According to Christian teachings and apologetic writings, Jesus is the savior of the world; he was the long-awaited messiah who fulfilled all the OT messianic predictions and prophecies. Prior issues of BE clearly showed that Jesus could in no way be viewed as the fulfillment of the OT messianic prophecies. Far too many specifications and qualifications were beyond his pale of operations and endowments. Simply put, he didn't fill the bill. Another major consideration that rules out any possibility of Jesus being the messiah is that his arrival failed to usher in the Messianic Age. Not only is the messiah required to fulfill all the OT messianic prophecies, but he must also generate the arrival of heaven on earth. With the world as it is today, one can safely say that this aspect of his credentials has failed miserably. If there is anything the world is not, it is a heavenly paradise.

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Of that there can be no doubt. John 4:25-26 says, "The woman saith to him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith to her, I that speak to thee am he." And Mark 14:61-62 says, "But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said to him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am...." That is about as definitive as one can be. Matt. 16:15-20 says,

He (Jesus--Ed.) saith to them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in heaven.... Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

So, in essence, there is no denying the fact that Jesus, himself, not just his followers, claimed he was the Messiah. The problem with this, however, and the reason he is so soundly rejected by all branches of Judaism and objective outside observers of the biblical requirements for the Messiahship, is that Jesus failed to usher in the kind of era that was to be the culmination of all mankind's hopes. He did not bring in the following which must accompany the Messiah's arrival.

• THE FINAL END OF SIN--Jer. 3:17 ("At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all nations shall be gathered to it...neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart"), Zeph. 3:15 ("...thou shalt not see evil any more"), Ezek. 36:25-27 ("Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my judgments, and do them"), Ezek. 36:33, 37:23-24, Zeph. 3:13, Isaiah 60:21, and Jer. 50:20;
• THE END OF SUFFERING--Isa. 65:19 ("I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying");
• PEACE AND TRANQUILITY WILL REIGN--Isa. 2:4, 65:19, Micah 4:3 ("And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more"), Hosea 2:18 ("in that day will I make a covenant with the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heaven...and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely"), Ezek. 39:9-10 ("They that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire seven years...and they shall burn the weapons with fire...."), Isa. 9:6, and Zech. 9:10;
• ONE CREED AND ONE RELIGION--Isa, 66:23 ("And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord"), Zech. 14:16 ("And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles"), Zech. 8:23 ("Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you"), Zech. 14:9 ("And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one"), Psalm 86:9 ("All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name"), Isa. 11:9 ("...for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea"), Mal. 1:11, Isa. 2:2, 14:1, 45:14, 24, 22-23, 52:1, 54:5, 60:2-6, 14-16, John 10:16, Joel 3:17, and Jer. 31:34;
• ONLY ONE KINGDOM AND ONE KING--Isa. 60:11-12 ("Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring to thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted"), Zech. 14:9 ("And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one"), Dan. 2:44 ("And the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever"), Isa. 43:5-6 ("Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth"), Isa. 11:12 ("And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth"), Dan. 7:27, Ezek. 37:21-22, 39:28, and Deut. 30:3-5;
• PEACE BETWEEN THE FEROCIOUS AND THE DOCILE--Isa. 11:6-9 ("The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the suckling child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea"), Isa. 65:25, Ezek. 34:25, 28, and Hosea 2:18;
• THE DEAD WILL BE RESURRECTED--Isa. 26:19 ("The dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead"), Dan. 12:2 ("And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt"), and Deut. 32:39; IDOLATROUS IMAGES, FALSE PROPHETS, AND THE SPIRIT OF PROFANITY WILL VANISH--Isa. 2:18 ("And the idols he shall utterly abolish"), Zech. 13:2 ("And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land"), Isa. 42:17 ("They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods"), Psalm 97:7, and Zeph. 2:11;
• THE MOUNT OF OLIVES WILL SPLIT IN TWO--Zech. 14:4 ("...the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south");
• LIVING WATER WAS TO ISSUE FROM THE SITE OF THE TEMPLE--Ezek. 47:1-2;
• THE WARS OF GOD AND MAGOG--Ezek. chapters 38 and 39, and
• THE COVENANT SHALL BE RENEWED AS SANCTIFICATION FOR THE ISRAELITES-- Ezek. 37:26-29 ("Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them: yet, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore"), Ezek. 39:29 ("Neither will I hide my face anymore from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God"), Joel 3:20-21 ("But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation. For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed: for the Lord dwelleth in Zion"), Jer. 31:34 ("And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more"), Ezek. 2:10, 43:7, 48:35, and Joel 2:27-28.

JM's Defense is: Mr. McKinsey's problem, here, is that he did not allow for the totality of Biblical teaching on the matter. Mark 16:15-20 deals with two conditions. [1] It deals with a condition which was obligatory and permanent. "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned" (verses 15, 16). [2] It also deals with a condition which was optional and temporary. It was not commanded that they exercise spiritual gifts, but they did have them so they could confirm the word. It was temporary in that some day these spiritual gifts would be done away with. The Bible spoke of a time when these things would cease: "But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." (1 Cor. 13:10). The "in part" thing was the spiritual gifts, thus the perfect (complete) thing was the completed written revelation.

Understanding this, we can see that we cannot drink deadly poisons, or handle snakes, which if they bite us, we will not be hurt. Mr. McKinsey's lack of understanding of this subject and Bible knowledge in general does not make the Bible wrong.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part aa)
Well, here you are again on the horns of a dilemma, JM! Your problem is obvious. The Bible says any believer can drink any deadly thing without being hurt and we both know that's utterly ridiculous. You wouldn't drink a large quantity of arsenic any more than I would. You aren't suicidal. So, to escape the situation you propose a theoretical concoction of your own, which is flawed throughout. First, upon what grounds do you allege that part of Mark 16:15-20 is temporary and the remainder is permanent? There is nothing whatever in the text itself that justifies this distinction. Where does Mark 16 say that "some day these spiritual gifts would be done away with"? Second, since Mark 16 doesn't even imply, much less state, these powers would cease, you race off to another part of Scripture for confirmation and cite 1 Cor. 13:10 which says, "But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." According to you, the "in part" thing is the spiritual gifts, when nothing scriptural justifies such a connection, and according to you, the "perfect" thing is completed written scripture, which is not substantiated by scripture either. Third, if Scripture is "perfect", as you allege, and it has not come, then how could the "in part" have existed? The "in part" is part of Scripture, according to your interpretation. How could it have existed prior to Scripture and be abolished with the arrival of Scripture, when it is part of Scripture? Fourth, most apologists contend that Jesus, not Scripture, is the "perfect" that is to come. Apparently you decided that if Jesus were deemed to be the "perfect,", then Mark 16 could easily be refuted by merely noting the large number of miracles that continued to happen after Jesus left the scene. So, you chose the more dishonest strategy of referring to Scripture as the "perfect." But many of your own compatriots contend that all the autographs were completed at a very early date, even though afterwards men, such as Peter and Paul, continued to heal miraculously, speak in tongues, etc. And lastly, 1 Cor. 13:8 says, "...as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." It says that prophesying, speaking in tongues, and knowledge will pass away. It does not specifically state that believers can no longer safely drink any deadly thing or play with deadly serpents. Even if the "perfect" did mean Scripture, which you failed to prove, how do you know the phrase "in part" included deadly potions and serpents? The only credible definition of the nebulous phrase "in part" is found in 1 Cor. 13:8-9 and would seem to exclude the very acts you want to include. It mentions prophecies, tongues, and knowledge, but nothing is said about deadly potions, other miracles, or serpents.

