Issue No. 128

August 1993

---

We have always had a policy of periodically devoting an entire issue of BE to letters from our readers, and in keeping with that tradition have decided to devote this month's issue to correspondence.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #537 from GM of Oulu, Finland (Part a)

Dear Mr. McKinsey.

I read with interest the sample issues of Biblical Errancy you sent me, and I would like to make a few remarks. One of the copies of Biblical Errancy I received bears the title "Sample Issue" and has no date or progressive number; therefore I assume that as a rule this copy is sent to all inquirers. I want to concentrate for this time on this sample issue. I believe that several of the arguments against Christianity contained in it are unfair, and for honesty's sake should be removed from the issue. I cannot discuss all issues in one letter, so for this time I will focus on a few of them only.

THE RESURRECTION

You ask, "Why should the Resurrection be of such significance as that ascribed to it for example by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:14?'"After all, you observe, the Bible tells of other people being raised from the dead. Since I happen to believe that what Paul says is true, I will try to show that this argument is not in line with the stated aims of your periodical, and therefore should be removed from it.

First of all, I am surprised that you apparently are not aware of the fact that according to the Bible Jesus' resurrection was unique in that it was not a mere resuscitation of a corpse. All the Biblical characters you mention were raised from the dead, but after that they grew old and died once again. Jesus, on the other hand, was raised from the dead in order to be alive forever (Rev. 1:18, Rom. 6:9, Heb. 7:25). The claim that Jesus will never die again, if nothing else, does make the resurrection of Jesus unique in the Bible, is consistent with the statement of Paul, and flies in the face of your claim that other people were raised from the dead in the same sense Jesus was.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part a)

Dear GM.

Apparently I am going to have to start suggesting that people read prior issues of BE before they send us critical letters. This topic was covered long ago. To begin with, Paul says it is the resurrection that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again. What Pauline verses are you referring to when you say that Jesus' act of never dying again is what really mattered to Paul? Paul never said that. In First Corinthians he said it's the resurrection that counts, not the fact that Jesus never died again. Secondly, how do you know that Jairus' daughter, the widow at Nain's son, Lazarus, and others who rose from the dead died again? How do you know they didn't go straight to Heaven like Elijah in his chariot? How can you be sure they didn't ascend to Heaven like Enoch? You say "the others grew old and died once again." What scriptural verses are you citing to prove that they died again, or is this mere conjecture on your part? Some of your argument rests on a gratuitous assumption. Thirdly, if the resurrection of Jesus was more than just the mere revival of a corpse, then how do you know that is not applicable to the others as well? And lastly, you cite Rev. 1:18, Heb. 7:25 and Rom. 6:9 to prove that Jesus was raised from the dead to be alive forevermore. Yet, according to Christian theology, we are all going to be raised from the dead to live forevermore in either Heaven, Hell, Purgatory or elsewhere. In fact, everyone is immortal whether desired or not. So Jesus is by no means unique in this regard.

Letter #537 Continues (Part b)

In fact, Paul teaches elsewhere that Jesus' resurrection was THE FIRST of this kind to ever occur in history. Col. 1:18 says, "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. First Cor. 15:20 says, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. And 1 Cor. 15:23 says, "But every man [will rise from the dead] in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part b)

You have misconstrued these verses, GM. In fact, you would do well to steer clear of them entirely. They say that Christ was the first to rise from the dead, period. Nowhere do they say that his resurrection was the first "of this kind." No biblical distinction is drawn between the nature of his resurrection and those of others. All three verses you cite clearly state that Christ was the first to rise from the dead, and both the Old and New Testaments clearly refute the validity of that claim. Many biblical figures rose before him. Secondly, how could Jesus have a beginning or be firstborn if he is God, the eternal? Thirdly, Paul says it's the resurrection that counts, the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, period, not the fact that his was the first in a long series of resurrections.

Letter #537 Continues (Part c)

In addition, Jesus' resurrection was unique in that He raised Himself from the dead (or, if you don't believe it, He claimed He would - John 10:17-18). No other character in the Bible raised himself from the dead, nor did anyone else claim to be able to do so. Far from being similar to other "resurrections," Jesus' resurrection was something that had never happened before, and that has not happened ever since.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part c)

The more you talk, GM, the further your quaggy descent. The Bible repeatedly states in no uncertain terms that Jesus was raised from the dead by God; he did not raise himself. Verses which clearly prove as much are: Acts 3:15 ("And killed the Prince of life, whom God has raised from the dead...."), Acts 13:30 ("But God raised him from the dead"), Gal. 1:1 ("...but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead...."), Acts. 4:10, 2:32, 5:30, and many others. Also note that verses like Gal. 1:1 draw a clear distinction between Jesus and God the Father. So don't try the old trinitarian shell-game of equating the two and saying that Jesus is God and therefore raised himself. Either he is God or he isn't. He can't be both simultaneously. If he is God, he couldn't have died to begin with, since God can't die. If he isn't, then these verses clearly show that he did not raise himself.

On top of everything else, you claim Jesus' predicted in John 10:17-18 that he would raise himself, which many verses show to be an erroneous prognostication. In essence, you've inadvertently exposed Jesus as a false prophet. You'd do well to avoid these verses as well.

Letter #537 Continues (Part d)

Furthermore, the body with which Jesus was raised, although the same body he had before the resurrection (the scars were still there), was according to Paul a spiritual body, which he says is radically different from a physical body (1 Cor. 15:35-53). (Here as elsewhere, you can believe what Paul says or disbelieve it, but you cannot say it is a fallacy or an error or a contradiction.)

This fact too is consistent with the idea that Jesus' resurrection was completely different from, say, that of Lazarus, and it is inconsistent with your opinion that what started Christianity was just another resuscitation like many others.

Incidentally, there is a serious mistake in your list of biblical resuscitations. What happened to Samuel (1 Sam. 28) and to Moses and Elijah (Luke 9) is neither a resurrection nor a resuscitation. Rather, their disembodied spirits were made visible to people; their bodies will be raised only when Jesus comes back.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part d)

In the 15th chapter of first Corinthians to which you refer, Paul is talking about a spiritual body which all will have when they rise from the dead. He is not referring to the body of Jesus alone. The very first verse of 1 Cor. 15:35-53 says, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they (Notice it says "they") come?," and is clearly referring to people in general, not Jesus in particular, as the other verses demonstrate as well. You can't use these verses to prove that the resurrection of Jesus was different from that of Lazarus, for example. The bodies which Jesus and Lazarus had after their resurrections were the same physical bodies they had before their demise and, according to Paul, any spiritual quality attached to one will accompany the other also.

Where did I ever use the word "resuscitation" or even imply that "what started Christianity was just another resusitation." Can you show one instance in all of our prior issues where I ever used the word "resuscitation"? Biblicists throw that word around freely, and I've never used it. You've created a straw-man.

And can you provide any biblical testimony to the effect that Samuel, Moses, and Elijah appeared only as disembodied spirits? Samuel says to Saul in 1 Sam. 28:15, "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" Luke 9:30 says, "Behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah! They were splendid in appearance, glorious to see...." Where do these or related verses state that the appearances of Samuel, Moses, and Elijah were in something other than a physical body? You have inserted into the text a conjecture that is not only unwarranted but, even more important, unprovable. (TO BE CONTINUED)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #538 from VC of Hood River, Oregon

In response to letter #528 (May 1993) from BF of Tallahassee:

My sentiments exactly and he says it so well. I have all the BE issues. I reread them occasionally. I've underlined my favorite parts and made notations in the margins. My heirs have been instructed to save these and pass them on down through our progeny.

Letter #539 from JT of Hughesville, Penn.

Dear Dennis.

I don't know whether an elephant ever forgets, but I've forgotten to write you lately to tell you what a superb job I think you're doing with "Biblical Errancy." It took BF's letter (#528) in Issue 125 to bring me to my senses. Mea culpa!

Let me just say that "BE" is one of the few publications I can't wait to get in the mail. I wish each issue were a hundred pages long! I look forward to many more numbers to come. You've got the fundies on the run, Dennis! Now, let's close in for the kill!

Letter #540 from HLM of Bellbrook, Ohio

Dear Dennis....

You should be pleased to learn that I personally answer just about every religious editorial that appears in the Dayton Daily News, including an occasional one by David E. Kepple who is allowed far too much religious influence in that paper. Along with my personal remarks to these people, I include a copy of your pamphlets. I am yet to receive a reply from anyone!

Allow me to make a few suggestions, if you will, Dennis, regarding the format of B.E. I enjoy reading contradictions in the Bible, but somehow your heavy reliance on contradictions alone doesn't appear to affect theists in the way I hoped it would. That's why I like the philosophical approach better. Your sample copy dealing with the flood and the resurrection is the best type of ammunition you've ever presented, because you point out the ridiculous aspects of the stories. This isn't so easy to combat.

But contradictions, particularly those dealing with numbers are simply passed off by theists as translation errors. They don't appear to shake a person's faith in the least. Your flood account is a pure gem.... Please consider more newsletters in that vein. I've enclosed with this letter a page of questions that you might like to sift through for possible use in future editions of BE. Thank you for your time and keep spreading the word. Jehovah's Witnesses aren't the only ones who can command attention.

(Some of the questions you might use are--Ed.). Do you not agree that the Catholic Church is being terribly hypocritical by bowing to statues of worship when Lev. 26:1 clearly states: "You shall not erect an idol or a sacred pillar for yourselves, nor shall you set up a stone figure for worship in your land." This verse is found in both the King James version and Saint Joseph's New Catholic Edition. I have a former Catholic friend who left the church when she saw the hypocrisy of that verse....

Christians love the song "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands." Yet, in 1 John 5:19 we learn that "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." I've always suspected that God and Satan were one and the same. I think this proves it.

Editor's Response to Letter #540

Dear HLM.

