Post by Admin on Oct 16, 2012 11:53:30 GMT -8
768 (Part r)
First, I did try the Mississippi and it failed the test, too.
Second, you say "The river has been trying to switch its course..." Good grief! Now you are trying to tell me a river has a mind of its own. Do you relate the thoughts of rocks and the intentions of hurricanes as well?
And third, you say, "The river has been trying to switch its course to the Atchafalaya River for some decades." I think you are losing it DA. To begin with, the Atchafalaya River is an entirely separate river running parallel with the Mississippi, so it is not even relevant to the discussion. It is not the Mississippi; it is not a branch of the Mississippi, and it is not connected to the Mississippi. You even admit they are poorly connected by saying, "The river has been trying to switch its course to the Atchafalaya River for some decades." So, other than to escape the stockade in which you imprisoned yourself, why did you even bring it up? You weren't trying to throw me off track by any chance were you? No, of course not. The very idea would never have entered your head.
Letter #768 Concludes (Part s)
Note too that the branches of the Mississippi are called "bayou," a word that comes from an Indian word meaning "river" and one of its definitions is "river...."
Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #768 (Part s)
Wrong again. To be specific it comes from a Choctaw word meaning small stream which hardly qualifies as a river.
But even more importantly a modern dictionary such as Webster's New World (1700 pages) defines a bayou as "a sluggish, marshy inlet or outlet of a lake, river, etc." Notice it: (a) does not say it is a river, and (b) says it is part of a lake, river, etc. It is not a lake or river per se.
Incidentally, I know the concepts of the Bible's supporters are antiquated at best, but you would do well to upgrade your socio-politico awareness and terminology. Most of those whose ancestors greeted the white man would prefer to be called Native Americans, not indians with an inaccurate lower case I. If you don't want to be called a Bible Thumper, a Fundie, a bead rattler, a Pope's puppet, (if you are a catholic), or some other disparaging epithet, I would suggest you refer to people in more appropriate and respectful terms by giving consideration to words they prefer.
Incidentally, would you stop putting periods and commas outside of quotation marks. That's a juvenile grammatical faux pas that I find distracting.
Your final two short paragraphs are nothing more than sophomoric summaries offering me advice that could far more appropriately be directed toward your own inadequacies.
On top of everything else, DA, I feel compelled to inform you that although you like to debate, you are nowhere nearly as accomplished as you seem to think you are. And it is quite obvious from your writing style that defending and projecting your own ego is of far greater importance to you than defending the Bible. Win, lose, or draw you not only love to see your name and writings in print but receive a kind of high from the experience. As they used to say in the 60's, You're ego-tripping and, believe me, there can be no doubt you have awfully big ego over which to trip.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #774 from JB Via Email
(Last month's issue contained a letter written by JB in which he explained to his pastor why he left Christianity. In this, his third letter, he attempts to relate the ideological problems he had with the Bible. He states--Ed.),
The following is a short document I wrote to collect my thoughts the day before I told my wife that I had lost faith. I wrote the document for my own use never intending to share it with anyone, and so I do not try to prove anything, but only to summarize what I had learned over the years....
SOME ELEMENTS OF MY DECONVERSION
The church tends to ignore controversial teachings in the Bible:
(a) Speaking in tongues
(b) Baptism for the dead
(c) Women must wear head coverings
(d) Doctrine of hell
(e) Sons of God in Genesis 6
(f) Necessity of poverty to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33)
(g) Many of Jesus's unclear teachings.
The church has been on the tail-end of positive social movements
(a) Eradication of Nazism
(b) Abolition of slavery
(c) Women's suffrage
(d) Civil rights for African Americans
(e) Women's opportunities for service.
The Bible is unclear or vague on major issues
(a) Abortion
(b) Divorce
(c) War
(d) Church discipline
(e) Debt
(f) Paedobaptism
(g) Soteriology (including justice of substitutionary sacrifice)
(h) Christology (for example, Trinitarian theology)
(i) Satanology
(j) Nature of the afterlife
(k) Eschatology
(l) Fundamentals of the faith
(m) Standing of Jewish believers in relation to the Law.
The Bible is inconsistent on major issues
(a) The nature and existence of the afterlife
(b) The efficacy of works of the Law with regard to salvation
(c) The distinction between soul and spirit
(d) Large theological gap between Old and New Testaments
(e) Greek influence on Israel's late Old Testament theology
(f) Differences between Jesus and Paul in the New Testament
(g) Differences between Paul and James in the New Testament.
