Crimes By Speculation

Crimes by Speculation
Part One by Farrell Till

A reply to:

Crimes by Omission
Is a Bible Writer's Silence Evidence of Ahistoricity?
by Robert Turkel aka James Patrick Holding

In responding to Robert Turkel's article, which was entitled "Can't We All Get Along?" on its webpage but listed on the index page as "Dan Barker's Easter Challenge Eviscerated," I had to forego replying to Turkel's link to his "Crimes by Omission" because the length of my reply had already imposed on the patience of readers. As I promised in that reply, I will now answer point by point the "principles" that Turkel claims will satisfactorily explain why one or more gospel writers sometimes omitted momentously important details that were mentioned in the other gospel accounts. We will see that except for those who are gullible enough to swallow anything that would-be apologists offer as "explanations" of biblical discrepancies, Turkel's speculative "principles" give no sensible explanations for those omissions. I will follow my customary practice of using Turkel and Till as headers to indentify who has said what.

God Was Refreshed?

From the Errancy II Discussion list, Sept., 2003:

DOUG
Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
"It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: 
for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on 
the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

It is difficult enough to explain why an allegedly omnipotent being 
would need to rest, or what it would mean for such a being to rest, 
but that god was "refreshed" makes it absurd. To refresh means 
to replenish one's power.

If god is omnipotent, this makes no sense. To refresh would mean 
that god would be more powerful after replenishing his power than 
he was before replenishing his power. Which would imply that god 
was sometimes more powerful than he is at other times, but if god 
is omnipotent, this is logically impossible.

Jesus Christ: Stunt Rider

The following is an excerpt from, *Prophecies: Imaginary And Unfulfilled* by Farrell Till:

As noted earlier, no event was too trivial for Matthew to see prophecy fulfillment in it, and one of his silliest prophecy-fulfillment claims concerned the so-called triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem shortly before his betrayal and crucifixion. The story was related by all three synoptic-gospel writers, but Matthew's version differs significantly from Mark's and Luke's. Mark and Luke simply had Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt to the cheers and hosannas of the multitudes (Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-40). Matthew, however, had to build it into a dramatic prophecy-fulfillment:

When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethpage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, 'The Lord needs them.' And he will send them immediately." This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, "Tell the daughters of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them (21:1-7, NRSV). 

There are two conspicuous points of difference in Matthew's version of this event and Mark's and Luke's: (1) Matthew had Jesus riding BOTH a donkey and her colt; Mark and Luke had Jesus riding only a colt, and (2) Matthew saw it as fulfillment of a prophecy; Mark and Luke said nothing at all about prophecy fulfillment being involved.

I won't address the familiar fundamentalist "explanation" of the numerical inconsistency that says, "Well, if there were two donkeys, then there had to be one." Inerrantists invariably resort to this dodge to "explain" numerical discrepancies in the Bible. Did the gospel writers appear to disagree on the number of people who went to the tomb on the morning of the resurrection? Well, no problem! John simply chose to tell about one of them (Mary Magdalene); Matthew chose to tell about two (Mary Magdalene and the other Mary); Mark chose to tell about three (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome). If, however, there were several who went, as Luke indicated, then there is no error, because if there were several, then there was one, exactly as John said, and there were two, exactly as Matthew said, etc. Although this argument apparently satisfies diehard fundamentalists who are going to believe in Bible inerrancy regardless of what evidence to the contrary may exist, it offers no sensible explanation as to why the omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit would inspire John to write an infallibly perfect account of the visit to the tomb that mentions only one person, but on different occasions the same omniscient, omnipotent Holy Spirit would inspire Matthew, Mark, and Luke to write infallibly perfect accounts of the same story that all differ in the matter of who went to the tomb. After the first "perfect" gospel story had been written, what could have been going through the Holy Spirit's mind on these subsequent occasions that made him decide that this point had to be changed, not just once but three times? That is a confusing matter, to say the least.

How About An Unequivocal Miracle?

As someone astutely noticed, "God does not work in mysterious ways – 

he works in  ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.” 

Anonymous. If there is a God and he has an important message for 

me--he knows how to get my attention. From the Errancy Discussion 

list, 8-31-97:

MICHAEL FACKERELL

Nothing has impressed me too much so far. Its true though that I'm out of >my depth on some issues. I don't speak Hebrew for example, although two >different people (one of whom I know to be a Jewess) claimed they heard me >quoting Scripture in Hebrew when I was praying in tongues in different >situations. (See Mark 16:17). 