As we have mentioned before, BE is by no means confined to contradictions alone. It focuses on any and all problems having to do with the validity of the Bible, and that would involve a wide assortment of failings, including problems, errors, fallacies, contradictions, inaccuracies, immoralities, pseudo-science, etc. Contradictions are not the only avenue of assault. They should be viewed as crucial but by no means exhaustive.

Letter #541 from Anonymous of Virginia

Dear Dennis.

This morning when I talked to you by phone, I had "spread" 42 of the last 100 BE pamphlets that I recently ordered. It's 6:32 PM and ALL of the BE pamphlets have been distributed.... it's a privilege to distribute your stuff. I hope you get some subscribers out of this distribution, but even if you don't, a lot of people have seen THE TRUTH that they would not have seen otherwise. So it gives me a good feeling to know that maybe I have helped rescue some people from a life of mental illness. And I feel I have struck 100 more winning blows for the precious little girl in Letter #527 of May 1993 BE. Dennis, it's slow, but we can even help the chronically mentally ill. You may be the greatest force for sanity that the world has ever seen or will ever see. You are certainly a great champion--maybe the greatest ever--for the defenseless. I'm starting to rank you with Charles Dickens (after your reply to letter 527 which showed your tenderness toward that precious little girl with the grateful smile. Dennis, if she knew what you are doing for her, she would wish to hug you till it hurt and cover your cheek with sweet little kisses). I send my everlasting thanks to the writer of letter 527. Please send me 100 more pamphlets.

Editor's Response to Letter #541

Dear Anonymous. What can I say. You leave me speechless. Letters 527 and 528 in the May issue generated great interest and correspondence as your letter and those of others clearly show.

Letter #542 from AH of Sonoma, California

Dear Dennis. I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper where I used items from your pamphlet entitled THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD?, and this guy, Michael, wrote in with jokes and lies. When I responded, the editor refused to print my rebuttal. Actually I was amazed that he printed my first letter where I said there are over 300 contradictions in the bible. ....JK, a local pastor, wrote an article asking if the Bible was reliable. Of course, he answered his own letter by saying yes. I am writing him telling him to expect a copy of BE. Since the local editor won't print but one side of Christianity, I will ask him to debate you in your magazine. Best Wishes.

Editor's Response to Letter #542

Dear AH.

We appreciate your assistance, and please let everyone know that we stand ready to debate all biblicists at any time.

Letter #543 from BY of Seminole, Florida

Dear Dennis.

I am happily renewing my subscription to BE. I find it enlightening and a delightful source of arguments for debating those fervent Christians who cannot see beyond their precious "Book." I have also put said arguments to use in more public forums; the Atheists of Florida, Inc., produces a public-access show that has been broadcast in the Miami and Tampa areas, and will soon be in Wisconsin as well.

I also found the arguments useful when discoursing with "non-Biblical Christians" such as CH who wrote the letter in issue 126. One such liberal non-fundamentalist priest "Father" Leo Booth, has gained a measure of fame through talk show appearances promoting his book, When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction. Other local skeptics and I faced off with the "father" on a Tampa talk-show broadcast on a local CBS affiliate. Using your publication as a source for many of our questions, we placed Booth in positions for which he had no sensible answers, and no doubt did our part to hamper sales of his book locally. Additionally, several in the studio audience admitted that they were questioning the basis of their preacher's claims at face value. I doubt we've started a revolution, but every seed of doubt planted may someday bloom!

At any rate, I too have gone beyond the point of being "apologetic" for my atheism and skepticism; I think the Christians owe us all an apology for the horrendous deeds done (by humans, not through any supernatural means) in the name of their God over the last two or three thousand years. My favorite response to those who hit me with the "God bless you [you poor misguided soul], I'll pray for you" bit as a parting shot or offhand response is: Jesus Kills, are you still an accessory?"

Editor's Response to Letter #543

Dear BY.

Like so many others who have written to us, you are using BE in the manner intended. Keep up the good work!

Letter #544 from BF of Tallahassee, Florida

Dear Dennis.

Enclosed please find my check for a 2-year renewal of my subscription. I three-hole punched all of my BE's and put them in a big ring binder and started from Vol. 1 reading them all over again. This time more scholarly; taking notes and putting the more salient points on 3 X 5 cards to study while waiting in traffic, the dentist's office, etc. I figure in 18 months to two years I'll be ready to take some embryonic steps in debating fundies on their own turf. I do not wish to start before I am ready.

I sure wish we could form national and regional clinics or workshops to study debating strategy; role playing etc. to bring back to local areas and teach others of a like mind. Other than BE and Till's periodical are there any other publications you could recommend?

Editor's Response to Letter #544

Your strategy resembles that which I outlined in my speech contained in Issues 58, 59, and 60. You might want to reread them and see what you think. As far as other publications are concerned, I can't think of any that operate like Biblical Errancy except possibly Golding's Biblical Polemics, which is published in Israel, and F. Till's Skeptical Review. If you learn of any, please let me know.

Letter #545 from DS of Tiffin, Ohio

Dear Dennis....

I fully agree with your contention that to not battle the Biblicists in their own court is foolish. The only way one can confront them with reality is on their own front porch. One problem: once they seem to realize that you just might be right they stay away. It's hard to get a second shot at them. Also, no sports team can be called a winner if it can't win on the road. We rationalists had better hit the road and win a few.

Letter #546 from DM of Pasadena, California

Dear Mr. McKinsey....

BE has put out a lot of good information, especially in its major themes of recent editions, and I hope that you will keep up the good work. One bit of advice: Devote half the usual space to commenting on how stupid, incoherently rambling, idiotic, spaced-out, ridiculous, ignorant, or out-of-the-ballpark some of the letters are. Such comments have a way of multiplying until they occupy an inappropriately large space, whereupon they cast more bad light on you than your opponents.

Editor's Response to Letter #546

Dear DM.

Although your observation is to be taken in a spirit of camaraderie, I do think you have over-stated the point. Perhaps my memory is inadequate, but I don't remember ever having referred to my opponents as stupid, idiotic, ignorant, or spaced out. Terms of opprobrium have never been my stock and trade, even though they have crossed my mind on different occasions. Words such as rambling and ridiculous, however, have been employed in several instances and were directed toward the arguments of others as opposed to individuals per se. If you had been subjected to as many denunciatory comments over the last 10 years as I, you would probably have a greater appreciation for the amount of composure and forbearance we have managed to display. Be that as it may, you correctly concluded that mutual vilifications have a way of multiplying when allowed to continue unchecked. I hope we never have, and never will, cross into the arena of castigation and backbiting. My apologies to any who may feel the wall has been breached.

Letter #547 from JC of Birmingham, Alabama

Mr. McKinsey....

Received the material--most informative, especially the WSB audio tape. You have truly undertaken the more important work of our age.... You really should charge more for your excellent material.

Editor's Response to Letter #547

Your compliments are appreciated and you are probably correct. Our rates should be higher, but our primary emphasis has always been on getting the message out. In that same vein, many people have told me that with my knowledge of the Bible I could make a fortune as a preacher. Of course, my heart would not be in an undertaking of that kind, and monetary considerations would be the only motivation. That hardly sounds enjoyable, and I'd have a hard time looking in mirrors. Several years ago a Seventh-Day Adventist minister said his church would be willing to finance me in any manner deemed necessary should I decide to become a minister (Read: propagandist) for his denomination.

Letter #548 from SM of Torrance, California

Dear Dennis.

Wow! This stuff's dynamite! A friend passed along copies of your issues #125 and #126 to me, and I am impressed by your no-nonsense approach.... I debated a Creationist last week, and I found that the audience of Baptist fundamentalists were particularly attentive as I used your style to shred the Genesis account of Creation and Noah's Flood (or as I call it, the Jehovah Genocide).... Keep up the good work!

Letter #549 from GN of Scottsdale, Arizona

Dear Dennis.

I notice in this month's BE that you are having a debate about pornography in the Bible. I've found one. Perhaps you already know about it. At Genesis 24:2 Abraham is having his servant swear an oath to him about finding a wife for his son Isaac. It says, "Please place you hand under my thigh." In the footnote of my Bible it says, "procreative organ." Even the translators were reluctant to use the right word, "penis." Can't you just picture this repulsive scene? I imagine that the Bible has been cleaned up considerably over the years. I'm sure that "piss" will eventually be taken out of it in future translations.

What about all those men having concubines (women they lived with, had sex with, but were not married to)? I don't see how anyone can deny that the Bible is pornographic. If they do, then I believe that they don't really know what it says, especially when it comes to Lot offering his virgin daughters to the wicked men of Sodom to rape and brutalize, and then having an incestous relationship with them in a drunken stupor. Wonder how JM cleans up this story to tell to his children. Another story that would shock the socks off a little kid is that of Abraham and Isaac. It seems to me that Christian kids would have a hard time sleeping at night, never knowing when their Daddy might hear the voice of God demanding them as a human sacrifice. There's also the matter of stories about the pregnant bellies of women's bodies being ripped open. The Bible certainly is not a book for children. Talk about violence on TV; nothing matches the violence in unholy scripture.

EDITOR'S NOTE: On Saturday June 26, 1993 Church of Christ Minister Don Boyer and I debated in Richmond, Indiana for 2 and one half hours. Don has his own column in the local conservative newspaper, the Richmond PALLADIUM-ITEM, and virtually challenged anyone to contest the Bible's validity. One of our subscribers contacted me and I called Boyer to arrange a discussion. He and one of our subscribers was kind enough to send me the following "Letter to the Editor" written by someone whom we do not know named John Kowalec, which appeared in the paper.

"I attended the debate held at Indiana University East auditorium Saturday, June 26. The performance by Don Boyer in my opinion was deplorable. The use of devious diversions and subtlety to prove his argument flopped, and helped to bolster his opponent's claims. I guess the above is the stock in trade used by Christian clergy to befuddle all unwary superstitious people; then they can lead them like sheep to slaughter.