The Bible records scientifically impossible events as factual
(a) The creation narrative
(b) Noah's deluge
(c) Solid dome over the sky
(d) Earth supported by a foundation
(e) Popular answers from the church have been nonsense
(f) None of the more rational answers survives scrutiny.
Shortcomings of the prophecies
(a) Many Old Testament prophecies are too vague to be tested
(b) Many Old Testament prophecies are yet unfulfilled
(c) Prophecies were not written prior to the events forecast
(d) Jesus does not fit the Messiah described by the Old Testament
(e) New testament prophecy is largely incomprehensible.
There are contradictions throughout the Bible
(a) Staff or no staff? (Mk 6:8/Lk 9:3)
(b) Healing of centurion's servant
(c) Three days and three nights?
(d) Day of crucifixion?
(e) Post-resurrection events (Mt 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20-21, Acts 1:3-12, 1Cor 15:3-8)
(f) Sovereignty of God? (2 Peter 3:9)
Problems with the Canon
a) The canon is disputed by the church
(b) There is no objective basis behind the canon
(c) Jude quotes the non-canonical Book of Enoch as scripture.
Problems with authorship and transmission of the autographs
(a) Many books of the Bible have no statement of authorship
(b) Some books in the canon are pseudepigraphical (lie about authorship)
(c) Both Israel and the church altered the texts
(d) The church conflated the text.
Problems with interpretation
(a) No single hermeneutic is adequate for interpretation
(b) The meanings of words and phrases have been lost
(c) Cultural references have been lost
(d) Many books and passages admit multiple interpretations
(e) NT authors were free and loose in their interpretations.
Fundamental problems with every systematic theology
(a) Covenant theology muddles distinctions between Israel and the church
(b) Calvinistic reformed theology stumbles at the existence of evil
(c) Dispensational theology is too hopelessly complex to be credible
(d) Arianism destroys the sovereignty of God
(d) Roman Catholic theology introduces unbiblical and irrational ideas
(e) The Bible neither presents nor lends itself to systematic theology.
The only hypothesis that fits all the data
(a) The Bible is not the actual Word of God
(b) The Bible is a human creation, arising through natural social processes
(c) The theology in the Bible is not immutable, but has changed over time.
Therefore
(a) The Bible does not address every issue for which we need a word from God
(b) Being inconsistent, the Bible: is unsuitable as a final arbiter in disputes, is a false witness presenting fiction as truth, is untrustworthy in its statements concerning the supernatural, and is neither a sufficient nor reliable guide for living.
WHERE TO FROM HERE FOR ME?
I have spent 23 years seeking answers in the evangelical church without success. Therefore it seems advantageous to withdraw from the church and from teaching the Bible and spend my time more productively. The evangelical church is hypocritical, because it claims to have the truth, but it systematically ignores, denies, and covers up the serious rational challenges to its dogma. I also reject the outright the leap of faith required to find a place in liberal churches. In my opinion they are engaging in institutionalized self-delusion.
Letter #775 from MB of Collinsville, Illinois
I was indoctrinated into the Christian religion from an early age, but eventually I began to question some of the illogic that it presented. As a result, I let Christians know my feelings on this controversy. Without surprise, not many Christians showed respect for my view and tried to reveal their "truth" to me. It became irritating to have to defend my disbelief to the arrogant Christians who wanted to save my soul. Thanks to you, I don't defend my disbelief now, but rather I go on the offense and challenge them to defend the Bible's flaws.
I came upon your Internet site. I am very impressed with your exhaustive research and excellent ability to communicate it. I didn't realize that the Bible was that full of errors until I read some of the BE issues at your site. It is refreshing to read such a rational and objective critique of the Bible. Although I am not an atheist, I hold the same feelings as you do with respect to the negative impact that Christianity has on our culture. I also feel it is important to give a balance to such one-sided, false data.
I would appreciate it if you could send me your "Encyclopedia of BE. When I get a little more cash I will send for all the "BE issues". If you have more information on other literature you have, such as tracts on biblical falsehoods, I would love to order some.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
We would like to remind everyone that our book entitled THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRANCY can be purchased from us for $52.20: Biblical Errancy, 2500 Punderson Drive, Hilliard, OH 430256 or from our publisher, Prometheus Books at 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228-2197 (1-800-421-0351). After having read the book, one of our subscribers recently told me by phone that he loved its In Your Face Style.
