But If There Is No Tooth Fairy...

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1994/March-April:

by Farrell Till

Theists never tire of painting skepticism and atheism as philosophies of despair and doom. Immediately after publishing our belief that morality depends on neither God nor the Bible, the cries of outrage began to arrive, the strongest of which was Bill Lockwood's article "The Skeptic's Sword" which appears on pages 8-9 of this issue. The message is that it conveys is typically theistic in outlook: without the security blanket of a god, life is a condition of utter hopelessness.

The only argument the theist has to offer in support of this position appears to be, "If there is no God, then..." The then will vary from "then there is no hope for life after death" to "then there is no absolute standard of morality," but such statements are all rooted in a fallacy of wishful thinking or belief that reality can be altered by personal hopes and aspirations.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 13 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales What Priests?

by Farrell Till

When the Israelites were camped in the wilderness of Sinai, Moses "went up unto God" (Exodus 19:3), which was no big deal in those days. People were always going up to God or God was coming down to them. Anyway, Moses went up to God and Yahweh called to Moses out of the mountain and said that he would make a "holy nation" out of the children of Israel (vs:5-6).

Such a prestigious honor, however, was not without its costs. Yahweh told Moses that he would come to him in a thick cloud that the people might hear when he spoke to Moses (v:9). Moses was then directed to "set bounds to the people round about" and tell them not to go up into the mount or touch the border of it. "Whoever touches the mount shall surely be put to death," Yahweh warned. "No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether it be beast or man, he shall not live" (vs:12-13).

Now here's a thought for consideration. Let's suppose that there is at least an element of truth in the exodus tales and that at least a small troupe of Israelites did leave Egypt under the leadership of a man named Moses. What better way to keep them under control than to instill in them a fear and awe by telling them that they would suffer the divine wrath of their god if they intruded on sacred territory that was reserved only for Yahweh's chosen leader? I'm not saying that this actually happened, but indeed it could have. If Moses were such a charlatan as this, he could have minimized the risk of being discovered as a phony by making the people keep their distance when he was communicating with Yahweh or when Yahweh was speaking out of the cloud. A magician today wouldn't have any difficulty at all in making a cloud of smoke and then giving the illusion of someone speaking out of it. Maybe Moses controlled the people by such means as this. It's a thought that becomes very believable when one studies the "lest you die" warning that was so frequently used in the Pentateuch. Even the Kohathites who were chosen to bear the ark were warned not to touch the holy things in it "lest they die" (Num. 4:15). Why, if they touched the "holy things," they just might have decided that they were just ordinary objects with no special powers attached to them.

When I read "lest-you-die" passages in the Bible, it seems very likely to me that they were nothing more than scare tactics of priests who were just protecting their turf and reducing the chances that they would be found out for what they were, i. e., just ordinary men, by constantly warning the people that they would die if they came too close to the sacred paraphernalia that the priests used to bamboozle them.

Anyway, Yahweh presumably told Moses to put bounds on the people and warn them that they would die if they dared touch even the "border" of the mount. Then the omniscient Yahweh did a peculiar thing. He placed the same restriction on priests, who didn't even exist at the time: "And Yahweh said to him [Moses], Get down and then come up, you and Aaron with you. But do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to Yahweh, lest he break out against them" (v:24).

Now, really, what danger was there that the priests would break through to come up to Yahweh, because there were no priests at this time? It wasn't until chapter 28 that Aaron and his four sons were consecrated to be priests. That priests didn't exist until Aaron and his sons were set apart (28:1ff) is evident from 24:4-5, where Moses built an altar at the foot of the mount and appointed "young men of the children of Israel" to offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings to Yahweh, and he himself took half of the blood, put it in basins, and sprinkled the other half on the altar. Then he took the blood in the basins, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has made with you." The book of Leviticus is very specific in noting that such duties as these were reserved strictly for the priests, so why was Moses officiating at such a ceremony as this if there were priests who had been set apart to do it?

The logical conclusion is that the writer of Exodus made a boo-boo and put an anachronism into the text.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 12 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales Clothes with Lifetime Warranties

by Farrell Till

The writer(s) of the Pentateuch apparently could not see the absurdities in many of the scenarios presented in the stories of the Israelite exodus from Egypt and subsequent wanderings in the Sinai wilderness. Where, for example, did the people find water and grazing land for the huge flocks and herds (Ex. 12:38; 17:3; Num. 32:1; Deut. 3:19) that they had with them? How did just three priests (Ex. 28:1; Lev. 10:1-7) manage to officiate at all of the daily sacrifices and then carry all of the offal remains out of the camp (Lev. 4:7-12,21; 9:8-11; 16:23-27; Num. 19:1-7) for disposal by burning? Biblicists apparently don't wonder about problems such as these, just as the biblical writers seemed unaware of them.