On the other hand, Dennis McKinsey laid out his agenda, put forth his argument and affirmed all his assertions, and won the debate by a land-slide. Yes, the Bible in the hands of Christian zealots is a dangerous tool. By it, more crime has been committed, more people murdered, tortured and tormented than anything else used since the beginning of time. Witness the crusades, the pogroms, the Holocaust; today it's ethnic cleansing, all done in the name of Christianity, which is derived from the mythical book called the Bible. And let us not forget Jonestown and Waco, Texas.

Christianity is one of the greatest scams perpetrated on a nation of people. It has caused people to debase and mutilate themselves through its techniques. As it is written, "the blind leading the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

 Issue No. 129

September 1993

When asked why the sexually salacious book entitled The Song of Solomon is in the Bible, O'Brien said on pages 146-48, "...the rabbis looked beneath the surface of the literal text and discovered a powerful and uplifting allegory.... This was a spiritual song about the love of God for His people Israel.... (For the early fathers of the church--Ed.)...it became an allegory of the love of Christ for His church. Both of these (are--Ed.) efforts to slide out from under the burden of a book that no one was willing to accept as literal.... There is absolutely no evidence the Song of Songs is an allegory.... By allegorizing our interpretation, we can make anything say anything.... And there's the rub. Such a text, when subjected to the imaginations of allegorizing interpreters, can indeed taste after each man's liking. There is no truth if our understanding is as subjective as that. The form of the text must shape the interpretation of the text, or there is no control outside the interpreter for what the text might be made to say." On the next page he pins down his friends even further by saying, "It means that we're not free to take a NT idea back to the Old and reinterpret the OT to teach the NT idea." As he says on page 213, "It's a mistake to sink footings and build a skyscraper on the swamp of speculation." If only more apologists were as frank!

In answer to someone who asked what was Paul's thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7-9), he says on page 64, "Because Paul never actually described the thorn in the flesh, any attempt to identify it must rely on a lot of deduction and will never establish its identity with certainty."

In answer to Christians who try to excuse Noah's drunkenness by saying it was the innocent result of drinking what he thought was wholesome grape juice, O'Brien says on page 185, "It does Scripture no honor to invent ways to make offensive events palatable to us when Scripture itself records them and makes no effort to sanitize them."

On page 365 O'Brien is asked: If the Bible teaches that drinking is a sin, why did Jesus turn water into wine (John 2:1-11), and why did Paul tell Timothy to drink wine for his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23)? His answer represents a marked departure from the common apologetic rationalizations one can expect to hear in response to this inquiry. He states, "I've read all the arguments about unfermented grape juice and how fermentation doesn't take place naturally in the climate of Palestine, and I have to tell you--they're based more on wishful thinking than on linguistic study or scientific understanding. Jesus turned the water into real wine. I know this makes some believers nervous. I know it makes some hostile. 'How can I counsel alcoholics not to drink if you're telling them drinking isn't a sin?' they ask. I wish the Bible did teach that drinking is a sin, but it doesn't. It contains numerous warnings against the abuse of alcohol, but nowhere does it say it's a sin. And we are not free to make the Bible say what it doesn't say just to make our decisions easier. For me there is a profound principle at work here." And on the next page he relates Principle Number 37 which is: 'Don't bend and twist the meaning of the biblical text to avoid an unpleasant conclusion.' Too bad few apologists follow his advice. On page 366 he states, "the Bible does not say that drinking of alcohol is a sin.... Did the overseer at the banquet think mere grape juice would dull the wedding guests' taste buds? Did Paul warn against overindulgence in grape juice (Eph. 5:18)? Did Noah drink too much grape juice (Gen. 9:21)? Is grape juice a mocker (Prov. 20:1)? Did Jeremiah liken himself to a man overtaken by grape juice (Jer. 23:9)?"

In regard to famous OT biblical figures O'Brien makes the following candid statement on page 233, "When we read the Bible, we assume that all the great people of Scripture would make wonderful deacons or elders in our American church. But in fact, there's hardly a person in the OT who would even be allowed to join most of our churches without some major modifications in behavior." Later on page 260 he says, "Keep in mind the fact that very few of God's chosen instruments were without fault, or even serious sin. Moses was a murderer. David was an adulterer and a murderer. Jacob was a con-man and Abraham was a liar. Jonah was a racist who rebelled at the idea that God would forgive the Assyrians. And what about Peter's impulsiveness and the contentious spirits displayed by James and John?"

In regard to the impossibility of rich people entering the kingdom of heaven as related in Luke 18:23-25, O'Brien said on page 138, "Some teach that Jesus was talking about the small door in the city gate of Jerusalem called the 'needle's eye.' This is a common explanation of Jesus' saying. That's not what he was getting at though.... there's never been any evidence, either textual or archeological, that such a gate ever existed. There were smaller gates, each with its own name. But none of those names was 'the needle's eye'."

So, in summary, it's apparent that we are by no means alone in our critique of biblical comments and defenses. Sometimes even the Bible's staunchest proponents are willing to concede the obvious.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #537 Continues from Last Month (Part e)

While commenting on 1 Cor. 15:14 you ask "Why should [Jesus'] Resurrection be of such significance?" and "Why, then, attribute so much importance to the Resurrection?" ...as if the Bible didn't say why! And yet Paul is quite clear: only three verses later he says that the reason why Jesus' resurrection is vital to Christianity is that if it did not take place Christians are still in their sins (1 Cor. 15:17). This seems to me an eminent reason for considering the Resurrection a vital doctrine for Christianity--whose central message is that sinners can have their sins forgiven. This is Paul's answer to your question. Now you may believe or disbelieve what Paul says, but you have no right in suggesting that in the Bible the Resurrection is given so much importance without a reason, and that therefore Paul's statement is fallacious. Your argument is not only invalid: it is misleading for a reader of Biblical Errancy not acquainted with the Bible (like BY of Seminole, Florida, who trusts your Periodical when he/she quotes the Bible--BE #122).

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part e)

Some how or other, GM, you don't seem to understand the problem. Despite having been stated many times in different ways, it has apparently eluded your grasp. So let me reiterate the dilemma in no uncertain terms. You say Jesus was resurrected. I say, SO WHAT, BIG DEAL. Why make a big case out of an accomplishment that was performed by many in earlier biblical accounts? So he rose from the dead! From a biblical perspective that hardly merits an applause, much less a standing ovation. You still haven't shown how this was an achievement exceeded by none. And if it wasn't truly unique, why should the validity of Christianity or the fate of millions rest on its occurrence? My argument is neither invalid nor misleading. Quite the contrary, BY is well within the bounds of wisdom and propriety to rely on our analysis.

Letter #537 Continues (Part f)

At this point I fail to see how Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15 can be proved at all to be an error or a contradiction or a fallacy. What proofs can you offer that would deny the truth of Paul's statement that if the resurrection did not take place Christians are still in their sins and that their faith is vain?

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part f)

You are trying to shift the burden of proof, my friend. I am asking you to demonstrate why he would attribute so much importance to a relatively innocuous event. Biblically speaking, rising from the dead was nothing to shout about. You ask me to provide proofs that would deny the truth of Paul's statement that if the resurrection did not take place Christians are still in their sins and their faith is vain, when that isn't the dilemma at all. You keep hitting a strawman. I agree, that is what Paul said. I'm asking you to show why that event is a turning point in history and should merit the importance Paul attributes to it. The burden of proof lies on you.

Letter #537 Continues (Part g)

To this please don't answer that the burden of proof is for Christians, for 1 Cor. 15:14 and 17 are statements, just like "Jesus died for our sins", "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", or even "God does not exist" that CANNOT be proved or disproved, but only believed or disbelieved.

Your Periodical's stated aim, on the other hand, is to focus "on Biblical ERRORS, CONTRADICTIONS, and FALLACIES". If you don't find proofs for your opinion that 1 Cor. 14:14 is an error or a fallacy or a contradiction, please remove that entire paragraph from your Sample Periodical. As an alternative I suggest that you either change the aim of your Periodical, or that you include in it all biblical statements that imply God exists, and claim that they are all fallacies until a Christian proves them.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part g)

Biblical Errancy focuses on ANY AND ALL PROBLEMS having to do with the validity of the Bible, which would include errors, contradictions, and fallacies. We are by no means narrowly focused on contradictions alone as some people erroneously believe. In this particular instance, we ask how the Bible be can a book of logic and reason as its adherents proclaim, when it attributes unique importance to an event performed by one individual that had been performed by many others years earlier. In effect, we are dealing with a fallacy, namely, the assertion that the Bible is consistent. It attributes importance to one resurrection while denying equal importance to other resurrections performed previously. The statement to which you refer regarding God creating the heavens and the earth is not analogous because it is a mere assertion based upon nothing other than faith. The comment regarding Jesus dying for our sins is analogous and was covered in prior issues, because it is contradicted by other biblical comments demonstrating the opposite. While on the cross Jesus certainly did not exhibit behavior that would lead one to believe he was willingly dying for our sins.

The essence of your argument, which you feel compelled to repeat in different ways, appears to be that our subcaption should read: The only national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, fallacies, and problems in general.... We have always looked upon the word "fallacies" as a general term encompassing just about everything not included in errors and contradictions and that would include problems in general. You, on the other hand, are trying to restrict it to a rather narrow definition. If that were to be allowed, in effect, we would be conceding the validity of your contentions until we disproved their reliability. As we have said so often, THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON HE WHO ALLEGES. That means, for example, that you are obligated to prove the resurrection of Jesus is of greater importance than that of others. We aren't obligated to accept it just because Paul says it was. Quite the contrary, we can and should reject it until you can prove he was right.

