Ezekiel's Failures

by Farrell Till

(excerpted from Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled)

Possibly the most pessimistic of the Old Testament prophets, Ezekiel proclaimed impending doom upon everyone from Judah itself to the enemy nations surrounding it. The failure of his prophecies to materialize as he predicted makes a compelling argument against the Bible inerrancy doctrine. In one of his doom's-day prophecies, Egypt was to experience forty years of utter desolation:

Therefore, thus says Yahweh God: "Surely I will bring a sword upon you and cut off from you man and beast. And the land of Egypt shall become desolate and waste; then they will know that I am Yahweh, because he said, `The River is mine, and I have made it.' Indeed, therefore, I am against you and against your rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia. Neither foot of man shall pass through it nor foot of beast pass through it, and it shall be uninhabited forty years. I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate; and among the cities that are laid waste, her cities shall be desolate forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them through the countries" (29:8-14).

Talk about extravagant rhetoric, we certainly have it in this passage. No such desolation has ever happened to Egypt; there never has been a time in recorded history when Egypt was not inhabited by man or beast for forty years, when its cities were laid waste and desolate, when its people were all dispersed to foreign lands, etc. Bible defenders, of course, resort quickly to figurative and future applications, but their strategy just won't work. Future fulfillments are excluded by patently clear references that Ezekiel made to contemporary characters who were to figure in the fulfillment: "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him" (29:2). Although Egypt still survives as a nation, its rule by pharaohs ended long ago. Furthermore, Ezekiel identified Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, as the instrument Yahweh would use to bring about Egypt's desolation: "Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage, and that will be the wages for his army'" (29:19). Clearly, then, Ezekiel had in mind a contemporary fulfillment of this prediction. As for spiritual or figurative explanations of the prophecy, just what events in Egyptian history were so catastrophic in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs that they could justifiably be considered a figurative desolation of forty years? Unless bibliolaters can identify such a catastrophe, their figurative interpretations must be regarded as just more attempts to sweep aside another embarrassing prophecy failure.

The Impossible Voyage Of Noah's Ark

Farrell Till presents some interesting information concerning Noah's ark and the Genesis flood---from creationists. From the Errancy Discussion List, 1-5-97:

One of the best works I have read on Noah's ark is Robert Moore's 

"The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark," which was published in the

Winter 1983 edition of *Creation/Evolution.* I highly recommend 

it. So far, we have discussed only the 300-foot limit in our 

exchanges, but Moore discusses at length many problems that 

the ark would have encountered. While you are trying to find 

reputable naval architects who will confirm that the 300-foot 

limit would not have been a barrier to building a seaworthy 

barge 450 feet long, I want to present some of the other 

problems to you. You have insisted that the ark floated "gently" 

on the water, whereas the science of meteorology would require 

a scenario that would make hurricanes seem like mere soft 

breezes.

In "Impossible Voyage..." Moore presented the scenarios that even
creationists themselves have stated as the type of forces that the 
ark would have had to endure. In *The Creation Explantion,* 
Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves said this about the flood: 
"The Flood was accompanied by violent movements of the earth's 
crust and by volcanic activity of momentous proportions. 
Tremendous tidal waves and rushing currents scoured and deeply 
eroded the continental surface. Entire forests were ripped up and 
transported large distances to be dumped where the currents 
slowed" (p. 226).
  
John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris certainly need no 
introduction to creationists. In "The Genesis Flood,* they 
presented the following scenario: "Even after the forty days, 
when the greatest of the rains and upheavals diminished, 
the Scriptures say that the waters 'prevailed' upon the earth 
for one hundred and ten days longer. This statement... would 
certainly imply that extensive hydraulic and sedimentary 
activity continued for a long time, with many earlier flood 
deposits perhaps re-eroded and reworked.... The only way in 
which land could now appear again would be for a tremendous 
orogeny to take place. Mountains must arise and new basins 
must form to receive the breat overburden of water imposed 
upon the earth" (pp. 266-267).
  