Anyone who is reasonably well acquainted with Scripture can understand your strong reluctance to apply the word "perfect" in 1 Cor. 13:10 to Jesus, as most apologists do. After all, even after he departed the scene via the Ascension, all of the following continued to occur.

• (a) People continued to speak in tongues in Acts 2:4, 10:45-46, 19:6, 1 Cor. 14:5, 14:18, 12:10, and 12:28;
• (b) People continued to prophesy in Acts 19:6, 1 Cor. 14:1-5, 12:10, 12:28, and Rom. 12:6;
• (c) People continued to cure by the laying on of hands in Acts 5:12, 9:17-18, 14:3, 19:11, and 28:8, and
• (d) gifts continued in 1 Cor. 12:4, 9, 28, 31, and Rom. 12:6.

Letter #508 from JM Continues (Part bb)
[Point #18 in our pamphlet was: According to the text there are 29 cities listed in Joshua 15:21-32 (RSV). One need only count them to see that biblical math is not to be trusted. The total is 36.

JM's Defense is: Mr. McKinsey did not read very carefully what the Bible said. It did not say that there were only 29 names. It said: "...all the cities are twenty and nine, with their villages" (Joshua 15:32) (Underline added by jdm). This simply states that there are 29 cities. Now if one counts he will count 36 names. The resolution is that there are 29 cities and 7 villages. Really, Mr. McKinsey, you ought to read the Bible more carefully. Most of your difficulties with the Bible would disappear if you would.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part bb)
Again, JM, your stream of "logic" eludes me. If anyone needs to read Scripture more closely, it's you. Let's quote the text verbatim. Joshua 15:21-32 says, "The cities belonging to the tribe of the people of Judah in the extreme South, toward the boundary of Edom, were...(36 names are mentioned in the RSV followed by) in all, twenty-nine cities, with their villages." The text says "the cities" and lists 36 names. That means 36 cities, not 29. You would have us believe that only 29 of the names were of cities and 7 were of villages. Do you have any evidence for this arbitrary division? Where does the text even imply, much less state, that some of the names applied to villages? The 21st verse says "the uttermost cities," the word "villages" isn't even mentioned, and then lists the names, the clear intention being that all the names that were to follow were of cities. In essence, your explanation is without substance, because you are alleging the 21st verse is lying when it says, "The cities belonging to the tribe...were (and 36 names follow). According to you 7 of the names are not of cities at all but of villages.

In addition, Joshua 15:33-41 lists 16 cities and closes by saying, "Sixteen cities with their villages" which is correct. There are 16. So where are the villages in this list? Your rationalization collapses. The same problem arises with respect to Joshua 15:42-44. Nine names are followed by "Nine cities with their villages." Again, none of them could be a village. Both clearly show that villages are not being listed separately (To Be Continued)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

...Anyhow, this is to let you know that there are those of us who are committed to publicly exposing the Bible and all is not lost here in Richmond. I have the help of a delightful old fellow named BF, who also takes BE, and is quite a biblical scholar. But without BE I could never carry on these debates. I am learning, slowly, on my own, but as you know, it takes time! Thanks again for BE and for your never-ending expertise.

Letter #527 from BB of Cambridge, Mass. (Part a)
Dear Dennis
.... Enclosed...you will find a letter I wrote in defense of your conviction, which was demonized by a Pastor Veader. The Pastor asserted that you were trying to justify your perversion through a campaign against God. No evidence of said perversion was presented or of an anti-God campaign. It was all supposed, because you are skeptical of the inerrancy of the Bible. He went on to claim that the entire western modern world was built on protestantism, which is just more uncritical emotionalism, all of which I felt I had to refute with logic, scripture, and the most Reverend Martin Luther. Now he probably believes I'm demonic. Tough cookies! (What follows is a copy of the letter I sent to Pastor Veader--Ed.)

Dear Pastor Veader:
Your response to my letter to Mr. McKinsey's BIBLE ERRANCY flyer was so hateful I was reluctant to reply to it. But, I have conviction too, and it is my hope that we can engage in a reasonable argument. It is unreasonable to say that all non-Christians are demonic, corrupt, perverse, vile, and destined for Hell. It is readily evident that non-Christians are hard working, decent people, who are raised and live in loving, nurturing families. The apostle Paul was aware of this: "For when the Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves" (Rom. 2:14). I know Mr. McKinsey is not vile or corrupt, that he is a good husband and makes his living at a 9 to 5 job. His flyer is a supplementary income. Your attack on Mr. McKinsey's character was unfounded and typical of the clergy, who promote doctrine not for debate and logical thinking, but for blind belief and conformity. Skepticism is the essence of virtue, unwilling to be fooled or misled, and willing to stand firmly on the basis of ideas that have been thought through, but which are still open to growth.

The western modern world was built on the Renaissance: the rebirth of Greek and Roman philosophy and the beginning of humanism. The substitution of emotionalism for truth was the great error of the 16th century revolt. As Martin Luther said in (Grisar, Rev. Martin Luther, iv., 386-407), "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacraments, a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this; some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Ghost, and he himself a prophet."

