Issue #185-Does the Bible Contradict Itself (Pt. 4

Biblical Errancy Issue #185-Does the Bible Contradict Itself (Pt. 4-Ask/Receiving & Prayer, Biblical Adultery, JB Refutes His Pastor on Many Points (4 Pages)

Nov 10, '08 3:30 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #185 May 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 4)

Last month's issue temporarily diverged from our ongoing discussion of biblical contradictions faced by W. Arndt in his book Does the Bible Contradict Itself. We can now resume our litany with another example of apologetics in action.

On page 134 Arndt turns to the conflict between Psalm 18:41 ("They cried, but there was none to save them; even unto the Lord, but He answered them not") and Matt. 7:8 ("For everyone that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened"). He states, "When first reading these two statements, one may be led to think that they are in disagreement. Both speak of prayer. The Matthew passage declares that no prayer is in vain; the Psalm passage apparently states that a prayer was offered by certain people and was not heard. The words of Jesus in Matt. 7:8 predicate a universality which the words of David in Psalm 18:41 seemingly deny. The difficulty is easily disposed of. That God hears every real prayer is a blessed truth which is proclaimed in a number of passages in Holy Scriptures. Cf. Prov. 8:7 ('For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips'), 1 John 5:14 ('And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us'), Matt. 21:21 ('Jesus said...If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done'), Luke 11:5-13, etc."

Arndt's strategy won't carry the day for several reasons.

First, he has restricted the Matthew passage. It not only declares that no prayer is offered in vain but that anyone praying will attain satisfaction. There are no limitations with regard to the quality of the petitioner.

Second, Matthew says nothing about a "real prayer" as opposed to one that isn't. Arndt is alluding to some kind of fake prayer which is nowhere discussed or defined in Scripture.

Third, the contrary citations are either irrelevant or contradictory. Prov. 8:7 does not say God will or will not answer prayers nor does it outline the conditions under which they will be answered. All it says is that God does not like wickedness. Just because he does not like wickedness does not mean he is refusing to answer prayers.

First John 5:14 is the verse apologists trot out most to escape the all-inclusive comments of Matthew 7. But instead of resolving the problem, it merely exposes a biblical contradiction between 1 John 5 and Matthew 7. Apologists try to use the former to modify and alleviate the latter, when one could just as easily say the latter expands and broadens the scope of the former. It would be textually sustainable to say the original command was that prayer had to be offered in accordance to God's will in order to be fulfilled but later that requirement was dropped and all prayers would henceforth be met. They no longer had to be offered according to his will.

Matt. 21:21 states that your prayer will be answered if you have faith, but it does not say that in order to be answered you must have faith. Faith is not alleged to be a requirement.

Matt. 21:21 says that if you have faith your prayer will be answered, while Matt 7:8 goes further by saying prayer will be answered, with or without faith.

Fourth, Arndt states, "The words of Jesus in Matt. 7:8 predicate a universality which the words of David in Psalm 18:41 seemingly deny." There is no "seemingly" to it. The latter directly states that they cried and the Lord "answered them not." Yet, Matt 8:7 says "everyone who asketh receiveth." The word EVERYONE is all inclusive. The bottom line is that none of these verses will resolve the original contradiction through modification of Matthew 8:7.

Arndt nearly always says something akin to: "The difficulty is easily disposed of" with respect to nearly every contradiction he confronts, and almost never is that proven valid.

Arndt concludes by saying, "At the same time, however, it is true that there is many a cry which the Lord does not answer. These vain, fruitless utterances come from the lips of God's enemies, the very kind of people that Psalm 18:41 speaks of. The Scriptures assure us in solemn words that the prayers of the ungodly are not acceptable. Cp. Psalm 66:18 ("If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me"), 1 Sam. 28:6 ("And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams nor by Urim nor by prophets"). The so-called prayers of these people simply are no prayers at all. ...when the Bible says every prayer will be heard, it has reference to real prayers, the petitions sent up to God by His Children."