Would such forces at work on the earth's crust have caused 
turbulance? Whitcomb and Morris certainly thought so: "Yielding 
of the crust at even one point, with resultant escape of magmas 
and water or steam, would then lead to earth movements causing 
further fractures until, as the Scriptures portray so graphically, 
'the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up' 
(Genesis 7:11). Truly this was a gigantic catastrophe, beside 
which the explosion of the largest hydrogen bomb, or of hundreds 
of such bombs, becomes insignificant" (pp. 242-243).
  
The creationist J. E. Schmich presented this scenario: "The 
worldwide ocean of the Genesis flood was swept by wind storms 
that would make modern tornadoes seem lik a zephyr" ("The 
Flood and the Ark," *Creation Research Society Quarterly,* 
11:2, pp. 120-122).
  
These are not the claims of despicable atheists. These are 
statements that have been published by men who are recognized 
as the foremost spokesmen for the scientific accuracy of the 
Genesis flood record. Some of us on the errancy list tried to get 
you to investigate the meteorological implications of a flood like 
the one described in Genesis, but you ignored our statements. 
Now I have presented to you statements from leading creationists, 
who agree with our claim that meteorological conditions in Noah's 
flood would have subjected the ark to unimaginable forces and
stresses. If anything, their scenarios are far more extreme than 
anything skeptics have proposed, because, of course, they are 
trying to present scenarios that would have the flood as an 
explanation for the geological record. If you want the discussion 
to continue, I am going to insist that you address this issue and 
present evidence that the leading arkeologists are wrong in the 
scenarios they presented and that the ark merely floated
"gently" on the water.

Farrell Till

Empiricism

From the II Errancy Discussion List, 1-1-07:

This is like the ivory-billed woodpecker example that I gave in an earlier reply to McDonald. If I were claiming that the ivory-billed woodpecker is extinct and McDonald knew that specimens of this species had been discovered in Arkansas, he wouldn't hesitate to counter my claim by producing an ivory-billed woodpecker or at least pictures of the discovery. The easiest way to prove the existence of gods or angels or miracles, then, would be to produce one.

You just can't beat empiricism for reliability. It beats all to heck holy books, visions, and such like.
-Farrell Till

When You Lack Evidence...

Just common sense, really. Something biblical inerrantists are woefully lacking in: 

When you lack evidence, the only way to decide whether or not to believe something is to ask: Is it likely? If you tell me a bird flew past my window, I will probably believe you, even though I did not see it myself and I have no evidence. That is because such a thing is likely. I have seen it happen before. It is more likely that a bird flew past my window, than that you are deceiving me. But if you tell me a pig flew past my window, I will not believe you, because my past experience tells me that such things do not happen, and so I presume that what you reported is false. Thus, where there is no evidence we have to rely on our own past experience of the sort of things that really happen ( Carl Lofmark from What Is The Bible, pp. 41-42).

More Trouble For The Perfect-Harmony Theory

An absolutely devastating article for the perfect-harmony Bible theorists. From The Skeptical Review, 1995:

by Farrell Till

The Bible is so perfectly harmonious from cover to cover that only divine inspiration can explain its unity. You don't believe it? Well, just ask any Bible fundamentalist, and he will assure you that it's true. 

Critical works of the past two centuries have shot the perfect-harmony theory so full of holes that by now it should be lying rusted out at the bottom of an ocean of biblical scholarship. Instead, Christian fundamentalists continue to proclaim to gullible pulpit audiences that there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible. As we have shown repeatedly in past issues of The Skeptical Review, this claim is patently false. Let's take as an example the fact that the Bible plainly teaches that God is no respecter of persons: "(F)or there is no respect of persons with God" (Romans 2:11, KJV). Acts 10:34, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, and 1 Peter 1:17 all claim that God judges all men fairly without respect of person. In boasting of having stood his ground against the pillars of the Jerusalem church who wanted to force Titus to submit to circumcision, the apostle Paul said that the positions of prominence held by his opponents in the dispute didn't matter to him, because "God shows personal favoritism to no man..." (Gal. 2:6, NKJV). There is no doubt, then, that the Bible teaches that God is impartial toward all men. 

Well, okay, let's see how consistent the Bible is in presenting God as an impartial deity. We could begin by pointing out that God at one time favored an entire nation, because he selected the Israelites to be his chosen people "above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth" (Dt. 7:6). That certainly sounds like favoritism to me. If a teacher should select Bobby to be her chosen student above all students that are in the class and even proclaim to the world that she had done so, who would argue that she was not showing favoritism? 

