We have all seen babies being sprinkled or dunked in water by someone dressed in religious garb. Not only is the act of purifying someone who has never committed a morally reprehensible act incongruous, but the ritual itself is biblically unsupportable. Occasionally an apologist provides a correct response to biblical questions, and just such an answer is tendered by DeHaan to the query of whether or not infant baptism is taught in the Bible. He states, "...Carefully studying my Bible, I found that infant baptism is nowhere taught or even suggested in the Scriptures. It is a doctrine of the church which is certainly not founded upon the Word of God, but is a remnant of Roman Catholicism. There is not a clear instance of it in the Bible, and no trace of it until three hundred years after Pentecost. It is a wholly unscriptural doctrine of man...." DeHaan's analysis is correct.

     Moving further, apologists claim that the angel of the Lord that reappeared several times in the OT was actually Jesus Christ. On page 57 DeHaan is asked where the Bible states that "the Angel of the Lord always refers to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament?" DeHaan responds by saying, "There is no direct statement which says in so many exact words that the 'angel of the Lord' is always the Lord Jesus, but it is rather on the accumulation of evidence where the term occurs in Scripture. From the various passages where the expression, 'the angel of the Lord,' occurs, it is quite evident that it is the second Person of the Trinity who is there, and who is the spokesman for the Trinity itself. We call this a 'theophany,' or an appearing of Jesus Christ in human form before His incarnation in Bethlehem. As is true of other doctrines of Scripture, we cannot put our finger on any one particular passage which states in so many words that this is true, but we have to assume it from the revelation." To say DeHaan is flying by the seat of his pants is an understatement. First, there is not only no "direct" statement saying so, but no "indirect" statement saying so, either. Second, there is not only a lack of "exact words" saying the angel of the Lord is Jesus Christ but a notable lack of "inexact words". Third, what "accumulation of evidence" is he referring to? He doesn't provide a shred of proof, let alone an accumulation. Fourth, in no way is it "quite evident" that the second Person of a Trinity is present. Fifth, DeHaan can call it a "theophany" or any other term he and his compatriots may wish to concoct, but it's not biblically sustainable. The evidence is weak at best and wholly unprovable in a court of law. And lastly, why do "we have to assume" Jesus appeared in the OT other than to satisfy the unsupportable Christian yearning for OT signs of the Trinity? Just because they are desperate for biblical assistance to their theological imaginings does not mean the rest of us have to follow suit. Much has been asserted but nothing proven. Interestingly enough, DeHaan ignored his own warning found on page 95, "Many Bible teachers and evangelists find things in the Bible which even the Lord did not place there." He would do well to heed his own advice.

     Just to show readers the extent to which biblicists let their imaginations run wild through Scripture, we might note DeHaan's answer to the following question on page 96: Is the atomic bomb mentioned in Scripture, specifically Psalm 137:9, which says, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones?" He responds by saying, "In regard to your question concerning Psalm 137:9, we would refer you to Isaiah 13:16 ('Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished'). The latter verse contains the same expression, and this is evidently referring to the atomic bomb in the judgment of the Lord during the tribulation, as seen in verses 13 and 14 of Isaiah 13 ('Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of Hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger...')." Children being dashed against stones and smashed into pieces is equivalent to atomic war? How DeHaan made this leap in logic is anyone's guess, and we are hearing this from a man with a doctorate degree. Shaking the heavens and moving the earth are far too vague to draw reliable conclusions. Assertions of this nature demonstrate why children should be kept as far from biblical indoctrination and "reasoning" as possible. Information within the verses themselves shows that they have nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Would people be concerned with ravishing wives and stealing from homes during atomic attack? More than likely concerns of this kind would be near the bottom of their list of priorities. Self-preservation, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be near the top. And would God employ the atomic bomb during the time of tribulation when his powers are far more potent?

     On page 96 DeHaan confronts one of those problems that all biblicists would do well to flee. He is asked: How do you reconcile the Book of Ecclesiastes with the rest of Scripture? Specifically, DeHaan addresses the problem presented by Eccle. 1:9 ("The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun") by saying, "...Solomon speaks here not of the spiritual man, but of the physical man, and tells us that there is nothing new which man has ever discovered. All the inventions and discoveries of science are based upon the things which God has already placed in nature, so that he is only applying the laws and the materials which God has already created in making the things which we call new inventions. In this respect, there is 'nothing new under the sun'."

     DeHaan is attempting to restrict the comment in Ecclesiastes to unformed matter and the natural laws by which it operates. But we are talking about more than just the ingredients out of which things are made. The arrangement of the materials is as important as the materials themselves. Airplanes, automobiles, computers, refrigerators, and millions of other items did not exist before 1800. Certainly their material components and the natural laws by which they operated were present, but all of the configurations in which they can lie vis a vis one another were by no means exhausted. So there are new things under the sun afterall.

      On page 122 DeHaan is asked if Luke 14:26 ("If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple") teaches us to hate our parents. He responds by saying, "The word, 'hate,' in Luke 14:26 is a comparative word in the Greek and not an absolute word. It means that the tender love we have for our fathers and mothers and loved ones is like hatred in comparison with the love that we have for the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord certainly does not tell us to hate our loved ones." Several problems accompany his explanation. First, if what DeHaan says is true, then the translators of the NASB, the NIV, the NWT, the NEB, the ASV, the JB, the KJ, the RSV, and the BBE are incompetent, because every one of these versions uses the word "hate," when they could just as easily have said "love less." According to DeHaan, who is no more of a Greek scholar than those who translated these versions, the verse should have been translated as, "If any man come to me, and does not love his (relatives--Ed.)...less than me, he cannot be my disciple." The difference between "love less" and "hate" is not only quantitative but qualitative. "Hate" is absolute in nature, while "love less" is not. Choosing between the two represents a major distinction in translation, which the translators of the previously-mentioned versions were no doubt aware of. Yet, they chose "hate" over "love less." Second, according to Strong's Concordance the word comes from the Greek word "miseo" which means "to detest (especially to persecute); by extension to love less:--hate (ful)." Detest clearly means more than just to "love less" and no doubt explains why the translators opted for the word "hate." Third, in 38 other instances in which the Greek word "miseo" is used in the NT it is translated as "hate" not "love less." Like so many apologists, DeHaan is grasping for the highest straw in the bunch because he can't think of another excuse. And lastly, DeHaan says, "The Lord certainly does not tell us to hate our loved ones" when he just did. How much clearer could the text be. What would Jesus have to say to convince him that that is exactly what he intended? Jesus is saying you must reject everything in this world, even your closest companions, if you want to be his disciple. How would Jesus have to phrase his admonition to convince DeHaan that that's precisely what he means? To resort to the common defense--that's what it says but that's not what it means--is to grasp for a thin string indeed.

     On page 133 DeHaan, like so many other apologists, became entangled in the perennial problem of whether or not one can be saved without the Gospel. After being asked if the heathen can be saved without the Gospel, he responds by saying, "In regard to your question concerning Romans 1:19-20, the Bible is plain that there can be no salvation apart from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in the God of creation is not enough. However, we must remember that God is a just and righteous God, and the heathen who have never heard the Gospel will be judged by the light which they had. The judgment of the heathen will be infinitely lighter than that of those who have heard the Word and then rejected it." Apparently DeHaan doesn't realize that he has fallen into a theological quicksand bog. He began by saying everyone had to believe in Jesus in order to be saved, and then reversed himself by saying that the heathen who have never heard the Gospel are exempted. They will be judged by whatever light they have. Regardless of the light they have, it is not the light of Jesus Christ. So how could they be saved under the criterion he himself established? Either they have Jesus or they don't. There is no in between. They are either saved or they aren't. If they are saved by whatever light they had, then, in effect, belief in Jesus is not mandatory. Secondly, if "the judgment of the heathen will be infinitely lighter than that of those who have heard the Word and rejected it," then justice becomes a mockery, because a dual standard rules the roost. People will be judged more leniently or stringently because of where or when they were born, and that's injustice in action. Yet, Deut. 32:4 says God is just. Moreover, missionaries are disserving the heathen immensely, because the latter's salvation is virtually assured until the former appear on the scene.

