Issue #188-Does the Bible Contradict Itself, Lette

Biblical Errancy Issue #188-Does the Bible Contradict Itself, Letters

Nov 10, '08 3:37 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #188 August 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 6)

This month's issue will conclude our extended critique of Arndt's prominent apologetic work entitled Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

On page 153 Arndt addresses the contradiction be-tween Mark 13:32 ("But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father") and John 21:17 ("Jesus saith unto him the third time, Simon, Son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me? And he said unto Him, Lord thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee....").

Arndt states, "The one passage ascribes omniscience to Jesus; the other denies that He, the Son, knew the day and the hour when the Last Judgment will take place. Let the reader carefully note when each one of these statements was made. When Peter said to Jesus, 'Lord, Thou knowest all things,' the days of suffering for our Lord were passed and the resurrection had taken place; but the words of Jesus Himself, saying that the Son did not know the time of the Last Judgment, were spoken before His great Passion and His victorious return to life.... The Bible distinguishes between Jesus before and after His resurrection. Before His resurrection He had made Himself of no reputation, took upon Himself the form of a servant, and humbled Himself, Phil. 2:7-8. After His resurrection His status changed: 'God hath highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name,' Phil. 2:9. ...while Jesus before His suffering and death was invested with all the divine attributes, He did not during this period of humiliation use His divine majesty fully and uninterruptedly. He possessed omniscience, but according to His human nature He was content to forego its use except on certain occasions. When He says the Son does not know the date of the Judgment, a glimpse is afforded into the depth of His humiliation entered upon for us, which made Him refrain from exercising the divine powers He possessed...."

Arndt appears to have decided to shield Jesus from critics like me by denying a major aspect of his essential nature.

First, he states, "The Bible distinguishes between Jesus before and after His resurrection. Before His resurrection He had made Himself of no reputation, took upon Himself the form of a servant, and humbled Himself, Phil. 2:7-8. After His resurrection His status changed: 'God hath highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name,' Phil. 2:9."

We are talking about the knowledge of Jesus. Where do these verses say that his knowledge of events changed or improved? Nowhere does scripture assert that the Resurrection caused the kind of change Arndt is alleging. Why would it?

Moreover, Jesus is god and god by definition knows all at all times. He's omniscient. God is not in the business of learning or acquiring information. Whether or not he made a reputation and humbled himself is irrelevant. He either knew or he didn't. At no time was he not God; therefore, at no time could he not have known.

Second, Arndt says, "...while Jesus before His suffering and death was invested with all the divine attributes, He did not during this period of humiliation use His divine majesty fully and uninterruptedly." The question is not whether he used it or not. The question is whether he had it or not. And he must have had it, since he's god. Again, he either knew or he didn't.

And third, Arndt says, "He possessed omniscience, but according to His human nature He was content to forego its use except on certain occasions." Yet, Mark 13:32, says he didn't have omniscience, period, not that he merely refrained from using it.

Moving to our last example, on page 162 Arndt attempts to reconcile the clash between Gal. 6:10 ("As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith") and 2 John 10, 11 ("If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed; for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds"). Arndt states, "Can it be justly charged that Paul and John contradict each other here? Paul enjoins the Christians to do good to all man. John forbids them to take a man into their houses and bid him Godspeed who does not teach the true doctrine of Christ. Paul, it might be thought, shows himself tolerant and abounding in love; John, quite intolerant and hardhearted. The simple fact is that the two Apostles are speaking of two altogether different situations. Paul is discussing our duty toward those who are in need of our help; John speaks of our attitude toward false teachers. To understand the much-maligned injunction of John, we must remember that many false teachers were molesting the Christian Church in those days attempting to impose their heretical notions about the person of Jesus on the Christians. When they came into a town to carry on their pernicious propaganda, was it right for one who believed in the deity of Christ to offer his house to them as their headquarters? A proper conception of truthfulness and sincerity and of devotion to a great cause will not approve of such abetting of doctrines which we have to consider false and dangerous. Can we wish an advocate of a false religion Godspeed, just as though he and we were good friends, brethren and allies? That would be denying the truth.... John is positive in demanding that his readers should not identify themselves with the wickedness which these false prophets became guilty of. In short, the principle based on the above passage is: Love everybody, love your enemies; but do not approve of, and abet their errors." Although this scenario is what Arndt wishes the text said, the words convey a different message.

