|
|
|
||||||||
Jesus, The Imperfect Beacon (Part Two of a Four Part Series)--Last month's commentary noted some of the reasons Jesus of Nazareth is unqualified to act as a model for all mankind, much less its savior. Continuing in that vein are the folowing: (28) "While he (Jesus--Ed.) was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not at first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, `Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?...woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done...'" (Luke 11:37-44 RSV). Jesus showed rudeness, crudeness, and insensitivity. Imagine talking like this to someone in his house after he invited you to dine with him. Even if it were true, common decency dictated a more refined approach. (29) "...and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus answered him, Thou sayest" (Matt. 27:11) andJesus answered him, `sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" (John 18:34) and "Pilate therefore said unto him, `Art thou a king then?' Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king" (John 18:37) and "And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer" (John 19:9). Jesus often gave insolent replies and evaded questions. A civil response or a simple yes or no would have been more appropriate, not to mention polite. (30) "And the Lord said unto the servant, Go out unto the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (Luke14:23). In this parable the lord, who represents God, compelled people to enter his house. Would God compel people to enter heaven. The just and peaceful Jesus is sanctioning compulsion! (31) "So the devils besought him (Jesus--Ed.) saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come outthey went into the herd of swine; and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters" (Matt. 8:31.32). What had the owner or owners done to have their property destroyed by Jesus? What had the animals done to deserve such treatment? The French philosopher, Voltaire, asked why swine were there at all since the keeping of swine was prohibited in ancient Judea and Galilee as in modern Israel. (32) "Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them" (Luke 11:47). Jesus is condemning people for having ancestors who killed prophets, yet, he had such ancestral killers as David and Solomon. (33) "but he answered her not a word" (Matt 15:23). Jesus seems rude. Politeness required a response. (34) "Jesus said, ... `Thou shalt not steal... (Matt. 19:18) versus "Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?" (Luke 19:30-33). Are we to believe this isn't theft? Imagine seeing a stranger driving your car away while claiming the lord needed it. (35) "For as yet they know not the scriptures, that he must rise again from the dead" (John 20:9). There is no OT statement that he (Jesus--Ed.) must rise from the dead. Moreover, "again" means that he was to rise a second time. And since Jesus allegedly rose from the dead only once, it couldn't apply to him anyway. (36) "thou shalt love thy neithbor as thyself" (Matt 19:19) versus "Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee" (John 2:4). Jesus' love seems to have escaped him. (37) "and it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he (Jesus--Ed.) went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days? And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him. How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone" (Luke 6:1-4)? Jesus and his disciples not only violated the sabbath but also stole property. The ears of corn were not theirs to consume any more than the Gadarene swine were theirs to destroy (Luke 8:33). Moreover, very little support can be obtained by relying upon David's acts as a defense, since he not only violated the sabbath and many other laws but also stole the priests' shewbread. (38) "...for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matt. 9:13) versus "and Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" (Mark 10:18). How could some be righteous if only God is good? (39) "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world" (John 9:5) versus "ye are the light of the world" (Matt. 5:14). Who, then, is the light of the world? (40) "...The Kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof" (Matt.13:31-32). Poor knowledge of science is again evident in the fact that a mustard seed is not the least of all seeds, is not the greatest among herbs when grown, and could not give rise to a tree. (41) "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath" (Matt. 13:12). The latter is impossible since from nothing, nothing can come (Ex nihilo, nihil fit). (42) "Verily, I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecution, and in the world to come eternal life" (Mark 10:29-30). This teaching is not only immoral, but inaccurate. Jesus is saying that the reward for giving up your wealth and following him is far greater wealth; i.e., people should do right in order to obtain personal gain, not because it is the right deed to do. Selfaggrandizement is not a decent basis for morality.Moreover, people who give up everything for the gospel's sake rarely "receive an hundredfold now in this time." Indeed, precisely the opposite is often the case. (43) "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened" (Matt. 7:7-8) versus "Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth" (John 9:31) and "The Lord is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous" (Prov. 15:29). Everyone who asks receives; yet, God doesn't hear sinners and is far from the wicked. (44)"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44) versus "And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God" (Luke 4:41). Jesus refuted his own divinity, unless some devils are more honest than "the devil." (45) "Then said Jesus to him, Put up again they sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt 26:52) versus "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34) and "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garmentand buy one" (Luke 22:36) and (Luke 22:38). (46) "And shall deliver himto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him..." (Matt.20:19) and "...and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:And they...shall kill him..." (Mark 10:33-34) versus "And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour:and he (Pilate--Ed.) saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him... Then delivered he (Pilate--Ed.) him therefore unto them to be crucified. And...they crucified him..." (John 19:14-18). Although Jesus prophesied he would be crucified by Gentiles, the Book of John says he was killed by Jews. (47) "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword" (Matt 26:52) versus "I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said...I will slay the last of them with the sword" (Amos 9:1) and "And I (God) will bring a sword upon you..." (Lev. 26:25). According to Jesus, God (i.e., Jesus himself) must perish since he took up the sword. (48) "...for verily I (Jesus) say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you" (Matt. 17:20). The inaccuracy of Jesus' statement is shown in the fact that nobody, with or without faith, has ever successfully ordered a mountain to move. (49) "and these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sink, and they shall recover" (Mark 16:17-18). Clearly a false statement by Jesus! Few Christian believers would be willing to test its validity by drinking poisons, such as arsenic, handling deadly snakes, or emptying local hospitals with touches of the hand. It's far more practical to rationalize the verse away. (50) "And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, `Thou art Christ the Son of God.' And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ" (Luke 4:41) and "unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God" (Mark 3:11). It's interesting to note that the first beings to recognize the messiahship of Jesus were devils, the most corrupt and deceitful of all beings.
The Suffering of the Innocent--On pages 259 to 261 in The Bible Has the Answer apologist Henry Morris of the Creation Research Institute sought to answer one of the most common questions asked of theists: Why does God allow innocent people to suffer. His opening comments were as follows: "This is one of the most difficult questions for Christians to answer. The `problem of pain' as the well-known Christian scholar, C.S. Lewis, once called it, is atheism's most potent weapon against the Christian faith... they say, how can a God of love permit such things in His world as war, sickness, pain, and death, especially when their effects often are felt most keenly by those who are apparently innocent? Either He is not a God of love and is indifferent to human suffering or else He is not a God of power and is therefore helpless to do anything about it. In either case, the Biblical God who is supposedly one of both absolute power and perfect love became an impossible anachronism. Or so they claim." Having made these opening remarks, Morris then presented the following arguments which are permeated with the intellectual dishonesty so typical fo Christian defenses. (l) "People continue to believe in their deepest hearts that somehow, ultimately, right will prevail over `wrong.' These innate beliefs are in themselves evidence that there is a God who is a moral being and who has implanted these hopes in the human soul." Surely Morris realizes this is an emotional appeal, not an argument based on proof. Millions of people--theists and non-theists-- believe "right" will prevail in the end but there is no evidence this is inherent. (2) "...it is utterly presumptuous for us to use our minds to question His motives... We need to settle it, in our minds and hearts, whether we understand it or not, that whatever God does is by definition, right." Again, this is not an argument based on evidence, Biblical or otherwise. It rests on belief alone and is nothing more than another way of saying, "Although it looks bad; it isn't." The following arguments, however, are of greater concern to BE because they rely on the Bible itself rather than theological beliefs in a God. (3) "There is really no such thing as the `innocent' suffering. Since `all have sinned and come short of the glory of God' (Rom. 3:23), there is no one who has the right to freedom from God's wrath on the basis of his own innocence. As far as babies are concerned and others who may be incompetent mentally to distinguish right from wrong, it is clear from both Scripture and universal experience that they are sinners by nature and thus will inevitably become sinners by choice as soon as they are able to do so." Any resemblance between this reasoning and justice is purely coincidental. We are to believe babies at Dachau and Buchenwald justly died because of a nature which they inherited from one man's transgression and acts which they allegedly would have committed if they had been given an opportunity. (4) "The world is now under God's Curse (Gen 3:17) because of man's rebellion again God's Word. This `bondage of corruption,' with the `whole world groaning and travailing together in pain' (Rom. 8:21-22) is universal..." Not "man's" rebellion but one man's rebellion! Mankind didn't rebel; a man did. It's his prblem and he should pay the penalty. (5) "The Lord Jesus Christ, who was the only truly `innocent' and `righteous' man in all history, nevertheless has suffered more than anyone else who ever lived." This comment is not only wholly inaccurate but quite irrelevant. Not only do some biblical verses attribute perfection to Noah (Gen. 6:9) and Job (Job 1:1) as well, but the pain of many people throughout history has exceeded that experienced by Jesus. Even more important is the fact that the death of an innocent man on a cross, God or otherwise, voluntarily or otherwise, does not justify the torture, pain, and suffering of innocent people. Just because he suffered is no reason others should suffer as well. (6) "The sufferings of unsaved men are often used by the Holy Ghost to cause them to realize their need of salvation and to turn to Christ in repentance and faith. The sufferings of Christians should always be the means of developing a stronger dependence on God and a more Christ-like character..." Adversity may build character at times but that does not explain why many experience excessive travail while others hardly know the meaning of the word. In addition, it's difficult to understand how an unjustified demise could improve the deceased's character. Sickness, suffering, and pain also encompass death.
