowed the title upon Ingersoll of being "one of the greatest Biblical commentators in American history." I did. Notice I said 'commentator' I did not say 'rationalizer,' 'justifier,' or 'practitioner' in the art of 'explaining away.' Biblicists have legions well versed in the craft of mental legerdemain with regard to Scripture, but that skill did not lie within the realm of Ingersoll's area of expertise.

Third, and most pathetic of all, is your assertion that in Issue #2 I was "alleging that Adam was born (Gen. 1:27)" Incredible! Let me quote verbatim what I said on page 2 of the second issue. "And lastly, others participated in even more momentous events. Adam was never born to begin with (Gen.1:27); he came into the world as a full-grown adult." In other words, I said the exact opposite of what you allege. And you are telling me that my research is superficial!

Letter #761 Continues (Part c)

Others are more complicated; your comments about Mt. 12:40 betray a basic ignorance of how Jews measured time, you ignored the context of John 3:13, your assumption that Lk. 23:43 has been accurately punctuated is misplaced, and finally your note of the Mt. 1:16 vs. Lk. 3:23 ignores known Jewish customs. It would be futile to deal with these when you missed the boat on the previous simple one's.

Editor's Response to Letter #761 (Part c)

The word "futile" only applies to your pathetic attempt to manufacture misunderstandings where none exist and to walk off contentedly into the sunset with nothing more than a perfunctory "you missed it" rejoinder. That time excuse with respect to Matt. 12:40 ("For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth") has been laid to rest on several occasions and by resurrecting it's corpse you have only exposed your failure to have read much of BE beyond the second issue. As a quick reply, tell me how you are going to cram 3 nights into the time allotted.

As far as John 3:13 ("And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven") is concerned, all you did was make an assertion without so much as even trying to substantiate your charge. Second Kings 2:11 shows Elijah went up to heaven far earlier than Jesus and you provided no proof to the contrary. Apparently your word alone is supposed to suffice. Sorry, but that glue won't stick.

With regard to Luke 23:43 ("Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise") you state "your assumption that Lk. 23:43 has been accurately punctuated is misplaced." Good grief, DC. Do you research anything? What on earth brings you to that conclusion in light of the fact that every version of the Bible I am aware of, except one, has the comma in front of the word "today." Do you have any evidence to prove otherwise, or are we supposed to rely upon your conjectures and those of the Witnesses alone. Only the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses puts the comma after the word today, rather than before, in a transparent attempt to elude a contradiction.

And finally you criticize me for mentioning the contradiction between Matt. 1:16 which says Joseph's father is Jacob and Luke 3:23 which says his father is Heli by saying, "your note of the Mt. 1:16 vs. Lk. 3:23 ignores known Jewish customs." Really? Such as what? You mean the Jews had a custom in which two men could have the same son? Again you seem to feel that your mere assertion is sufficient proof.

Letter #761 Continues (Part d)

The basis for most of the other criticisms are revealed when you talk about inerrancy. You assume, as do the fundamentalists, that in order for the Bible to be the Word of God to man that it must be inerrant. If that assumption is removed your criticisms fall with it. In short, your criticisms are only valid against fundamentalists, or fundamentalism. They are not valid against Christianity or the Bible per se.

Editor's Response to Letter #761 (Part d)

You state, "You assume, as do the fundamentalists, that in order for the Bible to be the Word of God to man that it must be inerrant." My friend there is no assumption involved, only a fact. If that premise is removed, the Book "falls with it." You can no more have a divine book that is flawed than you can have a perfect God creating imperfection or a perfect God that is occasionally imperfect. Just think about the implications of what you are contending. That would mean the very writing most representative of God, indeed, the only writing representing him, would contain errors, inaccuracies, and falsehoods. That would be impossible since God and all his acts and creations are perfect by definition. You can't have perfection creating imperfection since that would nullify perfection....

Moreover, as I have said so often, how do you know what parts are true once you begin to admit certain parts are false, and who makes that determination? You are jeopardizing the credibility of the entire book.

Letter #761 Concludes (Part e)

Could you also tell me what is your background? Were you a Christian at one time (like Till)? If so, what type of denomination? What was your educational background like?

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #761 (Part e)

You can find a short autobiography of me on the last page of the 158th issue. As I noted then, I was never a churchgoer but I have always been interested in philosophy and religion. Although the autobio contains a synopsis of my educational background, I learned infinitely more about Scripture by reading on my own than I ever obtained via formal instruction. Indeed, if I had gone through some sort of seminary or religious indoctrination program, I have no doubt that my ability to objectively critique Scripture would have been dramatically and deleteriously, if not fatally, curtailed.