First, I did try the Mississippi and it failed the test, too.
Second, you say "The river has been trying to switch its course..." Good grief! Now you are trying to tell me a river has a mind of its own. Do you relate the thoughts of rocks and the intentions of hurricanes as well?
And third, you say, "The river has been trying to switch its course to the Atchafalaya River for some decades." I think you are losing it DA. To begin with, the Atchafalaya River is an entirely separate river running parallel with the Mississippi, so it is not even relevant to the discussion. It is not the Mississippi; it is not a branch of the Mississippi, and it is not connected to the Mississippi. You even admit they are poorly connected by saying, "The river has been trying to switch its course to the Atchafalaya River for some decades." So, other than to escape the stockade in which you imprisoned yourself, why did you even bring it up? You weren't trying to throw me off track by any chance were you? No, of course not. The very idea would never have entered your head.
Letter #768 Concludes (Part s)
Note too that the branches of the Mississippi are called "bayou," a word that comes from an Indian word meaning "river" and one of its definitions is "river...."
Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #768 (Part s)
Wrong again. To be specific it comes from a Choctaw word meaning small stream which hardly qualifies as a river.
But even more importantly a modern dictionary such as Webster's New World (1700 pages) defines a bayou as "a sluggish, marshy inlet or outlet of a lake, river, etc." Notice it: (a) does not say it is a river, and (b) says it is part of a lake, river, etc. It is not a lake or river per se.
Incidentally, I know the concepts of the Bible's supporters are antiquated at best, but you would do well to upgrade your socio-politico awareness and terminology. Most of those whose ancestors greeted the white man would prefer to be called Native Americans, not indians with an inaccurate lower case I. If you don't want to be called a Bible Thumper, a Fundie, a bead rattler, a Pope's puppet, (if you are a catholic), or some other disparaging epithet, I would suggest you refer to people in more appropriate and respectful terms by giving consideration to words they prefer.
Incidentally, would you stop putting periods and commas outside of quotation marks. That's a juvenile grammatical faux pas that I find distracting.
Your final two short paragraphs are nothing more than sophomoric summaries offering me advice that could far more appropriately be directed toward your own inadequacies.
On top of everything else, DA, I feel compelled to inform you that although you like to debate, you are nowhere nearly as accomplished as you seem to think you are. And it is quite obvious from your writing style that defending and projecting your own ego is of far greater importance to you than defending the Bible. Win, lose, or draw you not only love to see your name and writings in print but receive a kind of high from the experience. As they used to say in the 60's, You're ego-tripping and, believe me, there can be no doubt you have awfully big ego over which to trip.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #774 from JB Via Email
(Last month's issue contained a letter written by JB in which he explained to his pastor why he left Christianity. In this, his third letter, he attempts to relate the ideological problems he had with the Bible. He states--Ed.),
The following is a short document I wrote to collect my thoughts the day before I told my wife that I had lost faith. I wrote the document for my own use never intending to share it with anyone, and so I do not try to prove anything, but only to summarize what I had learned over the years....
SOME ELEMENTS OF MY DECONVERSION
The church tends to ignore controversial teachings in the Bible:
(a) Speaking in tongues
(b) Baptism for the dead
(c) Women must wear head coverings
(d) Doctrine of hell
(e) Sons of God in Genesis 6
(f) Necessity of poverty to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33)
(g) Many of Jesus's unclear teachings.
The church has been on the tail-end of positive social movements
(a) Eradication of Nazism
(b) Abolition of slavery
(c) Women's suffrage
(d) Civil rights for African Americans
(e) Women's opportunities for service.
The Bible is unclear or vague on major issues
(a) Abortion
(b) Divorce
(c) War
(d) Church discipline
(e) Debt
(f) Paedobaptism
(g) Soteriology (including justice of substitutionary sacrifice)
(h) Christology (for example, Trinitarian theology)
(i) Satanology
(j) Nature of the afterlife
(k) Eschatology
(l) Fundamentals of the faith
(m) Standing of Jewish believers in relation to the Law.
The Bible is inconsistent on major issues
(a) The nature and existence of the afterlife
(b) The efficacy of works of the Law with regard to salvation
(c) The distinction between soul and spirit
(d) Large theological gap between Old and New Testaments
(e) Greek influence on Israel's late Old Testament theology
(f) Differences between Jesus and Paul in the New Testament
(g) Differences between Paul and James in the New Testament.
