The Faith Of The Invisible Pink Unicorns

“Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of awesome mystical power. We know this because they manage to be invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can’t see them.”
- Steve Eley 

What Have These Sheep Done?

This article from *The Skeptical Review* , 1999 / July-August, is simply devastating to the biblical inerrancy claim. Comments are welcome:

by Farrell Till

One of the most puzzling tales of the Bible is told in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. Yahweh or Satan (depending on which account you want to believe) "moved David to number Israel" (v:1). Since biblical inerrantists argue that the Bible is completely free of errors, we will assume that in some sense Yahweh moved David to number Israel. One would think that if Yahweh moved David to number Israel, Yahweh would have been pleased if David did as he had been "moved" and took the census, but if you think this way, you are reasoning like a rational person, and Bible stories aren't necessarily rational. In fact, they many times tax the imagination of those who try to find rationality in them.

That's the case with this story about David. He conducted the census just as Yahweh had "moved" him to do, but for some reason known only to Yahweh and the Gleason Archer type of "apologists" who entertain us with verbal gymnastics that supposedly explain biblical discrepancies, Yahweh was ticked off after David had done exactly what he had been "moved" to do, and so he sent Nathan the prophet to call David on the carpet for taking the census (2 Sam. 24:12). That wasn't really necessary, because David had already realized that in doing what Yahweh had "moved" him to do, he had somehow sinned. That's what the inspired word of God says: "But afterward, David was stricken to the heart because he had numbered the people" (v:10). Why taking a census would be a sin, especially after God had moved David to do it, is anyone's guess. Well, not anyone's guess, of course, because the professional "apologists" like Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler, John Haley, etc. were apparently blessed with special insights that enabled them to know that the Bible didn't really mean what it plainly said. Just read their books, and you'll find all of the answers if you can stop laughing long enough to read them all the way through.

Extraordinary Evidence

Farrell Till comments on a debate that he had with 
Michael Horner concerning extraordinary claims requiring 
extraordinary evidence. From the Errancy Discussion list 
18 Oct., 1995:

...you will remember that Horner would not agree that any of the nonbiblical miracles that I questioned him about had actually happened. He kept saying, "I would have to research that." Finally, you may recall, he simply said, "No," when I asked him if he could think of a single miracle not recorded in the Bible that he believed happened. So even though he chided me for saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," it turned out that he himself apparently accepts this principle as long as it is not an extraordinary claim that the Bible makes.

How, for example, could Horner possibly "research" to see if he can believe that a heifer being led to the temple altar in Jerusalem gave birth to a lamb or that a light glowed around the altar in the middle of the night so brightly as to give the appearance of daylight? Josephus made both extraordinary claims, along with others, but the only evidence for them is the mere fact that Josephus said that they happened. He, of course, *said* that others saw them, but I doubt if Horner would accept this, although he thinks it is "good" evidence when Paul said that Jesus appeared to 500 brethren at once. He will argue that Paul wouldn't have said this if it weren't so because people could have asked the 500 and caught him lying if the claim had not really been true. How exactly one could have gone about questioning 500 anonymous witnesses is a mystery, but, anyway, one could make the same argument about the claims of Josephus. If these miracles had not really happened, would he have said that people had seen them at a time when these people were still alive and could have been questioned?

My point is that what Horner et al consider "good" evidence in terms of "proving" the resurrection, they won't consider good evidence as they "research" the claims of Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, and others to decide if their miracle claims should be believed. I think that the criterion that I stated in the debate is valid: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I have kicked myself a thousand times for not nailing Horner to the wall when he came at me with his counterargument that said, in effect, that my criterion makes it impossible to prove a miracle ever happened, because I was demanding miraculous proof that the miracle had happened. In other words, his admission that providing miraculous proof that a miracle had happened is impossible was an admission that miracles don't happen and so no such evidence would be possible. If no such evidence is possible because miracles just don't happen, then why is it logical to argue that the original miracle for which the evidence is being demanded had happened? His own argument would have backfired in his face if I had recognized the implications of it soon enough, but that is one of the hazards of public debating. The debater always thinks of things later that he should have said.

