Issue #186-Does the Bible Contradict Itself (Pt. 5

Biblical Errancy Issue #186-Does the Bible Contradict Itself (Pt. 5-Is Man Over Beasts, Soul/Spirit, Is Jesus Prince of Peace, Plan for Tomorrow?, Internet/Proselytizing/Notebook, Closure Explaining Why BE is Ending

Nov 10, '08 3:32 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #186 June 1998, Editor: Dennis McKinsey


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



REVIEW

DOES THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ITSELF? (Part 5)

On page 137 Arndt tackles one of the most potent and implication-laden contradictions in all of Scripture. It pertains to the conflict between Eccle. 3:19-20 ("For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth the beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they all have one breath, so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again") and verses like John 5:28-29 ("Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation").

Arndt states, "The second text, as so many others, proclaims that there will be a general resurrection of the dead. The first has often been held, in our days again by Dr. Fosdick, to teach that death means annihilation and that hence the hope of the resurrection from the dead is vain. If the Ecclesiastes passage really teaches the utter destruction of the human person when man dies, then we must admit the existence of a discrepancy in the Scriptures. But does it contain such teaching? The text mentioned above merely asserts that as the beasts die, so must man die. The time comes when a beast breathes its last, and so it is with man. All go unto one place, says Solomon. All are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. It is plain that he is speaking of the dissolution of the body which results from death.

Wiggle as he may, Arndt will not escape this cul-de-sac.

First, he states, "The text mentioned above merely asserts that as the beasts die, so must man die." Oh no it doesn't! No doubt he would like to restrict our vision to this consideration, but the text alleges more than that. "Merely" is by no means accurate. The text states, "man hath no preeminence above a beast." If some part of man lingers on, be it a soul or otherwise, and goes to some sort of heaven or limbo, then man clearly has preeminence over the beasts, unless, of course, biblicists wish to allege that all animals not only have some kind of soul but go to heaven as well.

Second, the text says "All go unto one place." If people go to heaven or some sort of eternal reward or punishment and animals do not, then it is by no means true to say "All go unto one place." In fact, they all go to two or more places. And if that is true, then it would be incorrect to claim, as does Ecclesiastes, "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them." Unlike the animal kingdom, more than one thing befalleth mankind.

Third, there is a direct clash between the Eccle 3 and John 5 when the former says "for all is vanity". In the context of Eccle 3:19 "vanity" means futile, idle, and worthless. If that is true, then why would the hope of an afterlife promised in John 5 and other verses have any credibility?

Fourth, Arndt concludes, "But what of the soul? Does the writer of Ecclesiastes know that a man has an immortal soul, or does he deny the existence of an imperishable element in the human being? That he firmly believes in the immortality of the soul is plain from chapter 12:7, where he says: "Then shall the dust return unto God, who gave it." Everyone can see that here the return of the human spirit to God when death sets in is taught, and immortality is implied. This, then, is clearly established. The writer of Ecclesiastes...teaches just as clearly that the human spirit goes to God when a person dies and hence does not cease to exist."

Apologists often race off to 12:7 to elude the clear comments in Chapter 3 but to no avail.

(A) It says, "Then shall the dust return unto God, who gave it," and yet, Arndt claims "Everyone can see that here the return of the human spirit to God when death sets in is taught, and immortality is implied." But it says dust. Where does the text use the word "spirit" or say anything in regard to the spirit going somewhere? There is no equating of dust and spirit, nor is there any reason to equate the two. Talk about a leap of faith!

(B) If this ruse were valid, then we would only have returned to square one because man would, in fact, have "preeminence above a beast." That, in turn, would directly contradict Eccle 3. Either way, a major contradiction is inescapable.

And finally, what exposes the duplicity and utter disingenuousness of our apologetic friend as much as anything else and provides powerful evidence as to why apologists are not to be trusted in their on-going attempts to defend the Bible at all costs is the fact that Arndt omitted the 21st and 22nd verses. The former says, "Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth." Here the text does talk about "spirit," unlike earlier when Arndt tried to equate dust with "spirit," and it clearly states man does not definitely know where his spirit goes.

The final verse in this chapter, the 22nd, says, "So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should enjoy his work, for that is his lot; who can bring him to see what will be after him?" Arndt completely ignores this admonition and definitely thinks he can predict the future by relying upon other parts of scripture that supposedly tell people what will be after them. In other words, he thinks he can do what Ecclesiastes says cannot be done.

