Issue #187-Closure, Dialog and Debate, Letters

Biblical Errancy Issue #187-Closure, Dialog and Debate, Letters

Nov 10, '08 3:35 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #187 July 1998, Editor: Dennis McKinsey


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



COMMENTARY



This month's issue will be devoted entirely to letters from our readers. Last's month's analysis entitled Closure understandably generated more letters, phone calls, and e-mail, both pro and con, than any comments we have ever made. We will not belabor this issue in the remaining months but relevant letters will be interspersed throughout subsequent issues because they either represent the judgments of many or are interesting in their own right.




DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #779 from NB of Tucson, Arizona (Part a)

(In letter #748 (Part f) in the 178th issue I said, "What does color-blindness have to do with the color of something? You mean color does not exist until people can see it. How silly! How myopic! How solipsistic! NB now wishes to reply with--Ed.),

If you don't think color does not exist until people can see it, try asking a person who has been blind from birth what "the red, white and blue" means.

Editor's Response to Letter #779 (Part a)

Leaving aside the convoluted manner in which you phrased your statement, NB, the fact remains that there is a real world out there that could not care less if anyone is present to view its properties. Whether or not people can see, has nothing to do with whether or not color exists. Color is there, pure and simple, and if you can't see it, that of no concern to reality. Do I think color does not exist until people can see it? No, of course not. Color may not exist for a person who has been blind from birth, but that does not mean color does not exist at all. It just means this particular person has no conception of color. For him it does not exist. But it does not mean color does not exist period.

Letter #779 Concludes (Part b)

As for the old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, is there a sound?" controversy, did Beethoven hear a "sound" at the tumultuous premiere of his Ninth Symphony? He had been stone deaf for 20 years.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #779 (Part b)

Whether or not Beethoven heard his symphony has nothing to do with whether or not his symphony emitted sound. There is no connection between the two. If his symphony was played at any decibel level what-ever, then there was sound, regardless of who was present or whether or not they could hear. Frankly, I find all of this solipsistic nonsense not only boring but juvenile. The very idea that sound and color do not exist unless someone is present to witness them is foolish, if not bordering on the absurd.

Letter #780 from DA of La Puente, California (Part a)

(In the Feb. 1998 Issue I criticized the defense Arndt provided for the four different wordings 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.' Then I asked, "So which is it?" Arndt replied by saying, among other things, "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...." To that I said, "Regardless of how often speech is abridged, there can only be one correct wording." DA now wishes to come to Arndt's defense by saying--Ed),

This is correct only if you add "...'per speaker and/or listener.' Once we acknowledge that each writer is a different individual with different interests and is speaking to difference (sic) audiences with even more different interests, we find that a great many abridgements are correct, even if only one is correct for a given set of author (sic) and audience (sic)."

Editor's Response to Letter #780 (Part a)

With all due respect, DA, what does all that gibberish have to do with anything? Who cares how many speakers, audiences and interests are involved! They are all immaterial, if not irrelevant. The fact is that there can only be one wording on the cross and there can be only one correct duplication of that wording. I don't care how you are tailoring it to the interests or idiosyncrasies of anyone or any group; if you change the wording from what actually existed, then it becomes erroneous, period.

Incidentally, I wish you would be as concerned with proofreading what you are writing, as you are with not proving what you are writing.

Letter #780 Continues (Part b)

(In my fourth criticism of Arndt in the Feb. 1998 issue regarding the different inscriptions on the cross I stated, "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. DA again leaps to Arndt's defense by saying--Ed.),

You assert a difference on the grounds that "Neither Mark nor Luke identify the person on the cross as Jesus.... That assumption is only made because Matthew and John use the word Jesus specifically." Both statements are simply wrong. Mark 15:26 does not contain the word "Jesus", true, but he is the central figure of Mark 15. Any reading of 15:26 that says someone other than Jesus is under discussion is simply nonsense. This means also that one does not need to consider Matthew or John to know Jesus is the subject in Mark and Luke

Editor's Response to Letter #780 (Part b)

By excluding the ending of my statement you failed to quote me accurately. I said, "Neither Mark nor Luke identify the person on the cross as Jesus. At least not from the superscription per se." Notice, I said "from the superscription per se" which you conveniently excluded. Anyone who looked only at the inscriptions in Mark and Luke would not know Jesus was the one being crucified. Other data is required.

