7 -Original Sin, Messianic Prophecies, Micah 5:2

COMMENTARY

Original Sin

In the fifth chapter of Romans Paul created a concept--Original Sin--that is crucial to Christianity. He alleged humanity is under a curse because of Adam's failings in the Garden of Eden. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Rom. 5:12)." "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22)." (Also note Rom. 5:17-19). Yet, despite Paul's assertions it's difficult to see how the condemnations pronounced upon Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the third chapter of Genesis (Gen. 3:14-19) condemned all mankind to eternal punishment. Paul's interpretation is just not warranted by the narrative. Gen. 3:14, for example, says:"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, 'Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life'". Clearly this bestows no curse upon Adam and doesn't materially affect the serpent. How did the serpent move before, if not upon its belly? It's difficult to imagine a serpent walking upright or finding one that eats dust. Even if he had walked on legs, the alteration is not germane to the issue. It is the curse on Adam that matters.
Gen. 3:15 (NIV) says: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers (her seed- KJV, RSV); he will crush your head and you will strike his heel." These curses sound ominous but are of little consequence for several reasons. In the first place, the serpent, i.e., the Devil, didn't have offspring. According to Christianity the battle between good and evil is between the Devil and all others. Nothing is said about the Devil's children. Secondly, if "the woman" refers to Eve, then her offspring could refer to any person who lived. By what rationale can Paul say this verse is referring to one specific individual, Jesus, who lived hundred of years later in another part of the world? Her seed (RSV) must be referring to one person. If not, if it is referring to all of Eve's descendants, then to whom does "he" refer? Thirdly, the waters are muddied even further by the fact that the KJV and the RSV say "her seed" and seed is always plural in the Old Testament. It's never used to refer to a single individual, such as Jesus. And lastly, the "he" couldn't be Jesus, as Paul contends, because Jesus never crushed the head of Satan. If he had, then how could there still be "sinners" and how could the Serpent still be doing injury? Romans 16:20, which says: "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly" and 1 Thess. 2:18, which says: "Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us" show that even after the death of Jesus, Satan still lived and exercised control over people. The best Christians can do with this problem is allege Jesus will destroy Satan when Christ returns. Assuming his return, however, is pure speculation, relying on hope and a promise.

Gen. 3:16 says: "Unto the woman he said, 'I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee'." Even if this verse were true, it would not mark the establishment of Original Sin, but only explain why women have pain during childbirth and have been dominated by men. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband" doesn't sound like a curse or punishment.

Gen. 3:17 says: "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life(RSV)." This verse does little more than condemn man to work for a living and curse the ground upon which he labors.

Gen. 3:18 says: "...thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field (RSV)." According to Gen. 1:29: "And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food'," the plants of the field were already bestowed upon man for food. It's difficult to see this as a curse, in any event.

Gen. 3:19 says: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground...(RSV)." eating bread in the sweat of his face or working to produce food partly explains why man was created in the first place. Gen. 2:5, which says: "...and there was not a man to till the ground (RSV)" and Gen. 2:15, which says: "And the Lord took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it (RSV)" show man was put into the Garden of Eden to work and keep it up-- a blessing of healthful work instead of idle existence. Except for having to work for a living, this is no curse upon Adam or mankind.

In summary, much of the "Curse" is upon the helpless earth which Yahweh (God) had just created. There is not a single word or remotest hint at sin, at death, or eternal damnation. Every clause of the "curse" is no curse at all. God told Adam that because of what he did the ground is cursed, he must toil for food, thorns and thistles shall be brought forth to him, and he must eat the plants of the field. Where is the curse of Original Sin?

From the first curse in Genesis 3 to the end of Malachi, amid all the ravings threatening death upon the Chosen People, there is not the remotest reference in all the Old Testament to the Snake Story, the Curse of Adam, the Fall of Man, or the necessity of Redemption from "Original Sin" and the fires of Hell. Hell and its fires are totally non-existent in the Hebrew scheme. All the furies of God are temporal terrors and end with death of the accused. Jesus never once mentioned Adam or the pretended curse and fall. He never implied his mission was to undo what Adam had done. Not one of the gospel writers uttered anything about Adam, the Curse, or Redemption.