Letter #69 from ET of Greenville, South Carolina
Dear Dennis. I was considering the problem in Lev. of the grasshopper, cricket and locust having only "four feet." I don't think the Hebrews were blind. So perhaps they merely considered the moremost two appendages on those insects to be their "arms," i.e., with "four feet" lying behind them? When a locust eats it does appear to hold its food with its two foremost "arms." Maybe the "four feet" idea originally came from the Hebrew categorization of "four feet" as a symbolic number for most beasts to have. That would also explain why mention of the locusts' "two arms" would be made, after all why elongate a symbolic number that fits so many other animals as well?....
Editor's Response to Letter #69
Dear ET. Your explanation for the "four-footed insects" problem created by Lev. 11:22-23 is a variation on the common apologetic theme that the Bible was not meant to be a scientific text. If the authors felt the two front appendages were "arms," then they were wrong. What a locust "appears" to be doing is immaterial. If your assumption--"the four-feet idea originally came from the Hebrews categorization of `four-feet' as a symbolic number for most beasts to have--is correct, then Hebrews were even worse scientists than is often imagined, since many animals travel on something other than four legs. Why should we elongate a symbolic number, you ask? Because accuracy requires it and the Bible is allegedly the epitome of truth.
Letter #70 from GL of Uxbridge, Mass. (Part a)
Dennis, Concerning your commentary in November 1984's issue of BE, are you suggesting that the errors in numbers are because of copyist errors or that the author of the book has made the mistake? I think it would be illogical to assume that the author--after listing the persons, places, etc.--would err in his count. Of course we can not know this for certain but I think that the authors were mathematically competent.
Editor's Response to Letter #70 (Part a)
Dear GL. The primary concern of BE is to reveal problems in the Bible. How they came about is for others to speculate and of secondary importance. Apologists often attribute errors to copyists' mistakes but have no way of proving their hypothesis since the original writings no longer exist. It's difficult to see why you feel an inaccurate count would be illogical in light of the multitude of other errors in the Book. We do not know that the original authors were mathematically competent. If you are going to assume they were, however, then you are also assuming later copyists were incompetent and couldn't dupicate that which was in from of them. The Bible is replete with miracles and other impossibilities. Why would errors in numbers and addition be unreasonable while sticks turning into snakes and people rising from the dead be plausible. The former are much more common and feasible than the latter. In any event, we agree that errors do exist.
Letter #70 Continues (Part b)
In your commentary on the matriarchs you portray the women very well. But what was your point? The Bible does not condone these actions; it simply records them as they happened. Also the genealogy of Jesus has nothing to do with his character.
Editor's Response to Letter #70 (Part b)
Acturally GL, several points were intended. First, as in the case of the patriarchs (See Jan. 1984 issue), are these the kinds of individuals you would want to awaken your children on Sunday mornings to read about. Secondly, you said the Bible does not condone their actions; but, it doesn't condemn them either. How were Michal, Jael, Rachel, Ruth, Sarah, Tamar, and Bathsheba punished for their immoral behavior. The Song of Solomon says, "Blessed above women shall Jael (a murderess--Ed.)...be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent" (Judges 5:24) and the Book of James says, "...was not Rahab the harlot justified by works..." (James 2:25). You don't feel their acts are being condoned? Thirdly, my comment with respect to the genealogy of Jesus was that "certainly doesn't say much for his pedigree." And it doesn't! It's difficult to believe God-incarnate could have such a disreputable ancestry. His personal character wasn't even mentioned. Apparantly you read more into them statement than was there.
Letter #70 Continues (Part c)
In your response to Letter 63 from VT you state that "Religion rejects authentic human existence, while humanism exalts it." Could you explain what "religion" rejects authentic human existence, what exactly is authentic human existence, who determines what this authentic existence is and why is humanism outside the realm of religion?
Editor's Response to Letter #70 (Part c)
Since VT chose to embark upon a flurry of grandiloquent rhetoric, my response was in like form. Neither of us provided corroborative evidence, which accounts for BE's propensity to avoid discussions of this nature. To answer your query, religion in the generic sense, rejects authentic human existence by dealing more in the realm of fantasy and mythology, while humanism does not. However, that's an extra-biblical controversy that you might want to debate the the humanists.
Letter #70 Continues (Part d)
In response to letter #65. The "he" that could not drive out the inhabitants of the mountains was not God, it was the tribe of Judah. The text (Judges 1:19) simply states that God is with Judah; it does not state that God promised him (Judah) victory. You are assuming more than is advisable. Also, I do not think any creationist would disagree with your simplistic view of evolution: an arrow in flight, or a tree growing. But I have failed to observe an arrow in flight which did not land as an arrow; or a tree growing into something else. And finally, which version of evolution is fact? And when did it move into the realm of fact? I suggest you consult a dictionary before answering. You are assuming that because you have been convinced that it is the best alternative to answering the question of origins, that it must be fact. Certainly a man of your intellectual capacity could not possibly be mistaken. I regret to inform you that you are as mistaken as the creationist who defends his position by announcing that it is a fact. Neither of these theories is a fact. They are presuppositions supported by some facts. Facts can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt right now!!
Editor's Response to Letter #70 (Part d)
I think you should reread Letter #65 and my response GL. You have confused my reply with the comments of its author, ET. Your quarrel is with him, not me. He used Judges 1:19 ("And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountains; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron") to prove the impotence of God. I've never used this verse as do many critics of the Bible because "he" does appear to refer to Judah and not God. The statement doesn't clearly prove God is powerless. The only thing it appears to substantiate is that the Lord wasn't with Judah very much. Second, you described my view of evolution as simplistic. Again, if you will reread the letter you'll see ET, not I, mentioned an arrow in flight and a tree growing. I think you missed ET's point, however, which was that evolution follows a lineal progression according to inexorable laws. ET may wish to reply in a later issue. Third, I didn't know there were versions of evolution. But even more important, I think you missed the gist of the discussion between ET and myself. ET was indirectly criticizing my comment in What is Science (Sept. 1984 issue) that science could not provide absolute, i.e. eternal truths. If you'll read What is Science GL you'll see it described the theory of evolution as a relative truth, i.e., the best explanation possible. In that sense, it is fact. It was not described as an absolute truth which can never be modified. That's the view biblicists have of creationism. The theory of evolution is a relative truth; it is not an absolute truth. That was the point intended in issue #21 and again in #23. If I have a theory which the vast preponderance of the evidence thends to substantiate, then I have a relative truth viewed as a fact. That does not mean I have a truth which will be viewed as a fact thousands of years from now. Additional data may arise which will necessitate modification or abolishment of the theory. But for now it's a fact and one can only pity he who operates on any other assumption. That's the essence of science. Lastly, you subtlely put the facts provided by creationists on a par with those provided by evolutionists. The evidence is decidedly opposed to this; but, then, BE is not concerned with the evolutionist/creationist debate which involves a tremendous amount of extra-biblical data.
Letter #70 Conclusion (Part e)
In response to letter #67. Assuming that your "nifty experiment" was carried out by conscientious experts in the French and Spanish languages--good job.
Editor's Response to Letter #70 (Part e)
Your compliment is appreciated GL; however, MF conducted the experiment, not I. His team translated the 23rd Psalm from English to French and back into English with the resultant evidence that translations are fallible. His team mates are the ones to whom you might want to direct your applause.
Letter #71 from Ken Bonnell of Los Angeles, California
Dear Dennis. Here is a case of "biblical errancy" for your file and future use. Mark 9:14-29 contains the story of Jesus' "exorcism" of a "dumb spirit." It concludes curiously. The disciples ask why they could not cast it out, and Jesus says, "This kind cannot be driven out except by prayer and fasting." But the story had not a whit of prayer or of fasting. The absence of fasting from the story has caused the reference to be edited out of certain families of manuscripts, so that "and fasting" does not appear in all translations we read..
EDITOR'S NOTE: Because next month's issue will be devoted to letters from readers, the four-part commentary on Jesus, The Imperfect Beacon will resume in the March, 1985, issue.