On page 141 Arndt attempts to cope with another one of those time-honored dilemmas that has troubled millions of Christians for centuries. It concerns the clash between Isaiah 9:6 ("For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder. And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace ") and Matt. 10:34 ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword"). (We will leave aside all the factors showing the Isaiah verse could not apply to Jesus and proceed on the temporary assumption that it does--Ed.).

Arndt states, "Bible readers have wondered why Jesus, who is called the Prince of Peace in the magnificent prophecy of Isaiah, declares that He did not come to send peace on earth, but a sword. The context of Matt. 10:34 shows in what sense the words of Jesus must be taken. He is not speaking of a war which the Christian will have to wage, but which they will have to endure. His meaning is that acceptance of the Gospel will not bring outward tranquility and peace upon His Apostles, but enmity, hatred, opposition, and persecution.... The one speaks of the character of Jesus and that of His kingdom, the other of the experiences of His followers here on earth."

Arndt says Jesus "is not speaking of a war which Christians will have to wage, but which they will have to endure," when the text projects precisely the opposite meaning. Not only does Matt. 10:34 say nothing about the followers of Jesus being required to endure anything, but "sending a sword" is a clear call to arms. Arndt refers to the context of Matt. 10:34 and acts as if that modifies the message while ignoring his own instruction. The context disproves the very point he is trying to peddle. The next verse, Matt. 10:35 ("For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law") provides clear evidence that Jesus is referring to waging a war, rather than enduring some kind of enmity, hatred, and persecution. "I came not to send peace" doesn't refer to others creating turmoil, but to Jesus being the source. He says, "'I'" came to send a sword," not others. Sending a sword refers to taking the offensive and has nothing to do with enduring anything.

All too often I can't help but feel that in a weird sort of way I am acting as an attorney for Jesus. He repeatedly makes statements to which his "supporters" implicitly reply: "You don't really mean that." Oh, yes he does, and I fail to see how this comment could have been clearer.

First, he said, "I came not to send peace." It doesn't refer to others creating turmoil. Jesus said he would be creating the tumult.

And secondly, "sending" a sword or taking the offensive has nothing to do with "enduring." The latter was created ex nihilo.

Moving to our third and final conflict this month, on page 150 Arndt faces the clash between the comment by Jesus in Matt. 6:31 ("Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we bring? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?") and the statement by Paul in 2 Thess. 3:12 ("Now, them that are such we command exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ that with quietness they work and earn their own bread"). Arndt states, "These well-known texts undoubtedly have raised the question in the minds of many a Bible reader whether it is not somewhat difficult to harmonize the words of Jesus and those of Paul in this instance. Jesus apparently teaches improvidence, while Paul condemns it. A little close attention, however, to just what is said will soon show that there is no clash here whatever. Does our Lord in Matt. 6:31, 34 urge us to be lazy, shiftless, wasteful? He does nothing of the kind. What He inculcates is that we must not let our heart "be overcharged with the cares of this life...."

"Overcharged?" Who is Arndt trying to beguile with this ploy. Again we must ask Arndt to read the words lying in front of him. Jesus isn't talking about being overcharged with anything; he's talking about not being charged at all. He forbids any striving. He says, "take NO thought," not reduced thought, a little less thought, or a smaller amount of thought. He says, "No thought" which is another one of those absolutist statements that effectively buries the Bible and its supporters--another one of those absolutist phrases upon whose shores the Bad Ship Bible repeatedly runs aground. For Arndt to say that "Jesus apparently teaches improvidence" can only be deemed an intentional understatement. There is no "apparently" to it. Arndt is most concerned with interpreting words as he prefers them to be.


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Letter #778 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 views 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 Christians to defend the Bible's flaws.

I came upon your site on the Internet. 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 personally hold the same feelings as you do with respect to the negative impact Christianity has on our culture. I also feel it is important to give balance to such one-sided false data in society.

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.

P.S. I want to cross reference the contradictions right alongside the verses in the Bible. Is this done in published form already? It sure seems to be a valid way to expedite locating the references in a confrontation.

Editor's Response to Letter #778

Dear MB. We appreciate your thoughtful comments and are glad to see you taking the offensive, a policy which we have advocated from the beginning. Indeed, proselytization has been at the core of our philosophy from the outset.

As far as your P.S. is concerned, that is an excellent idea, but unfortunately it represents another one of those books that critics of the Bible need to write but have never brought to fruition. If apologists can have running commentaries on each biblical chapter, verse by verse, why can't we.

