Issue #190-Commentary, Letters

Biblical Errancy Issue #190-Commentary, Letters

Nov 10, '08 3:41 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #190 October 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 correspondence from our readers and begin by concluding the poignant letter from JB, that was discussed in the prior issue. As a result of having taught Sunday school for 23 years, JB has a series of well-considered questions that contributed mightily to his disillusionment with Christianity in general and the Bible in particular.




LETTERS TO THE EDITOR



Letter #788 from JB Via Email Concludes (Part b)



TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (CONCLUDES)

Intractable Theological Problems

1. How could Adam and Eve have ever sinned if God had actually created them perfect, even if they did have free will? If God created them imperfect, how could a perfect omnipotent being create anything imperfect.

2. How can evil exist in the world if God is simultaneously good, omnipotent, and loving? Why is it that no theodicy stands up under rational scrutiny?

3. Why does the church say God did not create evil, when he himself claims that he did in Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, and Amos 3:6?15

4. Why does God expressly take credit for creating disabilities (Exodus 4:11)? If these are God's doing, then why does the evangelical church insist that disabilities are the result of the fall, or of Satan's work?

5. Why would a loving, omnipotent, benevolent god cause people to believe falsehoods so that he can condemn them (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)?

6. Why is the Bible inconsistent on major theological issues such as the nature and existence of an afterlife, the efficacy of works of the Law with regard to salvation, and the distinction between soul and spirit?

7. Why does the evangelical church speak of absolute values when the Bible teaches situational ethics?16

8. Why is it not possible to formulate a systematic theology that agrees with the Bible on all points? Roman Catholic theology introduces unbiblical and irrational ideas; Calvinistic reformed theology stumbles at the existence of evil; covenantal theology muddles the biblical distinctions between Israel and the church; dispensational theology is too hopelessly complex to be credible because every major inconsistency is explained away by spuriously introducing a new "dispensation;" and Arminianism destroys the sovereignty of God.

9. Why doesn't the Bible itself present its own "revealed" systematic theology. Doesn't God want us to have a consistent and complete framework of theology to support right decision-making and teaching others?

Blemishes on the Church

1. Why does the church worship on Sunday, when the seventh day was established forever? There is no biblical support for Sunday worship; it is a tradition of the Catholic Church accepted by Protestants.

2. Why do many evangelical churches deny that baptism is essential for salvation, when the New Testament clearly teaches that it is essential?17

3. Why do some churches object to wine, since the Bible indicates that it is a gift from God (Psalm 104:14-15)?18 How can they continue to object, even when they acknowledge that Jesus turned water into wine? Is this anything more than a holdover from prohibition? In fact, the Bible promotes drunkenness in Proverbs 31:6-7.

4. Why does the modern evangelical church embrace the extra-biblical doctrines of "having a personal relationship with Christ," having a "quiet time," "journaling," and the necessity of belonging to an "accountability group?" Doesn't the church understand its own religion? Why is it caught up in pop-religion? If these are not really doctrines of the church, then why is there social pressure to conform?

5. Why does the church teach tithing for Christians, when it is only commanded of Old Testament Israel? Why didn't Paul teach tithing to the New Testament church when he had the opportunity (2 Corinthians 9)?

6. Why do some churches ignore controversial teachings in the Bible, such as speaking in tongues, baptism for the dead, the requirement for women to wear head coverings and to remain silent, the identification of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, the necessity of poverty in order to follow Jesus (Luke 14:33), etc? Doesn't the Holy Spirit reveal the true meaning of these passages to believers? If so, why do sincere believers come to opposite conclusions on their own, and why aren't they able to come to agreement when they dialog with each other? Surely Jesus is with them to guide them when two or three are gathered together in his name, isn't he, even if they misapprehended the Spirit's guidance when they were on their own?

7. Why must Christians resort to divination (looking for "guidance," looking for "doors of circumstance to open or close," etc.) if the Holy Spirit dwells within them? What is the benefit of an indwelling Holy Spirit if it doesn't manifest itself in day-to-day living and it has to be coaxed into revealing God's will in major decisions?

8. Why do Christians pray about whether to marry someone, when Paul says that if they want to get married, they should just do it (1 Corinthians 7)?

9. Why does the evangelical church rail against one-world government, since its members say it is in God's plan as revealed in Revelation? How can they justify speaking and acting against God's revealed plan?

The Headless Church

1. Why is the evangelical church subject to the same social movements as the rest of society? If the church is headed by the living Christ, shouldn't the institution be a steady keel in a stormy sea?