It is argued by theists that if miracles have happened, they are the direct result of God's mind acting on matter. But, if a Divine mind can act directly on matter to produce miraculous effects, there is no reason to assume the human mind cannot do so. In both cases minds would be involved. One may claim that God's mind is different from the human mind. But, this claim assumes what needs to be proven. We do not see a person perform a miracle. But, then, we do not see God performing miracles either. In fact, we don't see God at all. In this argument his very existence is inferred merely from the presence of miracles. Human minds are known to exist, but the existence of God's mind is in dispute. It is more reasonable to assume that when someone desires a miracle and a miraculous-seeming event occurs, it does so not because of God, but because that person did it....

Editor's Response to Letter #527 (Part a)
Dear BB.
We appreciate your defense and are somewhat surprised since our prior phone conversations led me to believe that you were religiously oriented. Apparently logic, reason, and common sense could no longer be avoided and you decided to move toward the world of prudence and good mental health.

I would only offer a couple of minor corrections to your analysis of our status. My hours are 8 to 4 and BE provides no supplementary income of any consequence. On the whole we just about break even. Incidentally, without having ever met Mr. Veader, I am confident my morality is comparable to or superior to his.

Letter #527 Continues (Part b)
There were some Jehovah's Witnesses here on Saturday, January 23rd: a mother and daughter duo. The daughter was ten years old and looked at the floor, while her mother handed me a pamphlet about how the end of the world was near and I was going to become worm meat if I didn't become a Jehovah's Witness. So, I asked the mother why we are being punished for Adam's sin and if we aren't, then why did Yahweh promise a Redeemer, who would redeem us from Adam's sin (Gen. 3:15)? Then, I added, doesn't Original Sin contradict Deut. 24:16 and Ezek. 18:20? The daughter perked up and smiled broadly at me, while her mother wrote down the scripture I had cited. The mother promised to return the next Saturday. They never showed....

Editor's Response to Letter #527 (Part b)
You have inadvertently touched on a very important aspect relevant to what BE is all about, BB. That little girl you referred to has probably been brainwashed all her life to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and her life should be subservient to its maxims. She is probably tired, if not sick, of hearing about religion in general and the Bible in particular. If she has any critical skills at all, she probably has serious doubts and reservations about many things she has been taught. She would probably like to tell people what she really thinks, but doesn't dare for several reasons. She loves and/or respects her parents, and doesn't wish to hurt their feelings. She probably has an honest-to-god justified fear of what will happen to her if she tries to deviate from the proscribed path. She knows she doesn't have sufficient knowledge about the Bible or its inadequacies to expose the book, so she goes along with whatever is said. And she has probably been so intimidated and browbeaten that she doesn't dare challenge the validity of what she has been told out of fear of being demeaned, degraded, and put down. A child of that age is very concerned about his or her self-image and self-concept. And what could be more damaging and hurtful than being told you are raising stupid, ignorant, or devil-inspired questions? And finally, because of so much indoctrination, she is probably gripped by the lingering fear that perhaps her mother is correct and hell does await the Bible's critics.

When you asked that little girl's mother some poignant questions for which the little girl could see her mother had no answer, you did what any thoughtful, questioning child would like to do: you doubted the truthfulness of even the mother's most prized possession. No doubt there are many aspects of scripture the child just doesn't "buy," but she has always been discouraged from questioning the Bible's validity and never encouraged to critique its fundamental concepts. You did it for her, and for that you got a smile. I don't think most freethinkers realize how important the kind of service BE provides is to many individuals.

Letter #528 from BF of Tallahassee, Florida
Dear Dennis.
I don't want to embarrass you, but if we had any sense in this country we would declare you a "national treasure" and be done with it. I am absolutely convinced that (perhaps not in our lifetime) you will be recognized world-wide for the work you are doing. And not only that, your name will be written above that of Paine, Ingersoll, Russell, et. al. I am privileged to be able to obtain your works firsthand, and yes, honored to be able to correspond with the living genius behind it all.... You have my everlasting thanks and gratitude.....

Editor's Response to Letter #528
Dear BF.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate comments as complimentary as this. It does my heart good to know that my efforts are improving the lives of others, and hopefully I am worthy of the accolades you so generously bestow.

• THE LAND WAS TO BE DIVIDED ACCORDING TO THE 12 TRIBES AFTER THE CAPTIVITY--Ezek. 47:13-21;
• THE TEMPLE WAS TO BE REBUILT--Ezek. chapters 40 to 46;
• THE ARRIVAL OF ELIJAH--Mal. 4:5 ("Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord");

• THE GOING UP OF THE REMNANT OF THE NATIONS TO JERUSALEM FOR WORSHIP--Zech. 14:16 ("And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles");
• JERUSALEM WAS TO BE SAFELY INHABITED--Zech. 14:11 ("And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited");
• EGYPT SHALL BE A DESOLATION--Joel 3:19 ("Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah....");
• MESSIAH'S ARRIVAL WAS TO BE PRECEDED BY AN EARTHQUAKE--Haggai 2:6-7 ("For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts");
• MESSIAH WAS TO BE THE DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS--Haggai 2:7 ("And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come....");
• GOD WILL SMITE THE EARTH WITH THE ROD OF HIS MOUTH AND...SLAY THE WICKED--Isa. 11:4;
• THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WILL FEAR THE LORD AND SEEK DAVID THEIR KING--Hosea 3:5 ("Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days") and Jer. 30:9 ("But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them");
• ALL POWERS OPPOSING ISRAEL WILL BE POWERLESS--Zech. 12:8-9 ("In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"), Zech 2:5 and Zech. 9:8;
• THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH WILL BE IN THE LAST DAYS--Deut. 4:29-30,
• And lastly, THE MESSIAH'S DOMINION WOULD STRETCH FROM SEA TO SEA--Zech. 9:10
  • ("...and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth"),
  • Psalm 72:8 ("He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth"),
  • Dan. 7:14 ("And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed"),
  • Dan. 7:27 ("...the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him"),
  • and Psalm 72:11 ("Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him").

The conclusion to be drawn from all of the above is unmistakable. Jesus couldn't possibly be the long-awaited Messiah because of the large number of events that did NOT accompany his arrival, events that must accompany the arrival of the true Messiah according to prophecy.