      On page 136 DeHaan is asked what Romans 14:5-6 ("One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it") teaches in regard to observing a sabbath. He responds by saying, "The Christian has no sabbath. The Lord's day is not a command, but a privilege, and Romans 14:5-6 has to do with our liberty in Christ. The spirit, not the day, is of the greatest importance." DeHaan doesn't seem to realize that he has, in effect, abolished the fourth commandment found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. What does he mean by saying the Christian has no sabbath? If that's true, then how can he adhere to the fourth commandment? How can he observe a day he denies exists? What is he doing to heed the fourth commandment? How can DeHaan say "the Lord's day is not a command, but a privilege," when Exodus 20:8 says, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work...." According to DeHaan you can obey or ignore the fourth commandment at will; you don't have to honor any day, be it the sabbath or the Lord's Day. If the spirit is all that matters, then any day could arbitrarily be deemed the sabbath and THE sabbath is fiction. You can call any day the sabbath or ignore it entirely, which hardly represents an adherence to the fourth commandment.

In regard to the same issue, DeHaan is asked on page 173 to explain the difference between the sabbath and the Lord's Day. He replies by saying, "Saturday is still the Jewish sabbath, but certainly not the Christian's. Sunday is not a sabbath, but the Lord's Day and the day of the resurrection. Saturday Christ spent in death; on the first day He rose from death.... The sabbath was a command to Israel. The Lord's day is a privilege for Christians. The sabbath has never been changed." Talk about perverting scripture and poor thought processes! In the first place, what does he mean by saying "Saturday is still the Jewish sabbath, but certainly not the Christian's." There are two sabbaths? How absurd! A "Christian sabbath" is unbiblical. Secondly, the 4th commandment says we are to observe the sabbath, not the Lord's Day. What difference does it make when the Lord's Day occurs when we are told to observe the sabbath? That's what matters! Whether or not the Lord's Day is a privilege or an obligation is irrelevant, since nothing is said about paying it homage. Third, since when did the fourth commandment become applicable only to Israel? It applies to everyone. Fourth, by DeHaan's own admission the sabbath has never been changed; therefore, the seventh day, Saturday, is the only day mankind is obligated to observe. And lastly, DeHaan admits Sunday is not the sabbath, and if that is true, then mankind is not obligated to observe Sunday in any event.

And finally, on page 209 DeHaan is asked: If Christ kept the law before Calvary, was he not breaking the law by plucking ears of corn on the sabbath day as recorded in Matthew 12:1? He answers by saying, "You are making the same mistake the Adventists and a great many others make in not distinguishing between the Law, and the traditions of the Law. When Christ 'violated the sabbath,' as you say, by picking corn, He was violating the 'tradition' of the Pharisees and the Scribes. Jesus Himself laid down the principle that it is good to do good on the Sabbath Day. If you will remember that it was 'tradition,' that Jesus violated, and not the 'Law of God,' I think you will have the solution to your problem." The only one making a mistake is DeHaan. People don't distinguish between the Law and "traditions of the Law" because no clearly defined biblical distinction is made, and that's a pretty good reason. If DeHaan tries to find textual support for his wholly arbitrary differentiation, he'll find the only one with a problem is himself. If plucking ears of corn on the sabbath can be relegated to the "traditions of men" category, then so can just about every other OT mandate. As was noted by his biblical critics, Jesus plucked ears of corn on the sabbath in clear violation of the law, and that's about all that needs to be said on that subject without becoming involved in maze of rationalization and obfuscation.

On page 27 Stewart says, "The Bible is a unity, one unfolding account from beginning to end in complete harmony and continuity." To that one can't help but reply: Read the book with a more discerning eye, my friend. If there is anything the Bible is not, it is harmonious.

Two pages later Stewart says, "Unfortunately, many who practice biblical criticism assume nothing in the Bible is true unless it is proved correct by some outside source. Scripture is assumed to be in error until some evidence can be brought up to substantiate its trustworthiness." Stewart's prejudice against biblical critics is all too obvious. The latter don't assume the Bible is erroneous throughout; in fact, they don't assume much of anything. But they do ask for proof. And when the only "proof" that is forthcoming in far too many instances is testimony from a book that is saturated with errors, contradictions, and supernatural events, they understandably discount its reliability. When I am told to believe in something by a book that is not only inconsistent but says people rose from the dead, sticks turned into snakes, donkey's talked, people walked on water and iron ax heads floated, you can understand my skepticism. Stewart does not hesitate to reject Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythological literature when they speak of fantastic events. Yet he races to embrace Christian mythology, which is no less incredible.

Then Stewart says, "The benefit of the doubt should be given to the Bible, not to the critic, and the work should be assumed to be correct until some evidence is brought forth contradicting what has been said." Again we are confronted with the time-honored tactic so often exhibited by those of a superstitious/religious mentality--shift the burden of proof. Instead of proving their assertions are true, they claim the latter are valid until opponents can prove they aren't. As has been noted previously, if this position were credible, every crackpot theory imaginable would be valid until proven false. No, the burden of proof lies on him who alleges. Those who make an assertion are obligated to prove it is true; opponents are not obligated to prove it is false. And until proven valid; it's not to be accepted as true.

On page 80 Stewart states, "Today, no serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus. The fact that Jesus lived is an established historical fact." Don't be ridiculous! It is by no means an established historical fact. A significant number of scholars doubt Jesus lived, not so much because they can prove he didn't, as that his adherents can't prove he did. After all, the burden of proof lies on the latter.

On the next page Stewart states, "... disciples were eventually transformed from cowards to martyrs. Because of the influence of Jesus, men's lives were radically altered." Stewart contends we shouldn't rely so heavily on extra-biblical information, when that is the only source of data he could possibly use to substantiate his martyrdom proposition. Nowhere does the Bible state that the disciples of Jesus were transformed from cowards to martyrs. That isn't biblically sustainable.

And finally, on page 91 Stewart says, "...every time Satan spoke, he lied." How does he square that comment with Luke 4:41, which says, "And devils came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And Jesus rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ'." Or are we supposed to believe devils can tell the truth but The Devil cannot? And what about Gen. 3:4, in which The Devil told Eve she would not die on the day she ate the forbidden fruit? Since Eve relayed the message to Adam and he lived to be 930 years old after eating the fruit, it is safe to conclude the Devil told the truth.

Editor's Response to Letter #575 (Part a)
Dear JL.
      Your fundamentalist acquaintance is attempting to employ a subtle shift in focus to escape what is otherwise a cul-de-sac. The first part of his answer, which includes everything but the last sentence, focuses on information that isn't even relevant. What difference does it make if Jesus was sinless or died for the sins of others? We aren't discussing his death; we are discussing his resurrection. That's the issue. And if his resurrection "was the crowning statement that the power of death had been broken," then some of his predecessors broke the power of death as well. <
      As far as the last sentence is concerned, he is attempting to link the resurrection to immaterial considerations. We are talking about the resurrection, per se, not factors relative to the character of the one being resurrected. Paul said it is the resurrection that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again or was superior to those who rose before.
      Incidentally, how does he know these people died again? That's not stated in scripture. Perhaps they went straight to heaven like Elijah in the chariot.
(TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT MONTH)

Letter #576 from DP of Ann Arbor, Michigan
Dear Dennis.
      Congratulations on your fine work in BE. I look forward to examining the outcome of your association with Prometheus Books. I have one small criticism. You frequently say, as in Issue 135, page 4, "The burden of proof is on he who alleges."
      I certainly agree with your meaning, but the pronoun should be "him", not "he". It's the object of the preposition "on" (the clause "who alleges" is an adjective clause modifying the objective pronoun him.) If the adjective clause modifying the pronoun is omitted, one can clearly see that the objective form of the pronoun is required. Your assertion could read: The burden of proof is on him who alleges. OR, if you prefer, The burden of proof is on the one who alleges (or the person who alleges). It's just a small point, but it makes English teachers and editors grind their teeth (I've been both of those). You are doing a brilliant job, a superlative job. Don't stop.

Editor's Response to Letter #576
Dear DP.
      I thought "who" was merely a repeat of "he" and both were subjects of the verb "alleges". Apparently I'm mistaken, in view of the fact that other knowledgeable subscribers recently sent us correspondence corroborating your observation. Corrections of this nature are always welcome and accepted in a spirit of respect.

Editor's Response to Letter #577
      Your kind comments are most appreciated and although I am not a professional writer or editor, I'd enjoy either role.

Letter #578 from DW of Marietta, Georgia
Dear Dennis.
      I received and read my free sample issue of "Biblical Errancy" and have a few comments. I like the content, I like the format, I like the length, I like the price and I admire your style, your courage and your intransigent approach -- SIGN ME UP!....