2. Why does the church trail rather than lead in social reforms? (For example: the rise of capitalism, rise of the scientific method and critical thinking, abolition of slavery, eradication of Nazism, women's suffrage, civil rights of African-Americans after the abolition of slavery.) And why does the church dishonestly claim leadership in these reforms after the fact?

3. Why are the church's day-to-day practices guided by cultural norms rather than by the perfect, absolute, unchangeable norms of God and the Bible? For example, why do churches separate children from their families and age-grade them like the schools, why does the church propagate self-help ideology when the message of the Bible is dependence upon God, why does the church accept and participate in competition where it has rejected it in the past,19 why has the service of women in the church been addressed only after secular culture has addressed women's issues, why does the style of music in the church and church architecture follow cultural patterns instead of defining cultural patterns?

4. Why doesn't the church understand Jesus's teachings? Why are most preachers afraid to preach straight through a gospel from beginning to end? Why do they skip over Jesus's "difficult" sayings and the enigmatic passages?

Character of the Church

1. Why has the church done so little good and so much harm in 2000 years, while science has demonstrated remarkable progress in only 500 years? Why is the period when the church dominated western history universally referred to as the Dark Ages, while the period of breaking away from church dogma is called the Enlightenment?

2. Why are the Crusades and the Inquisition and other church-sponsored atrocities politely ignored in many church education programs, leaving church members to learn of these in other venues, or, more likely, to remain ignorant of the heritage of the institution to which they belong and contribute.

3. Why does the church conceal and ignore and misrepresent legitimate criticisms and critics? If Christianity is undoubtedly true, why doesn't the church demonstrate it by refuting the whole body of skeptical literature in Sunday School classes? The church isn't trying to hide something is it? How can the church possibly maintain credibility when it is so blatantly partisan on the side of dogma, and obviously not dispassionately seeking truth wherever the evidence may lead.

4. Why do so many members of the church dismiss the veracity of unbelief without even giving it a fair hearing, especially in light of biblical condemnations of this behavior, such as "He who answers before listening - that is his folly and his shame" (Proverbs 18:13, NIV), and "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him" (Proverbs 18:17, NIV), for example.

Problems with the Credentials and Character of Jesus

1. Why are many Old Testament prophecies about Jesus referenced in the New Testament taken out of context, not being messianic prophecies at all?20 Why would Jesus's disciples, and Jesus himself in Matthew 4:13-16, misrepresent the Old Testament text? Surely the Son of God would not allow a disciple to persist in a distorted understanding of the scriptures, nor teach in a synagogue class an unjustified misinterpretation of scripture?

2. Why doesn't Jesus fit the real, clearly identifiable, messianic prophesies of the Old Testament? Why do the gospel writers ignore these prophecies? Why does the church condemn first century Jews for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, when he clearly does not fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah? Why must we wait until Jesus' second coming to see the clearest prophecies fulfilled?

3. Why do the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke disagree? If someone is declared to be the son of God, surely his credentials must be impeccable, mustn't they? Two variant genealogies cast suspicion on the true origin of this man, don't they?

4. Why does the genealogy in Matthew 1 show that Jesus descended through a cursed line?21 Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and his father Jehoiakim were both cursed by God himself, who said that neither of these men would have any descendent on the throne of David. How could Jesus possibly be the Messiah, destined to rule forever on the throne of David, if he descended through either of these men?

5. If the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary and not Joseph, then why does it list Joseph in the line rather than Mary? Why is no other genealogy of a woman recorded anywhere else in scripture? And if this is Mary's genealogy, then Jesus descended through Nathan, not Solomon, making the prophecies in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 22:10 false.

6. If, using the genealogy in Luke, Jesus's claim to descent from David, of the tribe of Judah, is through Mary rather than Joseph, then how can it be that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth, was descended from the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5)?

7. Why does Jesus misquote the Old Testament?22

8. Why does Jesus refer to the writings of Moses (Mark 12:26), when it is clear that Moses could not possibly have written the Pentateuch?23 Surely the son of God would know more about the Word of God than anyone else, wouldn't he?

9. How can it be that Jesus contradicts the Old Testament (1 Samuel 21:1-2), saying that Abiathar gave David the showbread instead of Ahimelech, and saying that David had men with him, when he was actually alone (Mark 2:25-26)? Does the church expect me to rely upon the teachings of a "son of God" who is demonstrably mistaken about what God's Word says?

10. Why does Jesus quote a non-existent verse of Old Testament scripture (John 7:38)? Is it possible that he considered other non-canonical writings also to be God's Word?

11. Why would Jesus deliberately obscure the gospel by speaking in parables so that people would not understand, turn, and be forgiven (Mark 4:11-12)? Did he not come that all men might be saved?