Issue No. 26 Feb. 1985
Extra-biblical Subjects-- We are occasionally asked why extra-biblical subjects are not an integral part of BE since they comprise a substantial amount of many other publications. The reasoning behind this is threefold. First, the best evidence one can use against the Bible is the Book itself. There is more than enough data contained therein to convince any reasonably objective person that it could not be God's word. Amassing a vast amount of external data and bringing it to the Book to refute its contents is essentially ineffective. Biblicists will counter with assertions to the effect that regardless of what the evidence shows, if it says the Bible is false then it's inaccurate. External sources will be viewed as less authoritative than the Bible. Comparing one part of the Book with another, however, is a different matter. In such instances, we don't have external data saying the Bible is false; we have the Bible saying the Bible is false. And that's a decidedly different situation which apologists find hard to counter. It's one thing for external information to say the Bible is erroneous; it's quite another for the Bible itself to say so. I've made this point repeatedly on radio appearances. Of course, a strategy of this nature requires one to know the Bible as well as, if not better than, its proponents, something many agnostics, rationalists, humanists, and atheists refuse to do. Their disdain for the Book and propensity to strike-at-a-distance has provided biblicists a sanctuary to which they invariably retreat when confronted with criticisms. Critics seek to pull biblicists out of the Bible rather than pursue them into its narrative and fight on biblical grounds. Allowing apologists a sanctuary from which to launch their incessant forays is unwise while hot pursuit into their arena has greater potential. Knowledge of the Bible's weaknesses and an ability to present them in a persuasive manner is crucial. Any weakening of the opponents' resolve is progress. We engage biblicists at every opportunity and always receive Mormons, Baptists, and Jehovah's Witnesses with a certain degree of enthusiasm. Believing they have come to convert, they leave with a substantial body of new information. It becomes a question of who is influencing whom. If we don't provide these people with a far more balanced presentation of the Bible, who will? Certainly clergymen and theologians won't. BE teaches a kind of Sunday-school-in-reverse. People are told all the things they should have heard in Sunday school but didn't. It's also important to note that liberal Christians such as those in the World Council of Churches also need to know the Bible's problems, since many are far more under its influence than they realize. A second reason for concentrating on the Bible, per se, is that millions of believers tend to discount or ignore extra-biblical data. Although hard to believe, most have little interest in the Babylonian influence on the Pentateuch's formation, the scientific data discounting the Flood, the evidence in opposition to the six days of creation accounts, the history of papal corruption, the fraudulent Shroud of Turin, the multitude of pagan influences on the formation of Christianity, the similarities between Christianity and earlier religions, the history of the Canon's formation, the resemblance between Jesus and other gods and saviors, etc. Certainly these issues are of significance and should be discussed, but they are of secondary importance. They can be used to disprove the validity of the Bible and Christianity, but the real question is whether or not they can be effectively utilized to weaken people's resolve. They're useful in winning debates but winning people is another matter. A third and final reason for concentrating on the Bible rather than religion in general is that millions of people, especially evangelicals and fundamentalists, derive their political and social views on abortion, civil rights, sexual equality, justice, punishment, free speech, military involvement, criminal activity, and so forth from biblical teachings. Their beliefs come straight out of the Bible. Consequently, court battles over school prayers, nativity scenes, "In God We Trust," chaplains in the military, creationism in the schools, textual censorship, and other current issues represent little more than superficial struggles over more basic concepts. As long as the foundation upon which biblicists base their beliefs remains unshaken, the secondary struggles will continue unabated. If I believed the Bible was the inerrant word of God and Jesus was my Savior, I'd be supporting nativity scenes and prayers too. Interesting, indeed, is the fact that we hear all kinds of political debates on a wide variety of subjects but we almost never witness conflicts over the validity of the source from which millions of people approach these secondary issues.
Letter #72 from GL of Uxbridge, Mass. (Part a)
Dennis. I would like to offer some solutions to a few of the alleged contradictions mentioned in the Dec. 1984 issue of BE. (Jesus invited himself into someone's home without first receiving an invitation--Ed.) There is a possibility that the man had already invited Jesus and the disciples to keep the passover with him. (Mark 14:13-15) and (Luke 22:10-12) seem to indicate that the man expected them--he had a room furnished and ready.
Editor's Response to Letter #72 (Part a)
Dear GL. You are using what I call the behind-the-scenes apologetic defense by assuming events for which there is no evidence in order to resolve an imbroglio. It's one of the more sophisticated, although usually intellectually dishonest, strategems. In this instance, there is no evidence, stated or implied, that Jesus had been invited earlier. If you are going to assume Jesus had been invited, although there is nothing stated to this effect, then I am going to assume he stole the silverware as he left. If you are going to make gratuitous assumptions to enhance his image, then I'm going to assume the opposite. The sky is the limit for both sides once we start down this road. As for the guest rooms being prepared in Mark 14 and Luke 22, my grandmother always had the guest room ready whether someone was coming or not.
Letter #72 Continues (Part b)
The verses you have indicated do not show that Jesus was afraid of men. Jesus himself tells us why he was evading his persecutors. (John 7:6)--"The right time has not yet come." I can not understand how you could imply that Jesus was a coward. You may not believe that he was God or had any divinity in his character but you cannot deny that he believed whole- heartedly in what he was doing. In Matt. 10:23 Jesus tells his disciples to flee persecution, not because of the fear of men but in order to preach the message.
Editor's Response to Letter #72 (Part b)
You want us to believe, GL, that every time Jesus sneaked away or hid from his captors he was saving himself for the day he could die on the cross for our sins. This legend continues to be perpetrated, despite the fact that when Jesus was on the cross he clearly stated, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Does this sound like someone who gladly died for your sins? Those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be. Secondly, in Matt. 10:23 Jesus told his disciples to flee. Why they were to flee is not material. The fact remains that in Luke 12:4 he told them, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body." Why run at all if fear is not involved? Thirdly, the amount of "heart" Jesus had in what he was doing does not prove bravery. The fact is he fled on numerous occasions. Any cowardly soldier could say he fled because it was not time for him to die.
Letter #72 Continues (Part c)
This new commandment ("A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye love one another"--John 13:34) differs from its Old Testament counterpart in that this love for one another is to resemble the love Jesus had for them. It is a new commandment because it is a modification of the old.
Editor's Response to Letter #72 (Part c)
How does the love Jesus had for them differ from the love they had for one another? But even more important is the fact that stiff penalties await anyone who modifies, increases, or diminishes the Old Law. "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminsh from it" (Deut. 12:32) and "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6). But the strongest condemnation of Jesus is to be found in Rev. 22:18-19 if, in fact, he did modify an OT commandment. "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."
Letter #72 Continues (Part d)
In Matt. 11:30 ("For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light") Jesus is not offering physical rest. He is offering spiritual rest to those who are weary from trying to achieve spiritual rest but are burdened by futile rituals and obligations. It is rest for the soul that Jesus is offering. Matt. 11:29 says, "Take my yoke upon you,...and ye shall find rest unto your souls."
Editor's Response to Letter #72 (Part d)
What does Matt. 11:30 have to do with rituals and obligations and why do you limit the rest he promises to the spiritual realm only? The biblical word soul is used in reference to both physical and spiritual beings. In any event, if only a spiritual rest was intended, then why did a righteous sould experience turmoil according to 2 Peter 2:8 (RSV): "...for what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds" and some spiritual souls who followed Jesus couldn't helf but be troubled and restless according to Rev. 20:4 (RSV): "Also I saw the souls of those who had been heheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshipped the beast or its image...." This is spiritual rest?
Letter #72 Continues (Part e)
(In Part 5 of the Dec. 1984 issue BE stated the genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 trace Jesus' descent from David to Joseph and since Jesus allegedly came from and virgin birth, he couldn't be a physical descendant of David through Joseph--Ed.). I agree that Mary's genealogy is not mentioned, but assuming that Jesus is not a physical descendant of David because he is not a physical descendant of Joseph is narrow-minded. Mary could be of the lineage of David. We can not assume that she is not simply because her genealogy is not given.
Editor's Response to Letter #72 (Part e)
As in Part A, GL, you are basing your position on an extra-biblical assumption. I have no obligation to your comment as long as you don't forget to tell people there is no biblical evidence whatever that Mary descended from David; indeed, as was mentioned on page 2 of the sixth issue of BE, Mary appears to have been from the house of Judah, not David, since her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron, i.e., from the house of Judah (Luke 1:5). Secondly, by denying the common apologetic theme that the genealogy in Luke 3 is that of Mary you are re-igniting the contradiction between Matt. 1:16 and Luke 3:23 which say Joseph's father was Jacob and Heli respectively. (To Be Continued Next Month.)
Letter #73 from VT of Huron, California (Part a)
(In letter #63 of the 22nd issue was the following comment by BE's editor: "Don't just say the Bible is God's word, prove it as in a court of law"--Ed.)...The proof of the Bible being God's word is born out in the lives of those that accept God as their Father and Jesus as their savior. Christians accept the Bible as God's Word, By faith we accept Jesus as our Savior. The PROOF is born out in the lives and actions of those that do the will of God.... No one is ever going to prove anything to you that you prefer not to be convinced of. Arguments do not change a persons' mind...
Editor's Response to Letter #73 (Part a)
You have offered no proof whatever, VT. The consequences people have experienced after accepting the Bible as God's word and Jesus as their savior have been as varied as the people involved, ranging from contentment to catastrophe. Prisons, cemeteries, and hospitals are replete with true believers. People may accept Jesus as their savior; but that proves nothing. What kind of specific proof do you have? That's the question. Faith is not proof. As was discussed in prior issues, the lives and actions of many hardly reflect what you call "the will of God," assuming the Bible is God's word and his will can be determined therefrom. Secondly, your conclusion that no one has proven anything to me that I preferred not to believe is no more worthy of comment than your assertion that arguments don't change minds. If the latter were true, presidential debates would be a tremendous waste of money. I've reluctantly changed my mind on numerous occasions.