I really think that it is not at all unreasonable to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An extraordinary claim doesn't necessarily have to be a miracle claim, but if it is, I think it is reasonable to argue that such a claim can never be proven. That claim is justified by the simple fact that the past is inaccessible. If a miracle ever did happen, how could one possibly prove it because it would have happened in a past that is inaccessible to the present?

F. Till

Was The Amalekite Massacre A Moral Atrocity?

It's just hard for me to believe that the average Christian sitting in a pew on Sunday morning knows anything about the following little story in the Old Testament. At least I hope not. How could they know about such and still believe their god, Yahweh, is a God of love--and actually continue to worship such an animal? From *The Skeptical Review*, 1994 / January-February:

by Farrell Till

The story of the Israelite massacre of the Amalekite nation is recorded in 1 Samuel 15 . The facts of the case, as claimed in this chapter, are these: Yahweh sent the prophet Samuel to command Saul, the first king of Israel, to "go and smite Amalek" and to " utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not" (v:3 ); the command explicitly stated that Saul was to kill "both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (same verse). According to the story, Saul took "two hundred thousand footmen and ten thousand men of Judah" (v:4 ) against the Amalekites and "utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword" (v:7 ), except for Agag their king, whom he kept alive to take back as a prisoner. This act of mercy, of course, was a clear violation of Yahweh's instructions, which were to kill everyone and spare no one. In addition to this act of disobedience, Saul also kept alive "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them" (v:9 ).

No Contradictions In The Bible?

From Alt.Bible.Errancy, August 2, 1998:

"Paul Russell" <prussell@...> wrote:
I just joined the news group and I see where people 
are so uninformed about the word of GOD. The bible 
never counterdicts itself, it's just you don't understand 
it.

CREA
OK, Paul, if "[t]he bible never counterdicts [sic] itself", as 
you assert, would you please be so kind as to tell us where 
King Josiah died?

At 2 Kings 23:29-30, we are told that he died at 
Megiddo and he was carried from there DEAD in a 
chariot to Jerusalem (where he was buried), but over 
at 2 Chronicles 35:23-24, we are told instead that he 
was grievously wounded at Megiddo and carried ALIVE 
from there in a chariot to Jerusalem, where he died 
and was buried. This appears to be a contradiction to 
this poor old country-boy...

How Did David Kill Goliath?

Did David kill the giant, Goliath, with a sling 
and stone or with a sword? From the Topica Discussion list, 8 Feb. 2002:

Re: David and Goliath revisited Feb 08, 2002 

GEISIK
Greetings all.

(NRSV)
1 Samuel 17
49 David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, 
and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into 
his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground.
50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone,
striking down the Philistine and killing him; there was no sword in
David's hand.

GEISIK
Pretty clear, right? The standard yarn about David killing him with 
the stone. Well, perhaps Goliath was resurrected because we next 
read:

(NRSV)
1 Samuel 17:51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine; 
he grasped his sword, drew it out of its sheath, and killed him; 
then he cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that 
their champion was dead, they fled.

TILL
The OT is filled with examples of vague pronoun-antecedent 
references, and this could be one of them. The sentence that 
seems to say that David had a sword, which he drew to kill 
Goliath, could have meant this: "He [David] grasped his 
[Goliath's] sword, drew it out of its sheath, and killed him."

If this is what the writer meant, it would still be a mistake in 
my opinion, because I would think that a writer inspired by 
an omniscient, omnipotent deity should have been able to 
write with more clarity than that.

GEISIK
In any case, it does not answer my questions. Exactly how 
did David kill Goliath, stone or sword. 

TILL
Well, you should know that if "dead" didn't always mean dead, 
then "kill" wouldn't always mean kill.