We are by no means the first people in history to realize that Jesus didn't fill the bill. Throughout the last 2,000 years countless scholars have noted the wide assortment of deficiencies in the messianic credentials of Jesus of Nazareth. On page 75 in a chapter entitled "The Continuation of the Debate in the Middle Ages" from a book discussing the conflict between Judaism and Christianity, we find the following reference to the Jewish scholar and critic of Christianity, Abraham Troki:

Next, Troki collects all the signs of the onset of the messianic age, which were accepted by rabbinic and Karaite Jews from the Middle Ages down to the emancipation. Given the expectation of these signs, derived from prophecies literally understood, Jesus' messiahship could NOT be taken seriously. These are the following predictions of the prophets, still unfulfilled:

• [1] the gathering of the ten tribes under a Davidic king (Ezek. 37:21-22);
• [2] the battle between Gog and Magog (Ezek. 38 and 39);
• [3] the cleaving of the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4);
• [4] the drying up of the river in Egypt at the time of gathering of the dispersed (Isa. 11:15);
• [5] the issuing of living water from the site of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezek. 47:1);
• [6] ...ten men from other nations take hold of the hem of a Jew's coat and say to him: "We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech. 8:23);
• [7] the going up of the remnant of the nations to Jerusalem for worship (Zech. 14:16);
• [8] the appearance there of the nations on sabbaths and new moons (end of Isaiah);
• [9] the expulsion of idols, false prophets, and unclean spirits from the land (Zech. 13:2, Isa. 42:17);
• [10] in the whole world there shall be but one faith, that of Israel (Isa. 52:1, 60:1);
• [11] in the whole world there shall be but one kingdom, the kingdom of the Israelites as God's saints (Num. 24:17, Isa. 60:10-12, Dan. 7:27);
• [12] eternal peace (Isa. 2:4, Micah 4:3);
• [13] peace between wild beasts and domestic animals (Isa. 11:6-9);
• [14] the final end of sin (Ezek. 36:33-37, 37:23-24, Zeph. 3:13);
• [15] the end of suffering (Isa. 65:19);
• [16] renewal of the covenant as sanctification for the Israelites (Ezek. 37:26-28, Jer. 31:34);
• [17] the arrival of Elijah (Mal. 4:5);
• [18] the building of the future temple (Ezek. chapters 40-46);
• [19] the division of the land according to the twelve tribes (Ezek. 47:13), and lastly,
• [20] the resurrection of the dead (Isa. 26:19, Dan. 12:2).

Beyond doubt these and similar prophecies have not yet been fulfilled, and of necessity must yet be fulfilled; for God is not a man that he should lie.

Before closing, we might note that the common Christian defense to all of the above is wholly without merit. When pressed on this issue, Christian scholars will concede that the arrival of Jesus did not usher in that which was predicted and his credentials seem tarnished, but another appearance will rectify the situation. What wasn't fulfilled the first time will be completed during his second time around. The obvious flaw in this transparent subterfuge is that there is absolutely nothing in the OT alluding to an alleged "Second Coming." As far as the OT is concerned, there is one messiah and that's all, and he is coming once and that's it. We would challenge any Christian to provide so much as one scintilla of OT prophetic commentary to the effect that the messiah would come twice.

Because of this dilemma and others that are showered on theologians by children, the former have concocted a dishonest and unbiblical concept known as the Age of Accountability. According to apologists, children below this indeterminate age are excused from all the obligations that burden adults and will not be punished for deeds committed, or expectations unfilled, while on earth. They retain a kind of purity that exempts them from the normal obligations that plague those above the Age of Accountability. The problem with this whole idea is that it is not only unbiblical but flies directly in the face of clear biblical teachings to the contrary. Nowhere does the Bible make exceptions for those under a certain age, and nowhere does the Bible describe foetuses, babies, and children in any terms other than that of sinners in need of purification. From a biblical perspective, as the following verses effectively demonstrate, infants, babies, and foetuses are no purer than anyone else.

• Psalm 58:3 says, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Notice it says they are wicked, speaking lies, "as soon as they be born."
• Job 14:4 says, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one." Yet, many apologists would have us believe that somehow newborns are free from sin and impurity after birth and for that reason cannot be condemned until they reach the Age of Accountability.
• Rom. 5:12 ("Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"),
• Psalm 14:2 ("The lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that does good, no not one"),
• Rom. 3:23 ("For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"),
• 1 John 1:10 ("If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us"),
• Rom. 3:10 ("There is none righteous, no not one"),
• 1 John 1:8 ("If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"),
• Eccle. 7:20 ("For there is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and sins not"),
• and Prov. 20:9 ("Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin"),

The Age of Accountability concept is nothing more than a transparent ruse devised by those seeking to hide the obvious injustices inflicted upon the young and defenseless by a heartless book. It is one of those ideas that should be eliminated before being allowed to exit the starting gate. The Bible makes no exceptions for those too young to comply, and all rationalizations to the contrary are without merit. The Age of Accountability concept is little more than a subterfuge designed to give scripture an aura of compassion and equity allegedly accompanied by strong considerations for extenuating circumstances. Biblicists talk about the book as if it were rational and fair when precisely the opposite is true.

JM's Defense is: It is really embarrassing to have to respond to objections such as this. If this is the best he has to offer, he should just quit. Mr. McKinsey did not allow for the context. The writer is not saying that nothing new will ever happen. He points out that people are vain. (v.2) People work to make a profit. (v.3) One generation dies and another takes its place. (v.4) The sun rises and the sun sets. (v.5) The wind blows to the south and then to the north. (v.6) The rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not filled up. (v.7) Everything is full of labor. The eye is not satisfied with what it sees, nor the ear with what it hears. (v.8) This simply shows the regularity of life. Man is on a cycle which ends and begins over and over again....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part cc)
The scholarship of apologists such as yourself never ceases to amaze me, JM. Like so many of your compatriots, if you don't like the script you either rewrite, reinterpret, or ignore it. What does the text say? THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. Could the author have been more clear? I don't see how. Yet, you not only allege the author is "not saying that nothing new will ever happen," which he most assuredly is claiming, but try to defend your pathetic position by listing a series of acts that are decidedly repetitious by your own admission. How does your listing of a series of monotonous and repetitive acts prove that there is, in fact, something new under the sun? By referring to the "regularity of life" and the repetitive cycle in which man is involved, you are only substantiating the position of the author who said there is nothing new under the sun. In effect, you are agreeing with his observation. Yet, you earlier stated he was not saying there is nothing new under the sun. I quoted an author as saying one thing, while you said he meant the opposite. You then proceed to provide evidence that proves he meant what I said. As I have said before, your "logic" is a sight to behold. Your explanation is nothing more than a rambling stream of pseudo-thought. If this is the best you have to offer, the bowling leagues have some vacancies you might want to consider. I'm still awaiting an answer to my original question. How many cities endured atomic attack prior to 1945 and how many people visited the moon prior to 1969? By failing to provide an adequate response, you have only helped to prove that new and unique events do arise. There is something new under the sun after all.