There is, however, an example of a logistical absurdity that the biblical writer was apparently aware of, and so he posited an explanation that was itself another absurdity. Because the people were terrified by the report of giants in the land of Canaan, Yahweh decreed that all adults, except for Joshua and Caleb, would have to wander in the wilderness until they were dead; then those who had been children at the time of this incident would be allowed to enter the promised land (Num. 14:26-35; Dt. 1:34-39). Although people routinely lived longer than a hundred years at this time (Gen. 50:26; Ex. 6:16-20; Num. 33:38-39; Deut. 34:7; Josh. 24:29), for some reason probably known only to the inscrutable Yahweh, all of the Israelites who had not been minors at the time of the spies' report of giants in the land of Canaan died after only 40 years of wandering in the wilderness (Num. 14:33; Deut. 2:7). All the people, then, who had been in their twenties at the time died, for some reason, before or during their sixties.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 11 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales The Water Problem

by Farrell Till

Nine previous articles in this series have discussed the logistical improbabilities and, at times, impossibilities in the biblical tales of the Israelite wilderness wanderings in the Sinai region over a 40-year period. As improbable as the logistics were in the other wilderness tales I have examined, they dwarf in comparison to the problem of how three million Israelites and their enormous flocks and herds were able to survive for 40 years in a region where water was scarce. That water was scarce in the Sinai was recognized in the many texts that referred to the water shortages that the Israelites encountered in their wilderness journeys. The first such reference was made after the "chosen ones" had traveled three days into the wilderness.

Exodus 15:22 Then Moses ordered Israel to set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur. They went three days in the wilderness and found no water. 23 When they came to Marah, they could not drink the water of Marah because it was bitter. That is why it was called Marah. 24 And the people complained against Moses, saying, "What shall we drink?" 25 He cried out to Yahweh; and Yahweh showed him a piece of wood; he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. There Yahweh made for them a statute and an ordinance and there he put them to the test.

Other passages refer to water shortages that the Israelites afterwards encountered on their journey, but for now let's look at some implications in the incident claimed in the passage just quoted. If the Israelites journeyed three days and found no water until they came to Marah, they must have either traveled three days in a desert region without water or else they carried with them the water they needed. Studies that have been done in desert survival show that it would have been unlikely that they could have traveled for three days in a desert region without water. The following quotation is from a survivalist website that discusses the number of days that one could survive in the desert at different temperatures with different quantities of drinking water available.

Without water you will last about 2 1/2 days at 48C (120F) if you spend the whole time resting in the shade, though you could last as long as 12 days if the temperature stays below 21C (70F). 

If you are forced to walk to safety the distance you cover will relate directly to water available. 

With none, a temperature of 48C (120F) walking only at night, resting all day, you could cover 40km (25 miles). 

Attempting to walk by day you would be lucky to complete 8km (5 miles) before collapse. 

At the same temperature with about 2 litres (4 pt) of water you might cover 56km (35 miles) and last 3 days.

The biblical text quoted above says that the Israelites journeyed three days, so they did not spend those three days sitting in the shade. They were marching in a desert region, so unless they were carrying water with them, they could have traveled only about five miles before they would have collapsed. Quibbling that they may have traveled only at night would not solve the problem of having to transport water with them, because the statistics above state that one could last only two and a half days without water if he/she spent that time resting in the shade. Hence, inerrantists, who claim that the wilderness wandering tales are historically accurate, cannot escape the need to explain how the Israelites could have transported with them enough water to provide them and their livestock with their daily requirements.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 10 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales When Nature Called

by Farrell Till

We have seen some of the logistical problems that would have been involved in setting up encampments for 2.5 to 3 million people and carrying out the sacrificial ceremonies that the Levitical law required. Probably few inerrantists have ever considered a wilderness problem that all densely populated areas must solve, and that is the problem of human-waste disposal. The following passage made some stipulations in this regard that would have posed some special hardships on the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings.

Deuteronomy 23:12 You shall have a designated area outside the camp to which you shall go. 13 With your utensils you shall have a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole with it and then cover up your excrement. 14 Because Yahweh your God travels along with your camp, to save you and to hand over your enemies to you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

This passage clearly indicates that latrines were not allowed inside the encampment, and so when nature called, one was required to go outside of the 9-square-mile camp to attend to it. He/she was to take along a "trowel" (paddle in some translations) to dig a hole in which to bury the excrement. It is hard to imagine how large this "designated" area would have had to have been to accommodate 2.5 million people digging their individual holes to attend to their business. If each hole were only 6 inches by 6 inches, a "designated area" of 625,000 square feet or 69,444 square yards would be needed to provide a hole for each person. Since there are 4,840 square yards in an acre, this "designated area" would have had to have been 14.35 acres in size to accommodate each person's going "outside the camp" with his/her trowel just once per day.