First, Arndt says, "Paul is discussing our duty toward those who are in need of our help" which is erroneous because the text clearly says we are to "do good to all men" not just those in need of help.

Second, Arndt says, "The simple fact is that the two Apostles are speaking of two altogether different situations. Paul is discussing our duty toward those who are in need of our help; John speaks of our attitude toward false teachers." Since the former includes the latter according to biblical theology, Arndt's distinction is without substance and they are by no means "altogether different situations."

Third, Arndt says, "To understand the much-maligned injunction of John, we must remember that many false teachers were molesting the Christian Church in those days attempting to impose their heretical notions about the person of Jesus on the Christians." This is immaterial as Paul referred to "all men."

He continues, "When they came into a town to carry on their pernicious propaganda, was it right for one who believed in the deity of Christ to offer his house to them as their headquarters?" According to Paul the answer is yes. Paul did not say you had to wish them Godspeed. He said "let us do good to all men" which does not entail a distinction between those who are false teachers and those who are not. Refusing to offer one's hand is not doing good to "all men."

Fourth, Arndt says John "is positive in demanding that his readers should not identify themselves with the wickedness which these false prophets became guilty. In short, the principle based on the above passage is: Love everybody, love your enemies; but do not approve of, and abet their errors." But Paul never commanded this. He didn't say you had to join them or become one of them. This is not even the issue. Paul said "let us do good to all men" and he did not exclude those who were propounding false or anti-Christian doctrines. Paul says, "Let us do good unto all men, 'especially' unto them who are of the household of faith," not "only" to those who are of the household of faith.

And finally, John refers to "those who bring not this doctrine" which does not necessarily include false teachers, because it could very well be referring to those who are not bringing any doctrines at all. Or they could be bringing doctrines which they are making no attempt to teach.

That concludes our multi-issue assessment of Arndt's apologetic work entitled Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #784 from JB Via Email

(Last month we published the advice JB gave to one of his in-laws regarding what to say if JB's former pastor should call. The following letter was written by JB in response to some comments made by JB's former pastor in a letter to JB's in-laws, primarily JB's father-in-law.

The Pastor says, Dear P & S [JB's in-laws], My heart breaks with you over the circumstances with JB. Make no mistake, JB is wholly culpable for the direction of his family.

JB replies, Responsible, yes, but I have nothing for which to be culpable. If I continued to teach them a religion that I now know to be false, then I would be culpable.

The Pastor says, JB is rejecting God because God has not acted nor communicated to us in ways that JB feels is reasonable.

JB replies, Well, it is more than this. The alleged communications extant from God are UNreasonable. It is only because Christians are told by ministers, parents and others whom they trust, that the Bible is God's Word that they are willing to overlook the problems in it and convince themselves that they just don't have enough knowledge of their own to understand what God means. The real problems with the Bible are, in this way, transformed into problems of the reader so that the reader blames himself or herself, when the Bible is really to blame. But what sense does it make for God to endow us with reason, and then expect us to believe an inconsistent, contradictory, incoherent Revelation?

The Pastor says, I have no doubt that JB is angry with God.

JB says, You may have no doubt, but it is not true. I covered this in my previous message. And who are YOU to tell ME what I feel, contradicting my own description of what I feel or don't feel? Your entire interaction with me has been condescending, very unbecoming for a minister of God.

The Pastor says, I suspect long ago JB felt conflicted over incidents in his life that he felt a loving God should not/would not have allowed to happen. You may know him well enough to suspicion such life experiences.

JB replies, This is a theme that you (JB's father-in-law) wrote in your first letter to me, also. It's not true, but let's grant for the moment that it is, for the sake of argument. Let me ask you this. If I am angry with God because there has been some conflict in my past, what bearing does this have on the question of whether or not Christianity is true? It has no bearing at all. The question of whether Christianity is true stands totally independent of my very existence, much less any conflict or anger I might have. Even if I had never been born, the question of whether Christianity is true or false still stands.