Farrell Till

Another Flaw in the Perfect-Harmony Theory

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1994 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

Inerrantists boast that the Bible possesses a thematic unity so amazing that it can be explained only on the basis of divine inspiration, but the facts do not support this claim. As we have noted in past issues, the biblical writers, like the theologians of all ages, often disagreed in important doctrinal matters. One such disagreement concerned Yahweh's willingness to forego promised vengeance when evil-doers turned away from their wickedness.

The prophet Jeremiah taught that when Yahweh pronounced punishment upon a nation for its sins, the judgment wasn't necessarily final, for if the nation repented and turned from its evil, Yahweh would relent:

Then the word of Yahweh came to me, saying... "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it" (Jer. 18:5-8, NKJV with Yahweh substituted for the LORD).

New Testament Prophecy Failures

The following is an excerpt from "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled", by Farrell Till:

NEW TESTAMENT FAILURES

Except for the book of Revelation, the New Testament isn't considered as prophetic as the Old Testament; nevertheless, one can still find examples of unfulfilled prophecies and broken promises in the New Testament.

All twelve apostles to be rewarded: When Peter asked Jesus what reward the apostles could expect for forsaking all to follow him Jesus said, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28). A lot of theological rhetoric has been expended on the meaning of "the regeneration." Did Jesus refer to the church era that began on the day of Pentecost when he would sit on the "spiritual" throne of David or did he have in mind a period that would follow his second coming? Regardless of the time period he was referring to, the passage poses a problem. How, for example, could Judas, who was one of the twelve at the time this was said, ever be permitted to sit on a throne in a judge's capacity? In another gospel account, Jesus himself called Judas the son of perdition (John 17:12). So will the "son of perdition" be awarded a throne to sit on during the regeneration? That hardly seems possible, because Jesus said at the last supper that it would have been better for Judas if he had not been born (Mark 14: 21). If he should be awarded a throne in Jesus's kingdom that would make this statement false, wouldn't it? How could it, in any sense, be said of a man elevated to such a position as this that it would have been better for him if he had never been born? Some Bible apologists argue that Jesus, omnisciently knowing that Matthias would be chosen to succeed Judas (Acts 1:23-26), said twelve thrones instead of eleven because of his intention to keep his apostolic crew in full force. If that is so, one might argue that he, omnisciently knowing that Saul of Tarsus would later be called into the apostleship as "one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15:8), would have been more exact had he said thirteen thrones rather than twelve. Others insist that the number twelve should not be interpreted so literally, that this is just a case of the figure of speech known as ampliatio, the retention of a name or designation after the reason for the original designation has ceased to exist. In counterargument, however, the opposition has every right to ask if there will ever be an end to figurative and spiritual interpretations of scriptures that pose serious problems for the inerrancy doctrine. There were twelve apostles present when Jesus made this prophecy, so why should we not believe that he meant twelve?

"When You Lack Evidence..."

by Carl Lofmark
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 (What Is the Bible? pp. 41-42).

Prophecy Fulfillment and Probability

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1993 / July-August:

by Farrell Till

Bible apologists love to use probability arguments, and most readers have undoubtedly encountered them in apologetic literature. Some situation perceived to prove either the existence of God (life developing from nonlife) or the inspiration of the Bible (prophecy fulfillment) is analyzed in terms of likeliness or probability. Most of these arguments, of course, are based on purely arbitrary factors selected to make the theistic or biblical position look good. I have yet to see one that can survive careful scrutiny.