You say 1 Cor. 15:14 and 17 are statements, just like 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' that CANNOT be proved or disproved, but only believed or disbelieved. But you don't seem to realize that these statements are fallacious until proven to be true. When will you religionists ever learn that "belief", "faith", and assertions by people you hold in high esteem are NOT proof, and are not to be accepted as such; they never have been and they never will be. And until these statements are proven to be true, they will remain under the heading of fallacies. There is no reason to alter our subcaption as you so desire. Just because Paul said it, doesn't make it so any more than an African witch doctor should be believed on his authority alone.

You say that the statement "God does not exist" CANNOT be proved or disproved, but only be believed or disbelieved. False again! You and your compatriots are the ones who keep bringing up the subject of God, so it is up to you to demonstrate the existence of this being. And until you are able to do so, the statement "God Exists" is false. You should have read all the prior issues of BE before sending your letter, GM, because this subject has been covered several times before. As I have said so often before, if your premise were true, then every crackpot theory imaginable would be valid until proven to be false. How would I prove, for example, that beings do not live within the planet Jupiter as some would allege? According to you, "faith" or "belief" in their existence or an assertion to that effect by someone you hold in high regard would mean they, in fact, do live there until I prove the contrary. Your thought processes would open the world to a Pandora's box of wild delusions. Is it any wonder that the word "religion" is little more than a euphemism for "superstition"? (TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT MONTH)

---

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

 Letter #550 from KB of Los Angeles, California (Part a)

Dennis McKinsey.

Issue #127 arrived yesterday, July 13. All sorts of congratulations for having stuck it out for these past ten and a half years, which is about as long as Atheists United has been around, since the middle of 1982.... I suggest that now is the time to catch up on that promise made to your readers some time ago and devote at least one issue of BE a year to publishing letters, and only letters, with your responses. Indeed, I suggest, as an often respondent to BE, as though I had no motive at all in getting my deathless prose into print, that you now devote the next and how many after that issues to getting those letters that have swollen your files to running over onto the floor, and give your readers that expected and well deserved feed-back of their contributions to freethought.

Editor's Response to Letter #550

Dear KB.

Thanks for your congratulations, but we have always had a policy of devoting an entire issue to letters from our readers. That has been in effect for many years, was continued last month, and will be even more prominent in months to come. You probably just forgot.

Letter #550 Concludes (Part b)

I am relieved that the extended response to the worthless diatribe of "JM" is finally over. As I have said in the past, you should give up addressing the likes of JM directly, but use their material as examples of "inerrancy thinking" and give indirect quotes and respond to them succinctly. Avoid direct address, keep to the issues regardless of how stupid a person reveals himself to be. Telling a person that his response is stupid only takes up valuable BE space! As I say, give your readers who have written you the exposure they deserve, or don't. Fill BE pages with BE readers!

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #550 (Part b)

Although your long support of BE is most welcome, KB, we have a significant difference in strategy and tactics. A major aspect of this periodical has always been dialogue and debate with the opposition. Indeed, that goes to the very heart of this publication. In the subcaption itself is the phrase "while providing a hearing for apologists." The whole idea is to debate and expose the opposition on their own territory in their own subject. If you expect to debate somebody without quoting him verbatim, what do you think his response is going to be? If you leave out parts of his extensive argument, what do you think his response is going to be? If you talk about what strikes your fancy rather than what interests him or turns him on, what do you think your effect is going to be? If you give up "addressing the likes of JM directly," how are you going to conduct a forceful, direct, poignant, effective, devastating assault indirectly? I've never seen two people box indirectly, nor have I ever seen two football teams slam one another indirectly. With all due respect, we aren't involved in a game of cricket or horseshoes. We are playing for big stakes in a subject that is of great importance to millions of people and of even greater significance than economics or politics to others. Make no mistake about it. We are engaged in serious business! You have to deal with people where they are, not where you would like them to be. And you have to talk with them on subjects that are of greatest interest to them, not what is of greatest interest to you or tickles your funnybone. The philosophy you are expressing has accounted for more freethought group and individual failures than any other factor that comes to mind. The most obvious result of this theory is that many groups of our persuasion end up having the same people say the same things to the same people, and preaching to the choir is certainly not the way to go. In fact, that is precisely what should be placed near the bottom of the agenda. But, unfortunately, that is often of highest priority. From your perspective the response of JM is a "worthless diatribe," but from his viewpoint it is anything but. In fact, he provided several rationalizations that are typical of the very stock and trade of biblicists' arguments and he probably extracted a few from their writings. By confronting him on his own book, I not only corrected his errors but provided reasons for all others who may be so inclined to pause and reconsider the error of their ways.

In addition, you say I should give my readers the exposure they deserve or don't and fill BE pages with BE readers. What does this mean? Are you saying I should only insert letters that are sympathetic to my philosophy? What do you think would be the response of biblicists who read this newsletter based upon groundrules of that nature? Besides turning part of our subcaption into a prevarication, BE would become little more than a one-sided propaganda organ not unlike those of its opponents. If it means I should insert letters from the opposition, then how should I insert them? Should they be quoted word-for-word, paragraph by paragraph, page by page, or should things be omitted? And who makes the latter decision? Even more important, what do you think my opponent is going to say when I start deleting comments? I can hear the yells now. "You left out my strongest arguments or you omitted the key words. Your presentation is both slanted and biased." We have scrupulously avoided vulnerability of this nature since day one. Remember when I said in my speech (See: Issues 58-60) that before you fire something over you had better know what lies in the other side's arsenal. If you don't consider their arguments ahead of time, then you are headed for misery, if not catastrophe.

When you say that I should "give up addressing the likes of JM directly...give indirect quotes and respond to them succinctly. Avoid direct address...." you are propounding a philosophy that is not only far from this publication, but could only result in its demise were it to be implemented. BE is a forum of debate and discussion, not a one-sided propaganda agency. I hope you take my response in the spirit intended, but you struck a chord by expressing an ideology that is all too common among many freethinkers.

Not long ago a subscriber told me that a prominent representative of a freethought publication objected to my critique of the Bible because it was deemed to be too negative. My critic expressed the belief that attacking the Bible only alienated Christians by creating ill-will and hatred. This person felt that if you don't criticize the Bible, people will be more open to what you have to say and less repelled by your arguments. Unfortunately this philosophy expresses the sentiments of too many people in the freethought movement and is exactly what you don't want to do. The person so inclined couldn't be further from the truth if he or she tried. Christians have been indoctrinated with a mass of beliefs that are the very antithesis of what freethought represents, and any delusion that the two can somehow be melded into a harmonious relationship in the same individual is absurd. One must sound the death-knell over the other. They are utterly incompatible, and people are not going to be oozed into freethought by some sort of mass mollification, masked under the heading of universal brotherhood, common values, and mutual tolerance. That's a pipe dream. Telling them what they want to hear in order to get them to listen won't carry the day. Telling them that which is not too far from what they have been hearing all along isn't going to get the job done. As I have said so often, why would they come to hear our position when they are already convinced they have truth and we have error? And how are they going to know they are living under multiple delusions, if the numerous delusions under which they operate are not brought to their attention. Who is going to perform that role? That's certainly not what ministers, priests, and rabbis are paid to do. If you think the latter are going to provide a balanced presentation, forget it. BEFORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LISTEN TO US THEY MUST FIRST BE SHOWN THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS, and that's why I teach a kind of Sunday-School-In- Reverse. That's why I tell them all the things they should have heard in Sunday School but didn't. That's why I return to the fundamentals upon which they are operating and viewing the world and begin anew. Any other program is doomed to failure from the outset because it is not materially altering or affecting the basic concepts upon which all decisions are premised. That's why churches know it is so important to indoctrinate and "brainwash" the very young. Before constructing a new building in a city, what is the first thing you have to do? You have to destroy. You have to destroy either the structure that is already in place or you have to bring in a bull-dozer or other earth-moving equipment to destroy the vegetation and ground configuration that already exists on the plot of land to be used. One way or the other, destruction must precede construction. They are inseparable, and the same is no less true of philosophies and ideologies. Before you can start people thinking differently, you must first destroy the way they are thinking.

Of course, all of the above is said in a spirit of camaraderie, and I hope it will be taken as such.

Letter #551 from RS of Sherman Oaks, California

Dear Dennis.

It's a great pleasure to renew my subscription again. I have been a dedicated BE fan every since I began to read it. Over the past couple of years, I have put the material to good use, too. Some of the Biblicists I've met may never be the same. I dialogue with Biblicists, hear them out, and discuss what I have learned through BE. Many are surprised to see that their arguments collapse so quickly. Some counter with sophisticated apologetic arguments; yet these are easily and effectively refuted with information from BE. BE is effective. It causes Biblicists to re-think age-old beliefs, and would-be Biblicists to reject them altogether. Judging by your letters, many are as dedicated to spreading BE as I am.

I am excited about the latest product from BE -- audio tapes! I have received taped sermons from Christians, but I never had anything to send back. Thanks to BE, that situation will be remedied! I was wondering if you had BE on a wordprocessor, and if you had considered placing an IBM disk version on the market like the Skeptical Review does. I would love to have the information on my computer. With the information on computer, I could arrange it by subject, Bible verse, etc. It would help me considerably in composing speeches, rebuttals to letters, etc. Furthermore, have you considered putting BE on a computer bulletin board?

 Editor's Response to Letter #551

I'm glad to see that you, too, are using BE in the manner intended, RS. Keep up the good work. As far as computer bulletin boards and putting everything on a wordprocessor are concerned, I just don't have the time. Please believe me when I say I have too many balls in the air now. You are by no means the only one to make these suggestions.