This explanation is virtually no defense at all.

First, Matt. 7:8 does not restrict its coverage to God's friends or exclude his enemies. Where is that to be found in the text? It is a blanket statement with an absolutist nature that is unmistakable and undeniable. It clearly says EVERYONE.

Second, in so far as Psalm 66:18 is concerned, we are back to a perfection dilemma that has plagued biblicists from the beginning. If one need only have some iniquity in his heart to be excluded by God, then we are all excluded and no one's prayers will be heard, since everyone has some degree of iniquity. After all, doesn't the Bible say that we are all sinners and we have all come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Who doesn't have some iniquity in his heart, be it ever so small? No one is perfect.

And third, Arndt states, "It has reference to real prayers, the petitions sent up to God by His Children." We are repeatedly told by Christians that we are all God's children. Now Arndt is claiming that real prayers only come to him from His children and those from the "ungodly are not acceptable, the so-called prayers of these people simply are no prayers at all." But they have to be acceptable, if we are all God's children.


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #776 from EK of Jamaica Estates, New York

Dear Dennis. Regarding Issue 182, Letter #762 & the Response.

You asked that I cite chapter and verse to support my contention that "only if the woman is married to another man does adultery occur."

In Deuteronomy 22:22-27 there are three examples:

1) a man who lies with a woman married to another man.

2) a man who, in the city, lies with a betrothed virgin who does not cry out and

3) a man who, in the field, takes hold of a betrothed damsel and lies with her but she cries out.

In all three examples the man receives the death penalty in accordance with Leviticus 20:10. The first two women are also put to death in accordance with Lev. 20:10 but the third is not because she cried out in the field and there was no one to save her. All three are examples of adultery, since the women were either married or betrothed to another man.

In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, a man finds a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her. The man's "punishment" is he shall give the girl's father 50 shekels of silver and she shall be his wife because he humbled her and he may never divorce her. The capital punishment for adultery does not apply because adultery did not occur because the woman was not married or betrothed. The man's marital status is never an issue.

I found additional support for my position in the NT. In Romans 7:3 it says that a woman, who while her husband lives, marries another man she will be called an adulteress, but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

Editor's Response to Letter #776

Dear EK. I think you got lost in the shuffle somewhere, so let's return to the beginning. You said to me in the 182nd issue (Feb.), "You say that if only one person is married, then God is ordering adultery. This is not the Biblical law of adultery as only if the woman is married to another man does adultery occur. (Biblical law is hardly egalitarian). David and Solomon had concubines while married but only when David had relations with Bathsheba, a woman married to Uriah, does adultery occur. The women children who had not known a man by lying with him were undoubtedly unmarried, hence no adultery could occur under Biblical law." In other words, according to you, adultery is ONLY possible under biblical law if the woman involved is married. But as I said to you then, "I am in a bit of a quandary as to where biblical law says that only if the woman is married to another man does adultery occur. Could you cite chapter and verse for that contention?" Your current attempt to justify your original assertion is wholly inadequate. You cite Deut. 22:22-27 which contains verses that nowhere say that the woman must be married in order for adultery to occur. They say that if the woman is married or betrothed, adultery has occurred. They do not say the woman must be married or betrothed in order for adultery to have been committed. To repeat one of my favorite analogies: When I say a dog is an animal, I am not saying that in order to be an animal you must be a dog. In the present instance, the Bible is saying that if the woman involved is married or betrothed, then adultery has occurred; but it is not saying the woman must be married in order for adultery to occur. You say,"In all three examples the man receives the death penalty in accordance with Leviticus 20:10." Correct! That is because the woman was married or betrothed, but that is not saying ONLY if the woman is married or betrothed will the death penalty be imposed.