At the debate in Portland, Texas, that Earle Beach referred to in the foregoing article, my opponent applied probability to the prophecy-fulfillment argument. He mentioned several times how truly amazing it was that so many Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled precisely and exactly in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. His premise was that over 300 such prophecies were made and later fulfilled. At one point when he was under cross-examination, he stated that the probability of any 50 of these prophecies being precisely fulfilled was 11 sextillion 250 quintillion to one. The figure written out would look like this: 11,250,000,000,000,000,000,000. Since the statement was made under cross-examination, I could not respond directly to it without calling for a resumption of time, and at the moment I was pursuing a line of questioning that I wanted to continue. In reviewing the tapes, I was reminded that I forgot to return to this issue to show the absurdity of the statement, so I will do that now. If Mr. Dobbs wishes to respond to my comments, we will gladly publish his statement in the next issue. My prediction is that he won't respond. If he doesn't, I wonder what he would say the odds are that I could make a prophecy like this and have it fulfilled.

The Failure of Isaiah's Prophetic Rantings (7 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / September-October:

by Farrell Till

Biblical inerrantists never seem to tire of looking for vindication of the Bible in prophecy fulfillments. No skeptic discussing the Bible with a biblicist can question its divine origin for very long without hearing the biblicist say, "Well, what about all of the prophecy fulfillments?"

The best way to answer this question is with a question of your own: "What prophecy fulfillments?" This alone may be enough to stop the biblicist in his tracks, because he may well be a typical Christian who is uninformed in the Bible and is simply repeating something he has heard but doesn't know enough about to discuss intelligently. If, however, the biblicist is someone who does have specific prophecy fulfillment claims in mind, they can usually be rebutted by just analyzing the alleged prophecy in context to point out parts of the prophecy that seem to be missing in the fulfillment event. Such missing parts can almost always be identified. I have discussed in past articles this approach to debating prophecy-fulfillment claims, so I won't rehash it here.

When Did the Wolf Dwell with the Lamb? (6 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / July-August. [This is the sixth of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. Number seven will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

In the past several issues I have been analyzing alleged prophecy fulfillments for Bruce Weston, a subscriber whose biblical skepticism has been restrained by lingering feelings that some prophecies may have been fulfilled. In my last article in this series, I will look at the often-trumpeted claim that creation of the state of Israel in 1948 fulfilled biblical prophecies.

This one seems to be a favorite of prophecy-fulfillment buffs who are desperately looking for something substantial on which to pin their hopes that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The history of Israel was checkered with periods of foreign captivities that began as early as the time of the judges (Judges 3:7-11; 4:1-3; 6:1-6) and extended through the most famous captivity of them all when Nebuchadnezzar removed many of the Judean captives to Babylon (2 Kings 25). For an ethnocentric people who thought that they were the "chosen ones" of their god Yahweh, these captivities were hard to comprehend. That they could be explained by the simple fact of military science that the side with the largest army would usually win a war was foreign to their way of thinking, and so the prophets of Israel always attributed Israel's defeats to "evil" that the people had done "in the sight of Yahweh." This optimism that the Israelites were the chosen people of the mightiest of all the gods inspired many of the prophets to predict that although they were taken into captivity, Yahweh would one day bring them back to their homeland.

When the Fig Tree Puts Forth Its Leaves? (5 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / May-June. [This is the fifth of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining two will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

In the past two issues of TSR, I have discussed various claims of prophecy fulfillment that Bruce Weston expressed concern about in his article "Doubts But Questions about Prophecy" in the January/February issue (pp. 6-7). In one case, he thought it possible that what skeptics consider an example of prophecy failure wasn't necessarily a failure. This was the occasion of an apparent promise that Jesus made that he would come again before "this generation" had passed away. In Matthew 24, the disciples of Jesus asked him to tell them what would be the sign of his coming and of the end of the world (v:3). Over the space of several verses (4-31), Jesus answered their question and told of several "events" that would happen prior to his return and the signs that would accompany his coming, after which he made the statement that Weston inquired about.

Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place (vs:32-34, emphasis added).

Weston wanted me to address "the Christian defense that by saying this generation, Jesus was talking about the same generation that sees the fig tree put forth its leaves (and not to the current generation of His time)" [TSR, January/February 1999, p. 6]. Weston then went on to suggest that the fig tree was "symbolic of Israel, which was reborn as a nation in 1948," and so this interpretation would mean that Jesus was saying that he would return before the generation that witnessed the "rebirth" of Israel had passed away and not before the passing away of the generation of his own time.