Tall Tales In The Wilderness Wanderings (Part 9 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales Getting the Whole Congregation Together

by Farrell Till

In the eight previous articles in this series, we have seen many logistical improbabilities--and sometimes downright impossibilities--in the biblical tales of the 40-year wilderness wanderings of the Israelites. Let's now imagine all 3 million Israelites standing together like packed sardines instead of lying down in their 6' x 3' plot that was allotted when we calculated what the minimum land area for an encampment would had to have been. Let's suppose that all three million could stand together on a plot that allowed a 2-foot by 2-foot area for each person. Where one person's four-square-foot plot ended, another one's would begin. Putting everyone together this compactly, all three million could have stood on a land area of 12 million square feet. In yards, the area of this plot of standing room only would have been 1,333,333 square yards. That would equal 275 acres of ground. (Of course, one would not have wanted to be in the very center of this mass of humanity when the mandatory trip out of the camp with one's trowel [Deut. 23:12-13] became necessary.) Anyone who grew up on a farm of any size should have an idea of how much land area this would be. The family farm that I grew up on in Missouri was only 120 acres or less than half this size. There would be no way that anyone could have stood in the middle of my family's farm and speak and be heard everywhere on the farm.

Why is this important? We read in many places in the exodus stories that Moses would sometimes call the entire congregation of Israel together to speak to them. The premise of Deuteronomy, in fact, is that of a speech that Moses made to "all Israel" (1:1). On some occasions, Moses would call the whole congregation together at the door of the tabernacle to speak to them: "And Yahweh spoke to Moses saying... assemble all the congregation at the door of the tabernacle, and Moses did as Yahweh commanded him, and the congregation was assembled at the door of the tabernacle" (Lev. 6:1-5). Now the dimensions of the tabernacle are recorded in Exodus 27:11-12, and its court at the front entry was only 50 cubits wide. Even if we accept the long cubit as a standard, this would have made the breadth of the court only 90 feet. So how could Moses have possibly assembled the entire congregation before the court of the tabernacle? If the people had stood in rows 90 feet wide, each row would have accommodated only 45 people, so 66,666 rows would have been necessary to get all of the people in front of the tabernacle entry. The rows would then have extended back from the entry to a distance of 25 miles. Needless to say, this would have made it impossible for Moses to have spoken to the entire congregation. Even if we put 135 people in each row, so that the rows would have extended 90 feet on each side beyond the width of the court, there would have been 22,222 rows of people stretching back for a distance of 8.4 miles.

Inerrantists will argue that "all of the congregation" didn't mean all of the Israelites in the exodus but only the adults. That hardly solves the problem, because if we cut the population figures in half to accommodate this quibble, that would simply halve the scenarios presented above, and no reasonable person can think that 1.5 million adults assembled on 137.5 acres of land or in a column 4.2 miles long could hear a speech that Moses was delivering without a public address system. Obviously, all of Moses speeches to "all Israel" or the "whole congregation" are simply more exaggerations in the fanciful tale of Israel's trek from Egypt to the promised land.  

Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 8 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales At Least the Priests Had Meat

by Farrell Till

In "Yahweh's Quails," we looked at what Yahweh's "inspired" word said about a near food riot when the people grew weary of manna and demanded meat to eat. After Moses had cooled the petulant Yahweh's temper in this matter, Yahweh said that he would send them meat to eat until it became loathsome to them and was coming out of their nostrils (Num. 11:19). This was done through a wind from the sea (of all places) that blew in quails that fell for a depth of three feet all around the camp for a distance of a day's journey (20-25 miles). The people didn't get to enjoy their meat, however, for before they could consume it, Yahweh sent a plague to kill the rebellious ones. Then all was well again until Miriam and Aaron complained about Moses' leadership (chapter 12) and the people trembled at the report of the spies (chapters 13 and 14). It seems that there was just always something turning the chosen ones against the god who went before them in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, talked to them from the door of the tabernacle, brought them water from rocks, parted the Red Sea, etc., etc., etc. Boy, talk about a lack of appreciation! These chosen ones had it. We have to wonder why the inscrutable Yahweh selected such an ungrateful lot to be his chosen people above all nations on the face of the earth (Deut. 7:6-7). Ah, well, God's ways are not to be questioned, and in the sweet by and by, we will undoubtedly understand it all.