Letter #508 from JM Continues from Last Month (Part dd)
[Point #20 in our pamphlet was: If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: "...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you" (2 Kings 18:27)? Is that what you want your children reading in Sunday School?--ED.]

JM's Defense is: Mr. McKinsey labors hard to find something wrong with the Bible because he has already made up his mind that it is not inspired. Here we have the results of a long and drawn out war in which the remaining soldiers are scraping the bottom of the barrel (so to speak) just to stay alive and continue the fight. They eat and drink their own waste because the supplies have run out and this is all there is left to keep them alive.

If Mr. McKinsey thinks this is pornographic, I wonder what he thinks about the PG-13, R and X rated movies that are being pushed off on the public by allowing them to be rented in video rental stores every day? Will he say that these are pornographic and should not be rented? What about the movies on T.V., where language is often worse than these words? Is this pornographic? I am sure that Mr. McKinsey would find very little wrong with these. Why, then, does he consider the Bible pornographic? Because he has to find an argument against it, and he is at the point that any old thing will do.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part dd)
To begin with, JM, I really wish you and your allies would stop alleging that I have to "labor hard" to find things wrong with the Bible. I can assure you that few comments are further from the truth. Finding problems within Scripture is easy, almost to the point of being ridiculous. Second, my mind was not made up "prior to" the analysis; my mind was made up by the analysis. Anyone who has objectively studied the evidence without any preconceptions or indoctrinations could come to only one conclusion. Third, if I am scraping the bottom of the barrel, it's only because that is where one must go in order to discuss the Bible. Fourth, I noticed you said, "They eat and drink their own waste...." What's wrong? Can't stand the Bible's terminology? Are you choking on the Bible's four-letter words? We both know the Bible did not say "waste." Fifth, who cares why they are eating the stuff; that's irrelevant. We are talking about terminology; don't try to shift our focus to another topic. Sixth, you state, "If Mr. McKinsey thinks this is pornographic...." What do you mean, "if." You mean you have doubts? "Piss" is not filthy language? Where did you grow up? If it isn't filthy language, then why did you choose the word "waste," instead? Seventh, what do you mean by saying that I am "at the point that any old thing will do"? Apparently a 50,000 watt radio station in Atlanta, Georgia doesn't think it is "any old thing." I was promptly censored when I used the word "piss" on the air, and all I was doing was quoting the "good book." Eighth, don't try to put me on the defensive by putting me in the position of defending movie ratings and content. Your statement that, "I am sure that Mr. McKinsey would find very little wrong with these" is wholly inaccurate. I am disturbed by any situation in which labels must be put on movies before you can know if they are reasonably appropriate for viewing, and I'm also bothered by the tremendous amount of trash and violence currently circulating in abundance and masquerading under the rubric of artistic freedom and creativity. But my views aren't the issue; your book's profanity is. So, let's stay on the issue. Ninth, don't try to implicitly excuse, justify, or minimize the Bible's contents because the content of movies and television is reprehensible. And lastly, you need not engage in hyperbole by saying, "Why, then, does he consider the Bible pornographic?" Where have I ever said the Bible is pornographic? There are undoubtedly pornographic statements contained therein, but that doesn't mean the entire book is pornographic.

Letter #508 from JM Continues (Part ee)
Would I want my child reading this on Sunday? Yes! Providing that he is taught why these words were used, it would be perfectly acceptable. They are not used in a pornographic way; they were used to speak of bodily functions and the last extremities of a prolonged siege. I have even quoted this language from the pulpit. The Bible uses the word "ass" to speak of the donkey; men, today, make it dirty and filthy. The Bible speaks of "hell" to refer to either the grave, the realm of the unseen for the wicked, or eternal punishment for the wicked. Men, today, use it as a slang and dirty word. The problem is not with the Bible, it is with our attitude in how we use certain words. If one finds these words offensive, another translation can be used."

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part ee)
All you are doing, JM, is resorting to the old "you are taking it out of context" defense. Do you realize how many novelists, writers, poets, musicians, painters, playwrights, composers, sculptors, photographers, and artists could make the same argument when their works are attacked as pornographic by others? I can only conclude that you have no objection to your children reading, viewing, and hearing their works as well. After all, you have already admitted you don't mind your child reading the word "piss" in Sunday School as long as it is viewed in context and "providing that he is taught why these words were used." Shouldn't those whose works you and your compatriots attack be accorded the same opportunity to explain and justify their product?
(To Be Concluded Next Month)

With ammunition such as the Bible, BE, Robert Ingersoll, Forgery in Christianity, Deceptions and Myths in the Bible, The Bible Handbook, etc., it isn't too hard to shoot down most arguments. Even with their feet encased in cement, it must give some of them pause when they read actual contradictions, murderous laws and acts, which I'm sure most didn't even realize existed. One lady who wrote that her beloved God DID NOT ignore his own commandments, and they weren't even made for Him to begin with was so ridiculous (and wide open) I thought she did merit a reply. I patiently listed many broken commandments (quite a job within itself) along with an analysis of Josh McDowell and others like him.... I also listed various and sundry other despicable deeds her God did and a short history of where the Bible comes from and mailed them to her with my return address....

Letter #530 from CH of Spartanburg, South Carolina
Dear Mr. McKinsey,
I support your effort wholeheartedly. I wish to assure you that one can be a Christian in the truest sense of the word without relying on the Bible as one's only source of Truth. Our sense of spirituality has too often been degenerated to a blind reverence of the Bible--bibliolatry. I wish more people were involved in healing our country's bigotry, greed, self-righteousness and ignorance, cultivated by inaccurate and disingenuous uses of the Bible. What a travesty -- spreading hatred in the name of Love. Keep up the good work.

Editor's Response to Letter #530
Although your support is most appreciated, CH, I think you are trying to put distance between yourself and the Bible when there is little room to spare. If, indeed, you are a Christian in the 'truest sense of the word,' then you are going to be plagued by a multitude of biblical problems that all Christians must confront, even those who reject biblical inerrancy. Christian liberals, for example, cannot escape the problems posed by John 14:6, Rom. 3:23, Rev. 12:7, Original Sin, the Resurrection, God's injustice and so on, ad infinitum. You can't leave the Bible and be a Christian, and the more biblical material you reject, the less of a Christian you become. Many people are trying to remain Christians while conceding all the contradictions and problems we have highlighted over the last ten years. It can't be done without being disingenuous and intellectually schizoid.