Ezekiel's Prophecy Against Egypt (4 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / May-June. [This is the fourth of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining three will immediately follow this one]:

by Dave Matson

The biblicist reassures us that Ezekiel's prophecy for Egypt (and certain other prophecies of the Bible) will be fulfilled some time in the future. If necessary, a new pharaoh will arise, a new Nebuchadnezzar will come into existence, and the first will be devastated by the second! Is this sound reasoning?

How do we know that such things will happen? Doesn't it all boil down to the presumption that the prophecy in question is true? Or, is it a case of claiming that something might happen just because there is still time on the clock?

In the former case, why does the biblicist even bother with reason? Reasoning is like a long anchor chain. All the links have to be there or else you lose the anchor! If you choose reason, dear Bible-believer, then it's reason all the way. That is the only way that you can collect the benefits of reason. If you are going to simply assume you are right at some difficult point, then do so at the start. Stick your head in the sand, declare all biblical prophecy to be correct, and let that be the end of the matter!

Another Prophecy Failure (3 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / March-April. [This is the third of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining four will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

Any discussion with fundamentalist Christians that questions the divine inspiration of the Bible will almost always elicit a challenge to explain all of the prophecy fulfillments. Bruce Weston's article in the previous issue of TSR (pp. 6-7) shows just how far the wool has been pulled over the eyes of the sheep on this issue. Weston has been able to see various flaws in the claim that the Bible is God's inspired word, but his rejection of this belief is apparently being held back by a concern that prophecy fulfillment just may indicate that there is some truth in the claim. An article on pages 10-11 (this issue) discusses Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, which was one of Weston's chief concerns, and shows that only a vivid imagination could see this as an example of exact prophecy fulfillment. In coming issues, we will continue to discuss the other prophecy concerns that Weston listed in his article until it has become clear that apologetic arguments based on remarkable prophecy fulfillments are without merit.

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Where to Begin? (2 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / March-April. [This is the second of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining five will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

I am always happy to be of help to those who have taken their first steps away from Christian fundamentalism but still have lingering doubts about whether they have made the right decision. In Mr. Weston's case, he has raised so many questions that I hardly know where to begin. Since most of his concerns seem related to biblical prophecies, I will focus primarily on this issue, but first I want to assure him that after one has left a religion that he/she was indoctrinated in while growing up, it is perfectly normal to wonder if the right decision was made. I had such doubts myself for a period of time, and others who left religious fundamentalism have told me that they did too. Just the night before I began writing this article, I received a call from someone who had subscribed to The Skeptical Review after deciding to leave a sect that taught demon possession. Former associates in this sect had been bombarding him with warnings that he had put himself in danger of falling prey to demons whom God would allow to possess him as punishment for having lost his faith. The caller had been bothered with "what-if" concerns and wanted to know if I could give him advice on how to deal with them.

Pascal's Wager: The members of this sect, of course, were using a variation of Pascal's wager to try to scare a former member into coming back to the mire that he had pulled himself out of. The term "Pascal's wager" has been applied to an argument that was made by Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century French philosopher and mathematician, who argued that one should "bet" on the existence of God rather than its alternative, because "if you gain, you gain all," but "if you lose, you lose nothing." Arguing from this false dichotomy, Pascal advised that one should "wager, then, without hesitation that He is." Pascal's dichotomy was false, because the conclusion that he reached cannot be justified by dividing the problem into just two divisions, i. e., God exists or God does not exist. While it may be true that God either exists or he does not exist, the problem of "gaining" or "losing" in the sense that Pascal was talking about is far more complex than simply betting that "He is." If one is going to bet that God exists, which religion based on that division of the dichotomy is one going to bet on? Should one bet on Christianity or Islam? Hinduism or Zoroastrianism? If one chooses to bet on Islam but Christianity turns out to be the true religion of the "God-is" division, we all know what Christianity says awaits those who reject the "son of God." In this case, it would not be true that the one who had wagered without hesitation that "He is" had "gain[ed] all." He would have lost everything even though he had bet that "God is."