Letter #780 Continues (Part c)

(In the 182nd [Feb. 1998] issue DA attacked a remark in the 2nd Issue of BE. He stated, "The Second Issue of BE [Feb. 1983] 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." To that I replied, "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?" DA now seeks to follow up his comments with--Ed.)

This is one of your constant fallacies, argument from authority. Which set of authorities is more knowledgeable is irrelevant. The question is which is right (which can be neither).

Editor's Response to Letter #780 (Part c)

You certainly got this one twisted around. You are the one arguing from authority, not I. I am merely asking you which of your biblical authorities is correct. That is your problem to sort out, not mine. I cited some authorities to prove my point and you are contending others could be more accurate. All you are doing is substantiating my point. You say, "The question is which is right (which can be neither)." That is precisely my argument. That could very well be true; so how do you know what your book is saying. Remember what I said to you in the April issue. Perhaps you forgot, so I will refresh your memory: "I am under no obligation to nail down the wording of your book. Let me repeat that. I am under no obligation to provide the correct wording of your book. You, on the other hand, are saddled with that horrible burden." Later I said, "You are admitting that biblicists not only don't know what the text says but that you don't either. Therefore that part of Scripture is, for all practical purposes, worthless and should be expunged from the Bible.... True, you can't prove a contradiction if you can't be sure of the wording. But if you can't be sure of the wording, then that part of Scripture becomes useless and should be expelled."

Letter #780 Continues (Part d)

(In the February 1998 issue I said to DC of St. Paul, Minn., "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 Matt. 1:16 vs. Luke. 3:23 ignores known Jewish customs.' To this I said, "Really? Such as what? You mean the Jews had a custom in which two men could have the same son?" DA now wants to come to DC's defense by saying--Ed.),

Actually the Jews did, and do, and so does just about every other society. Go have a talk with most any adoptee and ask "who is your father?" You are quite likely to get a flat claim of having 2 fathers (one by birth and one by legal adoption.) Any attempt to dispute that is apt to get a distinctly unfriendly response, and rightly so. The two may be fathers in different ways, but they both merit the term and any attempt to insist only one is the father is clearly wrong.

Editor's Response to Letter #780 (Part d)

First, I am sorry to disillusion you, DA, but we have only one father. What people choose to call foster parents, adopting parents, step-fathers, etc. is their choice to make. But the fact remains that we have only one father. According to your logic, if I chose to refer to my neighbor or my teacher as my father, he would, in fact, be such. Hardly! Legal papers can alter the wording in whatever matter they deem desirable, but they can't change biology. What is that old conundrum: A duck by any other name.... You are substituting emotions, feelings, desires, and preferences for objective reality. Sorry to be so clinical and detached but facts are facts.

Second, you say "they both merit the term." They may both merit it, but only one has it. You can arbitrarily alter the terminology, but you can't alter the situation.

Third, you state "any attempt to insist only one is the father is clearly wrong." In truth, any attempt to insist anyone is the father other than the male who contributed to his birth is wrong. Under your ridiculous scenario an individual could have hundreds of fathers should he choose to so label them or should the legal paperwork so designate.

Letter #780 Continues (Part e)

(In the February 1998 issue I discussed the biblical concept of adultery and EK's assertion that ONLY if the woman is married is adultery a factor. DA now seeks to come to EK's defense by alleging--Ed.),

Among the several weaknesses of your claim is what EK points out, that nothing done to the women in Exodus 20:14 constituted adultery under the OT definition. The male could have sex with any number of women without committing adultery as long as none of the women were married or engaged.

Editor's Response to Letter #780 (Part e)

I'll tell you what I told EK, DA. Where does Scripture say this is not adultery? Where does Scripture say that adultery ONLY occurs when the woman involved is married or engaged.