Letter #73 Continues (Part b)
When Christ was nailed to the cross with the claim of "the king of Israel" over his head, their spiteful assertion was that they would believe if he would come down form the cross is plainly untrue. They would have shifted their ground and invented some other excuse.... These "Pious scoffers" are like many today who make factitious and arbitrary demands of Christ. Now the character, power, and diety of Christ are plain to all whose eyes are not blinded by the gods of this world. Christ will not give new proofs to the blind of heart....
Editor's Response to Letter #73 (Part b)
Several of your assertions warrant comment, VT. First, to be technically correct, what version are you using? None of the gospels in the KJV say "the King of Israel" was written over his head. Second, how could you know the thoughts of some people who lived 2,000 years ago? To say that is is "plainly untrue" that they would have believed Jesus if he had come down is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. How can you be certain they would have invented another excuse? Third, what was arbitrary about the demand by people at the foot of the cross for Jesus to prove his power by coming down? It seems to be a reasonable request. Fourth, you shifted the focus of attention to Jesus. BE is discussing the Bible's validity, not making demands on a person who allegedly lived 2,000 years ago. The genuineness of Jesus is inextricably tied to the book in which his activities are related. If the Book is shown to be invalid then certainly his alleged activities become dubious at best. Fifth, there is nothing plain about the character, power, or diety of Christ. Indeed, BE has engaged in an on-going process of proving precisely the opposite. His qualifications and integrity are flawed throughout. And lastly, how can there be "new proofs" when there were never any old ones?
Letter #73 Continues (Part c)
The problem whith so many people is that they just don't want to believe, period....
Editor's Response to Letter #73 (Part c)
No, the problem with so many people is that they do want to believe, period. Regardless of evidence to the contrary, they want something to hang on to, something to believe in. With far too many people the situation is such that if it sounds good, looks good, feels good, and seems to make sense, they don't really care if it's true or not. Rational minds only ask for demonstrable evidence. "I feel that" or "my reaction is" or "it seems to me" or "I believe" or "I think that" or "faith tells me" or "I was taught" explain nothing and prove less.
Letter #73 Continues (Part d)
Now we can accept this or we have the option to reject it. It is really just that simple.
Editor's Response to Letter #73 (Part d)
No, it isn't that simple by any means. There is the question of truth and that depends on proof. Whether people believe something or not has nothing to do with truth. It's true or false regardless of what people think. There is a real world out there that one must learn.
Letter #73 Continues (Part e)
The problem in translation is where the greatest of scholars run into trouble. The Greek and Hebrew have many synonyms. One word will have eight or even ten synonyms. Thus we have many different translations of the Bible. This is the point of contention. Any serious student of the Bible should use several different translations. Doctrine is not changed. There is no point at which a person can show where the doctrinal and theological importance has been impaired or diminished.
Editor's Response to Letter #73 (Part e)
How can you say doctrine does not change if the doctrine can't be determined initially? One can't show where the doctrinal and theological importance has been changed because varied interpretations obviate any possibility of definitely knowing the original teaching. Doctrine may not change; but the problem is one of determining what the doctrine should be. Impairing or diminishing isn't the problem; the question is one of fixing the correct doctrine to begin with.
Letter #73 Continues (Part f)
...Most all of the translations will differ in some degree. This is really no big thing as you make it out to be.... For you to make an issue of a rooster crowing at the wrong time to me is dwelling on trivia. This is the type of thing that got 'ol Thomas Paine and the other humanists started on their road of trivial pursuit. The only harm that it does is to the unsophisticated and the naive. Your paper is attractive to those that don't think for themselves.
Editor's Response to Letter #73 (Part f)
I didn't know I made a "big thing" out of the difference in translations, VT. Actually, we view them as little more than additional nails in the coffin. As far as the rooster crowing is concerned, one would hardly be justified in categorizing this as trivia, since Jesus is shown to be a false prophet and the gospels conflict with respect to what occurred and what should have happened. Frankly, I don't know what kind of evidence you want and I'm beginning to doubt any would be persuasive. The problem with so many apologists lies in their tendency to view any and all criticism as trivial. I'd hardly call Paine's Age of Reason trivial pursuit. The real harm done to the naive and unsophisticated comes about when they adopt your philosphical approach of discounting major problems. Your final comment is wholly inaccurate. Well over 200 subscribe to BE of whom a high percentage are lawyers, professors, holders of advanced degrees, and other individuals who have exhibited exceptional intelligence. You have made adament judgments with respect to BE, its editor, its readers, and the thoughts of people who lived 2,000 years ago and, yet, have probably had no contact with anyone involved. Letters to BE clearly show many readers not only think for themselves but exhibit a considerable degree of sophistication. Indeed, having been surprised on several occasions, I've learned to choose my words like someone picking apples in an orchard. Choose with care because what you pick today you may have to eat tomorrow. Read the back issues of BE and you'll see that both sides are presented and readers are left to judge for themselves who is correct.
Letter #74 from ET of Indianapolis, Indiana
In response to Letter #70 and GL's attack on my interpretation of Judges 1:19, let me quote Judges 1:19 from the NWT of the Holy Scriptures..."And Jehovah continued with Judah, so that he took possession of the mountainous region, but he could not dispossess the inhabitants of the low plain...." Since it says the Lord continued with Judah, would it not be logical that God was with...Judah when he tried the innocent people of the plains? You say the "he" was not God but Judah and his tribe. NOTE: Of course the "he" was Judah because there was, or is, no God. Judah was defeated by the war chariots....
On evolution...an arrow is NEVER the same when it is spent as when it leaves the bow! However, that was not my point; my point was this, without the cosmic law of evolution an arrow could not EVEN draw another breath. In fact, without evolution GL you could not take another step...or EVEN draw another breath. The Thorndike dictionary says of evolution "Any process of growth, gradual development, etc. Then it gives as an example a giant steamship evolving from a dugout canoe. That all life on this earth came from a single cell...is a theory...but EVOLUTION is NOT THEORY...it is a fact, a cosmic law of the universe, the same as gravitation, centrifugal force, momentum, etc.
Editor's Response to Letter #74
When you are criticized in BE by another reader, ET, you have a right "to respond." Your letter received priority.
Letter #75 from RO of Jamestown, Penn.
I am renewing my subscription...out of respect for your philosophy. But I think you have embarked on a hopeless task. The Bible was discredited quite well in the Age of Enlightenment but it did no good. Christians have just gone off on another tangent as they always will. It seems to be human nature to want to believe in something mystical, even if it is false.
Editor's Response to Letter #75
The task isn't hopeless, RO. Difficult, yes, but not hopeless. You'd be surprised at the number of people who seriously think about biblical difficulties when they are kept simple, relevant, and material and presented in a serious, respectful manner. I feel this especially during radio appearances. We have never received untoward phone calls and our subscriptions have grown steadily. When presenting information to people, you must give them time to weigh the merits before presenting more. It's an on-going process in which people are progressively re-educated. Granted many people are beyond hope but that's no reason to abandon the cause. I can't agree with your assertion that the Enlightenment discredited the Bible quite well. I know of no comprehensive refutation of the Bible that is available in the English language and, even more importantly, I know of no on-going systematic campaign against biblical defenses. Apologetic replies are as dynamic and fluid as criticisms. Voltaire and Paine's critiques have long since been attacked, showing there must be a perpetual response to the biblicists. It's a never-ending struggle, not a final battle. Even more important and difficult is projecting information to people. First one must gather as much data as possible. That's where BE enters. It's intended to be the most thorough refutation of the Bible available in the English language. Secondly, one must spread the information to others. That's where readers come in. People don't want to believe in something mystical; they want to believe in something that gives hope, a way out of their problems, something to look forward to, something that elevates their spirits.
Letter #76 from MP of Tulsa, Oklahoma
In Matt. 6:26 Jesus says "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them." But this is false, because millions of birds starve every winter!
EDITOR'S NOTE: (a) BE recently moved 11 miles to larger, more convenient quarters. Our new address and phone number are: 3158 Sherwood Park Drive Springfield, Ohio 45505 (513) 323-6146
(b) Too many letters of good quality have been sent to BE for all of them to be published. If your's isn't printed, please don't feel slighted. Someday we hope to publish twice a month and/or increase the number of pages.
(c) We thank all of you who have entered advertisements for BE in periodicals and contacted radio stations on our behalf.