COLQUHOUN'S HARD QUESTIONS:
     On pages 112 and 113 of apologist Frank Colquhoun's dull book entitled Hard Questions the author addresses the topic of prayer and says, "It's not so much getting what you want as asking God to give you what he wants. Even Jesus prayed 'Your will be done' when he spoke to his Father." If that's true, then why bother praying? Why ask for what you are going to receive, regardless, since that's what God wants? Later Colquhoun says, "What then is the point of praying? Surely the only answer to that must be that God tells us to because he wants us to learn to depend on him and to align our needs and wishes with his will." What kind of an explanation is that? How can you align your needs and wishes with an uncertain will? Biblicists either know God's will or they don't. If they know it, then they can do it. So why pray? If biblicists don't know his will, then praying is nothing more than guesswork. So why pray?

MCDOWELL'S MORE THAN A CARPENTER:
     On page 19 in his little book entitled More Than a Carpenter apologist Josh McDowell says, "Since none but God can forgive sins, it is conclusively demonstrated that Christ, since he forgave sins, is God." This argument no more proves Christ is God than a comparable claim by any street charlatan. Jesus may say an individual's sins are forgiven, but that doesn't mean they are. Just because someone makes an assertion doesn't mean it's true. If I met someone on the street and told him I forgave his sins, would that prove I am god or his sins were actually forgiven? Hardly! What evidence can biblicists provide to show that sins were forgiven by Jesus other than assertions of the latter and his accomplices? Saying something doesn't make it true, especially comments that are self-serving.

STEWART'S 101 QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK MOST ABOUT JESUS:
     On page 17 in this paperback edition apologist Don Stewart says, "Therefore, the question of the existence of Jesus is not an issue. Twenty-seven separate documents (the books of the NT--Ed.) written by people who had personal contact with Jesus testify to the fact that he did, indeed, exist. We add to their testimony that of the Jews and the Romans. Neither of these groups believed in Jesus.... Yet they never denied that he existed. Thus we can confidently say that the issue of Jesus' existence is not an issue at all. Every source, friendly and unfriendly, testified that he existed."
     This is the kind of deceptive apologetic reasoning critics of the Bible should always be on the alert for. Stewart starts from a wrong assumption, proceeds wrong, and concludes wrong. First, the existence of Jesus is very much an issue, and is by no means settled. Second, he relies primarily upon a book, the NT, which is in total agreement with his basic premise. He is using a book to prove the validity of the book itself, the essence of circular reasoning. Third, scholars certainly do not agree that the authors of the various NT books had personal contact with Jesus. They not only clash over who wrote what books, but, even more importantly, when they were written. Fourth, Stewart began by saying the Jews and Romans never said Jesus did not exist, but concluded by saying every friendly and unfriendly source testified that he existed. There is a vast difference between these two assertions. The first is essentially one of neutrality with respect to the existence of Jesus; while the second denotes a strong belief in his prior existence. Stewart might be able to substantiate the first position, which has always been the stance of this publication, but he'll never be able to prove the latter is valid. Even today, plenty of "unfriendly" sources would never testify that Jesus existed, especially when his supporters have provided so little evidence that he did. For Stewart to allege that "every friendly and unfriendly source testified that Jesus existed" is ridiculous. That's never been the case.
     Stewart says on page 34 with respect to another topic, "Jesus was unique in His victory over death--the Resurrection." We have already shown in prior issues that this event is by no means unique, since many biblical figures rose from the dead before Jesus. No matter how many times they extol its distinctiveness, the Resurrection remains a bland occurrence from a biblical perspective.
     On page 110 in the same book Stewart says the ministry of Jesus "was attested by miracles. He offered the proper credentials as the Messiah, yet they did not believe". He completely ignored biblical testimony to the effect that the ability to do miracles is not to be used to establish one's credentials as the messiah. According to Matt. 24:23-24/Mark 13:21-22 ("For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect") and Rev. 19:20 ("the beast was taken, and with him, the false prophet that wrought miracles before him....") false christs and false prophets can not only perform miracles, but fool the elect as well. Second Thess. 2:9 ("...Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders...") proves Satan himself can perform miracles. Even the pharaoh's magicians can execute miracles, according to Ex. 7:10-11, 21-22, and 8:6-7. So the ability to perform miracles is not to be used as a criterion by which to identify the messiah, because it also lies within the purview of false prophets, false christs, Satan, and magicians.

Editor's Response to Letter #575 (Part b)
      How did your fundamentalist friend manage to cram so much palaver into such a small paragraph, JL? First, the passages I used are neither isolated nor of little weight. Several were mentioned, including Eccle. 3:19-21 (RSV) which states, "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has NO ADVANTAGE over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?" To say this passage is of little weight is absurd, although I can understand apologists wishing that were true. He's trying to ignore Ecclesiastes because it doesn't fit his preconceptions of what the Bible should say. The fact that other biblical verses say the opposite does not invalidate what is said in Ecclesiastes, but only proves the Bible is contradictory. Running to other verses and claiming they are more valid because they say what he wants to hear, and picking and choosing according to conditions is anything but objective scholarship. Second, insofar as Ecclesiastes is concerned, one need only read the entire chapter to see that the contextual argument isn't going to save the day. There is nothing either before or after the text that invalidates the clear intent of the words. The format of Ecclesiastes is similar to that of Proverbs, in which a series of statements are made on a variety of topics. Consequently, the contextual argument has little or no applicability. Third, what difference does it make if Ecclesiastes is reflecting the negative conclusions and musings of the author as long as its contents reflect biblical doctrine? Since when do biblical teachings have to be positive and uplifting? Fourth, how does your fundamentalist acquaintance know Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes? Every version I have says the book was written by the Preacher, the son of David, who was king in Jerusalem. David had many sons and only one was king in Jerusalem? Fifth, how does your fundamentalist friend know that comments in Ecclesiastes "do not necessarily reflect doctrinal statements?" Is that stated somewhere? If he can use that defense, then nearly every statement in the Bible is up for grabs and can be discarded on the pretext that it "does not necessarily reflect biblical doctrine." What are his criteria for valid doctrinal statements? How does he know what is bona fide and what isn't? When he says "they do not necessarily reflect doctrinal statements," he is obligated to prove otherwise, since they are, in fact, scriptural. If a comment is scriptural, do we assume it is doctrinal until proven otherwise, or do we assume it is non-doctrinal until proven doctrinal? Not surprisingly, when distasteful comments, such as those found in Ecclesiastes, are under consideration, our fundamentalist acquaintance opts for the latter.

Letter #575 Concludes (Part c)
     Finally, you assert that the resurrection is not nearly as important as other events in the Bible by saying, "Our FIFTH AUDIO COMMENTARY states the resurrection is of no real consequence when compared to other events. How many people came into the world as full-grown adults as did Adam and Eve in Gen. 1:27 and Gen. 2:7? Elijah never died at all; he just went straight to heaven in 2 Kings 2:11. According to Gen.5:22-24 Enoch never died either. He, too, went straight to heaven. In Gen. 18:11 and Gen. 21:1-3 Isaac was born to a woman who had passed through menopause, and according to Heb. 7:1-3 Melchisedec had no father, no mother, no beginning, and no end...Jesus never topped that. At least he had a father and a mother."

My resident Christian has the following feedback,

"...It is true that there are other supernatural events recounted in the Bible, which fill out the picture of the revelation; however, the resurrection of Jesus, as noted above, has unique qualities as those associated with the promised Redeemer (messiah) which is pivotal for the Christian message. Read 1 Cor. 15 and you will see that the resurrection is crucial for the gospel that Paul preached. He himself stated that if Christ be not raised then the Christian faith is futile and that Christians, above all people of the world, should be pitied (presumably for their naivete and gullibility). Read Revelation 5:9-10. Here the statement is made that the Lamb (Christ) overcame by his death and resurrection. This accomplishment makes him worthy to open the seals of God's book of judgment on the earth, as recounted in the fifth chapter of Revelation. It should be read in context. Rev. 1:18 has Jesus saying that he was dead and is now alive forevermore."
      I consider myself a novice at this; that is why I am feeding this Christian's responses directly to you. Hopefully, you can either send me a reply directly or publish this letter and your reply in your next issue of Biblical Errancy. Whatever you decide, I will look forward to your response.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #575 (Part c)
      I fail to see the relevance of your resident Christian's response, JL. All he is doing is reemphasizing the alleged importance of the resurrection to humanity. But that's not what I asked; that's not the issue. I want to know what makes the event, itself, so unusual, in light of the fact that others rose from the dead before Jesus, and participated in acts that were far more spectacular. For obvious reasons, he wants to concentrate on its ramifications, rather than the event per se.