October 1993

ARCHER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA--(Part 1) One of the most well known and comprehensive biblical defenses written in recent years is entitled Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer, professor of OT and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois. Because the book is one of the most prominent apologetic works available, a study of some of that which is contained therein is appropriate in order to minimize its negative effects on unwary minds. Archer clearly believes he has generated a volume of immense importance because he states on page 11, "I candidly believe I have been confronted with just about all the biblical difficulties under discussion in theological circles today--especially those pertaining to the interpretation and defense of Scripture." If that comment is true, then theological circles are dramatically restricted in their coverage because the amount of substantive material omitted from his work would fill volumes. In any event, so many statements and biblical defenses by Archer are fraught with flaws that several issues of this publication will have reviews devoted to exposing some of their inadequacies. Among those worthy of mention are the following.

On page 25 Archer states, "As we have already seen, Christ accepted as literally true (1) the historicity of Adam, (2) the rescue of Noah and his family by the ark, (3) the literal accuracy of Moses' interview with God at the burning bush, (4) the feeding of Moses' congregation by manna from heaven, (5) the historicity of Jonah's deliverance, and (6) the repentance of the pagan population of Nineveh in response to Jonah's preaching. Nothing could be clearer that than our divine Savior believed in the literal truthfulness of the entire OT record, whether those accounts dealt with doctrinal matters, matters of science, or history." Archer was on firm footing until the last sentence. Just because Jesus believed in the 6 events listed does not mean he believed in thousands of other biblical events that are to be found from Genesis to Malachi. He made a grandiose leap in logic that is wholly unsupportable by Scripture.

On page 86 Archer is asked, "In Genesis 9:24-28, why did Noah curse his youngest son and say that Canaan should be a slave? Was this the beginning of slavery? Was slavery all right in the sight of God?" After explaining why Noah cursed Ham and minimizing the impact of same, Archer correctly stated that, "As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest. Slavery was as integral a part of ancient culture as commerce, taxation, or temple service." But then he said, "Not until the more exalted concept of man and his innate dignity as a person created in the image of God had permeated the world as a product of Bible teaching did a strong sentiment arise in Christendom in criticism of slavery and a questioning of its right to exist." Few comments are more at variance with reality. Slavery was abolished despite the Bible and Christianity, not because of them. Indeed, both the Old and New Testaments are strong proponents of slavery as several prior issues of BE clearly showed. Numerous verses in each regulate, direct, and condone the administration of slavery while none advocate its abolition. Support for slavery is all too obvious. In defense of the biblical stance on slavery Archer states, "Hebrew slaves were required under Mosaic law to be set free after six years of service; they could not be made to serve out their entire lives as slaves unless they willingly chose to remain so, out of love for their masters" (Ex. 21:2-7). What Archer neglects to mention is that these verses in no way advocate the abolishment of slavery. They merely regulate its operation and administration. Restriction does not equal abolition. And second, liberation after 6 years only applies to Hebrew slaves, their blood brothers, which were undoubtedly a small fraction of all the slaves they possessed.

Archer concludes by saying, "Yet there was inherent in the biblical concept of man as a person fashioned in the image of God and a candidate for heaven...a dynamic principle that undermined slavery." This diverges markedly from reality because slaves by definition are owned by others. Slaves were not viewed as human beings but as property. In effect, one biblical mandate overrules another. One says people are created in the image of God, while another says slaves are not people because they are property. If they aren't people, there is no need for them to be treated as such or for them to be considered creatures created in the image of God. If A is owned by B, B will never look upon A as his equal or a person, and the Bible wholly supports this conclusion. The Bible can never be a force for the liberation of mankind until, among other things, it denounces slavery and deems former slaves to be on a par with all other human beings, all of which would necessitate a revision of Scripture.

On page 96 Archer is asked how God could condemn human sacrifice in Leviticus 18 and 20 and yet command it in Genesis 22, or at least accept it in Judges 11? Archer states, "It is a mistake to interpret Genesis 22:2 as a command by God for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar. On the contrary, God actually (through his angel at least) restrained Abraham's hand just as he was about to plunge the knife into his son's body...." Archer's answer is little more than a deceptive shift in focus. True, Abraham's hand was restrained and the execution did not occur. But that was not the question. The question was how God could have given the order to begin with. He ordered a man to engage in human sacrifice and the man fully intended to comply with his wishes. Just because God stopped him at the last moment does not excuse or justify the original order. The question is how the original order could have been given by a "just" God, a god who condemned human sacrifice in Leviticus 18 and 20. Archer concludes by saying, "It is logically indefensible to assume that God would expect or condone infant sacrifice on the part of Abraham or Jephthah, or any other of his servants, after such a stern prohibition of it in the Mosaic law." No, it is not logically indefensible. It's quite possible as long as one has not been indoctrinated to believe that biblical contradictions are an impossibility. In Judges 11:30-31 Jephthah vowed to the Lord that if the latter would allow him to defeat the Ammonites he would sacrifice to the Lord as a burnt offering whatever came out of his house to greet him upon his return from victory. The 34th verse shows that his only child, his daughter, came out to meet him as he returned victorious and the 39th verse says he "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." The Lord did not restrain this man's hand, so it is not illogical to assume God would expect or condone infant sacrifice, and there is little to be gained by only focusing only upon the Lord's prevention of that which was fully contemplated by Abraham.

On top of everything else, Archer ignores verses even more potent than that found in God's order to Abraham such as Exodus 22:29-30 which says, "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep...." And we all know what happened to oxen and sheep on a regular basis in the OT. So, for Archer to say that it is "logically indefensible" to assume God would order human sacrifice is ridiculous. (To Be Continued)

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #537 Continues from Last Month (Part h)

Regarding the FLOOD. Just some observations on your paragraph. Question (c) How would a flood destroy all sea animals?

Answer: It wouldn't! Why don't you read carefully what the Bible says? You have underlined almost every word in the verses you quote, except those words that answer your question! So I will take again the same verses you quoted and I will underline the words that answer the question:

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die." (Genesis 6:17)

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4)

I trust you are familiar with the fact that the Bible distinguishes between earth and sea (Ex. 20:11).

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part h)

You are exhibiting the kind of reasoning that has caused biblical scholarship to be held in such low esteem by so many people for so many centuries, my friend. You cite Gen. 6:17 which says, "I will cause it to rain upon the earth." According to your restriction of the word "earth" to the land mass only, it did not rain on the oceans. How utterly preposterous! You mean there was a wall of water beginning at the ocean's edge that covered land only and was held back somehow? Or do you mean that it rained only on the land portion of the globe and the water then flowed over the seas? In either case, I believe you have reached the outer limits on this one. If TV's The Twilight Zone is ever revived, you would do well to apply for a position as a script writer. I'm surprised you didn't say that when Gen. 6:17 says everything that is in the earth shall die, it was only referring to worms, moles and other underground creatures. The sky is the limit when your imagination runs wild. According to you, then, when Gen. 1:17 says, "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly...fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of the heaven" fowl fly above land only, and when Gen. 2:1 says, "the heavens and the earth were finished..." the seas were not finished. When Abraham says in Gen. 14:22, "I have lift my hand to the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth," God did not possess the seas? And when Gen. 18:25 says, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right," God is not the judge of the seas? Anyone unwilling to concede that the word "earth" refers to the entire planet, not just the land portion, has entered a troublesome swamp, indeed. As is so often true, when biblicists try to reconcile one aspect of the Bible with another, they often wreck havoc upon a third.

Letter #537 Continues (Part i)

Question (d) How did animals that are restricted to certain parts of the earth get to the Ark? They would have had to have crossed vast oceans (plus other similar questions).

Answer: You are assuming that before the Flood geography was similar to what we see today. This idea does NOT come from the Bible, but from some other source. In fact the Bible teaches that the world was destroyed by the Flood (Gen. 6:13, 2 Peter 3:6), and that therefore we have no way of knowing how it was like. There is nothing absurd in the idea, for example, that animals were distributed evenly before the Flood. What is relevant here is that if you stick to the biblical text there is nothing contradictory in the story. Actually, in the beginning of your discussion on the Flood you promised you would do just that--forget the scientific issues, and stick to the Bible. However what you did forget, it seems to me, was your own promise.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part i)

How could animals be distributed evenly, GM? You have completely ignored the climatic factor. How could animals that can only live in the tropics live alongside animals that can only live in the arctic? And how could the specialized vegetation upon which many depend be interspersed as well? Bamboo and eucalyptus, for example, the only food for some animals, would last no time at all in another climate. You might as well have said the climates were evenly distributed. Secondly, as I have said so often, BE does not deal only with biblical contradictions. Its scope is much broader and focuses on any and all problems having to do with the validity of the Bible. So your comment that "if you stick to the biblical text there is nothing contradictory in the story" is quite irrelevant, because I never said that internal biblical contradictions were involved. In fact, I specifically said "BE will concentrate on the great number of difficulties, impossibilities, and unanswered questions accompanying the biblical account." Where is the word "contradiction" even mentioned in the section on the Flood in the Sample Issue? You accuse me of saying something I never said and then proceed to disprove it. Thirdly, you state that at the beginning of my discussion of the Flood I promised to "forget the scientific issues, and stick to the Bible." You then say I forgot my own promise. Unfortunately, you didn't read very carefully. On the front page is clearly written, "BE will not discuss the scientific data used by proponents (of the Bible--Ed.) to support their beliefs." Notice it says the scientific data used by "proponents" would not be used. I didn't say I would not use any scientific considerations whatever. That does not mean, on the other hand, that only the scientific data of opponents would be employed but only that the scientific questions that would be asked by any student of science would be posed. And one need only reread the section to see that that is exactly what occurred.