Inerrantists are fond of arguing that God had a plan of redemption for mankind that required him to select a special people. Bible fundamentalists constantly use this marvelous "plan of redemption" to cover a multitude of divine shortcomings, and they apparently can't see that an omniscient, omnipotent deity would not have been required to select a plan of redemption that necessitated racial favoritism, because such a deity could have redeemed mankind in any one of several ways that would not have entailed racial favoritism and the various atrocities committed against the non-Hebraic people of biblical times. To argue otherwise is to argue that God is not omniscient and omnipotent. At any rate, this is the quibble that inerrancy defenders resort to in this matter, so I'll just let the readers evaluate the merits of it so that we can go on to other examples of divine favoritism that will give the inerrantists plenty more to cavil about. 

The Biblical Way To Treat Women With Dignity (3 of 3)

From The Skeptical Review, 1998:

By Farrell Till 
As noted in previous articles, a popular claim of Christianity is that the Bible has accorded women a status superior to that in societies dominated by other religions. Those who make this claim are either very ignorant of what the Bible teaches or else have no scruples against misrepresenting facts to try to further the cause of Christianity. Many of the deplorable attitudes toward women found in the Bible have already been examined, but none were more flagrantly sexist in their scope than a "test" in Numbers 5 that Yahweh required of women accused of adultery.

If any man suspected his wife of "going astray" but had no evidence to confirm his suspicion, he was entitled to take her to the priest, "if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him" (vs:11-15), and the priest would subject her to a trial by ordeal, which she had to pass in order to prove her innocence. The man was required to bring a meal offering, which the priest would put into the woman's hands. He would then take a concoction of "holy water" and dust from the tabernacle floor, which was called "the bitter water that brings a curse," and say an incantation over the woman:

If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be free from this bitter water that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has lain with you... Yahweh himself make you a curse and an oath among your people, when Yahweh makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach and make your belly swell and your thigh rot" (vs:19-22).

At this point, the woman was required to say, "Amen, so be it" (v:22). Who says that Yahweh didn't have a sense of fairness?

The priest would then write "these curses" into a book and "scrape them off into the bitter water" (v:23), at which point the "bitter water" would contain not only dirt from the tabernacle floor but apparently any other contaminants that may have been in the "ink" and on the surface of the book that was scraped. After this, the woman was required to "drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her to become bitter" (v:24).

Keep Them Barefooted and Pregnant (2 of 3)

The following is an article by Farrell Till from TSR 1997. Yahweh's rules for women and how they are to be treated are just a few examples of his embarrassing and disgraceful teachings found throughout the "Holy" Bible; and what should be considered an insult to any person's intelligence:

by Farrell Till

A popular claim of Christianity is that the Bible has given women a dignity and status far superior to societies that are dominated by other religions. That the ranks of Christianity include so many women is evidence that there must be some truth to the axiom that says if a lie is told enough times, some will believe it, because only someone who is relatively ignorant of the Bible could believe that it is in any sense complimentary to women. From beginning to end, the Bible insults women and speaks of them with a disdain that one would think women in modern times would no longer tolerate. But tolerate it they do, for the membership rolls of churches probably include many more women than men. 

The men who wrote the Bible wasted no time getting down to one of their favorite themes: all the pain and suffering, sorrow and grief that the human race has to endure is the fault of women. Right in the opening chapters of God's inspired word, the first woman ate a fruit that God had told her not to eat, and that's why men have to earn their living by the sweat of their brows. Never mind that this grievous offense also caused women to have to endure the pain of childbirth (Gen 3:16). What are a few labor pains compared to the men's ordeal of having to till soil that brings forth thorns and thistles (v.18)? 