12. Why was Jesus in the tomb for only two and a half days at the most, when he said he would be there three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40)? Surely the son of God would say precisely what he means, wouldn't he?

13. Why would Jesus prophesy that his kingdom would come in glory before some of those listening to him died, but the kingdom still has not come (Matt 16:28, Matt 10:23, Mark 9:1, Luke 21:31-32)? Surely the son of God could not have spoken a false prophecy, could he?

14. Why did Jesus say his followers must hate their families? Surely, when the son of God said "hate" he meant "hate," didn't he? Why would the son of God confuse us by using hyperbole? How could the examples of Luke 9:59-62, even if allegorical, be hyperbole anyway? Jesus clearly called a man to the irresponsible, disrespectful action of leaving his father, implying that he was not even to attend his funeral, and he called another to leave his family without even saying farewell or letting them know he was deserting them.

15. Why was Jesus disrespectful of his mother?24 In John 2:4, Jesus uses the same words with his mother that demons use when they meet Jesus.25 Surely the son of God knew that Mary had the blessing of the Father, didn't he, (and she was the mother of God--Ed.) not to mention the fact that the son of God would never be rude?

16. Why did Jesus lie to his brothers about going to Jerusalem (John 7:8-10)?26 Did God the Father send a lying spirit, as he did in 1 Kings? Like Father, like Son?

17. Why did Jesus, by his own admission, break the Sabbath law (John 5:16-18)?27 This puts the lie to the Christian idea that the perfect Jesus fulfilled the whole Law, and therefore was a suitable unblemished sacrifice for our sins.

18. Why did Jesus say the ruler's daughter was not dead? (Matt 9:18-25; Luke 8:41-56) Either Jesus lied, or he performed no miracle, but the context clearly shows that it was understood to be a miracle.

Evolution of Religion by Naturalistic Social Processes

1. If Christian theology and the church have a supernatural origin in an omnipotent God, then why has theology and the church evolved through naturalistic social processes over time?

2. Why does theology change from the beginning of the the Bible to the end? Why are the later writings influfluenced by Greek thought (for example, immortality)? Why is there such a large theological gap between the Old and New Testaments? The changes are not explainable by the idea of "progressive Revelation," or by any systematic theology.

3. Why was the doctrine of the Trinity unknown to the church until the fourth century? Why was the doctrine established by vote instead of by Revelation? Why was the membership of the voting council loaded with Athanasians? Why was belief in this then-new doctrine made a condition for membership in the church? Why were Arians exiled and executed?

4. Why is Jesus so similar to the other 15 suffering saviors of mythology? Why don't Christians believe any of the other virgin births and savior stories recorded in ancient literature? How is it that the ritual of Christian communion existed in the prior pagan ceremonies of eating the body and drinking the blood of their gods? How is it that the Christian ritual of baptism also existed in the prior pagan cults? Weren't the very defining doctrines of Christianity actually assimilated from the endemic pagan cults? Likewise, why are Easter, Christmas, the Lenten season, Rogation days, and others, derived from pagan holidays. Didn't Christianity have any legitimate calendar of commemorations of its own?

5. How did liberal churches come to exist? If they are inclined to believe, why did they not continue to believe the "fundamentals?" Could it be because the fundamentals have insurmountable problems that discredit them?

Conclusion

1. Why hasn't the church answered any of these questions in the 23 years I have been a part of it?

2. Why hasn't the church answered any of these questions in 2000 years? I can only conclude that it is because the church has no answers.

End Notes

15 Despite the renderings in the modern translations, this is the same Hebrew word translated "evil" in numerous other passages. However, even with the modern renderings, how can the Christian explain God's taking credit for "calamity" (NASB) or "woe" (NRSV) or "disaster" (NIV)?

16 David's eating the showbread, for example, and Jesus's Golden Rule.

17 Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, John 3:3, 3:5, 3:7, Acts 22:16; , Romans 6:3-6, Gal. 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21

18 See also, for example, Jeremiah 13:12, Joel 2:19, Deuteronomy 14:25-26, Isaiah 25:6, Deuteronomy 7:13.

19 The ancient Olympics were outlawed by the church through direct governmental influence, and the modern Olympics were not revived until the church lost its hold on secular government.

20 Matthew 3:3 versus Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 4:13-16 versus Isaiah 9:1-2; John 19:36 versus Psalm 34:20; John 19:37 versus Zechariah 12:10.

21 Matthew 1:11-12 + Jeremiah 22:28-30 and 1 Chronicles 3:16 + Jeremiah 36:30 versus Luke 1:32.

22 Matthew 4:10 versus Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 11:10 versus Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:16 versus Psalm 8:2; Luke 4:17-21 versus Isaiah 61:1-2.