At any rate, the people bellyached at the lack of meat in their diet, but we could hardly suppose that the priests had any complaints. This is because the priests were required to eat many of the sacrifices after they had been offered: "And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed before Yahweh. It is most holy. The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it. In the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting" (Lev. 6:24-27). Of sacrifices boiled in earthen vessels, "every male among the priests shall eat thereof; it is most holy" (v:29). Every male among the priests shall eat thereof? Well, that would have been four at the most, Aaron and his two sons Eleazar and Ithamar, and then later Eleazar's son Phinehas (Num. 25:10-13).

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 7 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales Another Problem with the Quails

by Farrell Till

In "Yahweh's Quails," we saw the logistical absurdities that would have been involved in the biblical tale of quails that Yahweh caused to fall to a depth of three feet for 20 miles in all directions around the Israelite camp. Besides the sheer logistics that would have been involved in the gathering of these quails as claimed in the biblical text, this fanciful little tale presents another problem for biblical inerrantists. According to the story, Yahweh clearly said that he would give the complaining Israelites enough meat to last them a month, so much meat, in fact, that it would come out at their nostrils and become loathsome to them.

Numbers 11:18 "Therefore Yahweh will give you meat, and you shall eat. 19 You shall eat not only one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, but for a whole month--until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you--because you have rejected Yahweh who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, 'Why did we ever leave Egypt?'"

So Yahweh's prediction was that these bellyaching Israelites would chew on quails for a month until the meat came out their nostrils and became loathsome to them, but according to Yahweh's inspired, inerrant word, this isn't what happened .

Numbers 11:32 So the people worked all that day and night and all the next day, gathering the quails; the least anyone gathered was ten homers; and they spread them out for themselves all around the camp. 33 But while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of Yahweh was kindled against the people, and Yahweh struck the people with a very great plague. 34 So that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had the craving.

So one passage from Yahweh's inspired, inerrant word says that he told the people they would eat so much meat (for at least a month) that it would become loathsome to them, but another passage (just a few verses further along) says that the people never even had the opportunity to eat the quails, because Yahweh struck the people with a "very great plague" while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was consumed, and killed those who had had "the craving."

But there are no discrepancies in the Bible, are there?  

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 6 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales Yahweh's Quails

by Farrell Till

In their wilderness wanderings, Yahweh's "chosen ones" bellyached about every little hardship. When they tired of the manna from heaven that Yahweh so generously provided them, they complained again: "If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we used to eat in Egypt for nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; but now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at" (Num. 11:5). If the people wanted meat to eat, why they didn't slaughter some of their enormous flocks and herds from which they obtained their constant supply of animals to incinerate on Yahweh's altar is anyone's guess, but people in biblical times didn't seem to react to situations in logical, sensible ways. The "chosen ones" wanted meat, and so they complained to their god Yahweh, who was so angry at them for their latest rebellion that he promised to send them so much meat that it would come out their nostrils.

Numbers 11:16 So Yahweh said to Moses, "Gather for me seventy of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; bring them to the tent of meeting, and have them take their place there with you. 17 I will come down and talk with you there; and I will take some of the spirit that is on you and put it on them; and they shall bear the burden of the people along with you so that you will not bear it all by yourself. 18 And say to the people: Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat; for you have wailed in the hearing of Yahweh, saying, 'If only we had meat to eat! Surely it was better for us in Egypt.' Therefore Yahweh will give you meat, and you shall eat. 19 You shall eat not only one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, 20 but for a whole month--until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you--because you have rejected Yahweh who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, 'Why did we ever leave Egypt?'"

Yahweh's statement confused even Moses, because he too reacted logically and assumed that Yahweh meant for meat to be obtained from the flocks and herds: "And Moses said, 'The people whom I am among are six hundred thousand men on foot; yet you have said, "I will give them meat, that they may eat for a whole month."' Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, to provide enough for them?" (vs:21-22).

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 5 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales Where Did They Get the Wood?