Ever since the Genesis writer put the blame on Eve, God's emissaries have continued to lay it on thicker. Paul, the chief apostle not just of Christianity but of blatant sexism too, used Eve's sin as an excuse to put women into the basement of Christianity, which they have yet to climb out of. Writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is presumably another person in the one "godhead," Paul told women that they were welcome in the churches as long as they kept their mouths shut: "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (1 Cor 14:34). Well, gee, if women are not permitted to speak in the churches, how can they be expected to learn things they may need to know? Not to worry; Paul had the answer to that: "And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church" (v.35). It's hard to see dignity and respect for women in any of this, but obviously many women have bought it and meekly acquiesce to the sexist rantings of a religious mystic whose denigration of half the world's population has been rivaled only by other religions that have enshrined the same primitive, male-chauvinist nonsense. 

"God's" Opinion of Women (1 of 3)

From The Skeptical Review, 1995:

by Farrell Till

When I was an active Christian minister and missionary, I noticed that women were generally more zealous church workers than men. As I learned more and more about the Bible, I began to wonder why. In my younger days, I had often heard preachers cite the elevated status of women as one of the wonderful achievements of the Judeo-Christian religions, but this was not what I was seeing in my own private Bible studies. I was finding instead a shockingly disdainful attitude toward women in a book that had been presumably written by divinely inspired men.

Time would fail me if I tried to cite every biblical example of contemptuous attitudes toward women, so I will have to limit myself to just a few. King David's affair with Bathsheba while her husband Uriah was away on military duty produced an embarrassing pregnancy. David first tried to conceal his indiscretion by bringing Uriah home on furlough apparently so that he would sleep with Bathsheba and later think that the child was his. When Uriah's loyalty to his unit proved so strong that he refused to indulge in the pleasures of a conjugal visit, David sent him back to the front with a letter ordering the commander of his unit to put Uriah in "the forefront of the hottest battle" and then withdraw so that he would be killed. The order was executed, and when word of Uriah's death reached David, he took Bathsheba and added her to his harem ( 2 Samuel 11).

If there is such a thing as contemptuous conduct, then David's actions in this matter certainly qualify. One would think that if this deed called for divine wrath, David would have been the rightful target of it. But the Bible tells us that God chose to punish David only by inflicting pain and death on the members of his family, beginning with his wives. Nathan the prophet, sent to reprimand David for his sin, delivered this message from God: "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he will lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun" (2 Samuel 12:11). One could imagine that this would not have been a pleasant thing for David to witness and would have in that sense constituted "punishment," but we must look past that to the fact of what God was threatening to do. David had sinned grievously, but God was going to punish him by having some unnamed "neighbor" rape his wives "before all Israel and before the sun" (v 12). According to the story, David repented and so his wives were spared the indignity of public rape, but that is beside the point. The fact that David's god would even threaten such a thing raises serious doubts about the Bible's claim to be the verbally inspired word of an omnibeneficent deity. Certainly, this story in no way reflects the "elevated status" that preachers say the Bible has brought to women. If it does, I have to admit that I can't see it.

The Bible's Contradictory God

(Revised Nov. 9, 2014. Originally published October 25, 2014)
by Kenneth W. Hawthorne
^"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 NKJV). Thus reads one of the most recognized verses in the Bible. The word "so" is an adverb of intensity and degree meaning to such an extent. The word "love" translates the Greek word agapao and is an unselfish love that seeks the absolute best for its object. So what we have is the claim that God (Yahweh) did the best that he could, unselfishly giving the best that he had so that man, whom he loved so much, would not eternally perish but eternally live. 

But why would Yahweh put man in the position where he needed saving in the first place? It's as if Yahweh came upon man for the first time, already created and found man in a situation where he needed saving and did all he could to save man, but could only save a few. Kind of like when paramedics arrive at the scene of a horrific multi-vehicle accident. However, this is not the case at all. Yahweh allegedly created man and had complete control over how man was created.

John 3:16 is a very puzzling verse when one considers five of the major characteristics that the Bible claims for its god Yahweh: all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving and sovereign, who also has no needs. Mt. 7:13-14 actually admits that Yahweh knew that the many in contrast to the few would eternally perish--which would have to have been something that he knew before he ever created the first human. Allegedly, it's not his will that any perish (2 Peter 3:9). If, then, he is all-powerful, he could have created man in a way in which all of humanity would go to heaven and none would eternally perish. Also, allegedly, he is sovereign, thus no one was over him, overruling him and thus causing him to create man in the Bible scenario against his will--why, then, could he not have achieved his will that no human eternally perish? There is no adequate answer to get the Bible out of this mess. Bible apologists sometimes say that Yahweh wanted man to choose to serve him. Absolutely not! Do these apologists expect us to believe that this is what love would have wanted, knowing what the terrible outcome would be, and knowing that there was no reason that it had to be this way? The only answer is that the Bible contradicts itself on this most important of issues.