The Paster says, Whatever his reasons.

JB replies, I told you the reasons very clearly in my earlier messages. But you have no choice but to deny that my reasons are valid because the foundation of your religion would crumble if you accepted them as true.

The Pastor says, JB is at war with the God he preaches (now) does not exist. That's a no-win conflict for JB.

JB replies, False. I'm not at war with a phantom god. I am defending myself against the scorn of my in-laws by demonstrating to them that my unbelief is reasonable.

[To P and S, my in-laws]. By the way, I am content for you to remain in your belief. I only want you to have a reason to respect me again, and I'm trying to give you that reason by letting you see that I have come to my own personal unbelief competently, not as a whim or in emotional reaction to something in my past experience. And, in case there is any question in any-one's mind, I am also content to remain in my UNbelief. If you think I am experiencing any internal struggle because of it, you are mistaken. I can't say it any plainer than this.

The Pastor says, My encouragement to you is simply to continue to pray for JB, his wife and the kids. JB will continue to use "reason" as his moral high-ground.

JB replies, Well, I'll give you this, R [my former pastor] -- you're not spouting the sophistries of the Christian apologists now -- you're going exactly contrary to them. The apologists make a career out of attempting to show that Christianity is REASONABLE. It was Josh McDowell himself who said, if I may paraphrase, "My heart cannot worship what my mind cannot accept." I am willing to return to Christianity if it can be shown to be reasonable. I'm not asking anyone to show that Christianity is TRUE, but only REASONABLE (but you will not have done this if you leave my challenges unanswered). But is any one of YOU willing to leave Christianity if I can show that it is UNREASONABLE? Until you become willing to do this, then it is unfair to even ask me to return to Christianity, because you expect me to take all the risk for the outcome of testing the truthfulness of Christianity. Furthermore, if you are unwilling to do this, then you are being IRRATIONAL, by definition. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but you need to see the difference between following the truth no matter where it leads, as contrasted with making all the evidence fit a preconceived notion, which the human mind, being very flexible in this regard, can do. So, R [my former pastor], go ahead and disparage reason in a backhanded way. I, on the other hand, will disparage irrationality plainly and clearly.

The Pastor says, He wants to debate.

JB replies, No, I am not looking for a debate. Look at my response to your last paragraph below for an explanation of what I have done, because I have accomplished what I set out to do. Do you see it yet?

The Pastor says, I suggest that this level of deception is conquered only by fasting and prayer. He is already familiar with the truth of God's word.

JB replies, Well, not quite. I'm already familiar with the FALLACIES of "God's Word," and that's why anyone who wants to maintain his or her own faith must retreat to fasting and prayer, and telling oneself that JB is "deceived." Engaging oneself in a sincere debate over the fallacies of "God's Word" will almost certainly lead to the loss of one's own faith.

The Pastor says, Because JB has requested a defense of my belief in God and Christianity (separate issues) I am sending him a video debate entitled, Atheism Versus Christianity. I am sending you a copy as well.

JB replies, A debate! Let me guess -- you picked one in which the atheist made a poor showing and lost the debate. Debates are good for raising issues in a lively and entertaining way to get people to begin thinking for themselves, but they are no good at all for establishing truth. This is because the outcome of a debate usually depends much more on the skill and preparation of the debater than the subject matter under debate.

P [my father-in-law], my previous offer to you still stands. I'll watch this video if you will read or watch something of my choosing. If you agree to my condition, then I'll hunt down a transcript, a videotape, or an audiotape of a debate in which the atheist won. They're not too hard to find.

And R [my former pastor], don't accuse me of being unwilling to watch the video. I am willing, but I have to get something of value in exchange, tit for tat. That's fair, especially since I spent 23 years reading, listening, and looking at pro-Christian materials exclusively. If this videotape is "different" from the rest and "really" answers the issues, then it will be simple to get me to view it. P [my father-in-law] only has to read, view, or listen to one item of my choosing.