Issue No. 27 Mar. 1985
Jesus, The Imperfect Beacon (Part Three of a Four Part Series)--The Jan. issue noted 23 additional reasons Jesus is not the star one should follow and the following continue that enumeration: (51) "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem, saying, `Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.' But he answered and said unto them, `Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?'" (Matt. 15:1-3). "Why do ye also" is an admission by Jesus that his disciples were violating a commandment of God. He doesn't deny they are breaking God's law; he simply says his critics are guilty of the same offense. (52) "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26) versus "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, All things are possible to him that believeth" (Mark 9:23) and "...If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you" (Matt. 17:20) and (John 14:12, 14). (53) "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28:16) and "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand" (John 3:35) versus "and he saith unto them...to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give" (Mark 20:23). (54) "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19) versus "But God raised him from the dead" (Acts 13:30) and "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew" (Acts 5:30). Jesus never raised himself but was raised by another. His prophecy that he would raise himself proved erroneous. (55) "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy" (Matt. 5:7) versus "then shall he (Jesus--Ed.) say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat;..." (Matt. 25:41-42) and "when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee hencefoward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away" (Matt. 21:18-19). Jesus failed to practice the mercy he preached. An eternal curse resulting from disappointed hunger is hardly the reaction of a divinely merciful being equal to God. Killing a tree for lacking fruit isn't indicative of a reasonably merciful and composed individual. (56) "Woe to you! for you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and consent to the deeds of your fathers; for they killed them, and you built their tombs" (Luke 11:47-48 RSV). Logic and scientific precision were not among Jesus' strong points. Building a tomb for someone whom my ancestors killed certainly does not mean I approve of the killing. (57) "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body" (Matt. 26:26). If the bread is really his body then there are two bodies of Jesus, two christs. Christians can't agree among themselves on how to approach this one. (58) "and I seek not mine own glory" (John 8:50) and "whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Matt. 23:12) versus "And Jesus answered them saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified" (John 12:23) and "now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self..." (John 17:5). (59) "And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place" (Mark 6:10). Superficial profundity is evident in the fact that one could hardly do anything else. Obviously one must abide in a place until one departs. (60) "Then, if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 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: (Matt. 24:23-24) versus "...the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me" (John 5:36) and (John 3:2, 20:30-31, Matt. 11:20-21). According to Jesus the ability to do great signs and wonders, i.e., miracles, does not prove one is the messiah. Yet, he contends his works prove he is from God. Using Jesus' own criteria, how do we know he is genuine? (61) "...verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation" (Mark 8:12) versus "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas" (Matt. 16:4). Jesus said in Mark 8:12 that no sign would be given; now there is an exception. (62) "For as Jonas was three day and three nights in the whale's belly" (Matt. 12:40) versus "...and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17). According to the OT Jesus erred. It was a fish, not a whale. (63) "the Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, `Behold, a glutton and a drundard..." (Luke 7:34 RSV). If this comment is true, and there is little evidence to the contrary, Jesus' character is, indeed, substandard. (64) "Jesus saith unto her (Mary Magdalene--Ed.), `Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father'" (John 20:17) versus "and after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus.... Then saith he to Thomas, `Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side'" (John 20:26-27). Unless Jesus ascended to his Father during the eight day period after he told Mary Magdalene not to touch him, he either broke or abolished his own rule. He told Mary not to touch him until he ascended; yet, eight days later he told Thomas to touch him. (65) "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this (John the Baptist--Ed.) is Elias, which was for to come" (Matt. 11:13-14) versus "I (John the Baptist--Ed.) am not the Christ. And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No" (John 1:20-21). Jesus says John the Baptist is Elias. John the Baptist says he is not. Someone is dishonest and, logically speaking, which man is in a better position to know. Secondly, if John the Baptist is Elijah, where is the "great and dreadful day of the Lord that is supposed to follow his appearance according to Mal. 4:5 ("Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord"). And lastly, if John the Baptist is Elijah the prophet, then Jesus taught reincarnation. (66) "And from the days of John the Baptist unto now..." (Matt. 11:12). These words signify that a long period had elapsed since John. Yet, on the very day Jesus is said to have uttered these words, he received a visit from the disciples of John who was in prison as Matt. 11:2-3 shows. (67) "Oh my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me..." (Matt. 26:39). This verse along with Matt. 27:46 ("Why hast thou foresaken me") shows that Jesus did not offer himself spontaneously as a sacrifice for mankind. "Cup" comes from a Hebrew word which actually means fate or, in this case, death. (68) "And Jesus began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer...and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31) and (Matt. 27:63) versus "The Son of man must suffer...and be raised the third day" (Luke 9:22) and (Luke 24:46, Mark 9:31). Jesus contradicted himself with respect to whether he was to arise on or after the third day. (69) "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a King then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born...." (John 18:37). Jesus often didn't seem to know the difference between a question and a statement. Pilate posed a query; he did not make an announcement. (70) "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands..." (Mark 10:29-30). What wealth did the apostles and disciples receive? What houses and lands did they obtain for following Jesus? How does one grant retrospective motherhood? Promising one's followers immense riches is actually a form of bribery. (71) "Behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city...Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation" (Matt. 23:34, 36). What prophets, wise men, or scribes did Jesus send to that generation who were also killed, crucified, and scourged in the synagogues, and persecuted from city to city? (72) "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54). Would this include Judas who so ate and drank (Matt. 26:26-27); whom Jesus called a devil (John 6:70), and whom Satan entered (Luke 22:3)? (73) "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom" (Matt. 16:28) and "there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power" (Mark 9:1), Luke 9:27). These passages show Christ's coming in power and glory to judge the quick and the dead was to come in the lifetime of persons living then; yet, they all died and the kingdom is yet to come. (74) "Watch therefore for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh" (Matt. 24:42-44). It is interesting that Jesus compares himself to a thief breaking into a good man's house. But, then, who knows his morality better than he himself?
Letter #72 Continues from Last Month (Part f)
(BE noted in the Dec. 1984 issue that Jesus' promise of protection to Paul failed--Ed.) The defense for your 6th accusation concerning Acts 18:10 ("For I am with thee (Paul--Ed.), and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city") is located in that very same verse. You neglected to print the last portion of that verse which clearly has Jesus only assuring him that no harm will come to him while he is in Corinth.
Editor's Response to Letter #72 (Part f)
I don't feel this verse is as clear as you claim, GL. Perhaps the last part does promise protection only in the city of Corinth, but I don't interpret it that way. Actually, it is too nebulous to prove either position and probably should have been left out.
Letter #72 Concludes (Part g)
(In part 7 of the Dec. issue BE noted the following problem: "Make yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness" versus "Ye cannot serve God and mammon"--Ed.). Making yourself friends of mammon is not tantamount to serving mammon.
Editor's Response to Letter #72 (Part g)
I don't think you really believe the distinction you have made GL and only offer it as a debating tactic. Judging from the context in which both verses appear, the author did not intend the contrast you have drawn. You also face the unenviable task of explaining how Jesus can be our moral beacon while teaching people to befriend unrighteousness.
Letter # 77 from FW of Portland, Oregon
I just received your sample copy today. You're doing an excellent job about something which should be done on a massive scale. Count me in as a subscriber. There's something, however, which I must point out to you as in error. In your commentary about the Flood and the Ark and the related nonsense that goes with it, you talk about the variety of domestic dogs as if they were species. This is false. Science only recognizes canis familiaris as a species. All the subsequent breeds of dogs from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua were derived by the genetic manipulation of human dog breeders from ancient times to the present--or selective breeding, if you will. Check it out in the Britannica or some other authoritative source. Keep up the good work.
Editor's Response to Letter #77
We thank you for your considerate comments, FW. With regard to your specific point, I think you misunderstood my position with respect to the dogs. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. If you will recall, the commentary on this topic began with the following observation: "Anyone believing in the Flood must provide rational answers to the following questions." You have provided what you feel is a rational explanation. I, on the other hand, find it difficult to believe that the tremendous variety of dogs today could have evolved from a single pair in only a few thousand years. Not being a scientist, however, I didn't attempt to prove my case. That's an extra-biblical problem which I'll leave to qualified evolutionists. If they support your position, I'm quite willing to alter mine. Alerting people to the problem was my only concern.
Letter # 78 from DEM of Long Beach, California
(Part K of the commentary in issue #23 noted the problem presented in 1 Kings 7:23 of having a circle 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference--Ed.) With respect to 1 Kings 7:23 I feel that you are on thin ice. Granted that a circular object of 10 cubits in diameter cannot have a circumference of 30 cubits. As the figures are "30" was not qualified in the Bible, you have assumed that it should stand or fall according to mathematical exactness. It is either right or it is wrong, as you put it. But consider the following. Your answer of 31.40 is also wrong as you rounded off pi to two decimal places before using it in your calculation. In fact, no amount of decimal places would suffice due to the number pi. Mathematically, the exact value for the circumference must equal 10 X pi which can never be precisely captured by a decimal expression.... If we give the benefit of the doubt (and we should as we cannot know exactly the biblical author's thoughts here), then we must assume that the number given is an approximation of some type. The degree of accuracy depends on what we want. You used 31.40 based on rounding pi to two decimals. I might prefer the value 31.42 which is based on rounding off the "exact" answer to two decimals. Someone else might prefer the nearest whole number and they would select 31 as the answer. On the other hand, 30 is a nice clean number and may well have suited the needs of the biblical authors who used it. Since all length measurements must be an approximation we should insert that qualification in our reading unless the text specifically claims otherwise....