Letter #579 from CK of Bloomfield, New Jersey
Dear Mr. McKinsey.
     In regard to your discussion on whether the words "dung" and "piss" are pornographic, I would have to disagree with that categorization. The dictionary labels "piss" as vulgar, but "dung" is in no way so annotated. I wouldn't even venture to guess, however, how either word was considered at the time of translation of the King James Bible, and the words can only be judged in that context. The NRSV uses "urine." Ultimately it rests upon some Hebrew word, to whose connotations we have even less a clue. As for "pornographic", that usually implies some sexual context, and that is absent in the cited verses. I never understood myself why some synonyms are considered vulgar and others are not.... Intrinsically, no set of phonemes or letters is offensive--it's only in the trained ear of the listener, and eye of the reader....

Editor's Response to Letter #579
Dear CK.
     According to my Webster's New World Thesaurus pornography is comparable to obscene literature, vulgarity, smut, salaciousness, prurience, and grossness. And since the word "piss" is rather vulgar, to say the least, I think it can be reasonably classified as pornographic. Technically speaking, the word "pornography" probably does pertain to lewd sexual activity, but that is not the manner in which it is generally employed today. Secondly, how the words were originally used when the KJV was translated is not as important as how the words are currently viewed, especially by children. Whether words are intrinsically offensive is of less importance than the fact that they are viewed as salacious by today's reader. Incidentally, if you traced the Hebrew origins of the word "dung" you would find that the latter is translated from a word that would have been more offensive if it had been translated literally rather than euphemistically. It's reminiscent of the comment by Abraham to his servant in Gen. 24:2 that the latter should swear an oath by putting "thy hand under my thigh." That's a sanitized version of where the hand was really placed when an oath was sworn. In Gen. 47:29 Jacob told Joseph to put his hand on the former's male organ when he swore an oath as well.

Letter #581 from SC of La Honda, California
Dear Dennis.
     We ordered your publication kind of like a kid sending in a boxtop for a plastic slingshot; imagine our delight when we received instead a high-quality, fully loaded bazooka! Great information to fuel anti-biblical debating. So, we'd like to get some more ammunition, please.

Letter #582 from JT of Williamsport, Penn.
Dennis....
      I continue to be amazed at the work you've put into the tapes! I've never run across their equal anywhere else....

Letter #583 from KB of Santa Barbara, California
Dear Mr. McKinsey. ...
     You have been an inspiration to many freethinkers, including myself. You have the ability to put into words the thoughts and beliefs that I've had all my life....

Letter #584 from BW of Shreveport, Louisiana
Dear Dennis.
      Don't let my subscription expire!... Your publication is a valuable resource for freethinkers. I mention it every chance I get. Keep up the good work.

Editor's Response to Letter #584
Dear BW.
     Your kind words, like those of PC, SC, JT, and KB, are warmly received.

Letter #580 from MJ of Andover, Mass. (Part a)
Dear Dennis.
      I listened to some tapes by the Christian apologist Walter Martin. He says that the most common intellectual error skeptics make is to accuse Christians of using the book's own words to substantiate its validity, in essence claiming it's the word of God because it says so. But, Martin responds, the Bible is not one book, but many! It was written by some 50 odd people from different cultures and times, so that establishes legitimate independent corroboration.
      My response would be, yes, I agree it was written by some 50 odd people (pun optional) but 50 people, each from a different state, claiming an Elvis sighting doesn't constitute solid independent corroboration. Or, as Ingersoll said, "If 50,000 people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
      I'd be interested in how you would respond to this issue, because I'm sure many Christians have jumped on this rationalization to support their use of the Bible's own assertions as evidence for its validity.

Editor's Response to Letter #580 (Part a)
Dear MJ.
      Either the Bible is one book or a compilation of 66 books; it's either one or the other. It can't be both. And evidence leads to the conclusion that it's one book rather than many for several reasons. First, if it's merely a compilation of 66 books, then each book would have to make a separate and independent claim that it is the word of God, and many do not. Where do the Books of Esther or the Song of Solomon, for example, say they are the inspired word of God? In fact, the words "God" and "Lord" don't appear in either. Since the Bible does not claim to be God's word very often, it must be considered a unity for many of the books to be considered divinely inspired. Secondly, one need only read the Bible to see that the work is not only sequential, especially with reference to the Old Testament, but interdependent as well. If I walked into any library and took 66 books off the library shelves at random, the chance of their being as interrelated, interdependent, sequential, similarly focused and concurrently scripted as the Bible, is almost non-existent. Thirdly, if the Epistles from Romans to Hebrews were all written by Paul, as fundamentalists claim, they could hardly vouch for the authenticity of one another. Would you believe a book merely because 13 other books written by the same author testified to its reliability? Fourthly, even if the Bible were viewed as merely a compilation of 66 books and not a book itself, critics are still well within their rights to ask what evidence exists outside of these 66 books to substantiate the validity of much of that which is contained therein. Fifthly, and most important of all, what difference does it make whether or not the Bible is one book or merely a compilation of 66 separate books? If one part of a book contradicts another part of the same book, you have as strong a contradiction as you would have if something in one book contradicted something in another entirely different book. A contradiction is a contradiction, regardless of the source. I don't know what "skeptics" Martin is referring to, but if he thinks the most common intellectual error they make is to accuse Christians of using the book's own words to substantiate its validity, then apparently I am exempted, because this tactic has never been a significant ingredient in my approach. My focus has never been upon determining what part of the book or books tends to substantiate another part of the same book or books. Instead, I have tried to expose those parts which disprove the Bible's perfection by revealing one part's contradiction of another. After all, in the final analysis what is a contradiction? Essentially it is nothing more than a statement by one passage that another passage is lying. Lawyers, scientists, politicians, and everyone else concerned with the compilation and utilization of data spend a lot of time trying to find, expose, or camouflage contradictions. From media interviews and economic analyses to scientific assertions and political philosophizing, the process of detecting contradictions is central to logical thought. Comedians, for instance, would be out of business without them. They lie at the very core of their profession.

Letter # 580 from PC of Donalsonville, Georgia
Greetings...
     My son is a fundamentalist Baptist minister. I have now shaken his position due to your publication, mostly. His deceased mother misguided his education and endeavors. I was traveling abroad at the time. He is now 51 years old. It isn't easy to endure a change in his life's pursuits, since there is his livelihood. ...You are indeed an unusual person who ventures forth with the sword of truth against odds approaching the incredible.

Letter #581 from SC of La Honda, California
Dear Dennis.
      We ordered your publication kind of like a kid sending in a boxtop for a plastic slingshot; imagine our delight when we received instead a high-quality, fully loaded bazooka! Great information to fuel anti-biblical debating. So, we'd like to get some more ammunition, please.

Letter #582 from JT of Williamsport, Penn.
Dennis....
      I continue to be amazed at the work you've put into your tapes! I've never run across their equal anywhere else....

Letter #583 from KB of Santa Barbara, California
Dear Mr. McKinsey ...
     You have been an inspiration to many freethinkers, including myself. You have the ability to put into words the thoughts and beliefs that I've had all my life....

Letter #584 from BW of Shreveport, Louisiana
Dear Dennis.
     Don't let my subscription expire!.... Your publication is a valuable resource for freethinkers. I mention it every chance I get. Keep up the good work.

Editor's Response to Letter #584
Dear BW.
      We are only too happy to be of service. Your accolades, like those of PC, SC, JT, and KB, are received with heartfelt thanks. Without the support of people like you, our efforts would be all but fruitless. After all we can't do it alone, and see little potential in trying.