The Pastor says, Also, I will be sending some follow up questions and answers on paper that were not covered in the debate.

JB says, I hope they cover MY challenges that I raised in my previous messages. For 23 years I let the Christian church set the agenda and dance all around the real issues without ever addressing them directly. Now I'M setting the agenda.

The Pastor says, In the final analysis JB is already firmly rooted in his deception.

JB replies, "Deception" again. Say it enough and my in-laws will believe it. The "firmly rooted" part is right. I methodically studied the Bible and church doctrine for 23 years, and so I am intimately aware of the problems.

The Pastor says, God can and is willing to deliver him, but JB must turn to God.

JB replies, Which, being translated, means that I must accept God not only without reason, but contrary to reason. Begging the question is an elementary logical fallacy, but theism and Christianity depend on it for their existence.

The Pastor says, JB is not simply a victim.

JB replies, Correct. I am not a victim. I used to be a victim of the Christian delusion, but not anymore. I have raised a number of serious issues which you obviously can't answer, not because of any deficiency on your part, but because they are unanswerable. I still do not hold any animosity toward you, despite my tough talk. If you open your Bible one day and find that your faith has evaporated, like I did, I offer myself as a friend to help you deal with it. I promise not to expose your unbelief, unless you give the word, and I know how to put you in contact with people and resources that can ease the transition away from a life of faith. Right now you think it can never happen, and perhaps you never will lose faith, but if you do, look me up.

The Pastor says, He has willingly taken up an argument against God as creator. He is like a kid waving his finger in the face of God yelling, "prove it! I dare you!".

JB replies, This is not my attitude at all, as you will see when I explain below what I have done.

The Pastor says, The fact is God has and is proving that he exists (Romans 1).

JB says, Referencing the Bible as proof begs the question -- again.

The Pastor says, Again, I hurt deeply with you.

JB says, Yes, all of us have hurt deeply. Christianity takes such a grip on people's lives, that it is very hurtful indeed to discover that it is a false religion or to lose a friend or family member to irrationality. A more sensible religion would scorn people only for misdeeds, not misbeliefs. If I had kept my unbelief secret and kept up with going through all the Christian motions, no one would have seen any difference in me, and all would be well, even though I disbelieved. But, because I have acknowledged my unbelief openly, I am branded immoral with no evidence at all of any other misdeed. Incredible! This religion rewards you for keeping up a lie and punishes you for telling the truth!

The Pastor says, And I will pray for God's miraculous and undeniable intervention.

JB replies, Miracles have their own problems, but there's no use clogging up the works with a critique of miracles at this time. Let me just say that if I were to come back to faith, your assumption of its being miraculous would be unjustified. My return would easily be explained, as I said previously, by my losing my ability to reason, which could happen through brain damage from a car accident or by natural senility, for example.

The Pastor says, I fear for JB sincerely. He does not realize what he's doing.

JB replies, I remained a Christian for 23 years because I DID realize the consequences. If Hell were real, anyone would be a fool to dismiss the only Entity who could keep him out of it. Despite the fact that Christians don't talk much about Hell anymore, the fear of it still keeps many people in the faith, as it did me. It took a boatload of solid evidence to move me beyond that fear into disbelief. It was the fear of Hell that kept me from leaving the faith on only a few inconsistencies, but, as I said in my previous message, I found that the intellectual bankruptcy of Christianity, including the doctrine of Hell, was pandemic and profound. That discovery completely liberated me from any residual fear of Hell. And the weight of the evidence I have collected as a result of fearing Hell makes my present position unassailable to those who would presume to turn me back.

The Pastor says, I will be satisfied to send JB the information I've referred to. I will get those materials out as soon as possible. JB will likely keep trying to bully me into a debate. God's not asked me to play that part. I feel no compunction or desire to do so. I am sick over this. My battle tactics on behalf of JB and his wife (other than sending this initial material) will be with acts of wisdom and prayer.