Letter #780 Continues (Part f)

Since you like argument from authority, we start by quoting several: Harper's Bible Dictionary 1985, page 14, "In the OT, adultery had a precise and limited definition... Sexual relations between a married woman and any man other than her husband." New Standard Bible Dictionary 1936, page 555. "We nowhere read anything to the effect he (husband) was forbidden extramarital intercourse with other women." Expository Dictionary of Bible Words 1985, page 21, "Adultery is intercourse with or by a married or engaged woman." Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible 1962, page 51, "violation of a husband's right to have sole sexual possession of his wife..." Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 38, "He was guilty of adultery only when he had extramatrimonial relations with a married...or betrothed woman." Oxford Dictionary of the Bible 1996, page 7, "...adultery...man having sex with a married woman."

Editor's Response to Letter #780 (Part f)

First, not I, but you are the one repeatedly relying upon authority, as these citations demonstrate. You, like millions of biblicists, also cite the Bible as the ultimate authority.

Second, according to you Harper's Bible Dictionary says, "In the OT, adultery had a precise and limited definition... Sexual relations between a married woman and any man other than her husband." So I will ask you and Harper's where that definition is to be found in Scripture. Are we going to go by the Bible or Harpers.

Third, you cite the New Standard Bible Dictionary which says, "We nowhere read anything to the effect he (husband) was forbidden extramarital intercourse with other women." By the same token, where does it say it was permissible? Where does it say it was not adultery?

Moreover, all too often your thought processes are inconsistent DA, because you are now citing a source that deviates from your premise. You earlier stated (verbatim), "The male could have sex with any number of women without committing adultery, as long as none of the women were married or engaged. Now you are citing a dictionary that says a husband can have sex with any women, married or not. There are no restrictions. It says "other women" and that can mean either married or unmarried.

Fourth, then you cite the Expository Dictionary of Bible Words which says, "Adultery is intercourse with or by a married or engaged woman." Does that say ONLY sex by a married or engaged woman is adultery? Even more importantly, does SCRIPTURE say adultery ONLY occurs when sex is performed by a married or engaged woman? If so, where?

Fifth, you cite the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible which says, "violation of a husband's right to have sole sexual possession of his wife..." Is that saying that is the ONLY situation under which adultery can occur. If so, where is that stated in Scripture?

Also you earlier stated, the male could have sex with any number of women without committing adultery, as long as none of the women were married or engaged. This Interpreters Dictionary, which you are citing, is not supporting you with respect to engaged women. Where does it say adultery occurs if the woman involved is merely engaged?

And sixth, you cite the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible which says according to you, "...adultery...man having sex with a married woman." Again does that mean adultery can ONLY occur if a man has relations with a married woman. Where does the Bible state as much? You are not doing very well, even with your own sources.

Letter #780 Continues (Part g)

You wish to argue from Prov. 6:32 and Matt. 5:28 that since both lack the qualifier "married", adultery with an unmarried woman is possible. But you are arguing from silence, always a weak argument....

Editor's Response to Letter #780 (Part g)

Sooner or later you are bound to get it right, DA. I am not arguing from silence; I am questioning. I want to know where the Bible says, "If, and ONLY if, the woman is married can adultery occur." I cited Prov. 6:32 and Matt. 5:28 because they leave open the possibility of a man committing adultery with an unmarried female. The latter is especially strong in that regard because it 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. That's not an argument from silence.You, on the other hand, are contending that "The male could have sex with any number of women without committing adultery, as long as none of the women were married or engaged." Again, where does Scripture say involvement by a married man with unmarried women is not adultery? I cited Matt. 5:28 which states that to even contemplate the thought is adulterous, let alone commit the act.

All of this hearkens back to what I originally said in the February 1998 issue, "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, my position is more reliable than yours. Only by producing a verse stating adultery only occurs when a man has relations with a married female can you hope to salvage your stance." And that, DA, you have failed to accomplish.

Letter #780 Concludes (Part h)

Now the Bible may not "clearly and unequivocally define exactly what adultery entails", but the implications are clear enough. We have Hosea 4:13-14 "...daughters play the wanton...brides commit adultery." We have Lev. 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both...shall be put to death." and Exodus 22:16-17 "When a man seduces a virgin who is not yet betrothed, he shall pay the bride price..." In both and other places, we have the married woman linked to "adultery", a word that is not used to describe similar conduct by the unmarried. It takes deliberate effort to avoid the conclusion that adultery involves a married (or engaged) woman, and does not occur when a man, married or not, has sex with a slave girl of his....