JOHNSON'S SO THE BIBLE IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS? (Part 2)
     One of the most prominent nonquotes in Scripture is found in Matt. 27:9-10, which says, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued...And gave them for the potter's field...." The act of buying a potter's field for the 30 pieces of silver was supposedly a fulfillment of a prophecy in Jeremiah. Unfortunately for apologists The Book of Jeremiah contains no such prophecy. Johnson says on pages 68 and 69 in this regard, "Matthew is charged with making a mistake by saying that Jeremiah spoke about 30 pieces of silver, when in reality it was Zechariah who made the statement. John Calvin is reported to have said about this: 'How the name of Jeremiah crept in I confess I do not know, nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake instead of Zechariah, for in Jeremiah we find nothing of the sort, nor anything that even approaches it.' The Dean of Westminster quoted this passage to prove that Gospel narratives are not necessarily 'historical accounts of what actually occurred.'
      Alford calls it a 'slip of the pen.' Augustine said that Matthew was only quoting 'from memory.' John Haley commented: 'It is obviously a mistake, either made by Matthew or by subsequent transcribers. The prophecy was uttered by Zechariah, not Jeremiah'."
      Johnson suggests that "a more probable solution comes when we realize that Matthew does not say it was written by Jeremiah, but 'spoken by Jeremiah.' It is not an uncommon thing for the men who were used by God to write the NT to give in writing for the first time verbal utterances of some of the OT saints.... It may well be that there were sayings of some of the prophets that were handed down orally."
      Again we are faced with some typical apologetic distortions of Scripture. Johnson wants us to believe that "spoken by Jeremy the Prophet" does not mean it was written by him. Yet, this flies in the face of that which can be found elsewhere in the Book of Matthew. Matthew 1:22 says "all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying" and the text then goes on to repeat Isaiah 7:14. In other words, it was written. Matthew 2:15 says "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying" and the text then goes on to quote Hosea 11:1. Matthew 2:17 says "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet saying" and the text then goes on to quote Jeremiah 31:15. Matthew 3:3 says "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah saying" and the text goes on to quote Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 22:31, and 27:35 continue the same pattern. Every time Matthew said something was spoken by an OT source, he clearly meant it was actually written down. When Matthew used the word "spoken" he meant "written", not mere verbal communication. So when Matthew said something was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, the problem becomes one of finding it in the Book of Jeremiah, which is impossible.
      Johnson resorts to an even weaker defense by citing J. Sidlow Baxter's explanation. The latter states in regard to the absence of anything of relevance in Jeremiah, "Perhaps we need say no more on this point. It is not one on which anyone can speak with absolute finality at the moment; but we have said enough to show that Matthew's reference to Jeremiah might be no problem at all if we had fuller information. Matthew may have been writing with the knowledge and precision upon which we ourselves are quite incompetent to pass any critical judgment. We do not now possess all the data required for a final verdict...." Baxter's defense borders upon the pathetic, because it amounts to nothing more than saying: "There is an explanation; we just don't have a handle on it at present." His explanation is an amalgam of speculation and pure conjecture. While admitting he has no answer, he's claiming one exists. Apparently Baxter doesn't realize that if his premise were to rule the roost, an incredible number of preposterous claims would have to be given credence, on the grounds that substantial and convincing evidence currently unavailable will eventually materialize. Under this criterion I could claim I have the ability to raise people from the dead, and will eventually prove as much. I could claim to be god incarnate and will eventually substantiate my allegation. I could claim I am the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln and will provide substantive proof in due time. After all, can my detractors conclusively prove I am not god incarnate or the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln or that I am unable to resurrect others? We have again returned to the Achilles heal of superstitious thought: The burden of proof lies on him who alleges. Baxter is obligated to prove that sufficient data and convincing proof is available, and until he does, Matthew's comment is erroneous.
      On page 72 Johnson confronted another problem which he would have done well to have ignored. I'm always amazed at the willingness of apologists to tackle quandries for which they are ill prepared. What's the old adage: Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. Prudent individuals realize when they are in over their heads and back out. But not our apologetic respondents. They plow ahead like bulls in a mine field, utterly oblivious to the fact that their explanation does little more than corroborate the problem's implacability. That can't help but say something about their intellectual capabilities.
      In any event, Johnson addresses the clash between Mark 6:5 ("And Jesus could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them") and Matt. 28:18 ("And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth") by saying, "The first verse speaks of the time when Jesus went to Nazareth. Because Nazareth was His hometown, the people there were offended at Him and did not believe in Him, thus he could do no mighty works there. The second verse says that He has all power. Once again we have a seeming contradiction.... It may surprise some to know that there are some things God and Christ cannot do, but as we read the Bible, we find this is so. Young says, 'God's inability is moral. In the material world He can do everything; in the moral and spiritual world God is confronted with glorious impossibilities.' There is nothing physically impossible for Christ. He said, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.' Morally, He cannot do some things."
      Johnson's rationalization is fatally flawed in several respects. First, he says God is limited in what he can do in the moral world but "in the material world God can do everything." If Johnson is going to talk about an omnipotent being, then commentators are well within their rights to discuss omnipotent feats. Again, we ask if God can create another being with powers exceeding his own. Can God create something too heavy for him to lift? Can God annihilate himself and then reappear? Can God create a square circle or a two-sided triangle? Can god count to infinity? These are not trivial, childish, or flippant questions, because they go to the heart of this omnipotent being in which Johnson places so much faith. They show he is, in fact, limited in his physical capabilities. Limitations in one area open up the possibility of limitations in other areas. Even more importantly, once limitations are admitted, the same crack appears in divine infallibility that appears in biblical inerrancy when contradictions are exposed. Secondly, Johnson directly contradicted himself when he quoted Jesus as saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," and followed that up by saying, "Morally, He cannot do some things." Either he has all power or he doesn't. There is no in between. And if he has all power, then there are no moral feats he can't commit, regardless of their nature. If Johnson is trying to say Jesus has all power but merely chooses not to do some things, then he is inaccurate when he says "Morally, He cannot do some things." He can do them, but he just doesn't choose to do so. There's a difference. But Johnson has taken us adrift. That's not what the original verses say. One says he has all power, and the other says he could do there no mighty work. It says he can't do it; it doesn't say he can do it but chooses not to do so. There's a big difference. Johnson is surreptitiously altering Mark 6:5. According to him it should say "he chose there to do no mighty work" and that's dramatically different from "he could there do no mighty work." His rationalization implies that either some people are incompetent translators, or he knows Greek better than a committee of experts. We are again confronted with the "That's what it says, but that's not what it means" strategem.
      One of the most well-known NT conflicts concerns the question of who heard what during Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. On page 86 Johnson addresses the conflict between Acts 9:7 ("And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man") and Acts 22:9 ("And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me"). While submitting the standard defense, he says, "In the first reference we read that they heard the voice, but in the second we are told they heard not the voice. At first glance this looks like a flat contradiction. (That's only because it is--Ed.). The difficulty is easily solved with a little knowledge of the Greek language in which the New Testament was originally written. In the Greek of Acts 9:7, the word voice is in the genitive case, and in Acts 22:9, it is in the accusative case. In the first instance the voice is only heard as a sound. The meaning of what is said is not understood. Those with Paul heard the sound but did not understand the words which Jesus spoke to Paul.... In Acts 22:9 the words translated "the voice" are in the accusative. They did not hear the message of the One who spoke. They heard the voice as a mere sound, but they did not hear the voice as the sound of uttered words."
      To cut through all the verbiage and get to the meat of the matter, all Johnson is saying is that the word "hearing" in Acts 9:7 means only hearing the voice but in Acts 22:9 "heard" means more than mere hearing; it means understanding, which they failed to do. This is another instance of: That's what it says but that's not what it means. If his defense had any merit, then the word "heard" in Acts 22:9 should have been translated as "understood" which is quite different, and the committee of experts who composed Acts 22:9 would have been exposed as incompetent translators. There is a qualitative difference between the word "heard" and the word "understood." Everything audible that is understood had to have been heard, but everything heard certainly does not have to have been understood. Finally, both of the key words come from the same Greek word (akouo). In every instance in the NT where the words "hearing" and "heard" come from this Greek word, they mean hearing as hearing is normally used. Nowhere does it mean to not only hear but understand.
      Moving further, on page 87 Johnson seeks to resolve the conflict between Acts 26:23 ("Christ should suffer, and...be the first that should rise from the dead....") and Luke 7:15 ("And he (a young man--Ed.) that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he (Jesus--Ed.) delivered him to his mother"). In response to this dichotomy Johnson says, "Jesus is said to be the first to rise from the dead, yet we read of others who rose from the dead before Him (see 1 Kings 17:22, 2 Kings 4:32-35, 13:21, Matt. 9:18-25, Luke 7:11-15, John 11:43-44). The solution to this seeming contradiction is that Christ was the first to be raised into an endless life over which death has no power. 'Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him' (Rom. 6:9). All others who were raised passed through death again...." Johnson's constant reliance upon the "That's what it says but that's not what it means approach" leaves us no alternative but to suggest that he write his own version of the Bible and send us a copy. Time after time his defense is little more than an assertion that he has a more accurate rendition of what a particular verse should say. He repeatedly adds, deletes, or changes the meaning of words. In this instance nothing is said about Christ being "the first to be raised into an endless life over which death has no power" or that he would never die again. Johnson has supplied some wholly gratuitous addenda. All Acts 26:23 says is that Christ "should be the first that should rise from the dead." Nothing is said about what occurs afterward, and for that reason it's irrelevant. Acts 26:23 does not say Christ was to be the first to rise from the dead and never rise again. For obvious reasons Johnson is more concerned with differences between what happens after the act of rising from the dead than with the act of rising itself. But that's not what the verses are discussing. He's attempting to shift the focus.
      And finally, on page 87 Johnson addresses the problem of whether or not all Israel will be saved. It's generated by the clash between Rom. 11:26 ("And so all Israel will be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob") and Zech. 13:8-9 ("And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; and the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined...." In order to resolve this difficulty he says, "Paul says 'all Israel shall be saved.' Zechariah says only one-third of them shall be saved. The Bible teaches that when Christ comes back to earth He will gather the Jews, bring them into the wilderness, cause them to pass under the rod of judgment, and will purge out the rebels from among them (Ezek. 20:33-38). The passage in Zechariah teaches that two-thirds of them will be purged out, and one-third of them will come through the judgment. Those Jews who accept Jesus as their Messiah will make up the 'all Israel' who will be saved...."
      Wait a minute! Proceed no further! Johnson's argument just collapsed. He quoted Rom. 11:26 as saying, "And so all (Not some, most, or many, but all--Ed.) Israel will be saved." But then he says that only those Jews who accept Jesus as their Messiah will make up the "all Israel" who will be saved. That means "All Israel" does not include all Jews but only those who accept Jesus. Obviously if that is true then all Israel is not included and all Israel will not be saved. All Israel can not be saved when 2/3 are excluded.