For several years I have been pondering the feasibility of an even more poignant tome. I have five large alphabetically-indexed notebooks containing a monumental listing of the Bible's problems on virtually every contradictory topic from Genesis to Revelation. If these notebooks were ever published, they would provide an excellent quick-and-ready resource for biblical critics engaged in debate who needed instance access to relevant quotes. The most potent verses have already been starred or otherwise delineated in many instances to further reduce the amount of time needed for retrieval. Having debated many biblicists over the years and appeared on many radio talk shows, I have learned that it is not sufficient to merely have potent verses for all occasions. One must also be able to find them on very short notice. Arranging and categorizing material for the most efficient acquirement is of critical importance. It does no good to have excellent material if you can't pull it up in those moments that count. Instant access is often critical, as I have learned to my chagrin on several occasions. I had the evidence that mattered but couldn't recover it promptly, in which case I might as well have not had it at all. If you can't locate it at critical moments, all else is for naught. My five notebooks in published form would go a long way toward surmounting this obstacle, a long way indeed. The absence of a narrative would significantly reduce the amount of reading involved and further accelerate the speed at which information could be brought to the fore. When facts, quotes, and citations are what matters, excess verbiage should be minimized. While your proposal would probably sequentially move from verse to verse and chapter to chapter in successive books, mine would dwell primarily on the contradictions, errors, and fallacies associated with ideas and beliefs found throughout Scripture.


CLOSURE

While teaching high school in the 1960's one of my proselytizing students gave me a copy of a simplified version of the NT entitled Good News for Modern Man published by the American Bible Society of New York. After taking several weeks to read the entire book, I was astounded by the number of errors, contradictions, and fallacies contained therein that were all but invisible to biblicists, as I subsequently discovered. While reading the work, I practically covered it with notations, criticisms, and observations only to lay it aside after having written a critique. For several years my interest in Scripture declined dramatically only to be rejuvenated around 1975 when I decided to pursue the matter with much greater intensity and commitment by reading the entire Bible. After purchasing the 4-columned Layman's Parallel Bible and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, I spent a couple of years meticulously reading the entire book and taking copious notes. In addition, I read scores of biblical critiques by many notable authors such as Remsberg, Wheless, Ingersoll, Paine, and others. From 1975 through 1978 I engaged in an incredible amount of biblical research and note-taking. By 1978 five large notebooks crammed with information and indexed throughout had come to fruition. In effect, I had completed the first phase of an evolving long-term project.

After having compiled a tremendous amount of data, I decided to embark upon the next phase of my protracted project--radio appearances. I called or wrote to hundreds of radio talk show stations throughout the nation, explained to them my overall intent, and received several invitations to appear. From 1978 onward appearing on radio talk shows had a position of high priority on my agenda. In effect, the second phase of my overall strategy was underway.

Because of numerous requests for information while appearing before the public and in order to disseminate my burgeoning body of anti-biblical literature, I decided in the early 1980's to fill an obvious void by embarking upon an ever more ambitious undertaking. A monthly periodical would be created to not only spread the word but correct and enlighten the book's proponents. Once BE was underway and back issues were readily available, the third phase of my overall strategy was complete.

In the mid 1980's I entered the fourth phase of my journey by creating some poignant, anti-biblical pamphlets for distribution to the citizenry at large in order to offset the multitude of pamphlets that are distributed by religionists. That phase was successfully underway within a year.

In the early 1990's I decided our information should not only be available for those who like to read but for those who like to hear conversation, especially while driving an automobile. With that in mind I created many audio tapes of my radio appearances and 24 tape recordings encompassing the essence of my 5 bulbous notebooks. Writing scripts and assembling audible, coherent, and accurate recordings, as well as arranging the recordings of my talk show appearances into lucid, logical scenarios, encompassed nearly two years. When that was accomplished I had, in effect, successfully traversed the 5th phase of my universal strategy.

The sixth phase began in the early 1990's when a subscriber, Dr. Paul Kurtz-president of Prometheus Press, wrote me a letter suggesting I write a book containing a synopsis of my material. Realizing that my 24 audio tapes already contained the kind of information that would meld beautifully into a book, I decided to transform my audio tape scripts in such a manner as to comprise 24 chapters in a reference book with some understandable additions and deletions. After devoting a tremendous amount of time to script adaptations, including 4 solid days of reading galley sheets, I sent the final manuscript to Prometheus for publication in August 1994. With that completed, I could see my entire program was proceeding smoothly and on track. Except for some minor glitches and unforeseen obstacles, everything was progressing according to plan.