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #780 (Part h)

You say, "it takes deliberate effort to avoid the conclusion that adultery involves a married (or engaged) woman, and does not occur when a man, married or not has sex with a slave-girl of his...." To begin with you stated the original problem incorrectly. There is no problem involved in concluding that when a married woman is engaged in extramarital sex, adultery is occurring. But the original issue is whether or not adultery can ONLY occur if a married woman is involved, a problem you have seen fit to dodge throughout your monologue. And you completely ignored what is stated in Matt. 5 ("...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."). It does not say the woman must be married.

And finally why did you even cite Ex. 22:16-17, since it is referring to an unbetrothed virgin, not a married woman? You say "it takes deliberate effort to avoid the conclusion that adultery involves a married (or engaged) woman..." when the only "deliberate effort" involved is coming to your conclusion that the virgin discussed in Ex. 22:16-17 somehow substantiates your position. If anything, it proves the opposite.

I can use this citation, however, by asking: If no adultery is involved, then why is the man required to pay the bride price for seducing a virgin? If it was not adultery, then what was it, and why was it illegal?

In any event, we have belabored this issue sufficiently and it is time to conclude the discussion. As I told EK in February 1998, until someone can produce a verse or verses that clearly say adultery can ONLY occur when the woman involved is married, there is no need to continue.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #781 from WS of Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Part a)

Dear Dennis: Your excellent critique of DA's letter in issue 184 contained two points that I should comment on.

DA's claim that Egypt's climate once was wetter is not his invention. Sources I've read over the years say the region has been slowly drying for millennia. That southern Egypt once had more rainfall than today is shown by the presence of rain spouts on temples built more than 2,000 years ago. They don't need the spouts today; the spouts must have been necessary back then.

Editor's Response to Letter #781 (Part a)

Dear WS. You may be correct but I have never seen any statements to this effect in my readings. Are you sure they were rain spouts and did not serve some other purpose? Everything I have seen and read indicates Egypt was as dry 4,000 years ago as it is now. But not being an expert, I will defer to your judgment.

Letter #781 Concludes (Part b)

However, we're not talking about monsoons, only somewhat more frequent rainstorms than the rare precipitation today. I can find no reference to any rivers in historic times in any of my books on Egypt. The Nile cut a valley across a desert. On both sides of the narrow strip of vegetated riverbottom land is bone-dry desert, a desert that comes right to the riverbank in parts of southern Egypt. If the wadis were riverbeds, even only for part of each year, they would be lined with vegetation. DA is leaning on a weak reed when he takes a reference to higher rainfall in ancient times to mean that Egypt is an African version of Louisiana.

Which brings me to the bayous. Forget the dictionary. Bayou is a vague term that covers channels of water that, in other areas, would be called creeks or rivers, depending upon their size. Some bayous will barely hold a canoe; others are shipping channels. Does DA claim Egypt has bayous? Show me.

The main branches of the Mississippi at its mouth are called passes. The Mississippi also sends out smaller streams across the mud flats near its mouths, and I've found one reference to them as 'bayous,' which may be what inspired DA's comment. But these are not independent rivers, merely smaller branches of Big Muddy. A branch is not a river, simply one of several channels used by a river at its mouth. The Nile has these too, but they're not separate rivers. At Cairo, the Nile is split into two parts by an island. Is DA going to claim these are two separate rivers?

It's true that the Nile is formed from two rivers, but they merge in the Sudan, in an area that was not a part of Egypt in the Bronze or Iron ages by anyone's geography. What the Mississippi/Atchafalaya problem has to do with Egypt is beyond me. The Nile certainly isn't trying to mate with the Jordan River, unlike our two rambunctious rivers here (pardon my anthropomorphism). DA was obviously desperate to throw something into the breach in his arguments, no matter how useless.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #781 (Part b)

I wish you would tell all of that to DA. Considering the fact that you live in the land of the bayous, the probability is high that you are more qualified to discuss the topic than he. I've decided he's beyond salvation because his ego won't allow reality to precede his presuppositions. He'd rather resist than desist.