BEN

Now, I could see how psychologically someone could convince themselves they saw a miracle, or even had a "personal experience" with God, but to actually believe that oneself has spoken in tongues is beyond my comprehension. Either you have really tricked yourself or you are lying to us. I don't know which. But certainly you have not spoken in tounges. That would mean for God to intervene in the laws of nature for the sole purpose of making his presence known. If he is going to do this, why wouldn't he do something that works? In an earlier post today, I talked about this. He really needs some help when it comes to making his presence known. If he's going to let you talk in tounges, why doesn't he let you talk so loud that everyone on earth hears you? I'll tell you the answer. The only possible theist answer. God is unpredictable. Unpredictability is the earmark of unjustness. So it looks like we are dealing with an unjust God. And what greater injustice is there than to tell someone they will receive eternal paradise, then to send them to hell for the fun of it. If he really gets all this glee out of burning nonbelievers, then what makes you think he will keep his promise to you? Personally, I don't agree with any of this scenario; however, it does make more sense than your just God.

TILL

If Michael doesn't know Hebrew and yet spoke in that language, there could be no explanation for this except that God intervened and caused it to happen. If so, why did God intervene just to cause a miracle that would have been known by only the two Jews who were able to recognize that he was speaking Hebrew? If God is going to perform a miracle, why not making it something that would be unequivocal to the world? Suppose that God spoke from "heaven" with a booming voice that was heard by every person on earth in his/her own language and that he said that he was going to settle once and for all the question of his existence. He could, say, inform us that he was going to suspend tragedy for an entire year and that during this time, there would be no illnesses of any kind and no deaths. Those who were ill at the time would be immediately cured no matter what their infirmities were. Those with cancer, heart problems, diabetes, etc., etc., etc. would experience immediate cures. Those who were afflicted with any kind of physical or mental abnormalities would be healed. Those who had missing or crippled limbs, for example, would have them restored. Those who were deaf would hear; those who were blind would see. This would happen all over the world, and for an entire year nobody would die, and there would be no traffic accidents, earthquakes, volcanic explosions, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., etc., etc. Hunger would disappear, and poverty would be suspended. Now if God would do something like this, there would be no unbelievers left. He could even say during his initial announcement that he was going to do this to prove not just his existence but that the Bible was his inspired word and Christianity the only true religion. Instead of something like this, however, we get from God only paltry signs like an occasion tongue-speaker, whose story is completely unverifiable. As a miracle-worker, God could take a few tips from me. He could use a good publicity agent. Preachers have proven that they aren't up to the task.

Farrell Till

Why One But Not The Other?

From Alt.Bible.Errancy discussion list, 6-2-98:

TILL

Bill, I'd like to see your reaction to this. On my Errancy list, 

I have tried to get biblicists to explain why they don't accept 

such miraculous claims as those that the Roman historians 

Tacitus and Suetonius made but do accept very similar claims 

that are made in the NT. Some are trying to defend that old 

inerrantist legend that Sir William Ramsay was a biblical 

skeptic until he studied the writings of Luke and found him 

to be a first-rate historian. Their argument is that if Luke 

was accurate in reporting ordinary information like the 

names of people and places known to have existed, 

topographical information, social customs, etc., then that 

is sufficient to believe that he was also accurate in reporting 

extraordinary events, even though none of them has ever 

been independently corroborated. I have cited the examples 

of Tacitus and Suetonius, who both claimed that the emperor 

Vespasian healed a blind man by putting saliva on his eyes 

and a man with a crippled arm by just touching him, both 

of which fabulous claims are very similar to miracles that 

the NT attributed to Jesus. Since Tacitus and Suetonius 

were obviously accurate in much of the ordinary information 

they reported, such as the names of Roman leaders, battles 

that were fought, and such like, why would not the same 

logic that biblicists apply to Luke also apply to Tacitus 

and Suetonius? They both claimed that the miracles 

that Vespasian performed were witnessed by many 

people, and Tacitus said that the men had been sent 

to Vespasian by the god Serapis. I have asked biblicists 

to address this matter, and the only one who has is 

tiptoeing through the tulips but not really explaining 

why he is willing to trust Luke but not Tacitus and 

Suetonius. Maybe Bill S won't mind addressing this 

problem.

Farrell Till