Editor's Response to Letter # 78
Dear DEM. You might be interested in knowing that this topic generated an exceptional amount of interest on the part of many readers. Your response in particular is essentially a variation on the common apologetic theme that the Bible was not meant to be a scientifically precise text. But the fact is the Bible is either inerrant or it isn't, and a circle with a circumference of 30 and a diameter of 10 isn't possible. If the author had said "approximately 30" there would have been no problem. But he didn't. Granted all measurements are approximations, but there is a qualitative difference between 31.40 and 30. The latter doesn't appear to acknowledge even the existence of pi. According to your reasoning when my teacher in school subtracted for my slightly erroneous answer, I should have told him my response was a "nice clean number." Moreover, if you are going to accept 30, why not accept 33, 32, 29, or 28? They are just rough approximations too. Why grant this privileged status to 30 only. Thousands of math students are going to have legitimate complaints when their anwers, which are closer to the correct response than 30 is to 31.40, are counted wrong, while "God's word" is considered correct. And lastly, remember this is supposed to be God's book, not a man-made instrument. And like God it has to be perfect. Approximations don't count. You can't be approximatly perfect. You either are or you are not. If the book was giving an approximate figure, it should have said so or otherwise qualified the answer.
Letter #79 from KEN of Sacramento, California (Part a)
Dear Dennis. I am still an avid reader of BE, and hope you will take the time to review some constructive criticisms of some recent issues. First issue 22, page 1, Item (4). (BE quoted Gen. 1:20 and 2:19 and stated, "According to the 1st creation all winged fowl were created out of the waters. Yet, the 2nd account says that every fowl of the air was created out of the ground--Ed.) I'm sure by now many readers have pointed out the "contradiction" is just poor translation. If you check some of the more accurate and better documented translations, such as the NIV and the NAB the contradiction evaporates. Perhaps this item proves that the KJV is imperfect, but it argues nothing about the Bible in general.
Editor's Response to Letter # 79 (Part a)
Dear KEN. Problems of this nature are unavoidable no matter what version is used. Every version of the Bible has its detractors. If I used the RSV, the NEB, the NWT or any one of several other versions, someone would take issue with particular verses and cite other versions to the contrary. That's why I focus on the KJV. It seems to be most acceptable to the largest number of people. Dealing with every version of the Bible on an individual basis is out of the question. You have chosen to rely upon recent versions which are not only tendentious but oppposed by a substantial number of fundamentalists. Before we can debate the Bible we must first agree on which version is to be used. There must first be a consensus on what the Bible is. If it isn't a book, but, instead, a compilation of bits and pieces from many books, then communication will rapidly deteriorate. If we are going to leap from one version to another, then the only practical way to communicate would be for you to write your own version composed of those verses you prefer and send me a copy. I've confronted this rather sophisticated technique before. Individuals will quote the KJV until they encounter difficulties and then switch to another version which is then quoted until it, too, creates problems, at which time a third version is employed. It's a kind of catch-me-if-you-can game in which apologists are provided a wide variety of sentences to choose from for each verse in the Bible. In effect, there is no Bible, per se, but only a vast array of sentences in a variety of versions which can be compiled as conditions dictate. I have no objection to discussing any standard version providing we stay with that version. Allowing biblicists to have 10 or 15 versions of every verse in the Bible from which to choose at will would be absurd.
Letter #79 Continues (Part b)
(On page 2 of the same issue BE contrasted Gen. 1:9-10 with 2:4-6. After quoting both, BE stated: "in the 1st creation the earth when created was covered with water and the land did not appear until the 3rd day. In the 2nd creation there was no water at first; the earth was dry land"--Ed.) I'm at a loss to understand how you can interpret Gen. 2:4-6 (the 2nd version--Ed.) this way. The verses say only that in the early days of the earth, there was no rain. It does not say that lakes and oceans did not exist. Perhaps you can enlighten me. If this argument is as weak as it looks, I fear you are only giving ammunition to the evangelists.
Editor's Response to Letter #79 (Part b)
Essentially we are discussing the extra-biblical question of how the earth was formed, KEN. I find it difficult to believe the earth initially had oceans and lakes and yet, not one drop of rain had fallen. If you can produce adequate evidence and reputable scientists willing to tesitfy on your behalf, I'd be willing to reconsider my position. However, I think your belief runs counter to accepted scientific data.
Letter #79 Concludes (Part c)
(On page 2 of the 23rd issue BE quoted 2 Chron. 21:20-22:2 and showed that Ahaziah began to reign at age 42 even though his father had just died at age 40, i.e., Ahaziah was two years older than his father--Ed.) When I checked the NIV, for example, I see that Ahaziah was actually 22 years old when he began to reign (2 Chron. 22:2).
Editor's Response to Letter # 79 (Part c)
Why didn't you choose the KJV, the RSV, the MLV, the ASV, or the Jewish Masoretic text, KEN. They all say 42, not 22. Personally, I consider the RSV to be far more reliable than the NIV. Even the Living Bible, which has 22, has a footnote stating that literally speaking, the number should be 42. You quoted the NIV but it, too, has a footnote stating the number is 42 in Hebrew. Apologists have tried to escape from this problem by inserting the number 22 because 2 Kings 8:26 says Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign. The compilers of expediency-motivated modern versions such as the NIV have sought to resolve the contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron. 22:2 by simply rewriting the latter.
Letter #80 from MP of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Dear Dennis. Consider this problem. Jesus often referred to himself as the "Son of man" (Matt. 16:13, 19:28, 25:13, 26:2) and many biblicists would have us believe that Jesus was/is God. Yet, Balaam in an alledged revelation from God says, "God is not a man, that he should lie neither the son of man, that he should repent" (Num. 23:19).
Letter No 81 from DWC of Boydton, Virginia
Last night I and a few christian brothers were involved in a "heated" debate concerning the Bible and christianity; therefore, I decided to write you, after I remembered hearing you bring forth some good/excellent remarks about the bible on a talk show, three months ago, to see if you could come to my defense by sending me some of your literature and your newsletter. Also I would like to become one of your students. I can't honestly say if I'm an atheist or not, but I'm sure not a Christian! And I say this because there hasn't been a christian in my 10 years of incarceration who can answer my questions! Also most of these guys who have been converted into christianity are either doing it as a means of escapism (from drugs, gangs, etc.), something to cling to, or a chance to meet women in the choir. These converts smoke, shoot dope, and do almost everything else under the sun; yet, they claim to be christians! They also return to prison at a fast pace with a worse offense and head right back to the chapels. On several occasions I raised my hand during the christian services to ask question and was almost thrown out.... to be honest, I feel as though the bible is shoved down the poor people's throats to keep us in submission.... Where do we go when times are hard? Straight to church or to pick up a bible. But when we leave these churches or put down these bibles, things are still the same. People came from the Parole Board with the fake story of having the holy ghost....
Letter #82 from RM of Fairview, Canada
Dear Dennis. It is with pathological delight that I am renewing by subscription to BE for the 1985 term. How can I control my eagerness to make waves within my community, as well as provincially. However, it is great fun, thanx to you. Besides creating controversy in a local paper, I am in the process of putting much of BE on computer disk for immediate recall. Furthermore, I am designing a correspondence course of twenty lessons apart from the disk. Having been a school teacher, I find grammatical errors within the covers of the Bible very interesting, especially the ones you have found like "replenish" and "mountains" in Genesis. I think the one in Gen. 3:8 is also interesting: "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day...." When does a voice take on legs for walking? ...thank you so much for all the intelligence you have shown me.
Editor's Response to Letter #82
Dear RM. Your remarks are very kind and I'm glad to see you are using BE as a basic tool to confront biblicists. That's one of the primary reasons for which it is written.
Letter #83 from AK of Port Moody, B.C., Canada
Dear Dennis. I would like you to know how much I appreciate reading BE. It is the most intelligent writing I ever read in the 77 years of my life. I like your logic and sense of humor and look forward to every new issue. Certain writings in the Bible, which for decades have been doubtful to me, have now been proven to be plain nonsense by BE. In discussions about religion, it is pleasant to have BE writings for support. Please accept the best wishes from my wife and myself for further success in the enlightenment of the people.
Editor's Response to Letter #82
Thank you AK and I'm glad to see that you, too, are using BE as support in discussions.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A special note of gratitude goes out to KEN who wrote this months Letter #79. Although we have had our differences, KEN has always been a reliable supporter of BE and is solely responsible for my Feb. 18th hour-long appearance on radio station WGNR of Sacramento, California, and the resulting additional subscribers. Such support is greatly appreciated.