You say, "In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, a man finds a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her. The man's "punishment" is he shall give the girl's father 50 shekels of silver and she shall be his wife because he humbled her and he may never divorce her. The capital punishment for adultery does not apply because adultery did not occur because the woman was not married or betrothed. The man's marital status is never an issue." That is not what the text says. The man's marital status is never mentioned. Maybe capital punishment is not imposed because neither is married. How do you know what the punishment would have been if the man had been married and the woman had not been? You are assuming automatic exoneration while I am saying now, as I said in February, that the Bible does not make its position clear in this regard. We simply don't know what the verdict would have been if only the man had been married and there is no way to be sure. Why? Because the Bible nowhere says, as you claim, that ONLY if the woman is married does adultery occur.

Romans 7:3 ("So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law....") certainly does not support your position. Nowhere does this verse say that adultery ONLY occurs if the woman is married. It only says adultery is occurring if she marries another man while her husband is alive, but it does not say that adultery is ONLY possible when a married woman is involved with a man other than her husband. Suppose a married man has relations with an unmarried woman? Is that adultery? According to your interpretation of Scripture, it is not, while according to mine it very well could be, although Scripture is too imprecise to make a definitive judgment.

I feel compelled to repeat what I said in February: 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, I think my position is more reliable than yours. Only by producing verses that state a man only commits adultery by having relations with a married woman can you hope to salvage your stance. And that you have again failed to do.


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Letter #777 from JB Via Email

(Last month's issue presented a letter written by JB to his pastor in which JB delineated some of the reasons he went from being a 23-year Sunday school teacher to being an atheist. He received a critical reply from his pastor and decided to write a fourth letter in order to provide the following itemized refutation of the pastor's judgments and conclusions--Ed.),

The Pastor says, Dear JB. You have not had a "Loss of faith". You have believed a lie (Romans).

JB replies: In your theology, either I was never a "true believer" in the first place, or I am still a true believer, but I have erred. This is a fine theology until one actually experiences the unmentioned third option: I was a true believer, but I lost faith because the FAITH ITSELF was in error. Those who know me best also know that this option does exist and hence that Paul must have been wrong. By the way, there ought to be room in your theology for people who truly fall away. The writer of Hebrews contradicts Paul and acknowledges that believers really can fall away.

The Pastor says: You are a smart man JB but you are not smarter than Jesus!

JB replies: Your theme throughout your message about my being a "smart man" is irrelevant to the question of whether Christianity is true or false. The problems with Christianity are plain enough that anyone of average intelligence can see them, if they will only look. Even if someone does not see them through the rose-colored glasses of interpretation provided by the church, it does not take above-average intelligence to understand the problems when someone points them out. In fact, intelligence actually hindered me from discovering the problems in Christianity, because I could think of so many more ways to rationalize the problems than most people could. As to the intelligence of Jesus, he himself misquoted Old Testament scripture, attributed the Pentateuch to Moses when it could not possibly have been written by Moses, and got the details wrong in the Old Testament story of David and the shewbread. It is odd how the Son of God could have made such errors, isn't it?

The Pastor says, Even if you reject Jesus as deity, he was by all historical accounts the most profound and wise teacher who has lived. He taught that you should fear God.

JB replies, This is an unsubstantiated statement that you are repeating from the evangelical apologists. The "all historical accounts" that you speak of are essentially nothing more than the four gospels, and these are so problematic that they discredit themselves. As to Jesus being "the most profound and wise teacher who has lived," this has been convincingly discredited. I can give you a reference if you care to read the opposing view.

The Pastor says, You are a smart man, but not likely any smarter than King David, King Solomon, Moses, the Apostle Paul, and other historical figures who were smart enough to believe in God.

JB replies, The modern Age of Reason didn't start until about three hundred years ago. Until then most of the western world, except for some educated Greeks, was mired in superstition. The question of God's existence would hardly have even occurred to them. For a thousand years after Aristotle, people believed that an iron object would fall faster than a wooden object of the same shape and size. It wasn't until Galileo that this easily refuted belief was overturned, because he was willing to test it. This shows that "time-tested" beliefs may not necessarily have been tested at all. The prevailing culture dismissed the truth, preferring to believe what it had always believed, not unlike what is happening with Christianity today. David, Solomon, Moses, and Paul also believed the world was flat and that the sky was a solid dome of transparent material holding an ocean of water off the earth (reference available upon request). Shall I believe that, too? You have committed the fallacy of arguing from authority, and I have shown why it is absurd to do so.