23 This is firmly established by Pentateuchal anachronisms detailed in numerous critical sources.

24 Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35, Luke 8:19-21, John 2:4.

25 Compare John 2:4 with Matthew 8:29, Mark 5:7, Luke 4:34, and Luke 8:28 in literal translation

26 The "yet" inserted in some modern translations is not found in the earliest extant manuscripts. This is an example of modern emendation of holy scripture. The more honest translations, like the RSV, italicize "yet" in a footnote, indicating that the word has been added by some versions in translation. The New American Standard Bible does not insert the word, remaining true to the critical Greek text. But the New International Version inserts "yet" in normal typeset, relegating the explanation of its dubious character to a footnote, where many uncritical readers will miss it.

27 The point of this reference is that Jesus plainly said that he was working, in violation of the Sabbath law. If he was not really working, then he lied.

(The last issue will contain a final letter from JB that's quite heartening-Ed.)



Letter #793 from DM Via Email

Dear Dennis. A recent letter to the editor (DC of Minnesota) cited Luke 23:43 ("And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.") and suggested that the comma had been misplaced by translators. I have encountered this argument from Jehovah Witnesses and at one time believed it myself. However, to believe that the comma has been misplaced is to suggest that not only have scores of translators been incompetent but that Jesus himself misused an expression that was unique to him and him alone. The "misplaced" comma defense is unique to those who hold the view that at death the soul "sleeps" and the body goes to the grave to await the resurrection. This defense becomes essential to those holding that position because if Jesus and the dying repentant thief were truly united in Paradise that same day then the "soul sleep" doctrine takes a serious blow. However, every single translation that I know of in the English language, but one, translates that passage with the comma before the word "today." The one translation that doesn't render the passage like the others is the *New World Translation* printed by the Watchtower Society. We have to wonder why. Furthermore, this expression "Verily I tell you..." was unique to Jesus. No one else used it in the entire New Testament. Jesus uses it over seventy times in the gospels.

Note that very carefully, over seventy times. In every single case Jesus always says, "Verily I tell you,...." then follows with a statement. (In John's gospel the evangelist adds an extra "Verily" to each of his sayings). Over seventy times...and yet we are expected to believe that on this one occasion Jesus changed an expression that was unique to him by saying, "Verily I tell you today,..." followed by a statement. A little reflection will show that surely the thief knew what day it was. It would have been unnecessary for Jesus to tell the thief what day he was speaking but it would have been significant to tell the thief that he would that very day be with Jesus in heavenly bliss. It would make no sense for Jesus to tell the thief what day he was speaking (as if the thief didn't already know) yet not tell him *when* he would be with him in Paradise.... The traditional, fundamental view of the placement of the Lucan comma is a sound one.

Editor's Response to Letter #793

Dear DM. Your analysis is good but I would make a significant modification. You say, "The 'misplaced' comma defense is unique to those...." I would say it is not unique but quite common to all those wanting to escape this contradiction any way they can.

Letter #794 from DH of Lebanon, Oregon

Dear Dennis. I experienced a broad spectrum of emotions while pondering BE #186. Your statement of Closure is complete and I find no fault with your desires to go on to other things which you feel might be more productive and enjoyable. I assume from what you've written in BE and in your Encyclopedia that much of what you have done, perhaps all of it, has been a voluntary effort for you rather than any means of making a living. You did it because you felt it had to be done (and I should quickly add that you did it, from my perspective, very well). I have worked all my life in the realm of nonprofits which exist primarily due to the dedicated effort of volunteers who believe in the "cause." I know from experience that there are very few people who are able or willing to step forward to a position of leadership and those who do assume leadership roles most often do so because they are confronted face-to-face with a situation where they cannot gracefully back out of a commitment! Call it human nature, habit, cultural conditioning, or whatever, people just don't as a rule stand up to the line and say "give me something to do." They won't accept the challenge and run with it unless they have to. So perhaps my observation would be that you were a bit too optimistic about your cause and its appeal to others. The fact that you have produced 189 issues of BE, the Encyclopedia, and the radio and TV tapes shows that there has been much interest and many of us have profited intellectually from what you have done.

I liked your response to letter #778; publication of your notebooks would be even another needed tool--I've often thought that a cross-referenced bible for us would be great; maybe the notebook idea is even better. You'll never know the overall effect of your work.