The Bible records scientifically impossible events as factual
(a) The creation narrative
(b) Noah's deluge
(c) Solid dome over the sky
(d) Earth supported by a foundation
(e) Popular answers from the church have been nonsense
(f) None of the more rational answers survives scrutiny.
Shortcomings of the prophecies
(a) Many Old Testament prophecies are too vague to be tested
(b) Many Old Testament prophecies are yet unfulfilled
(c) Prophecies were not written prior to the events forecast
(d) Jesus does not fit the Messiah described by the Old Testament
(e) New testament prophecy is largely incomprehensible.
There are contradictions throughout the Bible
(a) Staff or no staff? (Mk 6:8/Lk 9:3)
(b) Healing of centurion's servant
(c) Three days and three nights?
(d) Day of crucifixion?
(e) Post-resurrection events (Mt 28, Mk 16, Lk 24, Jn 20-21, Acts 1:3-12, 1Cor 15:3-8)
(f) Sovereignty of God? (2 Peter 3:9)
Problems with the Canon
a) The canon is disputed by the church
(b) There is no objective basis behind the canon
(c) Jude quotes the non-canonical Book of Enoch as scripture.
Problems with authorship and transmission of the autographs
(a) Many books of the Bible have no statement of authorship
(b) Some books in the canon are pseudepigraphical (lie about authorship)
(c) Both Israel and the church altered the texts
(d) The church conflated the text.
Problems with interpretation
(a) No single hermeneutic is adequate for interpretation
(b) The meanings of words and phrases have been lost
(c) Cultural references have been lost
(d) Many books and passages admit multiple interpretations
(e) NT authors were free and loose in their interpretations.
Fundamental problems with every systematic theology
(a) Covenant theology muddles distinctions between Israel and the church
(b) Calvinistic reformed theology stumbles at the existence of evil
(c) Dispensational theology is too hopelessly complex to be credible
(d) Arianism destroys the sovereignty of God
(d) Roman Catholic theology introduces unbiblical and irrational ideas
(e) The Bible neither presents nor lends itself to systematic theology.
The only hypothesis that fits all the data
(a) The Bible is not the actual Word of God
(b) The Bible is a human creation, arising through natural social processes
(c) The theology in the Bible is not immutable, but has changed over time.
Therefore
(a) The Bible does not address every issue for which we need a word from God
(b) Being inconsistent, the Bible: is unsuitable as a final arbiter in disputes, is a false witness presenting fiction as truth, is untrustworthy in its statements concerning the supernatural, and is neither a sufficient nor reliable guide for living.
WHERE TO FROM HERE FOR ME?
I have spent 23 years seeking answers in the evangelical church without success. Therefore it seems advantageous to withdraw from the church and from teaching the Bible and spend my time more productively. The evangelical church is hypocritical, because it claims to have the truth, but it systematically ignores, denies, and covers up the serious rational challenges to its dogma. I also reject the outright the leap of faith required to find a place in liberal churches. In my opinion they are engaging in institutionalized self-delusion.
Letter #775 from MB of Collinsville, Illinois
I was indoctrinated into the Christian religion from an early age, but eventually I began to question some of the illogic that it presented. As a result, I let Christians know my feelings on this controversy. Without surprise, not many Christians showed respect for my view and tried to reveal their "truth" to me. It became irritating to have to defend my disbelief to the arrogant Christians who wanted to save my soul. Thanks to you, I don't defend my disbelief now, but rather I go on the offense and challenge them to defend the Bible's flaws.
I came upon your Internet site. I am very impressed with your exhaustive research and excellent ability to communicate it. I didn't realize that the Bible was that full of errors until I read some of the BE issues at your site. It is refreshing to read such a rational and objective critique of the Bible. Although I am not an atheist, I hold the same feelings as you do with respect to the negative impact that Christianity has on our culture. I also feel it is important to give a balance to such one-sided, false data.
I would appreciate it if you could send me your "Encyclopedia of BE. When I get a little more cash I will send for all the "BE issues". If you have more information on other literature you have, such as tracts on biblical falsehoods, I would love to order some.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
We would like to remind everyone that our book entitled THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRANCY can be purchased from us for $52.20: Biblical Errancy, 2500 Punderson Drive, Hilliard, OH 430256 or from our publisher, Prometheus Books at 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228-2197 (1-800-421-0351). After having read the book, one of our subscribers recently told me by phone that he loved its In Your Face Style.