Letter #537 Continues (Part j)

Secondly, God told Noah that the animals would come to him, and the animals did come. Period. How? From where? When? These are interesting questions, but have nothing to do with errors, fallacies or contradictions in the Bible, although they may be of interest to Christian scientists. You may not know how, when and from where your family migrated to America, but this does not make the story of your family an error or a fallacy or a contradiction.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part j)

For some unknown reason hundreds, if not thousands, of animals from all over the world began simultaneously to march to an ark in the Middle East. You wish to attribute this to an act of God. So be it! But be sure to make this clear to your students. Don't leave them with the impression that this can be explained rationally or by natural forces. Be sure it is confined to the realm of theological mythology and students are made aware of the rational difficulties involved. I'm sure your concern for precision will not let this slip your mind.

Like so many Christian analogies your reference to my ancestors is inapplicable. Thousands, if not millions of Europeans, did not simultaneously march to ships like mindless zombies for no apparent reason. Immigration to America has been occurring for decades and the reasons are generally quite obvious. They nearly always have something to do with economics and higher standards of living. That is hardly comparable to hundreds of animals meandering to an ark as if to a magnet.

Letter #537 Continues (Part k)

When you ask, "How were animals prevented from killing their natural prey?" you again assume something that does not come from the biblical text, namely that carnivorous attitudes were present in the antediluvian world. The Bible says clearly that this was not the case: animals ate grass (Gen. 1:29-30), man himself was allowed to eat flesh only after the Flood (Gen. 9:3), animals began to fear man only after the Flood (Gen. 9:2). This is in perfect harmony with the story that animals and men could live together for a year in the Ark without serious danger for the weak creatures. I see no errors, no contradictions, no logical fallacies in this fact that the animals came to Noah, or that they stayed together: do you? If you don't, I suggest you remove these two arguments too from your Sample Issue.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part k)

You sure want to rewrite my sample issue, GM. Do I see any errors, contradictions, or fallacies? Of course! Error lies in the fact that you are claiming there were no carnivorous animals on the earth before the Flood. No cats, no dogs, no sharks, no seals, no frogs, no spiders in other words no flesh-eaters, and that would include snakes. But wasn't the serpent in Gen. 3:1-14 a kind of snake? Wasn't he a meat eater? Tyrannasaurus Rex and many other carnivorous dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures must be figments of folklore according to you. If you insist on ruling out any carnivorous activity prior to, and during, the Flood, then just make sure these difficulties are brought home to your students who will probably find your rationalization hard to swallow. Secondly, if the world was idyllic prior to the Flood, then how can Gen. 4:4 say, "and Abel brought the fatty cuts of meat from his best lambs, and presented them to the Lord." A period in which animals were slaughtered certainly doesn't sound heavenly, especially from the perspective of the animals involved. That's an idyllic world in which carnivorous attitudes weren't present? It's also important to note that according to Gen. 4:4-5 ("And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect") Abel's offering of sacrificed animals was preferred by God over Cain's offering of the fruit of the ground. Thirdly, animals sacrificed to God were normally eaten in order to complete the sacrifice. Isn't that carnivorous activity? Or are you saying and substantiating biblically that nothing slaughtered and sacrificed prior to the Flood was eaten? And lastly, in light of the fact that Cain slew Abel, conditions prior to the Flood couldn't have been as heavenly for the human animal as you would have us believe either. Incidentally, according to your mythology, all carnivorous plants, such as the Pitcher Plant, the drosera (sundew), and the Venus Fly-trap, had to have been nonexistent prior to the Flood as well.

Letter #537 Continues (Part l)

...In the end of Question (e) you write: "These are only a few of the problems associated with the Flood that believers must address" (emphasis mine). Three observations are in order:

1. That in the Bible there are interesting problems no believer doubts. No honest believer has ever claimed that he has all answers to all questions. Neither has the astronomer or the biologist or the archeologist or the linguist. However none of the latter decides to give up with his profession only for the reason that there are open questions: on the contrary, open questions are what make their job exciting. A theory is abandoned not because there are open questions, but if it is proved to be wrong.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part l)

Don't try to soft-pedal your dilemma, GM. The problems under discussion are not just "open questions." They are blatant problems that either contradict other parts of scripture and/or directly conflict with science and/or logic. Again you have submitted another invalid analogy. The scientists you listed are not defending data that counteracts logic, other valid data, or their own pronouncements. If there is any group that deals with open questions, it is the scientific community, while you and your compatriots deal with open conflicts and impossibilities.

Letter #537 Continues (Part m)

This leads me to my second point. Your periodical's stated aim is precisely to present "biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies." That is, you willingly take the burden to offer proofs that the Bible contains such things. I don't see then why you waste the reader's time in listing questions about the Flood that are not errors nor logical fallacies nor textual contradictions. Therefore I suggest that you remove all these useless sentences about the Flood from your Sample Issue.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part m)

The time of readers is never wasted when they are being exposed to the Bible's inadequacies. I know you would like for these questions to be kept under wraps but I'm unwilling to oblige. Contrary to your assertion, the questions submitted fall within the category of biblical fallacies and errors and will not be removed from the Sample Issue. There is no obligation on our part to remain entirely within the Bible nor did we ever state we intended to do so. Where did you get the impression from the subcaption of this periodical that we will remain totally confined to the Bible alone. BE addresses any and all problems bearing on the Bible's validity and that could very well entail the incorporation of extrabiblical material or considerations. Scientific data and logical difficulties are certainly not going to be ignored. Based upon your misreading of our subcaption, you would have people believe that unless something in the Bible contradicts another part of the Bible it is out-of-bounds and can not be included within BE. Wrong! As we have said so often, BE deals with any and all problems bearing on the Bible's validity and that may or may not entail concentration on the Bible alone. If your interpretation of our subcaption were valid, we could never have presented much of that which can be found in our issues on biblical history, historicity, geography, math, science, differing versions, etc.

Letter #537 Concludes (Part n)

Please note that I am not suggesting that you remove arguments that I am afraid to address: I have addressed, though shortly, some of them, I am more than willing to discuss at length the problems you raise--but not in a context of biblical errancy, for the simple reason thatÿÿ these are problems, not fallacies.

Nor am I suggesting that you remove everything from your Sample Issue: some questions you ask in the paragraph "Contradictions" do qualify as possible or apparent fallacies; but for honesty's sake please remove all the things that are not what your Periodical claims to be about, and are thus irrelevant, as well as all alleged biblical fallacies that are shown by readers not to be fallacies at all. When you have done that, then we can start talking about what is left.

If you decide to remove fallacious arguments from your Sample Issue, the latter will surely appear less impressive. However, I trust you do not intend to dazzle the unaware and unlearned reader using a mass of arguments that have been already answered and that you know are fallacious or irrelevant.

I am looking forward to receiving your answer and I hope we can start a fruitful dialogue. Please forgive me for the mistakes I have surely made. English is not my mother language. Thank you for your kind attention.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #537 (Part n)

You say you won't discuss them within the context of BE because they are problems, not fallacies. As I have already stated, BE deals with any and all problems having to do with the Bible's validity and those are incorporated into what I refer to as fallacies. Perhaps I should use the word "problems" instead of "fallacies" in the subcaption or use both simultaneously in order to make our position clearer. But I don't think so. People know what is intended, and to refer to fallacies as mere problems would be to concede the very point in dispute. In effect, I'd be accepting your position that they are mere problems and will remain as such until proven to be fallacies, when they are fallacies and will remain such until proven to be mere problems. Again, as I have said so often, the burden of proof lies on he who alleges. You are obligated to prove that the events occurred as you and your book allege, while scientists are obligated to prove that they occur as the scientific community believes. And where do you think the vast preponderance of the evidence lies. You won't find very many scientific creationist laboratories complete with fossils, artifacts, and other physical remains. Instead you will find a body of pseudo-scientists trying to prove their theory is true by casting doubts on contentions of the other side. They fail to realize that even if they could thoroughly disprove the theory of evolution, that would by no means prove their theory was correct. Disproving another theory does not prove yours is automatically true, not by a long ways. Creationists must not only disprove the other side but substantiate their own assertions by something other than words in a mythological and superstitious book and, unfortunately for them, they are unable to do either. Because you have misread, misunderstood, and misinterpreted what our "Periodical claims to be about," your "irrelevant" argument is without standing. I'd be glad to remove "all alleged biblical fallacies that are shown by readers not to be fallacies at all" as soon as you provide some good examples, and what "fallacious arguments" are you referring to that have already been answered and you feel should be removed?

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #552 from JA of Cambridge, Mass.

To Whom It May Concern: I learned about your magazine in a small leaflet. "The Bible is God's Word?" which I picked up this morning on the Boston subway system. I was very excited to hear of your magazine as I have been thinking about the subject of biblical inconsistency for some time and wondering where I can learn more about it. Please send a copy of your magazine and subscription information to me.

Letter #553 from JB of Portland, Oregon

Dear Mr. McKinsey.... I would like for my subscription to commence with Issue number 125.... Doctor (name deleted--Ed.) was the first person to suggest that I subscribe to your publication. He recommended you very highly. Then I saw a sample copy at our local Center for Rational Thought and I was convinced that I had to subscribe. I don't know how you do it but I hope you keep it up! I am a retired lawyer who is experienced in the examination of documents and I really appreciate your cutting analyses.

Issue No. 131

November 1993

ARCHER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA--(Part 2) On page 113 Archer is asked: Why did God slay all the firstborn Egyptians when the Egyptian people had no control over Pharaoh's decision not to allow the Israelites to leave his country which can be found in Ex. 12:29-30? Archer responds by saying, "There is no way for nations to be dealt with other than on a collective basis. The fortunes of the citizens of any country are bound up with the government that guides their national policy, whether that government be a democracy, a party dictatorship, or monarchy...." Archer subtlely evades the fact that there was no need for the nation to be dealt with at all. The Egyptian people did not commit the deed and, thus, should not be saddled with any punishment. Rulers may go to war and bring defeat and destruction on their people, but that bears no relation to a nation of people being punished by an omnipotent god for what one leader did. We are talking about the administration of justice, and fundamental to all systems of fair play is that those who do the crime should do the time. A people who are decimated because their leader led them into a disastrous encounter are not being punished by anybody. That is simply the outcome of the decision to go to war. It may have been a wrong decision on the part of the ruler and an even worse decision on the part of his nation to follow in lockstep, but defeat is a far more appropriate term than punishment, especially when national sentiment favored the ruler's decision.