(To Be Concluded Next Month)

Letter #586 from KN of Sacramento, California
(In our 137th issue we answered a letter written by a fundamentalist to one of our supporters who forwarded the letter to us. The author accused us of taking verses out of context and he also stated, "Two of these verses are from Ecclesiastes, which is known to be reflecting the negative conclusions and musings of Solomon after having pursued all manner of earthly amusements in a search for meaning; they do not necessarily reflect doctrinal statements." KN would have altered our response to the fundamentalist and sent us the following letter--Ed.).

Dear Dennis.
     You missed a good bet in your response to JL's fundamentalist friend (letter #575, part b, Issue #137, page 5). Like many apologists, JL's friend argued that some of the more inconvenient teachings in Ecclesiastes are simply the sinful musings of Solomon in his twilight days.
      Indeed, Eccle. 1:1 identifies the following verses as the words of the "Teacher" or "Preacher," the "son of David" and "king in Jerusalem." One might well identify this as King Solomon, son of David.
      But now read Eccle. 12:9-10, at the end. Ecclesiastes has stopped quoting the Preacher and has returned to narrative form. These closing words, at least, are not the musings of Solomon. And they clearly say that what the Preacher wrote was "upright" and "true".
      The entire Book of Ecclesiastes, therefore, has God's stamp of approval. JL's friend should have kept reading.

Letter #587 from FM of Novato, California
Dear Dennis.
      I participated in an effort which resulted in the city of Santa Rosa dropping its requirement to have a prayer before council meetings, and also the city of Petaluma that changed the requirement to a moment of silence for those who wished to pray and for those who preferred not to do so.

Editor's Response to Letter #587
Dear FM.
     Your efforts are to be commended and every bit helps, but I think Petaluma tarnished your achievements. Isn't a moment of silence, prayer by another name? A moment of silence to do what? What is it's purpose, if not for the insidious introduction of silent prayer? Nobody has died and no tragedies have occurred, so it can't be in commemoration of anything. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but as far as I'm concerned Petaluma has surreptitiously inserted prayer through a cleverly disguised subterfuge. Prayer by another name is still prayer. What about those who don't believe in prayer or a moment of silence? What about those who just want to get down to work and have no interest in wasting time looking at the floor for some outside force to alleviate their problems or provide assistance? In any event, keep up the good work and more power to you.

Letter #588 from MO of Chicago, Illinois
Dear Dennis.
      I missed reading Biblical Errancy very much. I've read tens or hundreds of books and articles in critique of Christianity, but two among them are outstanding: Biblical Errancy and "The Case Against Christianity" by Michael Martin.

Letter #589 from SS of Kalamazoo, Michigan
Dear Dennis.
      ...I consider Psalms 137:9 as the SECOND most blasphemous verse in the Bible. First Samuel 1:3 is the most blasphemous verse. And yet as Ingersoll points out in his "Why I am an Agnostic" the doctrine of "eternal torment" should be considered the worst. He writes, "As a matter of fact, the New Testament is infinitely worse than the Old. In the Old there is no threat of eternal pain." Ingersoll is correct. This doctrine is the worst, the most horrible.... Thank you for making Biblical Errancy available to former SLAVES, like myself. Keep up the GOOD work, doc. We're all behind you!

Letter #590 from RS of Sherman Oaks, California
Dear Dennis.
      Love your publication; you're still the tops. I'm still challenging every Christian who believes the Bible has all the answers. Thanks to your publication I have been able to totally educate myself about the Bible and I believe myself to be a competent spokesperson for our cause. It is interesting to see how many Christians are at first shocked and ultimately incapable of refuting the many counter-arguments which I have in store for them. I have a sense of total control over my interchanges with Christians to the extent that they are finally unable to come back with a persuasive counter-argument. I owe a debt of gratitude to you.

Editor's Response to Letter #590
Dear RS.
      It sounds as if you are using BE in precisely the manner intended. Keep up your excellent work, and if we can be of further assistance, please write. As I have said so often: Taking it to the other side goes to the crux of this publication. Gathering information merely for the sake of compiling data is all but worthless. We have no interest whatever in amassing a mountain of anti-biblical data merely in order to put a trophy on a shelf.

Editor's Note: Our TV game plan is as follows. So far we have created and played on cablevision eight one-half hour programs. When we have a much larger number of programs available, we intend to start distributing them to supporters who are willing to see that they are played on their local cable access television station. We will be asking people to do the following. First, contact your local cable access station and arrange for our programs to be played at a favorable time. All programs are one half hour in length. Second, buy a blank TWO HOUR--BROADCAST QUALITY VIDEOTAPE at a company specializing in tapes of this kind. We get them for around $3 to $4 each from a company in Columbus, Ohio called Comtel Instruments. Send us the blank tape and we will record FOUR (4) programs onto each of your tapes and then mail them back to you. The first tape has programs 1-4 and the second has programs 5-8. Try to have each program played four times--Two times one week and two times the next week. We, for example, have a program played on a Wednesday evening at 7:00 PM and then two days later on a Friday evening at 7:00 PM. The next week the same program is again played at 7 P.M. on Wednesday and 7 P.M. on Friday. Then that program is completed and the same procedures are followed for the next program. Since each tape contains four programs, one tape should last 8 weeks or two months. If you can only get the tape played twice a week for one week, then one 2-hour tape should last one month. Once you finish with a tape you can keep it, circulate it, give it to a local library or friend, save it for a later showing or do whatever you prefer. That's your choice to make. But we definitely need your help. This is one project that is not going anywhere without the assistance of BE's supporters. Of that there can be no doubt. WE'LL NEED YOUR HELP! Right now we are only asking you to be willing to respond YES when asked to assist. We already have 11 volunteers and hope to enlist more. If you want to combat religious superstition and the Bible in particular, then effort and dedication are a must. Mere complaining won't accomplish much of anything. The other side has thousands of dedicated volunteers, and we need to exhibit similar determination if inroads are to be forthcoming. We'll let you know when the circulation of videotapes is to begin.