Letter #531 from BF of Tallahassee, Florida
Dear Dennis.
You continue to mesmerize me with your knowledge, debating skills, and logic....

Editor's Response to Letter #531 from BF
Dear BF.
I am humbly appreciative for your most gracious accolades. I would be less than candid were I not to admit that commendations go a long way toward keeping our spirits high and our determination energized. Knowing one is appreciated and efforts are not expended in vain are major stimuli to our whole program.

Letter #532 from HM of Bellbrook, Ohio
Dear Dennis
.... I must compliment you on the remarkable way you handle yourself in a face-to-face or voice-to-voice debate. I wish I could stay as cool and calm as your are in confrontations with fundamentalists, but I'm inclined to blow my stack at the least bit of intimidation. By the way, on one of your tapes you read a lengthy list of "deeds" performed by God which made the Devil look like Shirley Temple. You excluded the chapter and verse numbers. Is there any way I can obtain the complete list?

Editor's Response to Letter #532
Dear HM.
Over the years my obsequious, condescending, mild-mannered approach to religious apologists has gradually faded and I think you would find my recent radio appearances to be far more in keeping with the spirit you express. I don't blow my stack but biblicists would do well to be prepared if they seek to defend the Bible or attack the validity of this publication. My strategy and tactics have changed significantly. I now realize one can overdo the Mr. Nice Guy approach. Come what may, I'm now more inclined to tell it like it is.

As far as the reprehensible deeds of God are concerned, chapter and verse references can be found in the commentaries of Issues 115-120. In addition, a brief synopsis can be found near the end of the third issue.

BE's new area of concentration will be as important as the first and unfortunately is the arena in which so many members of the freethought movement have come up short over the years. Opponents of the Bible have often collected a sizable amount of data but seemed lost as to how it should be employed. An effective and on-going program of debate, discussion, proselytization, education, etc. has been noticeably lacking, and that we intend to address much more extensively. It does no good to gather material that is not going to be employed in an effective and on-going manner. If you don't take it to the other side, almost nothing will be accomplished, because there is almost no chance they are going to come to ideas they have been taught to view as erroneous.

We can also happily announce that, as of last month, we concluded the second phase of our effort. FINALLY, they have arrived; they are here; they made it. After almost two years in the making, we have managed to put the heart, the essence, the nucleus of 10 1/2 years of BE COMMENTARIES onto 24 audio tapes of approximately 90 minutes each. A lot of time and effort went into constructing something that could be used by those who are visually-impaired, want to read as little as possible, want something to hear while driving, have friends, relatives, or acquaintances who refuse to read biblical criticisms, or have special needs of one sort or another. Audio/visual materials have become extremely important in spreading the message, and we have long felt a need to propagate BE by this type of medium. Unlike all prior A/V materials, these were specifically created for distribution and consumption. Because we have always felt an obligation to prove our case as would a lawyer in court, these audio commentaries, like BE commentaries throughout the years, are well supplied with facts and figures gleaned from tremendous research over several decades. So, in effect, the second phase has been successfully concluded also.

Now we are about to enter the third, and probably most challenging, phase of our program--the production and distribution of video tapes for broadcast on public access cable TV. Tentative plans are to create tapes that could then be circulated to supporters who would be willing to play them regularly on their local access station. We plan to call upon those who volunteered several years ago to participate but were never contacted. To them we extend our apologies, but time just wasn't available.

Unfortunately, this will be the most expensive activity undertaken so far. To begin with, we need a studio or place in which to record, volunteers to operate the equipment, an editing machine, someone who knows the intracacies of editing, a video-camcorder, a video tape duplicator, and other accessories needed for an effective presentation. We have been told that start-up equipment alone will total at least $2,000 to $4,000 and that the Sony TR 101 Hi-8 would fit our needs fine. We would appreciate hearing from anyone who can aid in regard to these considerations. Unfortunately, unlike many people, we do not live in an area in which the local cablevision station will provide equipment and facilities for those who seek to create a program. Many factors will have to fall into place for this undertaking to work successfully, not the least of which is getting air-times at sensible hours on a regular basis.

Although in the planning stage for many years, this third major project has been held in abeyance for several reasons. If I had gone straight to cablevision, viewers would have called or written for additional information, and I had no material available for distribution. Now that body of material exists in abundance. Second, we live in an audio-visual age, and the number of people who read serious material on a regular basis is only a small percentage of the population in general. When people come home from work or school, they turn on the TV and that is where the mass audience is. Preachers and evangelists are well aware of this fact, and don't race to TV just to see their faces on screens. If we produced cablevision programs, people would be far more likely to request additional A/V materials, such as audio tapes, rather than literature. For that reason audio tapes covering the essence of BE had to be available also. Many will listen to what you have to say, but they are not going to put forth any effort to read. Those tapes are now available also. And finally, the amounts of time and money that have to be invested have been a major hindrance.

In any event, the basics are in place. We have the literature and the audio tapes. Now we need videos, public access, a mass audience, speaking engagements, debates, exposure, and expansion. The third phase will be the most difficult because of several factors, over which I have little or no control. It won't get off the ground until every facet is in place, and how long this will take is anyone's guess. Approximately 8 years ago we briefly engaged in a project of this nature and found that even such factors as finding a suitable recording location and appropriate video lighting facilities can be a real challenge.

JM's Defense is: This gets back to objection #3. God made everything, but he did not make it evil. Satan rebelled against God, and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world through their disobedience. Man uses things that God gave for good, to make evil things. This is hardly God's fault, and it is unfair to blame God with it.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part ff)
Again, JW, we see that logic is not one of your strong suits. Either God created everything or he didn't. There is no in between. Scripture says in Col. 1:16 and Eph. 3:9 that God created everything and you also stated, "God created everything." That settles the matter. In groping for an answer, you say God created everything but he didn't create evil. That's a contradiction. If Satan rebelled against God, and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world, then God did not create everything. But you are drifting off into the secondary consideration of how sin came about according to Christian theology, which is irrelevant. What matters is that God either is or is not the source.