by Farrell Till

The fire on the altar at the door of the tabernacle was a permanent fire that never went out: "And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereon; it shall not go out, and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning; and he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it, and shall burn thereon the fat of the peace-offerings. Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it shall not go out" (Lev. 6:12-13). Even if this statement were not in the sacred word, we would have to conclude that the fire on the altar had to burn continuously, because the daily sacrificial rituals, officiated by only three priests (four after Aaron's grandson Phinehas was ordained), would have had to have burned continuously. Even then, with three or four priests working nonstop, they could hardly have attended to all of the sacrifices necessitated by 2.5 to 3 million people trying to heed Yahweh's holy commandment to incinerate animals and birds and meal to him for their sins and other needs. Even if we assume that only the previously estimated 1.5 million adults in the band of three million refugees trekking to the promised land offered sacrifices and that each adult offered only an average of one sacrifice per year (which certainly would not have satisfied Yahweh's ordinances concerning sacrifices), the three (or four) priests would have had to officiate at over 1,000 sacrifices per day. If we divide these evenly among the four priests, each one would have had to officiate at 250 sacrifices per day, which would have averaged more but a division of labor like this would not have been possible, since all sacrifices had to be made on the altar at the door of the tabernacle. Perhaps we can imagine a scenario where one priest made an offering, while a second one prepared another, which he would slap onto the altar as soon as the first one had been duly incinerated, after which a third priest would throw on a third, etc. Even at this, each priest would have had to do 85 sacrifices per hour, if they had all worked nonstop without eating or sleeping. That would amount to 1.4 sacrifices, per priest, per minute, a scenario that would hardly have been possible, since the fire on the altar could not have consumed animals as large as bullocks that rapidly. We must also remember that the offal of the animals and the ashes left over from the sacrifice had to be carried by the priest "out of the camp" and duly disposed of in accordance with Yahweh's other holy ordinances. Since the tabernacle was always located in the center of the camp (already estimated at a conservative size of 9 square miles), the disposal of offal and ashes would have required at least a 1.5 trek, even if we visualize the chosen ones sleeping in their tents like sardines to keep the size of the camp to just 9 square miles. Of course, if the encampments were made to provide each person a little elbow room, the treks out of the camp would have been longer for the priests (who were all loaded down with offal and ashes). And inerrantists try to tell us that the Bible is a work of perfect harmony!

At any rate, we are told that the fire on the altar burned continuously. If that is so, we have to wonder where all of the wood was obtained in the Sinai wilderness to keep it burning. Every morning a priest had to put wood on the fire, but one would think that the years and years that this fire burned would have depleted what wood may have grown naturally in the area. This would be especially true, since we have to believe they the chosen ones wandered about in circles. One would think that once a circle had been completed, the need for wood would have been an especially acute problem for the priest who had to keep the fire burning on the altar. We have to wonder too where the people obtained wood for their personal fires, which they would have needed to cook and stay warm at night. With up to three million people in the encampments, there was surely keen competition for wood. Despite this, we are asked to believe that an altar fire was kept burning continuously and that somehow wood was always available for the altar in a region that would surely have been stripped of wood in the forty years of wandering about in circles.

I'm sure that there must be a simple explanation for this problem but that I have just overlooked it. Perhaps some inerrantist reader could tell us what the explanation is.  

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 4 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales What About the Meal Offerings?

by Farrell Till
In "Sacrifices and the Size of the Hebrew Camps", we saw that it would have been logistically impossible for four priests to have officiated at all of the animal sacrifices that the Levitical law required of the Israelites during their wilderness years. In addition to the many bloody animal sacrifices decreed by the inscrutable Yahweh, the Israelites were required to make "meal-offerings" to Yahweh, and these were just as rigidly regulated as the animal sacrifices (Lev. 2:1-16; 6:14-21; 7:11-14), from all of which the priests were of course authorized to take their share.

The size of these "meal-offerings" was not designated, but let's just suppose that the average size was 4 ounces, which would seem like an embarrassingly small amount to offer to the almighty Yahweh, who had delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. I mean, how ungrateful could one get? So if only one meal-offering per year, per person, were sacrificed in the wilderness wanderings, 750,000 pounds of meal per year would have been required. This would have equaled 375 tons of meal per year that went up in smoke while the Israelites were in the wilderness. Over the entire 40-year stretch, 15,000 tons of meal would have been sacrificed.

Now where could the Israelites have obtained in the wilderness the grain to make this much meal for their sacrifices? The Sinai was a desert terrain, which hardly seems like the type of land from which 375 tons of grain could have been harvested each year. Besides, there is not even a hint in the wilderness stories that the Israelites ever engaged in agricultural activities while they were wandering about.

Doesn't anybody besides me ever wonder about the logistical requirements that would have been necessary to make the wilderness-wandering tales historically accurate?  

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 3 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales Sacrifices in the Hebrew Camps

by Farrell Till

In "The Size of the Hebrew Camps", I showed that an encampment of 2.5 to 3 million people would surely have required an area of at least 9 square miles and probably even more. Even the layout of the camp was divinely commanded, and the tabernacle was the center of the camp (Num. 2:2). The rest of Numbers 2 gave detailed instructions on where each tribe was to pitch its tents. These instructions are too detailed to quote, but for now we want to notice that the tabernacle was to be the center of the encampments. Sacrifices were offered on an altar that was located at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. 1:5), the fire of which was kept permanently burning (Lev. 6:12-13). Hence, the daily sacrifices were offered in the center of the Israelite encampment.