Issue No. 28 Apr. 1985
Jesus, the Imperfect Beacon (Part Four of a Four Part Series)--Although this month's list of Jesus' aberrations marks the conclusion of an extensive critique of Christianity's namesake, even more examples are available for future analysis and may someday be presented. In the meantime, however, the following will complete the topic: (75) "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt.20:28) versus "Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him" (Psalm 72:11) and "...that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him" (Dan. 7:14) and "...all dominions shall serve and obey him" (Dan. 7:27). Jesus' concept of the messiah conflicts with that of OT prophets. (76) "but I say unto you, `That ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39) versus "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers" (Matt. 21:12-13) and "when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of the hand, saying, `Answerest thou the high priest so'" (John 18:22)? Apparently Jesus ignored his own maxim since he overthrew the tables and was struck by an officer for talking back. (77) "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, `Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not'" (Matt. 10:5) versus "So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he (Jesus--Ed.) abode there two days" (John 4:40) and "He (Jesus--Ed.) left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. And he must needs go through Samaria. Then cometh he to a city of Samaria..." (John 4:3-5) and "...ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria..." (Acts 1:8) and (Luke 17:11, Isa. 49:6). Jesus not only ignored his own command but advised others to do as much. (78) "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24) and "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, `Go not into the way of the Gentiles...But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:5-6) and (Matt. 7:6, 15:26, Mark 7:27) versus "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations..." (Matt. 28:19) and "he said unto them, `Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15) and "the gosgel must first be published among all nations" (Mark 13:10) and (Luke 24:43, Acts 1:8). Jesus originally sent his followers only to the house of Israel, but later reversed course and sought a wider audience. In the vernacular this is known as not having it together." (79) "then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. 26:52) and "...and his name shall be called...The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6) and "Peace I leave with you, nay peace I give unto you" (John 14:27) and (Matt. 5:9, 5:22, Isa. 2:4, Zech. 9:10) versus "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34) and "I am come to send fire on the earth" (Luke 12:49) and "...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Jesus' contradictory approach to peace is even more apparent than that of current political figures appealing to the gallery. (80) "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22) and "As I hear I judge: and my judgment is just...." (John 5:30) and (John 5:27, 8:26, Matt. 25:31-32) versus "...for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47) and "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man" (John 8:15) and Luke 12:14, John 8:50). (81) In both Luke 24:17 RSV ("And he said to them, `What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk'?") and Luke 8:43-45 ("And a woman...came behind him and touched the border of his garment:...and Jesus said, `Who touched me'?") Jesus deceived his audience by pretending he, i.e. God, didn't know something. For whatever reason, his act was deceptive. (82) "...go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them (as a tax--Ed.) for me and thee" (Matt. 17:27). One can not help but ask how this money originated. Either Jesus created it, in which case he was a counterfeiter or, as the omniscient God, he failed to perform the morally correct act of returning it to the rightful owner. (83) "Ask and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you: For everyone that asketh receiveth..." (Matt. 7:7-8) versus "Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am thither ye cannot come" (John 7:34) and "...they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me" (Prov. 1:28) and "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" (Matt. 27:46) and (Luke 13:24, John 9:31, Psalm 18:41, Jer. 7:16, 11:11, Ezek. 8:18, Micah 3:4, Hab. 1:2). Sometimes Jesus' oratorical flourishes exceeded his grasp. His promise of success to all who ask is not only in opposition to comment by himself and OT prophets but refuted by his own experience. (84) "But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment..." (Matt. 5:22 RSV). Yet, Jesus himself, ("looked round about on them with anger--Mark 3:5) and overthrew the moneychangers' tables. Again, he didn't practice what he preached. (85) "Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 22:13) and (Matt. 8:12, 25:30) versus "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 13:42) and (Matt. 25:41). How could weeping and gnashing of teeth occur in darkness and fire? (86) "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3, 5) versus "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). All must repent; yet, many need no repentance. Strange "logic," indeed! (87) "Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation" (Mark 8:12) versus "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples..." (John 20:30) and "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you..." (Acts 2:22) and (Mark 16:20, Acts 5:12, 8:13). (88) "Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matt. 20:16) versus "and all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6) and "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me" (John 12:32). Explaining this one should be left to theologians, for as Elbert Hubbard stated in The Philistine "Theology is an attempt to explain a subject by those who do not understand it. The intent is not to tell the truth but to satisfy the questioner." (89) "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33) and "Jesus said unto him, `If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me'" (Matt. 19:21) and (Mark 10:21, Luke 3:11, 11:41, 12:35, 18:22) versus "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house" (Mark 2:15). Jesus has a house while telling others to surrender their wealth. (90) "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35) versus "One generation passeth away, and another cometh: but the earth abidth for ever" (Eccle. 1:4). In this instance, as well as that which follows, Jesus is inaccurate according to the OT. Jesus said, "...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth" (John 5:28-29) while Job 7:9 says, "as the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more." (91) "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father..." (John 15:26) versus "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name..." (John 14:26). Who, then, will send the Comforter? (92) "...but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder" (Matt. 19:17-18) versus "Thou knowest the commendments,...Do not kill" (Mark 10:19, Luke 8:20). Murder and killing are not identical. Jesus contradicted himself unless he intended to equate the two, in which case soldiers, police, executioners, and those killing in self-defense or by accident are in trouble. (93) Jesus called himself a prophet ("Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country"--Matt. 13:57) as did others ("And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee"--Matt. 21:11). But he couldn't be a prophet in the OT tradition because: (a) None of the prophets of Israel ever taught in his own name or on his own responsibility. The "I" of the prophets is God; the "I" of Jesus is himself; (b) No prophet added to or diminished the laws of the Torah; (c) No prophet arrogated to himself the power to forgive sins which the OT reserves for God alone; (d) No prophet ever did a miracle on his own authority or represented it to be a sign of his own power. Jesus performed miracles to cause people to believe in him OT prophets wrought miracles to strenthen belief in God; (e) and no prophet in the OT, not even Moses, ever claimed to be nearer God than others. Jesus claimed a special nearness to God not shared or even approximated by any other human being. (94) Jesus said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John 5:31) and later stated, "I am one that bear witness of myself..." (John 8:18). The logical conclusion to be drawn from combining these two statements is that Jesus disproved his own honesty. (95) "And the high priest answered and said unto him, `I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.' Jesus saith unto him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven'" (Matt. 26:63-64). The inaccuracy of Jesus' prophecy is shown in the fact that the high priest never saw this. (96) And finally, like Paul, Jesus was not averse to twisting OT verses should the need arise. "For this is he, of whom it is written, `Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee'" (Matt. 11:10). This is a quote from Mal. 3:1 which actually says, "Behold, I will send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me..." Several differences are evident: (a) Malachi says, "the way before me" not "thy way before thee"; (b) Jesus left out "before thy face"; (c) Malachi says "will send" (future tense) rather than "send"; (d) Since it's unclear as to whom the pronouns apply, there is little reason to believe Malachi is referring to John the Baptist or Jesus, and (e) the scene in Malachi of the coming of the Lord is one of fear and terror, like the day of judgment; whereas the birth of Christ is always spoken of as a time of joy and happiness. Thus, the scene in Malachi would not be referring to the birth of Christ. A substantial number of additional examples could be mentioned and probably will appear in future issues, but by now any reasonably objective assessment must lead to the conclusion that Jesus is an imperfect beacon and wholly unqualified to act as mankind's savior.
Letter #84 from Arthur Rice of Hale Center, Texas (Arthur wants his full name published) Dear Dennis...I have just finished reading and studying McDowell and Stewart's Answers to Tough Questions. If this work is typical of the apologists then they have a very weak case indeed. Time after time they distort the argument by using faulty logic, appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, circular reasoning, watering down the conflict, i.e., always a difficulty never a contradiction, etc. McDowell is very apt to use whichever version of scripture most suits his assertions. As in the case on page 140 where in defense of christian faith as an "intelligent faith" he used the NASB version of Mark 12:34 showing a scribe answering intelligently instead of the KJV which shows the scribe answered discreetly. Whatever device furthers his position he uses extensively so that his "Answers" begin to look more like "Evasions and Unsupported Assertions."
Letter #85 from JP of Philadelphia, Penn. (Part a)
Dear Dennis. I just read your sample issue and I must say that the problem that I find with it is that you focus on individual points of apparent inconsistency and not the main issue at hand: Is the Bible God's Word, and is Christ who He said He was?...In your sample issue you quote 8 reasons given by McDowell and Stewart for the Bible's Divine Inspiration, all of which you rightly complained were internal and therefore no proof at all.
Editor's Response to Letter #85 (Part a)
Dear JP. I think that if you had read more than one issue of BE you'd realize the focus extends far beyond individual inconsistencies. They are used primarily as blows in the larger philosophical bout. Any attorney knows you prove your case by taking points one at a time. I can't disprove the entire Bible in one fell swoop. Cases are built point by point. It's techinal and methodical, but what do you recommend? Broad glittering generalizations which are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions? Opinions are a penny a pound.
Letter #85 Continues (Part b)
I would like to give you five reasons that I consider the Bible to be God's Word, all of which are external to its own claim of Divine Inspiration: (1) In a book written over 1600 years by 40 different men, I find a consistent message of man's sin, God's righteousness, etc.... (2) Fulfilled prophecy, both political and messianic, too numerous to be coincidence. (3) A practicality that is manifested in the changed lives that Christ has affected. (4) A message too unique and wonderful to be man's invention...especially in the concept of...salvation through grace. What man could have invented the greatest love story ever told. God becoming a humble babe...suffering death.... (5) Overwhelming evidence that Christ was resurrected and therefore who he said he was....