Letter #508 Continues (Part gg)
...There are places in the Bible, however, that seem to indicate that God does do evil.... How can these things be reconciled with the fact that God does not do evil? Simply by realizing that whatever God allows, is attributed to him. God is the ultimate source of power and authority. This being the case, we need to realize that even evil must be allowed by God, or else it would not exist. Thus in that sense God creates evil. When one looks at the overall context of the Bible, there is no problem at all. The figure of speech used here is "anthropopatheia" or the ascribing of human attributes to God....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part gg)
Don't be silly, JM; of course there is a problem and your "God allows" subterfuge just won't fly. You not only said he created everything, which by definition means he must have created evil, but key verses clearly show that God did not just "allow" evil, he created it, he's the source, it's his idea. Through a subtle ruse you are trying to say he didn't create everything. You might want to read our commentary on God in the July 1992 issue of BE. There aren't just places in the Bible that "seem" to indicate that God does evil. There are verses that flatly state he is the source. Biblical readers are not ascribing attributes to God; the Bible is, and it is doing so in no uncertain terms.

Letter #508 Continues (Part hh)
[Point #22 in our pamphlet was: In Psalm 139:7-11 we are told God is everywhere. If so, why would God need to come down to earth to see a city (Gen. 11:5) when he is already here and how could Satan leave the presence of the Lord (Job 1:2, 2:7)?--ED.]

JM's Defense is: Again the figure of speech "anthropopatheia" is used here, in another one of its aspects. God does not need to come down to see what is going on, but he is said to come down so that man may understand him. Satan cannot literally leave the presence of the Lord, but he is said to be able so that men could understand God.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part hh)
You can bring in more irrelevant verbiage, JM! Who cares why he came down or if he needs to come down at all. That doesn't address the basic problem. How can he come down if he is already here? That's the issue! Don't try to change the focus. And where are you getting this stuff about his coming down "so that man may understand him"? Where is that in Scripture, or is this another concoction? And what do you mean, "Satan cannot literally leave the presence of the Lord"? Don't you believe Job 1:12 ("So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord") or do you prefer to interpret as you see fit? Aren't you fundamentalists the ones who constantly complain about Christian liberals leaving the literal interpretation of Scripture when they're in a bind? And here you are, practicing the same dishonest scholarship. If you spent as much time reading and accepting the book as is, as you do in interpreting and redefining for expediency's sake, you'd be far better off. This "anthropopatheia" nonsense you keep tossing out is nothing more than a subterfuge to escape an impasse.

Letter #508 Continues (Part ii)
[Point #23 in our pamphlet was: For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, hell's punishment is infinite--ED.]

JM's Defense is: The reason that Mr. McKinsey sees a problem here is because he does not understand the nature of sin and of God. There is also a limit to what man can do because he is finite. If man was infinite I have a feeling that the punishment for crimes would be greater than what they are. God is an infinite being, who cannot make allowances for sin. God is of purer eyes than to behold sin, and he cannot allow it. Mr. McKinsey does not see the terrible nature of sin in the eyes of God because he does not think that sin is very bad. To him, and people like him, sin is nothing more than a child's disregard for parental rule. In God's eyes even this is terrible (for children old enough to know right from wrong.)

Yet, hell is infinitely greater than any punishment we as humans could inflict upon evil-doers. However, it needs to be remembered that God does not want any to perish, but all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9). It was terrible enough that God had to give his Son as the only way from sin back to God. If one refuses to accept the gracious gift of God's sacrifice, then God will punish them eternally. Why, because the price paid was infinitely greater than anything we could ever have offered. God gave his sinless Son that we might have life.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part ii)
What a rambling entanglement of vapid gobbledygook! First, you state that, "If man was infinite I have a feeling that the punishment for crimes would be greater than what they are," which is nothing more than speculation on your part and does nothing to excuse God's behavior. Even more important, how could the punishment be any greater, when it's already infinite? For goodness sake, what do you want? How could man's becoming infinite extend the punishment any further, when one's residency in hell is already eternal? Second, you state, "God is an infinite being, who cannot make allowances for sin," when he obviously must; otherwise, everyone will end up in hell forever. Third, the crux of your argument seems to be that God is so pure that all sin is horrific in God's eyes. Consequently, only infinite punishment is justified. Don't be absurd. That's no answer. That has nothing to do with justice. You mean that because God is so offended, infinite punishment is appropriate? God makes no allowances for degrees of culpability? That's a just God! I repeat my original question. How is God fitting the crime to the punishment, and where's the justice? Fourth, I take great exception to your wholly unjustified remark that, "Mr. McKinsey does not think that sin is very bad." Quite the contrary, I find the amount of antisocial behavior prevalent throughout our society to be nothing short of appalling, and I can't help but note that people of the most profound religious convictions are in charge of the political/social/economic/ideological scene while it runs rampant. And I have never looked upon felonious acts such as murder and rape as "nothing more than a child's disregard for parental rule." Are you serious? Where are you getting this poison? Fifth, you state that, "if one refuses to accept the gracious gift of God's sacrifice, then God will punish them eternally." How utterly outrageous! You mean the mere act of simply failing to accept a gift merits as much punishment as if one had committed the most heinous crimes imaginable? If you look upon this whole arrangement as just, I only hope I never enter a courtroom in which you are the judge.

Letter #508 Continues (Part jj)
[The 24th and final point in our pamphlet entitled "THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? was: And lastly, in Acts 20:35 Paul told people to "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn't Paul guilty of deception?--ED.]

JM's Defense is: Mr. McKinsey labors to find something wrong with the Bible in bringing up this objection. Who said that if Jesus made such a statement that it would ever have to be recorded? John said: "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book...." (John 20:30). If Jesus did many other signs which were not written, would it not be reasonable to say that Jesus said many things which were not written? Paul was speaking to the Ephesian elders who had no doubt been taught many of the sayings of Jesus (by the apostles) which had not been written down.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part jj)
After all these months, JM, you've finally made a point that has some degree of credibility. As long as you and your compatriots are willing to admit that there is no such statement by Jesus anywhere in the Bible; as long as you and your cohorts are willing to promise that you will never again use this quotation by Paul without telling your listeners that the alleged comment by Jesus is nowhere to be found in the Bible, and as long as you are willing to admit that you are assuming Paul is correctly quoting an extrabiblical comment by Jesus which he managed to come across somehow, I am willing to concede that Paul might be correct. But that is a big "might." Even before placing this problem into my pamphlet, I realized biblicists would probably use your defense. But I inserted it anyway, because I felt the problem was of such importance as to merit consideration, and I knew how I would respond. I think most people will see your transparent defense for what it really is, a rationalization. But if they don't, they have at least been made aware of the problem.