Messianic Prophecies

Christian apologists claim only one man in history, Jesus, fulfills the Old Testament prophecies with respect to the Messiahship. From their perpective he, and he alone, meets all of the requirements one must fulfill in order to be the prophesied Saviour of mankind. But do the facts confirm this claim? Can Jesus truthfully allege he is the Messiah outlined in the Old Testament? This question can best be answered by analyzing those prophecies which appear to provide the strongest support for such an assertion. Among those often discussed, none are more relevant to this issue than the prophecies in Isaiah 7, Micah 5, and Isaiah 53. If these can't withstand critical analysis, if they aren't applicable to Jesus, then what prophecies are? Since each is specific, detailed and rather lengthy, they will be discussed in this and subsequent issues of BE.

Micah 5

The fifth chapter of Micah, one of the most quoted sections in the entire Old Testament, marks a fine place to begin an analysis of Messianic prophecy. Although touted as a fountain of truth and prediction, it's difficult to see its applicability to Jesus.

Micah 5:2 says: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel."

Apologists smile with glee over the fact that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem appears to have been predicted hundreds of years before the event. But if they had read elsewhere they would have seen that Bethlehem was the name of a man whose father was Ephratah. First Chron. 4:4 says: "These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah, the father of Bethleham." First Chron. 2:50 also shows Bethlehem was a man descended from Ephratah. And since neither Bethlehem nor Ephratah appears in the genealogies of Matt. 1 or Luke 3, they could not be ancestors of Jesus, and Jesus couldn't be the ruler referred to. Bethlehem refers to the name of both a man and a town.

Another problem with Micah 5:2 lies in the fact that thousand of children have been born in Bethlehem, but that doesn't give each of them the right to claim to be the Messiah.

Thirdly, Jesus was by no means a ruler in Israel. Quite the contrary, the people ruled over him, as is shown by his death.

Micah 5:2 continues with: "...whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting (KJV)." "Everlasting" is not a correct translation from the Hebrew. The Hebrew word actually signifies times long past as in Amos 9:11, Isaiah 63:9, Malachi 3:4, and Deuteronomy 32:7. No Jewish Old Testament writer ever taught that the Messiah was divine or his birthplace was eternity. The literal translation from the Hebrew is "from the days of ancient time." Not only the Jewish Masoretic text but several Christian versions--the RSV and the NIV--say "from ancient days." Although the writers of the RSV and the NIV have translated the Hebrew correctly, they have fallen into a dilemma. How could "from ancient days" refer to Jesus, since he is allegedly God, and God exists before ancient days? God is eternal and without beginning. Micah 5:4 (RSV) says: "And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth." This verse means the Messiah will bring peace and security to the world, as is stated in Isaiah 2:4. But if this verse is referring to Jesus, why did he not bring peace? Even more important is the fact that Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword (Matt. 10:34).

But the really crucial verse is Micah 5:6, which says: "...thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian when he cometh into our land,...." If any verse proves the fifth chapter of Micah has nothing to do with Jesus, this is it. In the first place, Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, was destroyed and Assyrian power ceased to exist 606 years before Jesus was born. Secondly, Jesus never became a military leader. Thirdly, the Romans, not Assyrians, conquered the land of Judah during the lifetime of Jesus. Jesus struggled with Romans, not the Assyrians. And lastly, Jesus did not drive out anyone, especially the Romans. On the contrary, they signed the warrant for his execution. There is more to be said about other "sure-fire" prophecies of Jesus.

Apologists often accuse their opponents of taking verses out-of-context, yet that's precisely what they did with Micah 5.

Biblical Inerrancy

On page 23 in Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, McDowell and Stewart provide a list of 8 commonly given reasons for believing the Bible is inerrant.
The evidence that the very words of the Bible are God-given may be briefly summarized as follows: (1) This is the claim of the classical text (2 Tim. 3:16); (2) It is the emphatic testimony of Paul that he spoke in Words...taught by the spirit (1 Cor. 2:13); (3) It is evident from the repeated formula, "It is written;" (4) Jesus said that which was written in the whole Old Testament spoke of Him (Luke 24:27, 44, John 5:39, Hebrews 10:7); (5) the New Testament coinstantly equates the Word of God with Scripture (Matt. 21:42, Rom. 15:4); (6) Jesus indicated that not even the smallest part of a Hebrew word of letter could be broken (Matt. 5:16); (7) The New Testament refers to the written record as the "oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2, Heb. 5:12); (8) And occasionally the writers were even told to "diminish not a word" (Jer. 26:2); John even pronounced an anathema upon all who would add to or diminish from this book.
The fallacy in this above lies in the fact that all 8 reasons are making the same point in different words--the Bible is inspired because it says so, which, of course, is no proof whatever. Many writings in history have claimed divine perfection, but no prudent observer would accept them on this basis alone. McDowell and Stewart acknowledge as much on page 1 of Tough Questions Skeptics Ask. "...the Bible claims to be a record of the words and deeds of God, thus the Bible views itself as God's Word. The mere fact that the Bible claims to be the word of God does not prove that it is such, for there are other books that make similar claims."
The Resurrection--In Tough Questions Skeptics Ask McDowell and Stewart attempted to answer the following questions: How do you explain the contradictions in the Resurrection story? Their response is almost as unbelievable as the resurrection itself. They state:

A common objection to the...resurrection is that the four Gospel narratives contain hopeless contradictions. If the four accounts were placed in parallel columns a number of apparent differences would be highlighted. However, these apparent differences ultimately confirm the truthfulness of these accounts, rather than refute them. If all four Gospels gave exactly the same story, in exactly the same order, with exactly the same details, we would immediately become suspicious.
On the contrary, wisdom dictates that one become suspicious when they don't agree. Suspicion or not, if contradictions are to be avoided, they must give the same account. How contradictions, hidden under the euphemism of "differences," confirm truthfulness and agreement is difficult to fathom. McDowell and Stewart continue:
It is quite clear that all of the Gospels relate their portraits of Jesus differently. This is what we should expect. No four witnesses (or news reporters), all of whom witness a series of events, will write them up in exactly the same way, detail for detail. If they did, there would be obvious collusion.
Every time I have appeared on the radio, some caller has invariably made the "witness at a car accident" argument, which is no proof at all. Contending people always give conflicting reports of traffic accidents doesn't resolve anything. When there are contradictions, somebody isn't telling the truth, and that's all that matters. When witness A says there were 4 people in the northbound car and witness B says there were 2, when witness A says the accident happened at 2 o'clock and witness B says 3 o'clock, somebody's wrong. Collusion isn't even an issue. Whether it exists is of no consequence. All that matters is whether or not the stories agree. They either do or they don't. McDowell and Stewart's apologetic continues:
If the differences concerned the main points of the story, then there would be justification for doubt, but when the salient points are agreed upon by every witness, insignificant differences add to, rather than subtract from, the validity.
Any kind of differences major or minor, couldn't possibly add to a story's validity. But even more important is the fact that the accounts differ in nearly every major aspect. They don't agree on who went to the tomb, when they arrived, who was there, the status of the tomb, and so on. McDowell and Stewart then state: "It should be noted, too, that none of the details necessarily flatly contradicts any others, but in some plausible way they correlate together to supply the larger picture." If they really believed this, then I would challenge them to write one consistent narrative incorporating all four gospel accounts. The details are wholly incompatible and only confuse the overall picture. They continue:
One of the seeming contradictions that bothers people concerns the time the women came to the tomb, related differently by John and Mark. Mark's account has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun, while John states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was dark. This difficulty is solved when it is realized that the women had to walk quite some ditance to reach the grave, since they stayed in Jerusalem or Bethany. It was dark when they left the place in which they were staying, but when they arrived at the tomb the sun was beginning to shine. Therefore, Mark is speaking of their arrival, while John refers to their departure.
McDowell and Stewart are apparently having difficulty reading the English language. So, for their benefit I'll quote the exact words of Mark and John. "And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2)." "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre,...(John 20:1)." Clearly both accounts are referring to the time of their arrival, and their time of departure is of no consequence.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #17 from J.S. of Santa Barara, California
Dear Dennis. In reading your Biblical Errancy periodical (Issue #2, Feb. 1983) I found some glaring mistakes in your line of reasoning. For example, in your explanation of apologists, you claim that, "...the witnesses-at-an-auto-accident argument...is quite irrelevant since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event cannot be simultaneous accurate. One or the other is false." (That's all J.S. said on this matter)
Editor's Response to Letter #17
Yes, J.S. I did make such a statement. So where is my mistake? You forgot to say where I allegedly erred. I stand behind the statement and always will.

Letter #17 Continues
Furthermore, you claim that Matt. 8:1-2 supports the theory that the tomb was "closed when arrived." This, in fact, is not the case! A tomb is not even mentioned in either verse!! In your own line of reasoning, therefore, your periodical (or more directly you) must be a fallible source, and hence I should not use your "version" because it is false. Perhaps you will claim that it is a "copyist error," in which case, you owe an apology to the apologists and moreover to this Archer fellow; this is because in the four years I have taught Physics at College level, I have learned that it is at least as likely (if not more likely) to confuse 40,000 with 4,000 than 28 with 8.