Letter #782 from JB Via Email

(In the May 1998 issue we related the conversation JB had with his pastor as a result of having left the church and Christianity. What follows is the advice JB gave to one of his in-laws regarding what to say if the minister should call. JB says),

Now that I have backed my former pastor into a corner, I wouldn't be surprised if he calls you. He may send an e-mail, but he will probably use the phone instead. He will probably offer you some perspective from which to view my disbelief, likely saying that I am rebelling against God because of some hidden inner conflict, and/or that Satan is attacking me. He will likely tell you that I am misunderstanding and misusing scripture, and that there is really nothing behind the challenges I have raised. He may say that I am raising the issues only to hide behind them, because the real issue is some emotional or spiritual conflict, and he may use the word "smokescreen." He may assure you that all the questions I have raised have answers, and if you seem troubled by my challenges, he might even refer you to some apologetic books. He will likely offer you some high-sounding but vacuous assurances that, yes, Christianity is indeed true.

What he probably WON'T do is to answer the challenges I have raised, at least not in a serious way. If he does try to "answer" some of my challenges, ask yourselves why he is answering only to you and not to me. Does he know that I will expose his "answers" and show they are absurd? You see, ministers tend to avoid discussing whether Christianity is TRUE or FALSE, because they know they cannot defend the "truth" of Christianity. Instead, they ASSUME that Christianity is true and carry their listeners along on this assumption. I expect him, as I would expect most evangelical ministers, to avoid talking about whether or not Christianity is TRUE, and instead to try to turn your focus onto hypothetical emotional conflicts, or attacks of Satan, or character flaws in ME. If he does this, ask yourselves whether weaknesses in me, even if true, have any bearing at all on whether or not Christianity is true. I think you can agree with me that even if I were a murderous, lying, cheating scoundrel, the challenges to Christianity that I have raised stand on their own merit and deserve serious answers. The net effect of his call will be that he will have gotten himself off the hook, and won't have to answer my challenges, because he will have persuaded you that my challenges to the truth of Christianity are not the real issue. He will be taking advantage of the fact that as believers you are already inclined to accept his explanation and perspective. If you read this message before he calls, may I suggest that you not accept his explanation and perspective at face value? Instead, may I suggest that you tell him you would like to see him respond to ME by e-mail with serious answers to my challenges relevant to the question of whether Christianity is true or false? If you do, then watch for him to subtly discount the validity of your request, probably by rehashing some of what he has already told you. But do you think it is really too much to ask of an ordained minister of the gospel, trained at seminary, to defend the truth of Christianity? Why not press for an answer? And why would a trained minister avoid answering, anyway, if the truth of Christianity could be defended?

Letter #783 from FA of Santa Rosa, California (Part a)

Dear Dennis. In letter #772 JT erroneously wrote that I said "Jesus never missed a meal" and then quotes Matthew 4:2 about Jesus and his 40 day fast which shows he missed 120 meals. And you agreed with him! It seems that both of you failed to read what I wrote: "... at no time in his life did he [Jesus] ever miss a meal--except by his own choice." In my opinion it was "by his own choice" that Jesus fasted 40 days.

Editor's Response to Letter #783 (Part a)

Dear FA. Now I remember why I never challenged you when I originally read your statement. I noticed you had that proviso attached. When JT later came along and accused you of making an error, I went along with JT's analysis without rechecking your comment. JT owes you an apology, as do I.

Letter #783 Concludes (Part b)

Actually the story about Jesus fasting for 40 days raises several problems about Jesus. 1) If Jesus was just a man he would have starved to death before the 40 days ended. 2) If Jesus was God he would not have been hungry before, during, or after 40 days. and 3) If Jesus was both man and God he could not be a model for us because we are not part God.... In my opinion the story is not be accepted as factual.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #783 (Part b)

We felt an obligation to print your remonstrance FA, because a correction was in order. No one likes to be quoted inaccurately, including myself.

Erratum: On the first page of last month's issue I incorrectly quoted Ecclesiastes 7:12. It says the "Spirit shall return to God," not the "dust shall return," as I stated. Therefore, my fourth point should be ignored. But the other three points, especially the first and second, are more than sufficient to expose a major contradiction. As I said in point 4(B), "If this ruse were valid, (which it appears to be and is, thus, no longer a ruse-Ed.), then we would only have returned to square one because man would, in fact, have 'preeminence above a beast'" and we would all not be going to "one place."

When I start making errors as simple as this, I can't help but feel it really is time to reassess.