JB replies, OK, let me explain why I'm not interested in a debate. I have already accomplished what I set out to do, which was to show that you are unwilling to defend the truth of Christianity. You are willing enough to defend Christianity under the ASSUMPTION that it is true, but you are not willing to defend the question of whether Christianity itself is really TRUE or FALSE. I don't need a debate, because I've already won what I was after. You gave it to me on a silver platter when you said, "God's not asked me to play that part," (how convenient for you) and, "I feel no compunction or desire to do so." Sorry to rub it in, but I don't want my in-laws to miss the significance of what has happened here. You, an ordained minister of the gospel, trained at seminary, "feel no compunction or desire" to defend the truth of Christianity, not even to retrieve a lost sheep strayed from your own congregation! As for "bullying" you, my taunts to you were measured to get YOU to respond, not to shake my finger at God. I needed some kind of response from you to draw this exchange to a resolution for my in-laws' sake. AND THE RESOLUTION IS THIS, THAT MY CHALLENGES TO CHRISTIANITY STAND UNANSWERED. It's not your fault, though, R [my former pastor], as the many challenges to Christianity are unanswerable. You've done the only thing you could do, which was to extract yourself from a losing battle. You got yourself off the hook for more abuse, and did some damage control with my in-laws on your way out. No doubt, God will take care of the rest, yes?

The Pastor says, P.S. By the way, the "shunning" by me of the member which JB is referring to was over a married man who fondled a teenage girl in our church. He worked with our youth. He admitted it to me in private, but later denied it in public to spare his marriage. I obeyed the biblical guidelines in that entire matter. I just wanted you to know that.

JB concludes, True, but irrelevant to the point I was making in my previous message, which was that you threatened me with blackmail. Worse yet, the "biblical guidelines" induce you to do so, an example of the "absolute standards of biblical morality."

Editor's Response to Letter #784

When your pastor refused to engage in debate and intellectual interplay with respect to the Bible, JB, you should have reminded him that he does not have that option according to his own book. Scripture clearly requires dialogue according to 1 Thess. 5:21 (" Prove all things"), 2 Tim. 4:2 ("convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching"), Jude 3 ("ye should earnestly contend for the faith"), James 3:17 ("But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason"), and, of course, 1 Peter 3:15 ("Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you"). If your former pastor would rather amble off into the sunset than debate, he is not only disobeying scripture but behaving hypocritically by failing to practice what he preaches; namely, follow the Bible.



Letter #785 from AS of Riverside, California

Dear Mr. McKinsey. ....I have been using your "Encyclopedia" for the past several months in my frequent on-line debates with Xians on the "Christianity On-line Message Boards" on AOL. It's been a real "godsend" -- a wonderful quick source for confounding fundies and a great source of general education for the rest of us. One forthright apologist, who came into the area sure he'd convert all us heathen, was so discombobulated by my series of mathematical blunders, unfulfilled promises, and such, that he won't respond to my posts anymore. I guess that's progress of a sort. Speaking of the Encyclopedia -- I have noticed a couple of minor errors that you may want to correct in future editions. In most of these few cases you've, in my judgment, allowed the inerrantists to get away with errors that they shouldn't be granted. There is more errancy than you note! For example:

Pg. 214, 5th line -- A camel is an artiodactyl and DOES have a cloven hoof (2 toes per foot with enlarged horny nails -- just like sheep, goats, cattle, etc.), contrary to the Biblical claim. Why even simple folk from the Mid-East couldn't have gotten that one right I don't know. This is evidence not only that the Bible isn't the word of god but that, in this matter, it's not even the product of well informed men.

Hares have multiple toes (5 front, 4 rear), and the soles of their feet are furred and lack the enlarged horny nails typical of animals said to have hooves. Your statement that, "The appropriate term for a hare's foot is not hoof" is an understatement. They don't have hooves in any sense of the word (of course, this is only a Biblical contradiction of observed reality -- we know that fundies are not impressed by those).

Hares/rabbits do NOT "chew the cud" in the same sense as cattle and goats. It's true that they do sometimes re-ingest their own feces and process them again to maximize nutrient extraction from the semi-digestible materials they consume, but that is a very different process from standard cud chewing (even if the results are similar).