Editor's Response to Letter #85 (Part b)
The problem with your analysis, JP, is that it is not only a litany of unproven generalizations but permeated with the myopic vision so evident in those who have been taught early in life to believe their's is the only way. Let's look at your points individually: (1) Anyone who finds the biblical message to be consistent hasn't looked very hard or with a critical eye. One of the primary reasons for BE's existence is to prove the Bible is anything but consistent. (2) With respect to prophecy, biblical perspicacity is about on a par with that of most fortune tellers as past and future issues of BE will show. (3) Changed lives also occur to those who have adopted the beliefs of Mohammed, Buddha, and countless other religious figures. Why single out Jesus for special attention? (4) What is unique about the Christian message and upon what possible basis would you conclude that it is beyond man's invention. Are you saying no one thought of basic Christian beliefs such as salvation by grace, the atoning death and resurrection of one's god, etc. prior to Jesus' appearance? Are you saying Christianity is not a composite, an amalgam, of many earlier beliefs? One might just as well say it emerged isolated from all outside influences with no evolutionary history, in which case it truly would be unique. I'd be interested in knowing what aspect of Christianity was not evident in an earlier religion or faith. (5) And lastly, even if Jesus had arisen from death, why would that be of any consequence since resurrections were rather common in that age. Essentially, JP, you have made some all-encompassing generalizations to which I have more or less responded in kind. From your perspective the Bible is God's word, teeming with fulfilled prophecy and other accurate teachings. I say the exact opposite is true. Now that that is out of the way, where do we go from here? Do we prove and provide evidence or do we merely continue making assertions which the other side considers wholly inaccurate? That's the problem with so many letters I receive, JP. They equate belief with proof. They aren't able to separate proven facts from opinions. They also seem to have no ability to sit back and critically analyze their own beliefs. They don't ask themselves: What would be the logical response of critics to what I just said.
Letter No. 86 from GL of Uxbridge, Mass. (Part a)
Dennis. In response to your response to my letter (#72-Part a), I must point out that you obfuscated the issue by introducing your proposition that Jesus peculated silverware. First of all silverware was most likely not present. Secondly, my logic was far from dishonest unless you have made an escape from reason. You hold your assumption that Jesus rudely invited himself to the man's house as fact. There is no more supporting evidence for your assumption than there is for my proposition that Jesus may have been invited earlier. The passage in Mark 14 records Jesus as stating..."the teacher asks where is my room...? Even if you can not accept the possibility that Jesus was invited earlier, at best you must admit that the passages don't clean the matter up, but you can not assume the worst because of your dislike of Jesus which is the only thing that could bring you to the point where you contend that Jesus definitely invited himself beyond a shadow of doubt. Your response was specious at best.
Editor's Response to Letter #86 (Part a)
GL. We disagree on several points. First, silverware has been used for centuries. The Encyclopedia International in front of me says, "Greece, Byzantium, Rome and other countries of the ancient world produced admirable silverware." Your comment that it was "most likely not present" exposes poor homework. You're guessing! Moreover, don't you think your comment is rather immature, if not petty? I could have used any number of items. Secondly, I don't know what version you are using, GL, but the KJV says, "The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber" (Mark 14:14). The possessive pronoun "my" isn't even present. Thirdly, let's return to the original problem. In Matt. 26:18 Jesus said he would keep the passover at a man's home and BE's commentary noted this displayed rude manners. You stated Jesus could have recieved an off-camera invitation. As I mentioned earlier, if you are going to make behind-the-scenes assumptions, then so am I. If we stay strictly with the Bible, however, you will have little to present in Jesus' behalf. True, the passages "don't clear the matter up," but they are decidedly in my favor. If they aren't, why did you create something outside the Bible for support? You accuse me of assuming the worse because of my dislike of Jesus when actually you are assuming the best because of your devotion to Jesus. Unlike you, who formulated an extra-biblical event, I remained within the text. I could write an entire library if extra-biblical assumptions were allowed.
Letter #86 Continues (Part b)
(In part 3 of the Dec. 1984 commentary BE asked: If loving thy neighbor as thyself was an OT commandment, how could it be a new commandment as Jesus claimed. GL said it was a new commandment because it modified the old. BE replied that this violated Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, and Rev. 22:18-19 which prohibit any modification of the Old Law--Ed.) In response to the Editor's response to my letter #72 (part c), Rev. 22:18-19 ("For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away..." was your strongest argument. But you took the verses out of context. If you examine the verses you will see that warning refers to those who..."add unto these things"; and to those who "shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy. This warning covers those who tamper with the book of Revelation only.
Editor's Response to Letter #86 (Part b)
Interestingly enough, GL, you accused me of taking Rev. 22:18-19 out-of-context when that is the criticism used by other biblicists when people have not applied Rev. 22:18-19 to the entire Bible. You contend the verse applies only to the Book of Revelation whereas apologists whom I have contacted apply it to the entire Bible. You need to meet with your Christian brothers and sisters and agree on a common policy. I think you are in a class by yourself. On this point I'd have to ask the same question many others would pose. Upon what basis do you assume that Rev. 22:18-19 does not apply to the entire Bible? Many groups who have given extra-biblical writings, such as the Book of Mormon and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, authority commensurate with that of the Bible, could probably use you as a spokesman. They are tired of hearing Rev. 22:18-19 applied to the entire Bible. Secondly, you ignored Deut. 12:32 ("What things soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it") and Prov. 30:6 ("Add thou not unto his words, lest he reporve thee"). Surely you aren't going to contend that they also apply only to the book in which they appear. If so, then for all practical purposes you have exposed the entire Bible to any group who seeks to modify the text with a more up-to-date revelation. In effect, the canon is not closed. Books and other writings can still be added. In trying to save Jesus, you have severely, if not mortally, wounded the Bible.
Letter #86 Concludes (Part c)
(In letter #70--Part d--GL described ET's concept of evolution as simplistic and ET defended his position in Letter #74--Ed.) In response to letter #74 and ET's response to my letter I must apologize ET. I assumed that you were speaking of the theory of Evolution when you stated that Evolution is fact. Part of the misunderstanding was due to your charge against "Bible thumpers." I know of no "Bible thumpers" who would disagree with you that evolution (change) is constantly at work. What we do reject as fact is the theory that all life on earth has come from a single cell.
Letter #87 from IF of Vacaville, California
(We sent a small note to IF explaining why BE doesn't emphasize the non-existence of Jesus--Ed.) I received your card explaining why you don't believe the non-existence of Jesus belongs in BE. I differ on that score. It is an errancy to pray and carry on by the hundreds of millions to a personage that never existed. This would be exposing the wealthy electronic evangelists plus the evangelist-in-chief in the White House....
Editor's Response to Letter #87
Dear IF. BE does not oppose discussing the non-existence of Jesus. That's no problem. The question is: What are you going to use for evidence and how will it affect others. An extra-biblical topic obligates one to go outside the Book for data to use against the Bible, an approach which has little effect on true believers. Using one part of the Book against another is more effective. It's one thing for outside data to refute something within the text; it's quite another for data within to do so. Biblicists believe in no higher authority than the Bible, so external information brought to the Book, regardless of source, will be discounted. Your approach will disprove the accuracy of the Bible from an intellectually objective perspective, but will it persuade others to alter their views. You'll win the argument; but will you win people. It's hard enough doing it BE's way. However, because of the topic's acceptance, it will be discussed eventually.
Letter #88 from RPK of Ruston, Louisiana
Dennis. For the record, I do not believe the value of your work can be overestimated. I truly believe it may have historical significance and early editions of BE will become serious collectors' items. I wish my circumstances could allow me to take a more active roll in your work. Some time ago I began a correspondence with the Jimmy Swaggart people... I want to challenge them to name one verse to which I cannot find a contradiction or at least an inconsistency. Do you think I am on firm ground?...If I publicly challenge through "Letters to the Editor" some of the Bible quoting letters to the newspapers, are you available (on a non-professional basis) as a resource?
Editor's Response to Letter #88
Dear RPK. Your compliments are only too kind. With respect to finding a contradiction or inconsistency to every verse in the Bible, this could present a problem since many statements say little of substance. For instance, I just opened my KJV to John 7:53 which says, "And every man went unto his own house." I've never been known for defending the Bible but I'd be hardpressed to find a contradiction to a statement as innocuous as that. Indeed, many verses are nothing more than questions or exclamations. Rest assured that the amount of information in our favor far exceeds any need to play Russion roulette with verses. Anytime you wish to use us a resource feel free to do so.
Letter #89 from NLS of Richmond, Indiana
Dennis. Although I'm certainly not qualified to debate with anyone over biblical verses, I sure can loan them BE and let them read for themselves.
Editor's Response to Letter #89
Dear NLS. Sounds like an excellent idea! You're doing what you can with what you have and that's all anyone can ask.
Contents