The book of Leviticus is mainly a catalog of sacrifices that had to be offered on the tabernacle altar. One of the more interesting ones was the purification sacrifice that a woman had to offer after giving birth. For giving birth to a male, a woman was unclean for 40 days, but for giving birth to a female, she was unclean for 80 days (Lev. 12:1-5). After this period, she was to offer a year-old lamb for her purification and a pigeon or a turtledove (v:6). If she couldn't afford this sacrifice, she could substitute two pigeons or two turtledoves (v:8). Who said that Yahweh wasn't a considerate god? Why, look at the concern he showed for the poor.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 2 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales The Size of the Hebrew Camps

by Farrell Till

In "The Population Claims," I noted that if we assume the accuracy of the census figures in Numbers, we have to conclude that there were about three million people in the exodus group. The books of Exodus and Numbers make several references to the Hebrew encampments during their wilderness wanderings, but a multitude of three million people would raise several questions about the logistic possibility of encampments that could accommodate this many nomadic people. If each person in the Israelite horde had had only a six-foot by three-foot plot to sleep on at night, this would have been 18 square feet. (A standard-sized twin bed provides 19.5 square feet of sleeping space.) Children would have used less space, of course, but there were undoubtedly many whose size would have required more than 6' x 3', so 18 square feet per person would not be an unreasonable average.

Three million people sleeping at night would have occupied 54 million square feet or six million square yards, even if there were no passage ways left open to accommodate passage for those who heard nature calling in the night. An acre consists of 4,840 square yards, so even if the Israelites had slept at night like sardines, they would have occupied 1,240 acres. This would have been almost two square miles. The family farm that I grew up on in Southeast Missouri had 120 acres, so the entire farm could have slept only a tenth of the Israelites packed together as described above.

Tall Tales Of Wilderness Wanderings (Part 1 of 13): Logistical Improbabilities in the Wilderness-Wandering Tales The Population Claims

by Farrell Till

The "tall tale" was a part of American folklore, which was expressed in the creation of characters like Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, and Johnny Appleseed. Tall tales, however, were not unique to American literature. They existed in earlier nations, including the ancient Hebrews, who left the world a maze of such stories that were best represented by the unlikely tales that were spun about their 40 years of wilderness wanderings after they had left Egypt. When these tales are examined carefully, critical readers should have no difficulty seeing in them elements that would tax the imagination of any rational person asked to believe their historical accuracy.

The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy relate various adventures and misfortunes that the Israelites experienced after their exodus from Egypt. The logistics in many of these wilderness-wandering tales are too improbable to believe and in some cases even downright impossible. To see the absurdities in these tales, one has to understand first the improbability of the size of the Israelite horde that the Bible claims left Egypt. The census that Moses conducted the second year after the exodus (Num. 1:1) revealed that there were 603,550 men of military age (Num. 1:46). Military age began at 20, but there also seemed to be a provision that these men had to be physically able to "go forth to war" (vs:3, 20, 22, 24, 26, etc.). We have no way of knowing how many physically or mentally disabled men there would have been in this group, but we can reasonably assume that there were at least some. I will return to this matter later, but for now I want to establish reasonable population figures based on what the Bible directly claims. If there were 603,550 able-bodied men fit to "go forth to war," we can reasonably assume that there was also an approximate number of able-bodied females in the same age group. This would add up to 1,207,100 who were at least 20 years old. If there were this many who were at least 20, we could reasonably think that there were approximately that many who were 19 or younger. Hence, the population for these two groups alone would have totaled 2,414,200.

Plagued By Inconsistencies: Discrepancies in the Egyptian-Plague Narratives - Part Four of Four

Another Exaggeration Problem

by Farrell Till

We noticed in Part One that the Exodus writer began the plague stories with a tit-for-tat premise that quickly created a logistical impossibility. In the first tit-for-tat scenario, Aaron threw his rod down and it became a serpent, but Pharaoh's sorcerers did likewise with their "secret arts" and changed their rods into serpents, which were then gobbled up by the serpent that had been Aaron's rod (Ex. 7:10-12). Hence, the power of Yahweh had from the very beginning proved superior to that of the Egyptian sorcerers. The writer's strategy worked until he had Pharaoh's sorcerers duplicate Aaron's feat of changing the water throughout all the land of Egypt into blood, because, as noted in my article linked to above, the writer was at this point claiming a logistical impossibility, for if all the water in Egypt had been changed into blood, there would have been no way for Pharaoh's sorcerers to have done "likewise with their secret arts." It would have been one thing to change existing water into blood; it would have been quite another to change nonexisting water into blood.