JOHNSON'S SO THE BIBLE IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS? (Part 3):     Johnson resorts to the old word game when faced with the contrast between Gal. 6:2 ("Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ") and Gal. 6:5 ("For every man shall bear his own burden"). He says, "A seeming contradiction is found in the sixth chapter of Galatians. In the first verse above we are told to bear one another's burdens, while in the second verse we read that every man shall bear his own burden. In verse 2, the burdens we are to bear for one another refer to the responsibility each Christian should feel for the welfare of other Christians, especially when they have sinned. The Greek word for 'burdens' here is 'baros' and has the idea of weight, that which can be lightened. God wants us to help bear others' burdens. There are many burdens people carry for which they need help: the burden of sin,...the burden of sickness, of sorrow....
      The word 'burden' in verse 5 is 'phortion,' which has the idea of a task, a personal responsibility which a person must not shirk, which no one else can do for him. Each person is responsible for the kind of life he lives...."
      Unfortunately for Johnson, his rendition of "phortion" won't stand the strain, because Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says the word means "a task or service, a burden, a diminutive of 'phortos' which means something carried, i.e., in the cargo of a ship: lading, or freight." Since this does not refer to a task that someone must do on his own and is the kind of burden that can be lightened, there is no meaningful distinction from the "burden" used in the first verse. So his explanation collapses.
      On page 92 Johnson waded with reckless abandon into the clash between Gal. 6:10 ("As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith") and 2 John 10-12 ("If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds"). He says, "Paul and John seem to contradict each other in these two verses. Paul tells the Christians to do good unto all men; John forbids them to receive a man into their house or bid him Godspeed. There is really no contradiction here, since Paul is speaking of a Christian's duty of doing good to all men, while John is speaking of a Christian's attitude toward false teachers. A false teacher is not to be received into our house and we are not to bid him Godspeed.... We are to love everybody, even our enemies, but we are not to approve of, and support, their dangerous doctrine."
      In the first place, Johnson says we are to do good to all men but not to "false teachers." Since when did false teachers resign from the human race? Despite their behavior, they are as much a part of mankind as anyone else. "All" means all, and if we are to do good to "all men," then that would include false teachers as well. Secondly, in typical apologetic style Johnson attempts to shift the focus by saying we are to do good to all men while our attitude toward false teachers is to be one of disapproval. He surreptitiously changed the thrust of the second verse in order to make it appear as if it were addressing a different issue. Actually the first says we are to "do good" unto all men and the second says we are not to "receive" him into our house or "biddeth him God speed." Both refer to doing rather than attitudes or beliefs. Johnson is trying to say that we are to "do good" to all men but our "attitude" toward false teachers is to be negative. But the second verse, like the first, is referring to actions, not attitudes.
      On page 94 Johnson finds himself entangled in one of those absolutist imbroglios with which the Bible is so bountifully endowed. He addresses the contradiction between Heb. 9:27 ("And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment") and two other verses: John 11:26 ("And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die") and 1 Cor. 15:51 ("Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed"). In order to reconcile this conflict he states, "According to the first verse above all men will have to die, but according to the second and third verses those Christians who are living when Christ comes for His own at the rapture will not have to die ('shall not sleep' means shall not die). The first verse refers to physical death, while the second verse speaks of spiritual death.... The general rule made by God is that it is appointed unto men once to die a physical death, but there will be an exception to this rule when Christ returns for his own, and those who belong to Him 'shall not all sleep,' but they shall be...'caught up to meet the Lord in the air' (1 Thess. 4:17)."
      Apparently Johnson is unable to realize that he actually proved Heb. 9:27 and 1 Cor. 15:51, in particular, are contradictory. He stated, "The general rule made by God that it is appointed unto men once to die a physical death" and then admitted there will be an exception to the rule when Christ returns. He can't have it both ways. Either all men will die once in accordance to Heb. 9:27 or they won't. There's no in between. If some men will not die when Christ returns, then all men are not going to die.
      Later, he all but buried himself by saying, "Enoch and Elijah in the OT did not have to die--they went to heaven without dying. So will all Christians who are living when Christ comes again. They will be translated, changed...in the twinkling of an eye.... The God who made the rule that all must die will also make an exception to that rule when Christ comes again." Need more be said? He began by allegedly reconciling a contradiction and concluded by conceding the contradiction's existence. One can't help but be amazed at the willingness of apologists to tackle problems with which they are wholly ill-prepared to cope. With a defense like this, Johnson would have done well to have avoided this conflict entirely. One could hardly imagine a more inept explanation. In effect, he is not only saying Heb. 9:27 is false, but providing evidence to prove as much.
      On top of everything else, he didn't even interpret the second verse correctly. He said, "according to the second and third verses those Christians who are living when Christ comes for His own at the rapture will not have to die." That may be true with respect to the third verse, but the second verse, John 11:26 is referring to those in general who believe "the resurrection at the last day" (John 11:24) will occur, not just those who will be living when the rapture is supposed to occur.
      On page 95 Johnson sought to reconcile Heb. 11:17 ("By faith Abraham...offered up Isaac...offered up his only begotten son") with Gen. 25:6 ("But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son...."). He states, "The first verse says that Isaac was Abraham's 'only begotten son,' while the second verse says he had other sons. This looks like a contradiction. (Of course, that's only because it is--Ed.). The solution is that though Abraham had sons by concubines and by Keturah, and a son by Hagar, Isaac was the 'only begotten son' by Sarah, the only one in the direct line of ancestry to the Messiah, and the only heir of all the possessions of Abraham. Josephus says the 'only begotten son' means the 'beloved son'."
      To begin with, Johnson needs to straighten out in his own mind his definition of "begotten". Does it mean a son who is a direct ancestory of the Messiah, or a son who is merely "beloved"? Either way, his explanation carries no weight. Where does the Bible say that "begotten" refers to someone who is in the messianic lineage? Judges 8:30 says, "Gideon had seventy sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives." Does that mean every one of these seventy sons was in the messianic line? After all, they were "begotten". In Hosea 5:7 God condemns Israel and Ephraim for having "dealt treacherously against the Lord" by having "begotten strange children...." Although these children were "begotten", surely Johnson is not going to allege they were ancestors of the messiah? And finally, Johnson must be aware of the incredible number of times the word "begat" is used in the OT. If all of those people were "begat", then they must have been "begotten". Yet, no one with even a modicum of biblical knowledge would dare claim they were all ancestors of Jesus. So, the word "begotten" isn't used only in reference to those in the messianic lineage.
      As far as "begotten" meaning "beloved" is concerned, Johnson is not only obligated to show where Josephus made this correlation but prove they are synonymous. He provided evidence of neither. And where does the text show or even imply that Isaac was the only "beloved" son of Abraham?
      On page 96 Johnson leaps into another prominent biblical dilemma by trying to meld 1 John 1:8 ("If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us") with 1 John 3:9 ("Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God"). Oddly enough, he begins by refuting two of the most common rationalizations provided by his own compatriots. He states, "These two verses, which seem to contradict each other, have been a source of perplexity to many of God's children. Many attempts have been made by Bible scholars to reconcile these verses. One interpretation says that 1 John 3:9 is referring to the new nature of a Christian which does not and cannot sin. It is true that the new nature cannot and does not sin, but that is not the true interpretation of the verse. Another interpretation, which is perhaps the most common one, says that the sin referred to is a continuous act or habit of life, and that a Christian does not practice sin. Dr. William Pettingill, in his book Bible Questions Answered tells about speaking to Dr. Scofield about this verse and says, 'I see you have adopted the word practice in the margin of your reference Bible relating to the third chapter of John. But, doctor, how does that help matters any? When you consider that any coming short of the glory of God in thought or word or deed is sin, is it not true therefore that we all do practice sin?' 'Alas! Alas! so we do,' replied the doctor."
      In effect, Johnson has saved us the trouble of refuting two of the most common excuses used in an attempt to make these two verses compatible. As he correctly showed by his little story, to sin at all is to practice sin. It doesn't have to be repetitive. First John 3:9 says that whoever is born of God does not sin; it does not say it has to be done on a regular basis.
      Unfortunately, Johnson closes by submitting a harmonization of his own that is no more sea-worthy than those already disproven. He states, "The key to the problem is found in the literal rendering of 1 John 3:9: 'Whosoever is begotten of God is never lawless, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot be lawless because he is begotten of God.' No born-again child of God will be guilty of sin in the sense of lawlessness. There is a great difference between disobedience and lawlessness. A person may disobey the Word of God at the same time he acknowledges God's Word to be right that he should obey it.... So, although a Christian can sin, as we see in 1 John 1:8-9 and 2:1, he cannot be lawless...."
      Apparently Johnson is trying to prove that the adage "Words were invented to hide reality" has some validity. Not only does the Bible make no such distinction between the words "lawlessness" and "disobedience" but they aren't even mentioned. Where on earth Scripture justifies a wholly arbitrary distinction of this nature is anyone's guess. Secondly, not only does Scripture make no such differentiation but Webster's New World Thesaurus New Revised Edition equates the two words on page 429. If you are disobedient then you are lawless, and if you are lawless then you are disobedient. Johnson has concocted a distinction without a difference.
      So, in summary and based upon what we have seen over the last couple of issues, the evidence clearly demonstrates that Carl Johnson is a firm believer in one of the most common of all apologetic defenses: "That's what it says, but that's not what it means"
      Before ending our extensive analysis of Johnson's book, we can't resist citing his quotation on page 124 of an absurd remark made by Dwight L. Moody, founder of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Illinois. The latter states, "I know the Bible is inspired because it inspires me." If that is to be the criterion, then hundreds of religious books are inspired because millions are inspired by them. No doubt Muslims feel inspired by the Koran and Mormons are inspired by the Book of Mormon. Being a source of inspiration hardly proves a book was written or produced by God. Even more important, in no way does it prove the book is valid.
      That completes an analysis of Johnson's work entitled So the Bible is Full of Contradictions? and if our readers have been provided with additional tools with which to examine apologetic literature more critically, then our efforts will not have been in vain.