Letter #762 from EK of Jamaica Estates, New York

Dear Dennis. Regarding Issue #181, Jan. 1998. In his book Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Arndt attempts to reconcile Exodus 20:14 "Thou shall not commit adultery" with Numbers 31:18 "All the women children that have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves."

You say that if only one person is married, then God is ordering adultery. This is not the Biblical law of adultery as only if the woman is married to another man does adultery occur. (Biblical law is hardly egalitarian). David and Solomon had concubines while married but only when David had relations with Bathsheba, a woman married to Uriah, does adultery occur.

The women children who had not known a man by lying with him were undoubtedly unmarried, hence no adultery could occur under Biblical law.

Editor's Response to Letter #762

Dear EK. I certainly agree with you that biblical law is not egalitarian, but I am in a bit of a quandary as to where biblical law says that "only if the woman is married to another man does adultery occur." Could you cite chapter and verse for that contention? Essentially what we are discussing is the biblical concept of adultery. Scripture says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," but we are in disagreement as to what it means by adultery. Just what is adultery from the biblical perspective? You say a man can only commit adultery according to biblical law if the woman involved is married, but I don't agree. A couple of verses either state or imply that a married man can have relations with an unmarried woman and be guilty of adultery. The woman involved does not have to be married. Prov. 6:32 says, "But who so committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul." Notice it did not say "a married woman" It says a woman, period, which may or may not include someone who is married. A much stronger verse is Matt. 5:28 in which Jesus says, "...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Notice it does not say the woman must be married. It just says a woman, period. Admittedly neither verse says a man is committing adultery by having relations with a single woman, but it is not ruled out either. The basic problem is that the Bible does not clearly and emphatically support either of our positions. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" but nowhere does it clearly and unequivocally define exactly what adultery entails. And because it is not clearly defined I think my position is more reliable than yours. Only by producing verses that state a man only commits adultery by having relations with a married woman can you hope to salvage your stance.

As far as David and Solomon having concubines is concerned, do you have any verses contending their relationships with these women did not constitute adultery? You say, "Only when-David has sexual relations with Bathsheba, a woman married to Uriah, does adultery occur." You will have to furnish a verse or verses to that effect, if your assertion is to have any credibility.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #763 from JB Via Email

(JB sent us a series of letters that represent the kind of mental agony many people endure when they decide to make that qualitative leap from religion to reality, from Scripture to sanity. Few aspects of this transition are more traumatic than confronting friends and relatives who are yet to make the escape and who are critical of those who have. Although JB was a dedicated Christian for many years and taught the Bible with exceptional comprehension, his wisdom and his conscience would no longer allow him to maintain an aura of unreality about his life. So he defected to the other side and this is part of his story. Because JB's journey, doubts, and questioning is representative of thousands, we have decided to make his correspondence available to all, many of whom can no doubt identify with his ordeal. When asked for some general personal information JB stated, "I studied the Bible and evangelical apologetic literature for 23 years on my own. I had no formal training except in Sunday School, which is almost entirely useless for really knowing Christianity. Many years ago I was in Campus Crusade for Christ in college, and I was president on my campus (Emory University in Atlanta) for one year. If it matters, I have a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and I work as a technologist and a manager at a major instrument company.

My objective is not really to prove anything, although that would be nice. My real objective is to demonstrate to my in-laws that I came to disbelief competently, and not out of ignorance, whim, or in reaction to an emotional or spiritual conflict, or out of evil in-tent, as they are wont to think. If I achieve this, I will consider my effort successful. It will make my relationship with my in-laws bearable again."

He begins his first letter by saying,

"The following was in response to a nasty letter my father-in-law sent me upon first learning of my deconversion. My intent was to set the tone for a cordial relationship, to prevent my father-in-law from cutting off all conversation, which he had threatened to do in his letter, and to undermine the false assumptions he was making about my loss of faith....