The seventh phase of my overall strategy entailed the creation of 100 video tapes to be played on cable access public television stations throughout North America. It was not only my most expansive and ambitious project to-date but the only one requiring hundreds of volunteer supporters and distributors. It began in earnest on Jan 21, 1994, with our first recording session at a television studio and was completed more than four years later in April 1998. Unfortunately, unlike all prior undertakings this phase has met with limited success, despite repeated requests for assistance. For whatever reason, widespread assistance has not been forthcoming. Much to my chagrin I have come to realize that people are either too afraid, too lazy, too unconcerned, too isolated, too immobile, too preoccupied with hobbies and titillations, or too whatever, to become involved. As far as being afraid is concerned, I don't understand their trepidation. My name has been spread all over the continent via thousands of issues and advertisements; I've appeared on scores of radio talk shows, given speeches, and called radio talks shows repeatedly. I've made a hundred video tapes, many of which have appeared in Texas, Arizona, Ohio, California and elsewhere, published a reference book that is now available in many libraries, and done just about anything else I could think of to expose the Bible for the fraud that it is. And, yet, I have never received a serious threat in my entire career. I have been told I am going to hell and I'm doing the devil's handiwork; that kind of nonsense is to be expected. But I have never encountered any kind of serious warnings or threats that would understandably generate concern and apprehension. For some reason or other a lot of anti-religious people in general and anti-Bible people in particular seem to think that there are a horde of religious fanatics out there just looking for an excuse to pounce upon anyone who dares to criticize Scripture. In truth, nearly all biblicists are as indifferent and unconcerned as their opponents when it comes to suppressing their opposition. They are much more inclined toward behind-the-scenes censorship and squelching than direct frontal assaults. As is true of many freethinkers, if energy is required you can include them out. It isn't worth the effort from their perspective.

Moreover, the kind of opposition you receive is often commensurate with the manner in which you project your ideas and beliefs. Referring to biblicists and religionists as ignorant, brainwashed idiots wallowing in a sea of fantasies, dreams, and stupidities will more than likely generate resentment and comparable responses rather than objective, serious contemplation. That kind of language is a direct threat to egos and self-concepts and is bound to foster antagonism and hatred. Embarking upon an ego-trip to vent your frustrations and disgust may create feelings of satisfaction and euphoria, but it is unlikely to materially alter the beliefs of anyone. One can expect walls rather than bridges to arise in abundance with all the accompanying rhetoric, threats, and vituperation. We have always worked on the theory that opponents who are buried in a mountain of facts and data don't have time or interest in becoming ominous or menacing. They are too busy thinking about what you are saying to contemplate more bestial devices.

A few people have come to our aid with respect to playing our tapes and otherwise aiding our cause. Of that there can be no doubt. A few have volunteered time, labor, and funds and for that we are certainly grateful. But the critical, all consuming word is few. A few have done this; a few have done that, but that's not sufficient. Religionists can get tens of thousands of people to travel throughout the world and sacrifice years out of their lives to proselytize and propagandize humanity at considerable personal risk, both financially and physically, and, yet, I can't even get some people to take some video tapes down to their local TV stations once or twice a week and tailor the tapes to the station's particular requirements, free tapes at that. Astounding! The outcome of this phase is that I have learned a valuable lesson in recent years. I may have done my research and learned the Bible extremely well; I may have devised a rational and systematic strategy over the years, I may have generated the amount of personal commitment and resources that are necessary to accomplish what I wanted to do unassisted, I may have had my ducks all lined up in neat little rows, but I failed to factor in an extremely important component--the all but total unwillingness of others to get involved in anything other than reading. I failed to ask myself an extremely important question: Suppose others don't share your exuberance, your determination, your dedication, your commitment. What then? I never really pondered that angle. That was one component that I never really factored in. I just assumed that if people had the appropriate information and realized its potency they would take the ball and run. Instead, thousands have merely thrown it back into my court or ignored catching it altogether. I was so involved in the mechanics of the whole operation that I never even took this possibility into account. To be perfectly candid, I just didn't realize that I had more drive, determination, dedication, and enthusiasm in my chin than thousands of anti-religionists have in their entire body. Tens of thousands aren't willing to research, aren't willing to contribute, aren't willing to participate, aren't willing to dedicate their time to this activity in any serious, meaningful, or ongoing manner. The energy is just not there and that's the bottom line. I have actually had people drop their subscription to BE after having said, I agree with everything you are doing, everything you are saying, and everything you stand for, but I no longer wish to be involved. Good luck. I hope you are successful and I wish you the best. Now how do you deal with that kind of mentality?