The Pastor says, You are not a novelty JB. Even Nebuchadnezzar had a battle with pride and the false belief that there is no God. He returned to his senses.

JB replies, No, I am not a novelty, but if I looked only at the examples the church gives me, I might be excused for thinking that I am novel. The church conveniently ignores the stories of people who have reasoned their way out of Christianity. If their criticisms are touched on at all, it is in parody. Why doesn't the church study the serious critics of Christianity and refute them in Sunday School? Surely if Christianity can really hold up to the challenge, this would be a way to bring more of the "wise" into the church, of whom Paul says there are so few. Why is not only your church, but the church universal, ignoring this unsaved population? I know why -- the ignorant and the credulous are easier to convert. You believe that I, like Nebuchadnezzar, have a problem with pride, and that is undoubtedly the reason you keep calling me a smart man. On the contrary, I came to disbelief in all humility, against my own wishes. Succumbing to the contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherencies of the faith has nothing to do with pride.

The Pastor says, You are a smart man, but you are not omnipresent. Therefore, you cannot KNOW there is no God somewhere in the universe can you? Therefore you cannot be an Atheist. No honest, rational, logical person would ever claim omnipresence except God himself. You are not really ready to make such an irrational claim as Atheism are you JB?

JB replies, You believe the Christian apologists too readily. There are many things wrong with what you say here. Let me point out two.

First, you load too much meaning onto the word "atheist." The word literally means "without theism." An atheist, that is, a person who is not possessed of a belief in a god, does not necessarily make the assertion that "I know there is no god," although some do. I myself am an atheist because I am not possessed of a belief in a god. My belief in God evaporated when I lost faith, through study of the Bible. However, I do not assert that "I know there is no god." That goes beyond logic, as you say. If you put a gun to my head and force me to defend some assertion about my atheism, I would assert something like, "It is so unlikely that a god exists, that for all practical purposes I can live my life as if no god does exist. Practically speaking, then, I can actually believe that there is no god, even though I cannot demonstrate beyond all possible doubt that no god exists." I hope from this explanation that you can see that agnosticism (literally "without knowledge") overlaps atheism, and that the two are not two distinct categories, as you have assumed. A person can be both an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. That is, a person can hold the position that we have no knowledge of a god, and the same person, simultaneously, can be unpossessed of a belief in a god.

Second, lack of belief in a god does not require omnipresence. It is simply a state of mind of a person. Now, I would agree with you that to assert truthfully that no god of any kind exists would require omnipresence, and, I might add, omniscience. (JB should have rightfully placed the burden of proof upon the pastor's shoulders and asked him to prove there is a God--Ed.). However, it is possible to assert truthfully that the CHRISTIAN GOD does not exist, with no need of omnipresence or omniscience. This is because the characteristics alleged of the Christian God make it an incoherent concept. Without going into lengthy detail (but I can give you a reference upon request), I will just say that the Christian God is like a square circle. Any reasonable person, without being omnipresent or omniscient, can assert truthfully and confidently that a square circle does not exist anywhere in the universe.

The Pastor says, At best JB, you might qualify as an Agnostic. I'm sure deep in your heart is a wound painful enough to cause you to need to believe the lie that there is no God. Perhaps it eases a struggle over death, your own or someone you love or loved?

JB replies, Why can't Christians simply accept the fact that sincere believers can reject faith based on purely intellectual examination? I was perfectly content and comfortable believing Christianity. It was losing faith that put me in an uncomfortable position. When I first lost faith, I actually believed that I would live the rest of my life in existential despair. But I had to disbelieve, despite the consequences, because the intellectual bankruptcy of Christianity was so profound. I also discovered that the alleged existential despair of unbelievers is a lie created by the apologists to keep believers tame.