When I say that Yahweh is contradictory on this most important of issues I am merely pointing out the obvious. When we speak of a person being contradictory we are merely expressing our observation that they act contrary or opposite to characteristics and values that they or someone claims they have. If a person claims to love animals but is accused and convicted of gross animal cruelty through abundant clear evidence, this is an obvious contradiction in what this person claims to believe and what they actually believe. And so it is with the Bible's Yahweh. The allegedly inspired writers of the Bible claim that Yahweh has the five characteristics mentioned above. But when we compare these with his actions, it poses a glaring contradiction concerning this god and his eternal hell.

To sum up, the Bible claims that its god Yahweh knew, before creating the first human, that most of humanity would eternally suffer [in the hell that he also created]--if he went with the scenario found in the Bible. However, the Bible claims that he does not want anyone to eternally suffer in hell, had the power and authority to prevent anyone from eternally suffering in hell, and there was no purpose, need, nor reason that made it necessary that anyone eternally suffer in hell--BUT HE ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN TO MOST OF HUMANITY ANYWAY?! Impossible! That is if words have any meaning at all.

Your Children Are Not Safe

by Farrell Till

During the days that the Washington, D. C., area was terrorized by the Beltway Snipers, people were outraged when a child was shot going into his school building.  Later, outrage turned to horror when Montgomery County Chief Charles Moose, the leading official in the investigation, read a note from the snipers that said, "Your children are not safe anywhere at any time."  Everyone wondered how anyone could be so perverse that he would actually target a school child and then threaten to shoot even more children.

Many of those who felt this outrage probably went to church the next Sunday not knowing that they were gathering to worship a god who, if we are to believe the historical accuracy of the Bible, at one time declared to seven nations that their children were not safe anywhere at any time.  The threat was recorded in the book of Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 7:1 "When Yahweh your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, ²and when Yahweh your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. 

Deuteronomy 20:16  "But of the cities of these peoples which Yahweh your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, ¹⁷but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as Yahweh your God has commanded you, ¹⁸lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against Yahweh your God.

The book of Joshua claims that these orders were carried out when the Israelites moved into Canaan and began their conquest of the land.

Joshua 10:31  Then Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish; and they encamped against it and fought against it. ³²And Yahweh delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, who took it on the second day, and struck it and all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword, according to all that he had done to Libnah. ³³Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua struck him and his people, until he left him none remaining.

³⁴From Lachish Joshua passed to Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it and fought against it. ³⁵They took it on that day and struck it with the edge of the sword; all the people who were in it he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish.

³⁶So Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, to Hebron; and they fought against it. ³⁷And they took it and struck it with the edge of the sword—its king, all its cities, and all the people who were in it; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon, but utterly destroyed it and all the people who were in it.

³⁸Then Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and they fought against it. ³⁹And he took it and its king and all its cities; they struck them with the edge of the sword and utterly destroyed all the people who were in it. He left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir and its king, as he had done also to Libnah and its king.

⁴⁰So Joshua conquered all the land: the mountain country and the South and the lowland and the wilderness slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel had commanded. ⁴¹And Joshua conquered them from Kadesh Barnea as far as Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even as far as Gibeon. ⁴²All these kings and their land Joshua took at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. ⁴³Then Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal.

Joshua 11:6  But Yahweh said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid because of them [the combined forces of the Canaanite nations], for tomorrow about this time I will deliver all of them slain before Israel. You shall hamstring their horses and burn their chariots with fire." ⁷So Joshua and all the people of war with him came against them suddenly by the waters of Merom, and they attacked them. ⁸And Yahweh delivered them into the hand of Israel, who defeated them and chased them to Greater Sidon, to the Brook Misrephoth, and to the Valley of Mizpah eastward; they attacked them until they left none of them remaining. ⁹So Joshua did to them as Yahweh had told him: he hamstrung their horses and burned their chariots with fire.