In any event, in light of all the above, a decision has been reached, a switch has been thrown, the die has been cast. THE PERIODICAL KNOWN AS BIBLICAL ERRANCY WILL CEASE PUBLICATION ON DECEMBER 31, 1998 after 16 years of circulation. I make this decision with a heavy heart and deep regrets but facts are facts. BE is older than all of my children and is almost like another child. It's enough to turn my stomach. On that key date the last major phase will become one of refunding all unused subscription funds to those from whom we do not receive keep the change letters. After this year we will continue to distribute back issues, audio tapes, video tapes, pamphlets, and our book, but no additional issues of BE will be forthcoming.

In one sense there is a positive side to all of this; a welcome milestone will have been reached. I will no longer have to worry about monthly deadlines, writing well-researched and coherent commentaries, interminable proof-readings, seeking funds, monthly mailings, folding, stapling, mail-labeling hundreds of issues and driving many miles each month to our designated post office, coping with interminable harassments by my postmaster, advertising, extensive bookkeeping, sending out renewal notices, purchasing supplies, constantly asking for non-financial assistance, coping with mistakes caused by constant changes in our printer's personnel, constantly surreptitiously hinting to my wife that some bookkeeping needs to be updated, and imploring her every month to proofread literature that she is not particularly interested in. Moreover, she has so many other commitments and obligations that finding sufficient time in which to become involved has been a significant challenge within itself. Fortunately, her organizational and creative talents have provided a means by which to overcome numerous obstacles, and without her bookkeeping skills and invaluable assistance all these years, BE would never have gotten off the ground. If there is an unsung hero in this whole activity, she is that person.

I am concluding BE not only with deep sorrow but a profound feeling of having let down many loyal subscribers. Many of you have been with us almost from the beginning.

In the end it was not our critics, our opponents, our enemies, if you will, who brought BE to an end; they are easy. It was our allies and compatriots who failed to assist when called upon repeatedly. There can be no doubt that a few of our supporters have given that measure of devotion and commitment so necessary for a successful endeavor, but their number has been too small so far. About the only turn of events that could keep BE going at this juncture would be the influx of so much money that I could employ a staff to distribute, modify, and circulate our tapes and newsletter on a regular basis which would obviate any further need for me to all but beg for assistance. And since I have no millionaire relatives and have never been lucky at picking lottery numbers, I don't see any possibilities in that regard.

Hopefully people in far greater numbers yet to come in American society will not only be considerably more committed to the eradication of religious superstition in general and biblical mythology and deception in particular but find our Encyclopedia and back issues to be of invaluable assistance in their continuing quest for sanity. To all those who did not act, even though they not only failed to face serious obstacles but dropped their subscription while in full agreement with our plans, data, procedures, and philosophy, I respectfully state: Give me a call when you are as serious as a stroke about this whole business. Until then, I can't help but feel that I am spending too much time in what has turned out to be little more than an entertaining avocation, something in which I have no interest and do not wish to be involved. If and when this change of attitude on the part of thousands were ever to occur, I only hope conditions are not beyond the point of possible rectification. Saying I told you so may be self-gratifying but it will be far outweighed by the pain and loss all rational minds will endure.

Most unfortunate is the fact that this summation will probably not be read by those to whom it applies the most--freethinkers who have never subscribed or who have dropped their subscription, despite full agreement with our philosophy. Instead it will be read by our current subscribers to whom it often applies the least.

On a purely practical societal note, all freethinkers should keep in mind that the right wing political figures as... of such prominent public figures as Newt Gingrich, Jessie Helms, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, and William F. Buckley, to name only a few, is closely allied to the fundamentalism of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and James Robison. As one gains adherents, so does the other. As one loses supporters, so does the other. They are two sides of the same coin, essentially Siamese twins, the basic difference being that one operates primarily in the politico-economic realm while the other concentrates on the socio-religious domain. The intolerance and insensitivity of one is mirrored in that of the other, and if you oppose one, the day could come when you will be oppressed by the other.

In any event, I think it only fair for us to have explained in some detail when BE will cease and why. We certainly owe everyone an explanation.

As far as my future plans are concerned, I will be turning most of the scene over to the knuckle-dragging, ideological Neanderthals who have been poisoning television and radio audiences, as well as parishioners, with their lies, half truths, and distortions for decades and switching over to the Internet, an enterprise that didn't exist when BE began years ago. Until the attitudes, commitments, and philosophies of tens of thousands of freethinkers change dramatically, I will be corresponding via email, spending time surfing newsgroups and chat rooms for opportunities to bring enlightenment to the benighted, and trying to enlist supporters for my cablevision undertaking. The latter enterprise will continue to be accorded the highest priority, despite all obstacles. Our programs may have been created by amateurs and lack the sophistication, pizzazz, and entertainment quality of commercial television, but they provide a degree of religious and biblical accuracy that mainline radio and television programs don't begin to approach.