Later on page 114 Archer states, "A loss of life in the family of the king alone--or even in the households of his aristocracy--would scarcely have sufficed to compel Egypt to grant a release of the entire Israelite nation and all its cattle. Nothing short of an all-inclusive calamity visited on the entire people would serve to bring about the deliverance of God's people from the bondage they had suffered in Egypt." In reality, the sequence of events in Exodus strongly imply precisely the opposite is true. It was not until the pharaoh's son was killed that the pharaoh conceded defeat. Evidence strongly indicates that if the lives of the pharaoh's son or other family members had been clearly and unequivocably at stake from the outset all of the plagues and loss of life could have been avoided.

On page 121 Archer is asked one of the most common questions addressed to Christians over the centuries: Why is there so much killing of human beings mentioned in the Bible, along with the frequent references to animal sacrifice on the altar, and how does this square with the divine command "Thou shalt not kill" in Exodus 20:13? Archer begins by saying, "Since the Bible is a book about man in his state of sin, and since there is so much violence and bloodshed in human society, it was inevitable that frequent mention of manslaughter should occur in Scripture." Notice his sly shift to the word "manslaughter" which isn't even at issue. We are talking about killing and murder, not manslaughter, as he well knows. Manslaughter is not the problem by any means. He continues, "But much confusion has arisen from the misleading translation of Exodus 20:13 that occurs in most English versions. The Hebrew original uses a specific word for murder (rasah) in this 6th commandment and should be rendered 'You shall not murder'." If Archer were to consult the section entitled the Hebrew/Chaldee Dictionary in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance he would see the following with reference to the word "kill" in Exodus 20:13: (from--Ed.) "ratsach; a primitive root; properly to dash to pieces, i.e., kill (a human being), especially to murder:--put to death, kill, manslay, murder." Why does he believe the word should be translated as murder? If anything it should be "kill," and there is certainly nothing to justify the allegation that "kill" is a "misleading translation." According to Strong, the Hebrew word means kill in the broadest sense, not in the narrow sense of murder only, and there is no justification in saying that "the 6th commandment should be rendered as 'you shall not murder'." Archer tries to restrict the word's coverage to murder by saying, "This is no prohibition against capital punishment for capital crimes, since it is not a general term for the taking of life, such as our English word 'kill'." Wrong again! Nothing was said about capital punishment. According to Strong the relevant word is a general term and those who translated the word as "kill" were wholly justified in doing so.

If murder is the proper translation of the Hebrew word, then that same Hebrew word creates the following problem in Num. 35:27 in which God says, "(if--Ed.)...the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood." In this instance, the Hebrew word is translated as "kill," and if it should be translated as murder, then according to Archer God is saying a man who murdered another should be found not guilty of blood. In sum and substance, Archer is saying he knows Hebrew better than committees of experts who translated many of the most prominent versions on the market.

Later Archer makes the incredible statement that, "Violence and bloodshed are occasionally mentioned in the record of man's history throughout Scripture, but never with approval." Is he serious! Violence and bloodshed are rampant throughout the OT and often mentioned with approval, especially in historical books such as Joshua. One need only read the Commentary in Issue #116 to see that God not only killed repeatedly but ordered others to kill as well. Since God was often the instigator, one can safely assume violence and bloodshed met with his approval.

Archer says violence and bloodshed were never met with approval but then says, "Yet, there were specific situations when entire communities (such as Jericho) or entire tribes (such as the Amalekites) were to be exterminated by the Israelites in obedience to God's command." So, violence and bloodshed were carried out with God's approval afterall.

Archer proceeds to justify all of this mayhem by saying, "In each case these offenders had gone so far in degeneracy and moral depravity that their continued presence would result in spreading the dreadful cancer of sin among God's covenant people. Just as the wise surgeon removes dangerous cancer from his patient's body by use of the scalpel, so God employed the Israelites to remove such dangerous malignancies from human society." But what had these tribes done that had not been committed by the Israelites as well? The latter constantly violated one or another of God's laws and asked forgiveness either before or after punishment. The Israelite record of violating divine decrees was reprehensible and, thus, they deserved God's vengeance as much as anyone. According to Archer God used a scalpel that was no cleaner than the disease being excised.

Archer concludes by saying the sacrifice of animals symbolized the coming sacrifice of the Son of God on the cross, and he justifies animal sacrifice by quoting one of the most inaccurate comments in the entire NT, Hebrews 9:22, which says, "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." Yet, sins were repeatedly forgiven in the OT by methods other than bloody sacrifices. Blood was by no means the only means by which sins could be forgiven. Lev. 5:11-13 states flour can make atonement for the soul. Money can atone for the soul according to Exodus 30:15-16; jewelry can atone for the soul as is apparent from Num. 31:50, and in Num. 14:17-20 and Hosea 14:3 we find that prayer can atone for the soul.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #554 from SF of York, Penn. (Part a)

(A Christian apologist sent a subscriber, SF, the following letter and SF asked us to respond because after several encounters he has become convinced the source is a "hopeless, lost cause case"--Ed.)

Dear SF.... Christianity is, indeed, the most intellectually satisfying world-view there is and although it is not something one can prove the truth of, as you take so much delight in pointing out, this is of absolutely no importance when comparing it to competing world-views inasmuch as no such philosophy of life, whether theistic or atheistic, can be proven.

Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part a)

Dear SF. Your opponent's intellectual myopia is rather pronounced to say the least. For one to say that Christianity is the most satisfying world-view available borders on the ridiculous. Jews would say that of Judaism; Muslims would say that of Islam; Buddhists would say that of Buddhism; fascists would say that of fascism, libertarians would say that of libertarianism, and communists would say that of Marxism. That statement is almost too ridiculous to merit a reply. And for him or her to say that the inability of Christians to prove the truth of Christianity "is of absolutely no importance" belongs in the realm of the bizarre. If that is true, then every satisfying belief is as credible as all the others. Whether a philosophy is true or demonstrable is no longer of any significance; all that counts is whether or not it is intellectually satisfying, a wholly arbitrary and unreliable criterion.

Unlike our friend, many adherents to other philosophies heatedly contend their beliefs are provable and for him to say that nothing can be proven is merely an opinion that will remain as such until he can show that adherents of competing philosophies are also unable to substantiate their allegations.

Letter #554 Continues (Part b)

The satisfactions of Christianity derive from the fact that it offers answers to all the major questions of life, including the one you ask in your last letter about the meaning of life (a response to which will have to await another time). But even more it offers hope. It holds out the promise that there is, in fact, meaning to life....

Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part b)

What kind of response is this? Virtually every philosophy offers answers to all of life's major questions. They are more than glad to comply. That's no problem. The problem is that the answers are either wrong or indemonstrable in far too many instances. And virtually every philosophy offers hope of some kind; that's no problem either. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in demand. Again, the problem is whether or not the hope is well founded and justified. Narcotics, religions, cults, the occult, New Age, and a wide variety of other superstitions and mental escapes offer hope for a better life as well. If they didn't, they wouldn't be around very long.

Yes, it holds out the promise that there is meaning in life, but it doesn't prove real meaning is to be found through acts and beliefs outlined and pursued by Christians. There could very well be real meaning that is not found through Christianity. In all probability it is not a choice between Christianity and no hope whatever, as your opponent alleges, but a choice between another philosophy and all other philosophies, including Christianity.

Letter #554 Continues (Part c)

Atheism, on the other hand, offers nothing but emptiness, hopelessness, meaninglessness, death, and despair....

Editor's Response to Letter #554 (Part c)

What an inaccurate comment! Atheists and others who don't base their life on belief in a nebulous, unsubstantiated afterlife of sweet bliss have always been in the forefront of those most concerned with the improvement of this world and everything in it. After all it only stands to reason that those most convinced that this world is all there is are going to be among those most concerned with improving the world as we see it. They have been and always will be in leadership of the fight against emptiness, meaninglessness, hopelessness, and despair and have always felt that if man is ever going to abolish these qualities of life, then that will have to materialize here and now, because nothing is going to be bestowed later. This world is all we have and we had better make the most of it. A logical concommitant to this view of life is that conditions will only improve when man rolls up his shirt sleeves and digs in. It isn't going to fall into his lap like a ripe apple from a tree. Who would be more inclined to fight against the deplorable conditions we all see and experience in everyday life than those most convinced that there is no nirvanna to follow and no beneficent diety presiding over the welfare of mankind who has taken humanity to raise like a benevolent babysitter in the sky.

Religionists, on the other hand, are victims of precisely the opposite mentality. Firmly believing a better world is coming and conditions are mainly improved by prayer and reliance upon a benign deity, they are far more inclined to write this world off as a loss, abstain from opposition to social injustice, avoid social activism or improvements, and flee rebellion against unfairness. After all they reason, if you only live 80 or 90 years in this world, why be so involved. Don't worry about events; God will provide and heaven is on its way. The degree of involvement in social problems and distribution of financial assistance by religious agencies throughout the planet is in direct proportion to the extent to which the particular group, church, organization or religious instrumentality involved has left fundamentalism in general and the Holy Book (the Bible, Koran, etc.) in particular; while those closest to the religious/superstitious mentality distribute less aid and provide assistance more out of a need to ingratiate people to religious ideas and make the latter more amenable to the message than any real concern for their worldly condition. Most Salvation Army centers, for example, will not provide support until those in need have willingly submitted to an indoctrination session or propaganda barrage. Of course there are exceptions. But one would be ill-advised to latch on to an exception in an attempt to use it to destroy the rule. That is one of the most common tricks in the arsenal of all propagandists. They seize and magnify an exception in order to portray it as the rule. Make no mistake about it, religious aid is a means to an end; it's not an end in itself.