The Tyre Prophecy Again (1 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / March-April. [This is the first of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining six will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

The claim that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre in Ezekiel 26 was fulfilled with amazing accuracy has been thoroughly refuted, yet uninformed biblicists keep repeating it. In the article in Reason and Revelation, which executive editor Dr. Bert Thompson refused to let me reprint in TSR (see "From the Mailbag," p. 12, this issue), Brad Bromling listed six details that Ezekiel prophesied about Tyre and then said, "Each of these items came to pass exactly as Ezekiel said" (December 1994, p. 96). In the preceding issue of TSR, I published an article by Bruce Weston in which he described some of the struggles he is experiencing as he makes the transition from Bible believer to skeptic. One of those struggles concerned prophecy fulfillment and in particular Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, so even though I have already discussed this prophecy in earlier issues of TSR, I am going to review it to show the absurdity of trying to pawn this off as an example of remarkable prophecy fulfillment. Although Apologetics Press would not permit me to reprint Bromling's article, copyright laws don't prohibit quoting it, so I will have to rely on this method to show how wrong Bromling was in his claim that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

Interesting comments from Farrell Till that "if [the Bible] is found to be erroneous in some of the things that can be verified by extrabiblical corroboration, then how can one be sure that it is right about those things that cannot be verified by extrabiblical corroboration?", from Alt. Bible. Errancy, May 31, 1998:

TILL
>No, you have misunderstood me. I would never say that the Bible is
>"useless" if it contains even one error, any more than I would say that

 any book is useless if it contains one error.

>BILL S.
>Then why did you say: "An errant Bible isn't worth the paper it is printed on"?

TILL
Admittedly, that was poorly stated. I should have made it clear that I
meant that an errant Bible used as a basis of religious authority isn't
worth the paper it is printed on.

>TILL
>>...However, I do agree with Archer's view on the trustworthiness of

 the Bible. If it is found to be erroneous in some of the things that can 
be verified by extrabiblical corroboration, then how can one be sure 
that it is right about those things that cannot be verified by extrabiblical 
corroboration? 

>BILL S.
>As we've agreed, it would be impossible to prove such things to you -
>that is why they call it "faith". If I read a newspaper, I can't be
>sure all of the facts have been perfectly reported, however I can have
>reasonable confidence that there is at least some truth in what is
>being reported. I don't stop reading the newspaper because one day it
>got it's facts wrong. Similarly, I can trust in certain "truths" in
>the bible even if the bible is shown to contain errors. 

TILL
Well, I learned a long time ago that blind acceptance of what is 
printed in newspapers is a foolish course to follow. However, you 
are comparing apples to oranges, because newspapers report 
that which is commonplace and ordinary. They make no effort to 
indicate that readers who don't believe what is printed in them run 
the risk of incurring dire consequences. If I believe an error that 
was published in a newspaper, then all I have done is believe an 
error published in a newspaper. The process usually ends there.
I don't take this error from door to door in my neighborhood in 
efforts to make others believe it, and I certainly don't continue to 
believe the error once that its falsity has been demonstrated. 
Needless to say, this is not the case with biblicists. No matter 
how much evidence may be presented to show that there are 
errors in the Bible, they will continue to believe that they are 
truth and will work feverishly to try to make others believe them
too. Surely, you can see the difference.

BILL S

>I don't expect to convinve you to beleive as I do - but I do object to
>your implications that the Bible cannot be trusted on anything if it
>can be shown to contain even one error.