I don't know whether conies (rock hyraxes) chew the cud -- but I'll bet they don't. That should be checked into (maybe I'll do it if I get some time). In any event, they also do not have hooves comparable to those of the horses and cattle. They do have enlarged "hoof like structures on most of the toes," but the soles of their feet have moist naked suction pads for climbing (R. T. Orr, Vertebrate Biology, pg. 242-243). They don't have true hooves, but they do have enlarged nails on their several (5?) toes.

Pg. 215, line 13 -- mustard plants are NEVER shrubs--they're merely herbs (non-woody plants), and mostly annual ones at that. The Bible is totally wrong on this -- not only does mustard never make a tree, as you rightly noted, but it never even makes a shrub either. A shrub is defined as a woody plant with multiple stems from the base. The distinction between trees and shrubs is not always clear and some species can be one or the other depending on conditions; so I'd not make the assertion that "shrubs do not grow into trees" (which is irrelevant in this case anyway).

Pg. 226 -- line 22 -- the text says "Noah," where you meant "Adam." Your general point is well taken, however, as illustrated by the fact that thousands of scientists working for the past 200 years have not yet managed to name even 50% of the species of animals. The idea that Adam could have accomplished this in a single lifetime, even a very long "biblical" one is preposterous. Especially if he also had to write the names down, with descriptions, so the names could be matched with the animals in the future. He would have had to do that -- otherwise, what's the point of the whole exercise? Name 'em and forget 'em? Thanks for all your efforts at promoting reason in this daffy land.

Editor's Response to Letter #785

Dear AS. Although we had already been apprised of the 'Noah' in place of 'Adam' error on page 226, your corrections are most appreciated and have been duly noted in our list of future revisions. We would encourage everyone to forward any additional mistakes they may have noticed. It is more important that the book be accurate than my ego and those of three proof-readers be shielded.

Letter #786 from DH of Lebanon, Oregon

Dear Dennis. The series of exchanges between JB and his pastor spread over the past few issues have constituted some of the most powerful material I've read in BE. Thanks for sharing it with all of us. I'd like to encourage JB to revise his narrative into an autobiographical pamphlet so it could be shared with an even wider audience. If he does, let us know! The pamphlet could either be in printed form or, even better, as a file(s) on the Internet where we could read and download to pass along to others.

Coincidentally, with my mail yesterday along with BE #185 came a copy of Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith," a book I'd ordered from Freedom From Religion Foundation. I'm already well into that fascinating autobiographical account of a former fundamentalist preacher who rejected Christianity due to intellectual reasons, coming to the same conclusions as did JB. Retelling personal stories of how we came to achieve a status of disbelief can be highly interesting as well as instructive (and it is my opinion that some people will respond much more easily to the facts presented within a personal story than they will by reading the facts alone, a fact "discovered" by the conservative-oriented magazine Reader's Digest many decades ago). Many of us have gone through those transitions and reading about others' struggles and outcomes can be helpful. Other books I recommend along this line are Edward T. Babinski's "Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists" (Prometheus, 1995) and "Jesus Doesn't Live Here Anymore: From Fundamentalist to Freedom Writer" by Skipp Porteous (Prometheus, 1991). Also excellent is a dual volume set by Austin Miles, "Don't Call Me Brother" (Prometheus, 1989) and "Setting The Captives Free" (Prometheus, 1990), to be read in that order.... Keep up the good work.

Letter #787 from JD of Port Townsend, Washington

Dear Dennis. I've been an admirer of you and your work for years. Like many, I was raised a fundamentalist Christian, saw the light, got out of fundamentalism and have been outspoken ever since. For a short while in Seattle I was president of a Freedom From Religion Foundation chapter, the head office based in Madison, Wisconsin.... My approach at debate has been influenced by you. I go after the Bible. I've found your work most useful because I get a lot of bang for the buck. In other words, not an excess of commentary or dialog to wade through. I'm most appreciative of your scholarship and dedicated, thoughtful approach.