The Exodus writer also had a penchant for superlatives that subsequently resulted in other discrepancies. We have already seen how the writer claimed that "all the livestock in Egypt" were killed by a plague of murrain but then later claimed that additional Egyptian livestock were somehow afflicted with boils, killed with hail, and finally killed in the plague against all Egyptian firstborn, human and animal alike. This discrepancy resulted from the writer's consistent use of superlatives to describe the extent of the plagues. The water was changed to blood throughout all the land of Egypt (Ex. 7:19-21); all the dust throughout all the land of Egypt was changed to lice [gnats or mosquitoes] (Ex. 8:17); all the livestock of Egypt died (Ex. 9:6); the hail struck throughout all the land of Egypt (Ex. 9:25)--all seemed to be the writer's favorite word to describe the scope of the plagues. Other superlatives, however, were used to convey that the plagues were unbounded in their scope. Although all the livestock of the Egyptians were killed by the murrain, not so much as one of the Israelite livestock died (Ex. 9:7). The hail was "the heaviest hail to fall that has ever fallen in Egypt from the day it was founded until now" (Ex. 9:18,25). Every man and beast in the field were struck down by the hail (Ex. 9:25), which also broke "all the plants in the field" and "shattered every tree in the field" (Ex. 9:25). The locusts were "very grievous" and such as "had never been before, nor ever shall be again" (Ex. 10:14), and they ate "all the plants in the land and all the fruit of the trees that the hail had left" and "nothing green was left, no tree, no plant in the field, in all the land of Egypt" (Ex. 10:15). Apparently, the Exodus writer just couldn't say that a heavy hail came or that huge swarms of locusts came. No, he had to describe the plagues in superlative terms, i. e., the worst that had ever been or ever would be, which spared nothing in their paths.

Plagued By Inconsistencies: Discrepancies in the Egyptian-Plague Narratives - Part Three of Four

     
     Lice, Flies, and the Amazing Livestock of Egypt

by Farrell Till

The Exodus writer began his tales of the confrontation between Aaron and Moses and the sorcerers of Egypt with a tit-for-tat theme. Whatever amazing feat Aaron would perform with his rod, Pharaoh would order his sorcerers to do the same, even when it meant increasing the pollutions of blood and frogs throughout all the land of Egypt. After the second plague, however, the sorcerers were stumped and had to give up. Aaron had caused "all the dust" in Egypt to become lice (or gnats or mosquitoes, depending on the translation), but somehow the sorcerers who had managed to change water that didn't exist into blood were unable to change dust that no longer existed into lice (or gnats or mosquitoes).

Exodus 8:16 Then Yahweh said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Stretch out your staff and strike the dust of the earth, so that it may become gnats [lice] throughout the whole land of Egypt.'" ¹⁷ And they did so; Aaron stretched out his hand with his staff and struck the dust of the earth, and gnats [lice] came on humans and animals alike; all the dust of the earth turned into gnats [lice] throughout the whole land of Egypt. ¹⁸ The magicians tried to produce gnats [lice] by their secret arts, but they could not. There were gnats [lice] on both humans and animals. ¹⁹ And the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God!"

Hmm, didn't these guys see the "finger of God" in all the other stunts that Aaron and Moses had performed? One would think that seeing Aaron change the water throughout all the land of Egypt into blood would have given these fellows pause to think from the beginning that maybe "the finger of God" was with these two upstarts daring to confront Pharaoh with demands to free the enslaved Israelites, but since they were somehow able to duplicate this feat and change water that didn't exist into blood too, that could explain why they had not yet seen the finger of God in the initial plagues.That wouldn't explain, however, why they could not duplicate the miracle of the lice or gnats. One might argue that they could not have changed dust into lice, because Aaron had already changed "all the dust" throughout all the land of Egypt into lice, but inerrantists should be careful about offering this as an explanation for the inability of the Egyptian sorcerers to duplicate the third plague, because if these sorcerers had been able to change water into blood after the water throughout all the land of Egypt had already been changed to blood, bringing forth some more lice from dust that had already been changed to lice would have seemed like child's play. Ah, the hazards that accompany attempts to find inerrancy in a book riddled with discrepancies.

Plagued By Inconsistencies: Discrepancies in the Egyptian-Plague Narratives - Part Two of Four

Here a Frog, There a Frog,
Everywhere a Frog Frog

by Farrell Till

As I noted in Part One of this series, the problem of the Egyptian magicians having done “likewise with their enchantments” remains unexplained, but that was far from the only problem in the Egyptian-plague stories. Pharaoh, being the impious sort that he was, still was unimpressed after Aaron and Moses had changed the water throughout all the land of Egypt into blood. He witnessed the exchange of miraculous feats between Aaron and the Egyptian sorcerers there by the riverside, then “turned and went into his house, and he did not take even this to heart” (v:23). So Yahweh sent the plague of frogs against Egypt, which was a typical Yahwistic response, by the way. The Egyptian populace had had nothing to do with this dispute between Pharaoh and Moses, but they were the ones who had to bear the brunt of Yahweh’s wrath. Already they had frantically dug for seven days along the Nile for water to drink (vs:24-25), and now, as if this were not enough suffering for their ruler’s obstinacy, Yahweh decided to zap them with a plague of frogs. This Yahweh that biblical inerrantists admire so much has a strange sense of justice and fairness.