The Wit and Wisdom Of Mark Twain

"Very well, God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden, and eventually assassinated them. All for disobeying a command which he had no right to utter. But he did not stop there, as you will see. He has one code of morals for himself, and quite another for his children. He requires his children to deal justly -- and gently -- with offenders, and forgive them seventy-and-seven times; whereas he deals neither justly nor gently with anyone, and he did not forgive the ignorant and thoughtless first pair of juveniles even their first small offense and say, 'You may go free this time, and I will give you another chance.'

On the contrary! He elected to punish their children, all through the ages to the end of time, for a trifling offense committed by others before they were born. He is punishing them yet. In mild ways? No, in atrocious ones. 

You would not suppose that this kind of Being gets many compliments. Undeceive yourself: the world calls him the All-Just, the All-Righteous, the All-Good, the All-Merciful, the All-Forgiving, the All-Truthful, the All-Loving, the Source of All Morality. These sarcasms are uttered daily, all over the world. But not as conscious sarcasms. No, they are meant seriously: they are uttered without a smile" (excerpt from Letters From The Earth, 1909)

Yahweh, The Embarrassment Of Christianity

Anyone who has done an honest critical analysis of the Bible has to be shocked at the portrayal of God in the form of Yahweh. Thomas Paine called it blasphemy to attribute to the Creator the behavior found in the Bible's god Yahweh. 19th century deist, Elihu Palmer observed that there are commands "which are said to come from God, which would disgrace the character of any honest man, and make him a candidate for prison." (Principles of Nature--1801). 

I plan to give some examples of this "behavior" by the god of Christianity in the coming weeks.

Why I Find The Notion Of Hell Absurd

"It’s absurd when you think about it.  A fourteen year old kid has to burn for all eternity because he looked a little too long at that girl on the other side of the room, and studied her form a little too intensely.  For that he deserves eternal conscious torment."  Neil Carter (excerpt from his article, Why I Find The Notion of Hell Absurd. From his blog Godless in Dixie).

A Critical Principle Widely Applied to Ancient Documents

From the Errancy discussion list:

If [the] documents assert that which is ordinary and within the realm of empirical experiences, then we tend to give the documents the benefit of the doubt and accept the claims at face value; however, if the documents assert that which is extraordinary and completely beyond the realm of empirical experiences, then we feel justified in rejecting the claims. Even biblicists will apply this principle to all ancient documents except for those that have been selected for inclusion in the Bible.

Farrell Till

The Historicity Of Jesus

From The Skeptical Review, 1995:

by Farrell Till

Did Robin Hood exist? Possibly, there was a person whose exploits were exaggerated over time until the legendary character known as Robin Hood emerged in English folklore, but few people would claim that the Robin Hood in these legends was an actual historical figure who possessed incredible archery skills and went about rescuing Maid Marian and robbing the rich to give to the poor. At best, then, Robin Hood was a quasi-historical person who became the legendary hero of Sherwood Forest through exaggeration and embellishment of his real life accomplishments. 

The same is probably true of William Tell, King Arthur, and other famous legendary characters. Through exaggeration and embellishment over time, the lives of exceptional leaders were transformed into the legendary figures we read about in folkloric literature. In fairly recent times, we have seen the same process at work in our own country. Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickok, Buffalo Bill, Jesse James, Billy the Kid--these were frontier marshals, heroes, and outlaws whose names are familiar to all of us, but their exploits were so exaggerated and embellished by word of mouth, by 19th-century dime novels, and then later by 20th-century movies that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine the real historical accomplishments of any of them. In this sense, it would be proper to say that the Wyatt Earp and Jesse James of the dime novels and movies were not real historical characters. Men by these names once lived, but they were not the men portrayed in the many fictionalized accounts of their lives. The real Wyatt Earp and Jesse James have probably been lost to us in a hopeless maze of legendary embellishments. 