Unlike the bible thumpers, I cannot promise you a judgment day when the fruits of your labor will be revealed to you! I don't know what your circulation history has been, but perhaps the Internet will reach more people in the long run. The chief problem about volunteers for our "cause" is that we lack the will to organize. Christianity has its churches with a local presence that can motivate people to act. With few exceptions, those of us who are unchurched do not. Efforts to set up structures have often met with failure because, frankly, most of us grew up in a church and feel relieved to be free of those types of commitments on our time, energy and money. Debunking the bible requires great commitment on our part to study a book which we have already determined is flawed and not the glorious document it is touted to be. Few of us like the challenge of telling people that what they believe is bunk (Of course, as you often say, your approach is much different from this). For you, however, it was apparently something that appealed to you very much. And many of us have benefited from that. So don't for a minute consider your few active participants a sign of failure. I for one, a relatively new subscriber [2-3 years?] look forward to your new endeavors, although I will regret the loss of BE.... My friend, it is with sadness that I acknowledge the cessation of BE, but may you not drop out of sight after the pressure of deadlines eases off. I admire and have profited from your work and wish you well.

Letter #795 from MB of Collinsville, Illinois

It has to be frustrating to have put such an effort into a project and not have much help from inactive supporters. I believe that your mission is not just to entertain or validate the anti-biblical readers but rather to make a change in a biblically-intoxicated society. Even so, I want you to know that you have made a world of difference in my life from the standpoint of gaining understanding relative to this modern day mythology. It is a privilege to read a sane viewpoint once a month after running into the religious slant permeated in my community. I am sure that I am not alone. My opinion may not matter much but I do not want you to give up on this important newsletter. If you have run out of things to write about, I believe that it would be a good opportunity to discuss other related issues.

The major problem is that BE is not exposed to the public enough, which limits its influence. I came upon your site on the Web almost by accident. Promotion takes money and participation to make happen. The religious community has become very good at spreading the "Good News." They do not have any qualms about asking for money and help. The material you have put out is superior to all others on the subject and most people do not have any idea that it exists. Even so, to get material out with which most people disagree requires a monumental effort as well as good strategies. I'm not rich but I want to help out. I will help with the video strategy. If you need any help with other projects I would like to contribute some of my time.

Editor's Response to Letter #795

Dear MB. Your willingness to assist is greatly appreciated, as are your kudos. Please contact me ASAP in regard to playing our video tapes. Rest assured I could never run out of material of which there is an abundance. I did, however, run low on other components.



Letter #796 from K Via Email

I am not a subscriber, but I wish I had been. Since I have cruised your website I have learned more about the bible and god than a life-time of being raised by a preacher for a father...and it saddens me to see and hear of the struggles you have had to keep BE going.... A friend sent me a link to your website, and though you will no longer have new entries, I do hope you will keep your site up and running, since I, along with others am still reading and learning all you...have to say about the bible and god.... Thank you so much for the work that you have done, and I hope to keep learning from you and your site in the future.



Letter #797 from RT via Email

It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to thank you for the profoundly beneficial work that you have accomplished. I was truly excited to find your web site while reading through the Errancy discussion group in Christianity Online. You and your work have fans everywhere!. My "recovery" experience is probably similar to other former fundamentalists, so I won't bore you with the by now all-too-familiar details. Suffice it to say that your efforts, in combination with others, have been "the lamp unto my feet" that led me out of the darkness of biblical superstition.... Again, my most heartfelt thanks.



Letter #798 from AN of Dallas, Oregon

Thank you for writing such a most needed book! I ordered your book through H. H. Waldo booksellers and it was definitely worth every penny. I am a former Pentecostal minister who has studied apologetics since I was 14 (now 27), but I found the grinding doubts, the anti-human teachings etc, to be too painful, and inherently evil. I'm just glad that I heard of your publication at an early age, so that I didn't inflict that poison on too many sincere people. I picked up my email address screen name, Job25:6, from your book. That's the verse where it calls the "son of man" a worm. I can't tell you how thankful I am for your Encyclopedia. As a former Pentecostal minister/intern trying to become a moralistic freethinker, your book has been pure Gold! Words cannot express it. Thank you. Your name will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the main heroes of a positive/moral humanism in much the same way as, if not surpassing, the greatness of Thomas Paine. I didn't know that your newsletter was still going, and I found out that you are (after 16 years) going to give it a rest. Well, understandable, but I want to thank you for having the courage to combat those crummy christian apologists, and for giving us regular good-natured humanists, some ammunition against their hellfire threats. You're appreciated. Thanks again.



Editor's Response to Letter #798

Dear AN. Thanks for your kind words and if my work turns out to be half as fruitful and influential as you portend, it will have been well worth the time, effort, and commitment.