In response to my father-in-law's letter I said, "For 23 years I was a Christian. During that time -- but especially after having children -- I was very serious about living the Christian life and I studied the Bible to learn how to live it. As I studied, I began to encounter difficulties. For many years I overlooked these difficulties and accepted Christianity anyway, believing that the difficulties must have resolutions which I simply had not discovered yet. However, the more I studied, the more numerous and prominent the difficulties became, to the extent that I could not overlook them any longer. I redoubled my efforts, studying the Bible and reading the apologists, and giving Christianity every benefit of the doubt. One day last Christmas season I sat down and opened my Bible for personal devotions and suddenly recognized that I did not believe it anymore. The cumulative force of the difficulties thoroughly and completely discredited Christianity, even for a sincere and willing believer, and the church simply cannot answer the difficulties. I was a sincere, dedicated Christian, seriously trying to live the Christian life, and I lost faith as a result of studying the Bible -- quite contrary to my own wish. I know that my very existence, as a Christian who rejects the faith based on knowledge of the faith, is threatening, and I understand why you have reacted so strongly. My wife and I have experienced many of the same emotions about this that you have. Our loss of faith is something that happened to us while we were doing the things that Christians are supposed to do -- not something that we willfully or maliciously decided. (Why would we? It would have been much easier to continue on as believers.) The whole process has been wrenching for us, and, like you, I have lost many hours of sleep because of it. However, knowing what I know, it is impossible for me to believe again. Belief is not something a person decides to do -- belief is something a person experiences as a result of what he or she knows. To affirm something that 's impossible for me to believe would be lying, and I cannot do it with a clear conscience. [My father-in-law had told me I should believe anyway, whether Christianity is true or not!]

To one of my in-laws I said, I am glad your letter said that you want to maintain good relations between the families. We want the same. It is because we wanted to maintain good family relations that we did not reveal our loss of faith when it first occurred. We wanted to slowly move away from the faith to give you all a chance to get used to the idea and spare you the shock. But we were found out by accident, and so now we all must deal with it. You also said you do not want to debate the issue, and we agree, because debate would result in a family feud. However, I believe that there will always be tension between our families if we close off two-way dialog about the issue. I am willing to discuss the issues with you or any other family member.... Can we keep open the possibility of having a fair, two-way dialog?"

(Next month we will read the letter JB sent to his pastor)

Letter #764 from WS via Email Dear Mr. McKinsey. I've enjoyed your internet site that provides some good arguments for biblical errancy. I am also opposed to the inerrantists. I was reading your 1983 article on "Slavery" and thought that another good point to include is in the book of Philemon. Paul is sending the runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his Christian master, Philemon. This is especially good since it's clear that Christians were also slave owners. Another point in Philemon was that found in verse 8, where Paul encourages Philemon to act out of love when his slave returns, but also recognizes Philemon's right to deal harshly (out of duty) with Onesimus. I haven't read all your commentary to know if you touched on this point, but thought I would bring it to your attention.

Editor's Response to Letter #764

That's an account of the biblical attitude toward slavery that we've never discussed. Thanks for mentioning it.

Letter #765 from DH of Duluth, Minnesota

Dennis. In BE #180, response to letter #754, you say that a radio producer said Robert Ingersoll was, "full of prunes." Well, I agree. Prunes are good for you. Perhaps a healthy dose of Ingersoll prunes would help relieve the mental constipation that seems to inflict so many of these inerrantists. I take a bit of Ingersoll every now and then to keep the mental juices flowing. And of course, no Paine - no gain.

Letter #766 from KB of New York, New York

Let me state that I consider your efforts to expose the true nature of the Bible to be invaluable. I have already bought my brother a copy of your book, and he enjoyed it immensely. I am also the proud owner of your book and every issue of "Biblical Errancy." I have credits equivalent to a masters in philosophy, and I am convinced that reading your comprehensive and exacting scholarship has made me a more careful reader. Dennis, you are indeed a national treasure. Keep up the good work. The road is long, the battles are many, and the enemies are well entrenched and determined, but the war must be fought. Before I started reading your work, I thought this war was a lost cause. Thanks to you I know that it is not. I will continue to do what I can to help on my end.

Editor's Response to Letter #766

Thanks for the kudos. The greatest assistance you could render us at this time would be to play our TV programs on your local public access channel.

Letter #767 from TB of Little Rock, Arkansas

Dennis McKinsey. Hello, my name is TB. I spoke with you once on the phone earlier this year; perhaps you remember. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I have attended the public access classes required by our local cable company for use of the public access station, and can use it whenever I like. I would be more than happy to air your shows. Please send me as many tapes as you would like aired.

Editor's Response to Letter #767

Bingo! That's precisely the kind of letter I have been seeking from people for lo these many months, TB. Your assistance is most appreciated and that is stating it mildly.