TILL
As a source of authority, it cannot be trusted if it can be 
demonstrated that it contains error. If, for example, it can be 
demonstrated--as it has been--that the Bible is wrong in saying 
that Joshua destroyed a city named Ai in his conquest of Canaan 
(Josh. 7-8), then how can I be sure that the Bible is correct when 
it claims that Moses received God's law on Mt. Sinai? If the Bible 
is wrong about an ordinary, commonplace claim that an army 
once destroyed a city, by what logic does one conclude that 
even though the Bible has been shown to be wrong in 
commonplace matters, we can still trust that it is right about 
extraordinary claims that it makes. What we're really talking 
about here is the widely accepted rule of evidence that says 
"falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," which means, "False in one 
thing, false in everything." This rule of evidence doesn't actually 
mean that if a witness is shown to be wrong in one point of 
testimony, that means that he/she is wrong in every point 
of testimony. It merely means that if a witness has been caught 
in one falsehood, the jury will be justified to doubt him/her in 
anything testified to that cannot be confirmed by independent 
corroboration.

Farrell Till

Biblical Anachronisms

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

Anachronisms occur in written documents when they make references to anything (persons, places, events, etc.) that did not belong to the era in which the documents were set. If a history of the Civil War made references to aerial bombardments and said that Thomas Jefferson was the president at this time, these would be anachronisms, because airplanes didn't exist then and Jefferson was president 50 years earlier. Anyone seeing such references in a history book would immediately realize that the writer was poorly informed about some aspects of this war. Certainly, no one would consider the author to be an infallible writer.

Slavery And The Bible

From the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion group 7-9-99:

TIMMY:

Here is another view:

The slavery tolerated by the Scriptures must be understood in its historical context. Old Testament laws regulating slavery are troublesome by modern standards, but in their historical context they provided a degree of social recognition and legal protection to slaves that was advanced for its time (Exodus 21:20-27; Leviticus 25:44-46).
>
In ancient times, slavery existed in every part of the world. Slaves had no legal status or rights, and were treated as the property of their owners. Even Plato and Aristotle looked upon slaves as inferior beings. As inhumane as such slavery was, we must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine. It was to the people of this harsh age that the Bible was first written.
>

TILL
Well, let me just ask a stupid question.  Even though slavery was widely practiced in those days, why didn't Yahweh set a higher standard and tell his "chosen ones" that regardless of what other nations may do, they were not to enslave people?  I would add to that another suggestion.  Why didn't Yahweh tell his "chosen ones" that although other armies slaughtered entire civilian populations after battles, including even children and babies, he would hold them to a much higher standard and expect them to refrain from such barbaric conduct and to treat other people humanely?  If such standards as these were found in the Bible, I would find it much easier to believe in the Hebrew god Yahweh.  As it is, the Bible merely reflected the morality of its time, and so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this is because the Hebrews created their god in their own image, just as the other nations of that time did.

Timmy's attempt to explain why slavery was condoned in the Bible is just another attempt to rationalize one of the serious morality problems found in it.

TIMMY
>In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population were slaves. If the writers of the New Testament had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order. (1) Consequently, the New Testament acknowledged slavery's existence, instructing both Christian masters and slaves in the way they should behave (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:2; 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2; Philemon 1:10-21), at the same time that it openly declared the spiritual equality of all people (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; Colossians 3:11).
>

TILL
Well, let's suppose at the time when the NT was written, prostitution was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire.  In that case, would it have been morally appropriate for the NT to condone the practice and simply give instructions to both Christian brothel owners and their prostitutes on how they should behave?  A serious flaw in Timmy's rationalization is that the standard Christian view of morality is that it is objective (absolute). If that's the case, then there could have been no way that Christianity could have tolerated something that is objectively immoral without seriously compromising what it is supposed to stand for.  In other words, if morality toward slavery can be situational (because of economic conditions), then theoretically any immoral practice could be justified depending on the situation.  If not, why not?

TIMMY
>(2) The gospel first had the practical effect of outmoding slavery within the community of the Church, (3) and carried within it the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the Western world.
>

TILL
Yeah, right, and it took only about 1900 years to do this.