Letter #508 Concludes After Nearly One Year (Part kk)
So where are the great problems that are supposed to make us tremble in our boots? Where are the iron-clad arguments that conclusively destroy the credibility of the Bible? Mr. McKinsey started out by saying that these difficulties could not be solved, only rationalized. Well, he can call it what he wants, but we would like to see him respond, point by point to the responses we have given. Maybe he will write another tract answering these responses. It is our hope and prayer that someone will see the truth by reading this booklet and come to God, or have his faith strengthened. If this is done, we will be paid back a hundred fold.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #508 (Part kk)
If you didn't tremble in your boots, JM, it's probably because you were too busy drowning in them. Your entire pamphlet is anemic, deceptive, and erroneous, and only substantiates the truth of my original comment: These problems can't be solved, only rationalized. You hoped that I would write a reply to your document and respond to your points one by one. I trust you aren't disappointed, in light of the fact that every issue of BE since September 1992 has exposed one or more points in your booklet entitled "Still a Perfect Work of Harmony" which attacked my pamphlet, "The Bible is God's Word?" You ask: Where are the iron-clad arguments that destroy the credibility of the Bible? Take off your Christian blindfold, and you'll see wreckage strewn all about. Like winds from Hurricane Andrew, even if you personally can't see them, objective observers can sure see the results of their force and destruction. Contrary to the title of your publication, if there is one thing the Bible is not, it's a "Perfect Work of Harmony". It's anything but. As I have said so often, the Bible has more holes in it than a backdoor screen.

Letter #533 from NB of Tucson, Arizona (Part a)
Dear Dennis.
I am a loyal subscriber to B.E., but let me say at the outset that I am not a "Biblicist", "Religionist", literalist, or fundamentalist, though I do believe in God....

I wrote this letter in reference to B.E. #120, p. 5, second column, about the "stalls" and "baths". I see no reason why copyists' errors may not have been involved in the former case, as the Hebrew system of writing numbers involved the use of modified forms of Hebrew letters, with little dots written above them to indicate orders of magnitude. Thus, a single omitted dot could make the difference between 4,000 and 40,000.

Editor's Response to Letter #533 (Part a)
Dear NB. The copyist error defense is simply not going to save the day in this instance, or hundreds of others that are often cited. The reasoning in this regard is relatively simple. First, although the alleged originals no longer exist, there are thousands of manuscripts claiming to be accurate copies of the alleged originals. When scholars decided to write the following versions--KJ, RS, ML, AS, NASB, MT, LV, JB, NIV, TEV, NWT, and etc.--they went through either some, many, most, or all of the manuscripts, compared what was said in each, reached a common consensus, and chose to use 40,000 in 1 Kings 4:26 and 4,000 in 2 Chron. 9:25. In order for there to have been a copyist error, the same incorrect figure had to have been copied in scores if not hundreds and thousands of manuscripts, certainly not one or two. Are you saying hundreds, if not thousands, of copyists made precisely the same error when they copied 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chron. 9:25 from the autographs? They not only copied incorrectly but made the same erroneous change? Christians love to talk about odds. What do you think are the odds of that happening? No doubt they are comparable to the figures biblicists throw around when it comes to the precentage possibility of Jesus' fulfilling all the OT messianic prophecies. The attempt by biblicists to pawn this problem off on one lone copyist or scribe in some monastery somewhere who happened to make one simple mistake is rather amusing, in light of the fact that thousands of manuscripts are involved with the same verse. Second, even if there were a copyist mistake, you could never be sure which figure was copied incorrectly. Was it the 40,000 figure that should have been 4,000 or the 4,000 figure that should have been 40,000? Because you could never know for sure, you might just as well expunge these two parts of the Bible. One is definitely incorrect, and you'll never know which. Third, and very important, is the fact that the manuscripts contradict one another, and until the original is produced, the contradiction stands. Biblicists are asking us to ignore a contradiction staring us in the face, in favor of a theory that can in no way be substantiated. The fact is that the contradiction stands, and will continue standing until evidence is produced to the contrary. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Because the contradiction is clear and obvious, I am under no obligation to prove a contradiction exists in manuscripts which biblicists can't even prove existed. Biblicists, on the other hand, are obligated to prove there was no contradiction in the original writings, which they are wholly incapable of doing.

Letter #533 Concludes (Part b)
I have far more serious problems with the "baths." You say: "Nothing is said about a container." I almost fell off my chair when I read that. If there was no container, then what held the "molten sea" of 1 Kings 7:23? I seem to recall your having some fun with the fact that the Israelites seemed to think that "pi" is equal to 3, whereas "everybody" knows that it is 3.1416... In fact, they were not very sophisticated mathematically, unlike the Egyptians, who a millenium before Solomon had an approximation to "pi" that was accurate to four decimal places, by far the best in the ancient world.... But where is it said that the "molten sea" was circular? 1 Kings 7:23 says only that it was "round all about, and his height was five cubits."

It appears that you have no idea of what a "bath," in this context, is. Well...a "bath" was an old Hebrew unit of volume equal to approximately 10 U.S. gallons. This leads to a very serious problem, which I will get to in a moment. But first, did you seriously interpret "baths," as "bathtubs"? I find this positively mind-blowing if you did.

Now, suppose that instead of being circular, the container was elliptical in cross-section. (At this point NB went into some mathematical calculations along with a graph--Ed.)....

Editor's Response to Letter #533 (Part b)
Read the text more closely, NB, and you'll see that your elliptical theory won't hold up. First Kings 7:23 says, "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of 30 cubits did compass it round about." If it was round all about, and one brim to the other always measured 10 cubits, then how could it have been anything other than a circle? For all practical purposes that eliminates the elliptical option and renders all your calculations moot. As I said originally, you can't have a circle with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits.

As far as the "container" question is concerned and the accident you nearly had with your chair, I would rewrite the section about the container by simply omitting it. Everything from "And what container are you talking about" to "Even if what you said were relevant, which it isn't" should have been omitted. There was a container, the molten sea, in which the baths were contained, that's true. You are by no means the only reader who wrote a letter to us to express disagreement with what I said in regards to the baths. I stand corrected, and admit I should have read that section more closely. But my original argument and that which follows this omission, are still valid. I've never claimed perfection, but I'm light-years ahead of my competition.

Letter #535 from GS of Clearfield, Penn.
Dear Mr. McKinsey
.... Your publication is very informative and much-needed in our society. I commend you and wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

Letter #536 from JB of Portland, Oregon
Dear Mr. McKinsey.
Your publication has been the subject of much comment on America on Line's bulletin board regarding Bible contradictions. As a militant atheist, I am presently intrigued by the subject of biblical errancy, lies and contradictions. What I have seen of your efforts has impressed me, and I believe that I would like to both subscribe and obtain back copies....