Editor's Response Do you realize what you have done, J.S? You have written an entire letter because I made a typing error in my February issue. You are correct. Matt. 8:1-2 does not support the theory that the tomb was "closed when arrived" but Matt. 28:1-2 does. My typist left off the "2" on the number "28." So what are you trying to prove, that I am fallible? Of course I am. Do you know anyone who isn't? I've never claimed infallibility, but the Bible does. As I stated in the last issue (June 1983) of BE, the Bible is under the microscope, not its critics. It's claiming perfection, they aren't. The context of Matt. 8:1-2 in the February issue clearly shows Matt. 28:1-2 was intended. Have I criticized you, J.S., because you misspelled "explanation," capitalized "physics," and omitted a "the" in front of the word "college"? Moreover, you falsely stated I have a "version". In truth, I analyze the versions of others, but I don't advocate one of my own. What is my "version"? I'd be interested in knowing, since every version in existence has hundreds of problems. You read my entire second issue and only mention one typing error. If that is the best you can do, J.S., you have practically endorsed the February issue.

•(a) "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened"--Matt. 7:7-8, Luke 11:9-10;
•(b) "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you"--John 16:23;
•(c) "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive"Matt. 21:22

Read more: biblicalerrancy.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=17#ixzz2VLh7elN3

Letter #18 from N.S. of Richmond, Indiana
Dear Dennis, First here's my three dollars for six issues of BE. I think it's wonderful! I'm an Agnostic, or Atheist, or whatever you wish to call me, but have had problems answering some of my Christian friends' arguments. I've always known they were wrong, and actually have pity on people who will not question what they read in the Bible. That's what first got me started. I never even opened a Bible till 4 or 5 years ago, and the more I read, the more I was astonished at the doubletalk and downright filth. I'm grateful to my parents, who weren't religious, that they weren't. Therefore I was able to see through this garbage (and I must call it this) for I had not been conditioned all my life. Incidentally, I'm no child, I'm 55. As you say, millions are only getting one side of the story, and what a pitiful story it is. Thanks again for something that's needed.
Editor's response to Letter #18
I see you agree with Thomas Paine, N.S. "Garbage," "filth," and "doubletalk" remind me of some of his comments: "Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the WORD OF GOD; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the HOLY BIBLE! this is rubbish called REVEALED RELIGION!"
The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9, p.201.
"...but if thou trust to the book called the Scriptures thou trust to the rotten staff of fable and falsehood."
The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9, p. 248

Letter #19 from S.S. of Vienna, Virginia
I have long been aware of God's atrocities in the Bible. If people will only take the trouble to READ the damned thing and let it speak for itself, then there could be no lingering doubt that the so-called "Word of God" is among the most profane and repulsive collections of writing ever to exist. I refer to the human sacrifices of Leviticus, Judges, and 2 Samuel; the sanctioning of slavery in Exodus and Leviticus; the selling of one's daughter, the killing of witches, death for heresy and violating the sabbath, all to be found in Exodus. And for all those Bible-thumping sexists out there, for unchastity at the time marriage--a PENALTY IMPOSED ONLY UPON WOMEN (Deut. 22:20-21)

And so far as the New Testament is concerned--it is a compendium of both historical and logical contradictions (read: S.G.F. Brandon, Joel Carmichael, or G.A. Wells) filled with paganism and old time superstition. Easter is named after the old goddess of Spring. Christmas falls upon the winter solstice, which is when the Saturnalia was formerly celebrated.

I could go on and on, as any good amateur Bible critic could do. The point is that the more carefully one reads the Bible, the more absurd and utterly ridiculous it becomes. Anyone who believes that the Bible is the word of some god cannot claim to be at all rational (to paraphrase Clarence Darrow); and what future is there in store for mankind if there is to be this disdain for rationality?

Please enter my subscription for six months.... Please keep up the excellent work you are doing. This country needs more freethinking, independent-minded people like you. Is it any wonder that the Bible warns that "the simple believe anything (Prov. 14:15)? Indeed, it takes a simple mind to swallow such worn-out fables and mythology as are found in the unholy-as-can-be Bible.

Editor's response to Letter #19
I see you also agree with Paine, who said:

People in general know not what wickedness there is in the pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing, it is a book of lies, wickedness and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy, than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty.
(The Age of Reason, Paine, p.103)