Editor's Response to Letter #591
Dear TD.
      I appreciate your suggested modification to my critique of Sproul in the 137th issue, but beg to differ with your analysis in several respects. Firstly, I think you are confusing an unintelligible sentence with an unintelligible concept. I asked if God could create a square circle, which is an intelligible sentence with an unintelligible concept. Your statement "make is were he if" is no sentence and has no concept. The mere presence of verbs like "make, is, and were" and the pronoun "he" is not sufficient for the creation of a sentence. So nothing is doing anything. If I had made that kind of comment, it would have been as if I had never spoken at all. Your question: "Can an omnipotent being make green ideas sleep furiously?," on the other hand, is a sentence and, like my query, contains an incomprehensible concept. But you have taken the absurdity in my question one step further by relating concepts that are not associated with one another. Ideas are not associated with color and speed is not associated with sleep. With reference to my questions, however, shapes are associated with triangles and squares. Perhaps you are merely making a subtle attempt to discredit my observations, I'm not sure. But I don't think your analogy will stand the strain. If you insist the situations are analogous, then I'm willing to go one step further by asking your questions as well. Can God create green ideas? Can he make ideas sleep furiously? Of course not.
      Secondly, you say that "to have unlimited power means to be able to perform any action. But some sequences of words do not describe actions." If a sequence does not describe any action, how would it even be applicable to what we are discussing, since I was asking god to do something in every sentence I uttered?
      Thirdly, you say, "a sequence of words must be intelligible, which means that it must express something thinkable or imaginable, something capable of being represented by pictures or on film (if only in a cartoon). Thus, Biblical miracles would be actions in this sense because they can indeed be represented on film (e.g., the movie "The Ten Commandments")." In effect, you are saying that man has no right to ask god to perform any kind of deed that man cannot imagine or put into films or cartoons. In other words, unless man can conceive of it, man has no right to ask god to do it. God's powers are limited to what man can imagine! Or stated somewhat differently, god can only be justifiably asked to do what man can conceive. Since when is god acting only within the constraints of man's capabilities? Since man can't conceive of someone counting to infinity; therefore, man has no right to ask god to do so?
      And lastly, you say, "If someone were to ask 'Can an omnipotent being create a square circle (or a two sided-triangle)?' then the correct reply is not 'Yes, of course,' but rather 'Your very question is unintelligible'." The question is not unintelligible, but conceiving of a response is.
      In summary, I can't help but feel that your "God can only be asked to do what man can conceive" approach betrays an insidious religious background coming to the fore. In any event, I appreciate your suggested modifications to my analysis and hope my observations will be taken in the spirit of camaraderie intended.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Editor's Response to Letter #592
Dear JS.
      We received several letters expressing the same concern. We should have been more vigilant. Perhaps SS will write and enlighten us.

Letter #593 from EEB of Corpus Christi, Texas
Dear Dennis.
      I have been aching to find a steady supply of freethought programs to put on the local public access channel, but the search has been frustrating. My first hope was a series of readings from Ingersoll's works done by a man in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, his tape did not meet the requirements of the local TV company. Your program will not either unless you are willing to change your format.
      I am sure that you know the federal laws concerning public access use. The only local requirement is that "No program shall be transmitted which contains copyrighted material for which proper clearance has not been obtained." When the manager of the public access channel saw the Ingersoll tape, he told me I had to have authorization from the copyright owner of the music that was used in the introduction.
      The cable company has the following technical standards:

• The videotape is previewed for minimum technical requirements.
• Access programs must have technical standards high enough to deliver clear pictures throughout the entire length of the program.
• A label must accompany each tape cassette. It should contain the producer's name and phone number, the length of the program, the title of the program, and the cablecasting date. Only one program per tape is allowed.

• 60 seconds of color bars and tone at the head of the tape.
• Slate with title of program, producer and production date.
• A countdown or at least 10 seconds of black before the program begins, and 60 seconds of black after the 30 or 60 minute mark.
• The public access tape format is 1/2" VHS (SP speed) and 3/4" u-matic. All other formats must be transferred to 3/4" for cablecasting.

Editor's Response to Letter #593
Dear EEB.
     Your willingness to assist is greatly appreciated. In regard to specifics, let me say this. Our music was chosen from a list of songs on a generic list that presents no copyright problem. Our station provides a list of songs that are free for anyone to use. Having one program on each tape isn't possible, however. I tried that initially and quickly realized that I was going to have a room full of tapes very rapidly. Even more importantly, mailing costs would soar. I can mail four programs on one tape for almost as much as it would cost to mail one program per tape. Of course, once you receive the 2 hour tape you are free to record it onto four separate tapes or divide it in any manner you deem preferable. As far as color bars, labeling, countdowns, clarity, and so forth are concerned, I recommend showing it to your local cable access personnel to see what they think. I hope you can make whatever modifications may be required, if any. Our program's quality exceeds that of many of the programs that are shown on our local access channel, so I don't think that should be much of a problem. I'm unacquainted with the Freethought Television Network. Is it connected with the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin? I've always found Dan Barker to be a fine gentleman, doing good work.

Letter #594 from PS of Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Mr. McKinsey:
      I would like to volunteer to contact my local cable station to arrange "airing" the television program you mentioned in the last issue of BE. The comments you made regarding the purchase of "broadcast quality videotape" on which to record the shows is not specific enough, since there are several "broadcast quality" video formats. Our local cable station uses 3/4" U-matic video cassettes, which will only hold a total of 1 hour of programming. I assume you are referring to SVHS, which some cable companies are now using, and will hold up to 2 hours of total programming in the SP speed.... Please specify what format tape you require, and I will send them to you. Also please advise the title of the show so that I can give this information to the cable station when I contact them. In order to reserve a time slot for a program they usually want to be sure the show will continue pretty much uninterrupted every week. They have had problems with people starting a project and then its fizzling out after a few shows.

Editor's Response to Letter #594
Dear PS.
     I'm certainly glad you also are willing to volunteer to help in our most worthy cause. We just finished recording our 11th program, but we still aren't ready to begin circulation yet. We'll let you know through BE when we are ready to proceed.
      In regard to specifics, we can say the following. The name of the show is BIBLICAL ERRANCY COMMENTARY. Every program is 1/2 hour in length. (The shows are supposed to begin with a disclaimer by the station according to the station's manual, but they have never bothered to insert the disclaimer at the beginning of any of our shows. I asked why it wasn't inserted and wasn't given much of a reason.) Except for the first one or two programs, the format is as follows. The show begins with a 30 second color bar which is required by the local station. Then we see a Bible splitting in half with the name of the program appearing in the middle. A short introduction with respect to the program's purpose and content is followed by my appearance on a short stage speaking from notes on a clip-board. Every program ends with a rolling of the credits and a final statement as to where additional information can be obtained. ALL programs are on 1/2 inch tape only. We never use 3/4" tape for any reason. Programs are recorded on tapes that are 2 hours long, so we put 4 programs on each tape. Once I have four programs on a tape, I will take it home and record the tape from one of my VCR's to another one of my VCR's, which will have your blank tape inside. Your tape will then be mailed to you. I have no way to modify the tapes as recorded; so if your local station has some local requirements with respect to a tape's format, all I can do is ask that you make whatever changes are needed.
      There has been some concern about what is meant by a "broadcast quality tape." Basically, it is a quantum improvement over the 2 hour tapes that can be purchased in most local discount stores. We use VHS Broadcast quality tapes. We do not use the next grade up which is SVHS (Super VHS) because it cannot be used on my home VCR's without damaging my equipment. The picture is better, but it can only be used by our studio equipment. So, in order to get a good picture without great expense, we record the show on an SVHS tape and then use studio equipment to transfer the recording onto a VHS tape, which I then take home and use in my VCR's. Stay tuned. We'll keep you informed as to the latest developments. More is yet to come.