Incidentally, in light of the fact that religious organizations are subject to very little financial accountability, how can we be sure that money donated to organizations associated with "Save the Children," for example, actually reaches the children? What assurances are in place that nearly all of the funds donated reach the destination intended as opposed to enhancing the affluent life style of the "philanthropic" conveyor. After all, if vast sums are siphoned off who would know the difference?

The bottom line is that people work to improve conditions in this world in direct proportion to the extent to which they jettison their interest or concern for the "next" and vice versa. So who offers emptiness, hopelessness, meaninglessness and despair?--One who tells you that the world reeks with injustice and deplorable conditions that can be improved or eliminated through work, involvement, sensitivity, and realistic thinking or one who tells you the world reeks with injustice, deplorable conditions, and corrupt people that can not be improved to any meaningful degree but only escaped, and promises you a better world is coming based upon nothing more than admittedly unprovable faith, hope, and dreams found in a man-created book saturated with contradictions, errors, and fallacies. Personally, my conscience is clear, my deeds are pure, my cause is just, my advice is sound and that is far more than can be said for the biblical God and his proponents who are urging mankind to not only follow in his footsteps but adopt the tenets of "his" book. (To Be Continued)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #555 from VS of Lake Worth, Florida

Dear Dennis. Congratulations on your completing publication of the mass of material you have collected. Although I found out about your publication long after you started, it has helped me immensely in my search for knowledge about the Bible to counteract the seemingly endless stream of "soul-winners" out there.

I took the liberty of putting your name, address, and something about your publication on America OnLine. I wrote a short piece on how to debate Christians and quoted you (with attribution of course). I also mentioned Farrell Till of the Skeptical Review. Till does a bang-up job, in my opinion. You do, too. The piece has been downloaded about 40 times so far and one person sent me e-mail saying he would write to you for more information....

As you note, if nothing else we have to get some sort of message across about the Bible. I know from personal experience, however, that preachers simply tell their flocks that Bible critics (and even scholars) are miserable, disturbed people who want to share their misery with "joyful" Christians by destroying the Bible: claiming it is not the work of God to point out its contradictions, and so on. But, there are rational people out there who seek the information you have provided; I am on the lookout for them and have plenty of your nontracts to hand to them. Just by showing them that life without literal Bible belief can be just as good (and more so) than life in Christianity's intellectual cage, we may accomplish our goal.

Like you, I would like to see an intelligent debate on not only the Bible but also extra-Biblical topics presented on electronic media. I'm glad you're beginning to "broaden [the] focus" in bringing other material to the Bible. Fundamentalists like Robertson and Randall Terry want to drop the Bible, like a bomb, on our society and remake it in its image. We have to do the same. In any case, simple logic can disprove most of the Bible handily. We have to be sure to emphasize that the fact that the book has parts that are true does not make the whole book true. As you have noted in the past, every book has some truth in it. The Christian's insistence that it's either all true or all false are, in my view, indefensible and easily dealt with.

Keep up the good work.... Take care, keep plugging away, and don't lose hope. I look forward to future issues of Biblical Errancy and wish you luck in your future endeavors.

Letter #556 from JG of Altadena, California (Part a)

Dear Dennis. I was reading Issue #97 (Jan. 1991) and came across this misquote you were citing. It was at the top part of page two. (4) Matt. 11:10 ("For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Mal. 3:1 ("Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me").

(a) the OT says "thy way before thee." WRONG! The OT says "The way before me."

(b) Jesus created the phrase "before thy face." As an atheist I don't believe the Jesus character ever existed. Jesus never created anything.

....On Issue #125 (May 1993) page 3. THE WARS OF GOD AND MAGOG. WRONG! THE WARS OF GOG AND MAGOG.

Please be careful in printing up this material. I give these periodicals out to read.

Editor's Response to Letter #556 (Part a)

Dear JG. You are correct on both textual points. It is so easy to make typing errors and accidentally transpose words when you work with as much material as I do. I wish you had caught the first error when it appeared nearly three years ago. (4)(a) should say, "The OT says "the way before me" not "thy way before thee." This mistake should be corrected on all copies in everyone's binders. And THE WARS OF GOD AND MAGOG should be changed to THE WARS OF GOG AND MAGOG in all copies. Try as we may we can't catch them all.

Letter #556 Concludes (Part b)

Nevertheless I really enjoy how you point out these erroneous references made by the NT writers that this and that verse or verses in the OT are a prophetic fulfillment of what they write about. I think the Jesus character is their crowning achievement. There are other references about Moses and other items also. Moses is another fictional character. Why would these NT charlatans refer to Moses without fear of being punished by an all powerful God for falsely using his name; I think it's because they know the OT story about Moses is fiction.

Letter #557 from MC of Boston, Mass.

Dear Sir. A casual acquaintance showed me a copy of your newsletter. I would like to subscribe, and also obtain any back issues that might be available. I have been doing a lot of research in preparation for writing a book.... I started out thinking that the errancy issue had probably been covered exhaustively in the last few centuries, but I began to find some "corkers" on my own that had not been mentioned in any of the other literature I looked at, including various compendiums of errors such as the old Foote's Bible Handbook. My personal preference in error-hunting is to look for specific internal contradictions that require no referencing outside the Bible itself. I also like to compare certain passages in the different English translations; what is hidden or distorted in one is often revealed in another. My pet peeve is skeptics whose only stock in trade is to debunk the Bible's miracle tales. With perhaps a couple of exceptions (like the sundial movements), to point out that an event is highly improbable does not prove absolutely that it (or something similar, or subsequently exaggerated) did not occur. There are plenty of airtight logic boxes (and some serviceable ones, too) with which to confound the fundamentalists' claims; and they have not all been found, I daresay....

Letter #558 from HB of Alexandria, Virginia

Dear Dennis.... Letter #549 in (Issue 128 of August, 1993) states that Abraham has a servant place his hand under Abraham's thigh to take an oath, but this does not refer to his penis. The thigh actually refers to Abraham's testicles or testes, which are the most important part of a man taking a vow because he swears on his progeny. Testes are so important that they are parts of words like testimony, testify, testament, Old Testament, and New Testament. None of my several reference books on the Bible mention this, probably from embarrassment because Christians have always had difficulty dealing with sex.

Your most recent Issue 128 of August, 1993 suggests only general directions for future issues. I would like to suggest several topics. (1) Put the 27 books of the NT in chronological order and then examine them to determine what has been added and removed over time.... (2) Describe how the canon of the Bible developed over time and the conflicts involved. (3) Show the difficulties of determining authors and dates of the 66 books of the Bible, with continuing disagreements. (4) Examine the 613 laws in the OT to determine which are obeyed, disobeyed, or ignored. (5) Examine the treatment of women in the Bible and anti-Semitism in the NT. (6) Compare science in the Bible with what the Greeks knew at the time.... (7) Examine the justifications for slavery and conflicts related to this. (8) Analyze the two dozen errors in procedure and Jewish law in the trial of Jesus. (9) Analyze the Christian claim that democracy is based on the Bible. (10) Examine the relationship of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Bible. (11) Examine the changes which have been made over time to make the Bible more appealing. For example, Jesus was a Mediterranean Jew with dark skin, hair, and eyes, yet he appears much lighter in our art. (12) Comment on such thinking as Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker--Paul and the Invention of Christianity and John Spong's Born of a Woman--a Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus. They turn the Bible upside down and raise numerous questions. (13) Describe the contents of the Apocrypha, how it developed, and why it is important. This is my way of encouraging you to continue your fine work.

Editor's Response to Letter #558

Dear HB. Don't worry; instead of winding down our efforts we have every intention of increasing them. As far as your list of suggested topics is concerned, I would say we have covered to one degree or another virtually everything you suggested except points 1 and 9-13.

Letter #559 from RH of Dayton, Ohio

Dear Mr. McKinsey. Heartiest congratulations on the completion of your catalogue of Biblical errors. This is a superb achievement! I wish you well on your TV efforts; perhaps it will attract the attention of those who get their religion from TV. For those of us who usually avoid TV, and have no cable, it will be inaccessible. That is one reason I'd like to join the "scores of people" who have asked you to write a book. I value my 127 editions of BE highly. I often take down my binders and look at the older issues. But I would guess that there are relatively few like me who have every issue. And ring-bound notebooks of duplications of a computer-printout are not the easiest volumes to read. A one volume, thorough inclusion of your commentaries, organized by subject and indexed would be terrific ammunition for anyone wanting to debate biblicists, and as I am certain that there is no more comprehensive point-by-point refutation of the book, it would become a standard reference book as useful in one hundred years as it is now, and as a book, much more accessible than TV tapes.

I urge you, therefore, to do more than consider writing a book sometime in the future. It cannot be published too soon. Dennis, you have my admiration for the superb service you have done. I'll look forward to hearing about whatever new projects you undertake.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Over the years many people have asked us to write a book about the Bible's inadequacies and because the essentials of a very comprehensive work can be found in the transcripts of 24 recently completed audio tapes, we have decided to comply with their request. An abbreviated version of the book encompassing 3 of 24 chapters, a preface, and a table of contents is now available for review by any interested publishers readers may suggest. The final stimulus for this undertaking came from Paul Kurtz of Prometheus Books who sent us a letter in July stating that he would be delighted to consider any proposal we may have. Although we declined his initial suggestion because of so many other irons-in-the-fire, we decided to reconsider the matter and phoned him a month later to accept his kind offer. Because he stated he would like to review an abidged version of any manuscript we might seek to publish, in mid-October our abbreviated version of 75 pages was sent to him for analysis.