Plagued By Inconsistencies: Discrepancies in the Egyptian-Plague Narratives - Part One of Four

                                The Tit-For-Tat Problem

by Farrell Till
For sheer absurdity, few tales in pagan mythology can match the biblical stories of the Egyptian plagues. The incidents that led eventually to the death of all firstborn in the land and quickly thereafter to the Israelite exodus from Egypt began with a tit-for-tat confrontation between Moses and Aaron and pharaoh’s magicians (Ex. 7:8-13). To show the power that Moses and Aaron had in reserve, Aaron, we are told, cast his rod down, and, presto, it became a serpent. Apparently unimpressed by Aaron’s demonstration, pharaoh called for his magicians and sorcerers, who “did in like manner with their enchantments.” Aaron’s rod, however, swallowed the rods of pharaoh’s magicians. At this point, we might wonder why the “inspired” writer of this quaint little tale said that Aaron’s rod swallowed the rods of pharaoh’s magicians. Surely it would have been the serpent that had been Aaron’s rod that swallowed the serpents that had been the magicians’ rods. To spare inerrantists the trouble of lecturing us on the figure of speech called ampliatio, however, I won’t quibble about the word used to designate what swallowed what, although this does seem to be a careless bit of writing by one whose hand was presumably guided by the omniscient god who created the universe. Just suffice it to say that Aaron’s rod or serpent, whichever the case may have been, saved the day by swallowing the magicians’ rods or serpents, whichever the case may have been. Score one for Yahweh and the good guys.

If one accepts the premise that God once routinely and personally intervened in the affairs of men to achieve whatever results he desired, there is admittedly nothing in this story so far that could be characterized as preposterous. Beyond this point, however, as we will soon see, that situation changed dramatically, and absurdity was quickly piled upon absurdity. What we want to glean from this part of the story before we wade through the sea of absurdities that follows is the evident fact that whoever wrote this part of the Bible obviously intended the tale of the Egyptian plagues to be perceived as a confrontation between the power of Yahweh invested in Moses and Aaron and the magic of pharaoh’s magicians. The writer’s strategy seemed to be to tell the story as a tit-for-tat contest between the power of Yahweh and the power of pharaoh’s sorcerers until finally the latter would have to give up and admit that Yahweh’s power was greater than theirs.

Evaluating Historical Claims

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1995/May-June:

by Farrell Till

The biblical characters presented as emissaries of God were almost always miracle-workers. They parted the water of seas and rivers; they walked on water; they commanded the sun to stand still in the sky; they healed the blind and the deaf; they raised the dead. Nothing, it seems, was impossible for them to do.

The Bible is filled with tales of such fabulous deeds as these, and fundamentalist Christians believe that every one of these stories of miraculous achievements is literally true. If the Bible says that the prophet Elisha retrieved an iron axe head that had fallen into the Jordan River by making the axe head float ( 2 Kings 6:7), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that the body of a dead man whom a band of Moabite marauders cast into Elisha's tomb revived and stood upon its feet when it touched the bones of Elisha ( 2 Kings 13:20-21), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that a donkey conversed with its owner in a human voice ( Num. 22:28-30), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that an earthquake opened the graves in a cemetery after which the dead people in the opened graves revived and went into the city of Jerusalem ( Matt. 27:51-53), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says... but why continue? We could fill this entire issue with examples of other events just as fabulous as these that the Bible presents as actual historical occurrences--all of which fundamentalist Christians believe literally happened exactly as recorded.

When I Was A Child...

From *The Skeptical Review*, 2002/July-August:

by Farrell Till

The apostle Paul once said something that makes me think of gullible Bible believers every time I read it: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways" (1 Cor. 13:11). Children believe many outrageous things. They believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and all sorts of things that they heard from their parents, who had read them fairy tales and other fantasy literature. As children grow older, however, they discard these childish beliefs, except for the fantasies they were taught in church. Somehow many children grow into adulthood and eventually die without ever giving up the religious fantasies they learned as children.

I often wonder why. I remember an early childhood trip that my family made from Southeast Missouri to Memphis. Christmas was approaching, so I suppose my parents were making the trip to buy presents for my brother and me that they would slip under the tree and fool us into thinking that Santa Claus had brought them. They didn't know that my brother, who was in the first grade at the time, had been telling me that he had learned at school that there was no Santa Claus.

When The Fig Tree Puts Forth Its Leaves

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

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.