The Pastor says, God is merciful JB. You will never be able to explain all his ways.

JB replies, But I never required an explanation of all God's ways. I do require an explanation of all the blatant contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherencies of the Christian faith. If Christianity were not so thoroughly discredited, I would still be a believer. Your entire message begs the question of the accuracy of the Bible. You'll never convince me of the truth of the Bible by ignoring its problems.

The Pastor says, Innocent people are being led by you. You are a smart man, but you are jumping out of an airplane with no parachute and dragging others with you. How will you compensate your children and your wife in eternity for your error?

JB replies, So, I can snatch my wife and the kids out of God's hand? You credit me with too much power. I'm not indoctrinating any of them. It is the church that indoctrinates. I am doing nothing other than expecting them to examine the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Of course, you know that the church could never survive this way. That is why it resorts to indoctrination of children, and the younger the better. After all, the church has to get to them before they are capable of critical thinking.

The Pastor replies, This is no scientific game JB. You are culpable before an almighty God.

JB replies, This statement makes an appeal to fear. Although it has become unfashionable to talk about Hell, Christianity is indeed a religion based on fear. Jesus's only unique contribution to religion was the invention of Hell. Before Jesus, the Jewish faith viewed death as a rest and a comfort to look forward to after this weary life. It is as if a sadistic God, in the initial creation, had mistakenly left this loophole, and so he sent Jesus to take away even the hope of a final peace in death by threatening the living with Hell after death.

The Pastor says, You are a smart man. Seek wisdom.

JB replies, I sought wisdom in the Bible, believing that God's Word must be wise. And there IS some wisdom in the Bible, human wisdom, because human nature has not changed over the course of history. But when I found and confirmed contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherencies in major doctrines, including soteriology, I found it impossible to trust the Book on its own authority alone. You or I could write a better Bible.

The Pastor says, Don't be the fool who has said in his heart that there is no God.

JB says, I've already addressed the assertion that "there is no God." However, the foolishness of it is not saying it in your heart. If there is a foolishness, it is saying it out loud in front of your believers, as I have done. It's almost more trouble than it's worth.

The Pastor says, Unbelief is an earthly sport. Carl Sagan became a believer the second he entered into eternity.

JB replies, Do you care to prove this unsubstantiated assertion? And it's OK with me if you write plainly and say "Hell" instead of "eternity." Softening the "gospel" (literally "good news") of Hell keeps contemporary people in the pews, but I can see right through it.

The Pastor says, Behind every agnostic is a conflict with God. You are a smart man JB, but you are not smarter than God. Humble yourself under his mighty hand!

JB replies, I have as much conflict with Yahweh, the ancient Hebrew tribal war god, as I do with Allah, Thor, Zeus, Brahma, Mithra, Isis, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, or any of the thousands of other gods created by the mind of man. By the way, you are only one god away from being an atheist yourself. If you'll only give up belief in Yahweh, as you have given up all these other gods, you'll be without a belief in a god. Maybe you would like to tell me why you believe in this one last god, and deny the rest? Maybe you would like to explain to me and my in-laws why your belief in Yahweh has nothing to do with the culture that you grew up in; that if you had been born Arab you nevertheless would have believed in the Jewish god Yahweh, and not Allah, for example. After all, I need to know which god to humble myself to. If I had to lay bets on eternity, I would have to cast my lot with the god of Islam. His hell is worse and his heaven is better than that of the Christian god. According to ALLAH anyone who says that Jesus is the son of God is damned, but according to YAHWEH, anyone who does NOT accept Jesus as the son of God is damned, so I cannot accept both religions, as they are incompatible. Tell me which god is the right one. I really need to know. And give me some solid reasons, please. After all, it's your word against Allah's; you are a smart man, Pastor R, but not as smart as Allah.

The Pastor says, You have embraced a belief that denies God is. You have become a believer in the religion of unbelief. Your position changes nothing in the universe, heaven, or hell. It is self-defeating. Call out to God for deliverance from Satan's greatest and oldest deception JB!