TIMMY

>The fact that the Bible never expressly condemned the institution of slavery has been wrongfully used as a rationale for its continuance. In the American South prior to the Civil War, many nominal Christians wrongly interpreted the Bible's approach to slavery and used their misunderstanding to justify economic interests. The terrible use of African slave labor continued in spite of those who argued from the Scriptures for the equality of all races(*). 

>

TILL
But, gee, whiz, Timmy, the economics of the time required a source of cheap labor to process cotton, which was the backbone of the southern economy. My father, both grandfathers, and uncles on both sides of the family were all cotton farmers in Southeast Missouri, so I know something about the particular problems involved in producing this crop.  During my childhood, there were no mechanical cotton pickers, so the crop had to be picked by hand.  Before that, each cotton row had to have the grass and weeds removed from around the cotton plants several times, and this had to be done through a process called "chopping cotton," which was done by several individuals wielding garden hoes.  One laborer could chop about an acre of cotton per day, and my father farmed over 200 acres.  The cost of labor was high in cotton production, and a century before my time, there were no mechanical cotton gins, which at least existed when I was growing up.  These factors were all contributing reasons for slavery in the south.  So if economic conditions in the Roman empire justified slavery, why wouldn't economic conditions in the South have also justified it?

You've rationalized, but you haven't explained why a morally perfect deity would not have acted to remove slavery entirely from a nation that he had selected to be his "chosen people."

Farrell Till

There's A Living In It

From *The Skeptical Review* 1992/March-April:

by Farrell Till

A subscriber in Florida recently raised an interesting question: "Why can't these preachers simply admit that the Bible is not the inerrant book it has been proclaimed to be and stop lying to their congregations?" The question was asked in the context of comments the reader was making about the thoroughness of TSR's exposure of flaws in the inerrancy doctrine.

I have to admit that I have often wondered the same thing. Ten issues of The Skeptical Review have now been published containing over 30 major articles and several short ones that focused on discrepancies in the Bible text. In every issue, we have offered inerrancy defenders the opportunity to rebut our lead articles, but twice we had to publish without rebuttals because we could find no one willing to argue the inerrancy view on the subject we were featuring. We have been especially persistent in challenging Wayne Jackson, the editor of Christian Courier, to defend his inerrancy views, because he is especially vocal in his articles about "the uncanny reliablility" of the Bible in even "the smallest details" ("The Bible Passes the Test," Biblical Notes, Nov./Dec. 1991, p. 9). Jackson, like many of his inerrancy colleagues, has repeatedly declined our offers of space to defend his claim that the Bible is inerrant. We find it hard to understand why an inerrancy believer who writes as frequently on the subject as Jackson does would refuse an offer of free publishing space to write on the subject if he sincerely believes in what he preaches.

Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

The following is from the October-December, 1991 issue of *The Skeptical Review*. It is a thorough refutation of the claims of prophecy fulfillment in the Bible. (Be warned, it is equivalent in length to about 44 standard type-written pages):

by Farrell Till

Prophecy fulfillment is a popular argument that bibliolaters rely on in trying to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible. They claim that the Bible is filled with recorded events that prophets foretold years and even centuries before they happened. They argue that there is no way to explain how these predictions could have been so accurately made except to conclude that the Holy Spirit enabled the prophets who uttered them to see into the future. In prophecy fulfillment, then, they see evidence of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.

A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamuses and Edgar Cayces of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:

"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, `Let us go after other gods'--which you have not known--`and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for Yahweh your God is testing you to know whether you love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:1-3, NKJV with Yahweh substituted for "the LORD").

By the Bible's own testimony, then, natural psychic ability could offer a perfectly sensible explanation for any example of prophecy that bibliolaters might cite in support of the inerrancy doctrine, but an unbiased contextual examination of the alleged prophecy will very likely uncover an even more rational explanation. Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.