The same is true of Jesus of Nazareth. A few scholars seriously argue that no such person ever existed, and their arguments are certainly thought provoking and deserving of consideration. Other biblical scholars (many of them professing Christians) acknowledge the existence of a man named Jesus but quite frankly admit that the New Testament gospels greatly embellished his life and that the actual achievements of the real Jesus were nothing like those attributed to the Jesus of the gospels. The quasi-historical Jesus may have been born to a woman named Mary, but certainly she was not a virgin at the time. 

"...wide appeal for those predisposed to believe..."

The following is a letter to Farrell Till in the mailbag section of *The Skeptical Review*, 1995 May-June issue:

As one of your fans, I can't resist the urge to toss a few words and ideas in your direction. I warn you; I have a problem with brevity. 

I like the quotation on your banner: "It is wrong, always, and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (W. K. Clifford). That reminds me.... One way to attack nonsensical religious ideas seems all too obvious to me, yet it's one I have never heard. It's highly intuitive and goes like this: 

ONE: We can be quite sure Jack Ruby shot Oswald. A number of people were present and saw it happen. Millions of people saw it on TV as it happened. Video tapes are available for review. It's a non-arguable point. 

TWO: We can be only partly sure that Bruno Hauptmann kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, since there were no eyewitnesses. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence, such as the ladder, which pointed to his guilt. A jury convicted him, yet some say he was innocent. It's an uncertain matter, at best. 

THREE: We really can't be confident that young George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. There is no supporting evidence and only he and his father, so the story goes, would have had direct knowledge of the event. It's an appealing story but really can't be relied upon. It's a popular legend. 

FOUR: The story of Jesus of Nazareth being born of a virgin has no supporting evidence whatsoever. It arises out of hand-me-down stories. Only one person could have had direct knowledge of the event, and the only written accounts were drafted many years after her death. Like the cherry tree story, it has wide appeal for those predisposed to believe it, and for that reason it has endured. It has all the earmarks of a myth. Now think of it. One of the major religions of the world turns on an event for which there is no supporting evidence. Christians love to beat on the Mormons and the Joe Smith tales and the Mormons' silly ideas of advanced civilizations in the Americas many centuries ago. They sneer because there is neither supporting evidence for Smith's claims nor for the civilizations. Yet the same folks will swoon and rattle their beads over the event recounted as #4 above. 

TSR brings me the recurring idea that extreme religiosity destroys the reasoning power of the minds of the believers. Isn't it a good thing that Jonas Salk was born into a Jewish home that respected learning and inquiry instead of a Christian "Science" household? Has a Christian fundamentalist ever made an information-based contribution to the world? I can't think of any.... 

(Thomas T. Wheeler)

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Wheeler is making essentially the same point about historical information as Richard Rich did in an earlier "Mailbag" column (Winter 1995, p. 13): people tend to accept ancient records of ordinary events, which are possible or probable, even though they aren't necessarily true. As I noted in "Evaluating Historical Claims," pp. 9-11 (this issue), Thomas Paine made this same point in Age of Reason : reasonable people accept ordinary claims that were recorded by ancient historians but reject the fantastic or extraordinary. As the article also noted, the works of early historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, etc., all contain accounts of miraculous events that no rational person can believe really happened even though they are no more fabulous than many biblical stories. This should tell Bible fundamentalists something, but of course it doesn't. Nothing can budge a confirmed bibliolater from his irrational belief that all events written in the Bible happened exactly as recorded.

Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed

Excellent article in ExChristian.net by Valerie Tarico,  link.

Reflections On The Story Of Job

Galen Rose of ExChristian.net presents a very good critical examination of the Book of Job, link:

Miracles And Testimony

The following is an excerpt from Thomas Paine's, The Age of Reason, Part First, Section 14:

Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand presented itself in the air, took up the pen, and wrote every word that is herein written; would anybody believe me? Certainly they would not. Would they believe me a whit the more if the thing had been a fact? Certainly they would not. Since, then, a real miracle, were it to happen, would be subject to the same fate as the falsehood, the inconsistency becomes the greater of supposing the Almighty would make use of means that would not answer the purpose for which they were intended, even if they were real.

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is, is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie .

The Lack Of Evidence For Jesus Christ

A Dr. Price had rebutted an article by Jim Lippard, "The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah", in which Lippard was very critical of these alleged prophecies. Farrell Till responded to Price's rebuttal. Till's initial point in his response was that before one  can entertain the possibility that there were actual prophecies in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ, the alleged Messiah, it first must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that this Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the New Testament, did in fact exist. From the Errancy discussion list, 8-12-96:

Farrell Till's reply:

Before I begin discussing specific arguments in Dr. Price's article, there is one other prelimary matter that I need to address. Later, I will list and discuss some widely recognized criteria of valid prophecy fulfillment, but to discuss this other preliminary matter, I must jump ahead and focus on one of those criteria. It is obviously true that before a valid prophecy fulfillment can be established, the person claiming prophecy fulfillment must first show that the event or events that fulfilled the prophecy did in fact happen.

This poses a special problem for Dr. Price, because the subject of Lippard's article that Price rebutted was Messianic prophecies. Obviously, then, no valid claim of Messianic prophecy fulfillment can be made until Price establishes beyond reasonable doubt that a Messiah actually existed, because no nonexistent person could possibly fulfill prophecies that were made about a specific person. If, for example, I should claim that Dudley P. Snizzlehoff living in 18th-century Boston, MA, fulfilled certain prophecies made by Michele de Nostredame in 1554, my fulfillment claim would be weak indeed if I couldn't even prove that a person by the name of Dudley P. Snizzlehoff had even lived in 18th-century Boston. This is the situation that Dr. Price finds himself in. He claims that several Old Testament prophecies of a coming Messiah were fulfilled in the person and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth in the first century of the common era, yet neither he nor anyone else can establish beyond reasonable doubt that this Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical person. This man Jesus of Nazareth was mentioned in New Testament documents, and he was mentioned in certain apocryphal writings.

"...How To Make A Tent"

From the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion list, July 5, 2000:

GRAY
Does anyone see anything slightly ironic in that the putative
maker of the entire universe, who creates stars, planets,
galaxies, and black holes, needs to get down to what can
only be called micro-micro-micro managing such as the
following, from Exodus 25:23, "Then make a table of acacia
wood, 3 feet long, 1 1/2 feet wide, and 2 1/4 feet high." [NLT].
 
Apparently God, while not busy making stars, humans, and
dinosaurs, has the time and inclination to tell a bunch of
tribespeople EXACTLY how to build a table? Would it matter
to God in his vast, inconceivable majesty if the length were not
exactly 3 feet? Would the death penalty apply for this error?
Would anyone care to say why God needs the table to be this
exact way? Is it possible for anyone to believe this stuff and
not feel silly about it?

TILL
You've used one of my favorite examples of the absurdity in

believing that the Bible is the verbally inspired "word of God."

Of all of the useful information the omniscient, omnipotent deity

who created the universe could have passed along to us, he

neglected it so that he could instead devote the last 15 chapters

of Exodus to detailed instructions on how to make a tent.

Farrell Till

[Comment: All those words and trivial, detailed instructions in

the Pentateuch and not one warning to the Hebrews about an

eternal hell. Interesting...kwh]

An Impossible Task

From the Errancy discussion list, 9-15-97:

Adnan

A Christian claims that Jesus was in a position to fight [the] Romans

by leading an army of believers but instead chose to go to [the] cross peacefully. I doubt that this is true, and I need some information to

counter this claim:

"My point was that Jesus was in a position to accept political

support from virtually the entire Jewish nation. They were on

the verge of crowning Him King! On that day when He arrived

in Jerusalem in the midst of an adoring crowd, who were

oppressed by the Romans, and willing to do anything He

said--it was then He was in a politically ripe position. He

*could* have led an army, just like Muhammad led his--but
He chose not to."

TILL

Your opponent assumes the inerrancy of the scriptures. The gospels

allege that when Jesus was arrested, one of the disciples drew his

sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant, which according

to Luke Jesus healed. Jesus then said that if he wanted to he could

ask his "Father" and he would send him "more than twelve legions

of angels" (Luke 22:49-51; Matt. 26:49-53). The task for your opponent

is to prove that any of this is true just because the N[ew] T[estament] 

says that it happened. Even if your opponent could somehow prove

that Jesus actually said this, he would then have to prove that it was

within Jesus's power to receive 12 legions of angels to help him.

Farrell Till