JB replies, More unsubstantiated assertions. My sarcasm above will answer this as well. Why don't you give me some reasons to believe these things, instead of making bald assertions? Surely the Holy Spirit speaking through you can't be outwitted by a mere human speaking reasonably, can it?

The Pastor says, I will count it a privilege and an act of friendship to help you back when you are ready. I miss you and your family.

JB replies, It is impossible for me to believe again, knowing what I know. If you see me coming back, you will instantly know that I have lost my ability to reason. However, we miss MC [church], too. The loss of a church family was the hardest part for my wife. It's too bad that Christianity is too narrow to extend fellowship to former believers who have rejected the faith based on knowledge of the faith. Is MC [church] really a "church for the unchurched," proud that even an atheist [an atheist, married to a believing member of the church, used to run the church soundboard]) could work the sound board and feel a part of things? Then extend the hand of fellowship to my wife and me, and invite me to disclose my reasons for unbelief to anyone who asks. Give your congregation the chance to reach out to me in Christian love and reconvert me. The church accepts people "Just As I Am," as the hymn goes, but only so long as they are ignorant and credulous enough not to ask embarrassing questions....

The Pastor says, I appreciate your actions toward MC [church] people. Please continue that behavior. As the Shepherd of this flock I would count it as a personal attack for you to influence even one MC sheep toward your unbelief. I would be assertive and passionate in my contact with you. I trust this is a non-issue.

JB replies, "Sheep" is an apt word. You know as well as I do that there is no way these people can sustain faith in the face of reason, and that is why you feel you must protect them. As long as you can keep them ignorant, they will be your "sheep," but if you allow them to be exposed to reasonable criticisms of Christianity you know that they will begin to think for themselves and become the freethinking "people" they were meant to be. Then you will lose all control. We have our own reasons for not revealing our loss of faith to MC [church] people, and so I don't expect that we will clash on this, although it is possible that our unbelief could come out by accident as it did with our extended family. However, I take your statement as a threat of blackmail. What you are really saying, in plainer terms, is "keep quiet or I will defame you." I've seen you do it before. You're very good at it, and it is ugly. Remember? Early on, I myself stood up in the congregation and backed you up the first time I saw you shun someone out of the church. My comments and initiative turned that meeting in your favor and could very well have prevented a schism. Ironic, isn't it?

P.S. I don't envy you in the position I have left you in. If you DO answer my challenges, you will be inviting me to recite even more challenges to the absurdities of Christianity, with my in-laws looking on, particularly if you keep spouting the sophistries of the Christian apologists. If you DON'T answer my challenges, then you will leave them wondering whether Christianity is defensible. And if you make some excuse to cut off the dialog, you disobey the inspired Word of God, which enjoins you to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect....," (1 Peter 3:15). I have expressly asked you to give a reason, and you are obligated by your own Holy Book to answer. You say you don't have time? The inspired Word of God leaves no room for this excuse since you are to "be prepared IN SEASON AND OUT OF SEASON; correct, rebuke and encourage--with GREAT PATIENCE and CAREFUL INSTRUCTION." (2 Timothy 4:2 NIV). The Bible leaves no middle ground. It forces believers to act one way or another, to be hot or cold, but not lukewarm. The unrelenting Bible forced me away from the faith in the same way. So, what are you going to do? Don't bother trying to switch our conversation from e-mail to the phone. I want our exchanges written out for all to see. E-mail is not at all like preaching from the pulpit, where no one has the opportunity to hold you to account for your statements, is it? I am in the position of strength. My position is relatively straightforward, while yours is impossible to defend reasonably.... And I have nothing to lose, because, unlike believers, I am willing to follow truth wherever it may lead, as I demonstrated when I left the faith I loved. If the truth leads me back to the Christian faith, then so be it. You, on the other hand, have an entire world view (read, "delusion") and a livelihood to lose if you follow the truth. So, what are you going to do?