The Last Hurrah of the Inerrancy Doctrine

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1990 / Jan.-Feb. Issue:

by Farrell Till

Many fundamentalist Christians sincerely believe that the Bible is the verbally inspired word of God. As believers in verbal inspiration, they see the Bible much differently from those who respect it as a book with only concepts and ideas that were divinely inspired. Christians who believe in the doctrine of verbal inspiration think that God directed the writing of the Bible on a word-by-word basis so that the authors of the original manuscripts were protected from writing even as much as one word that might inadvertently mislead readers or incorrectly communicate the truths God wanted man to know.

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.

A Lesson in Basic Hermeneutics

From *The Skeptical Review*, 2002/May-June:

by Farrell Till

Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting written texts, especially those that claim to be sacred, and it seems that our old friend Roger Hutchinson is in need of a lesson in the fundamentals of hermeneutic theory. That Hutchinson would try again to postulate some far-fetched "solution" to a biblical problem is not at all surprising, but I must say that I was surprised that even he would resort to the absurd explanation that he proposed above to one of the many New Testament passages that taught the second coming of Jesus was imminent.

Readers will probably remember that Hutchinson attempted unsuccessfully last year to explain away the prophecy failure in Matthew 24:34, where Jesus said that "this generation will not pass away till all these things be accomplished." One of "these things" that Jesus had just mentioned was a clear description of his second coming, which he said would be accompanied by various astronomical signs and that all the tribes of the earth would see. Clearly that didn't happen in the lifetime of those to whom Jesus was speaking, so Hutchinson tried some of his verbal legerdemain to make this mean that Jesus was really saying that the generation alive whenever Jesus did return would not pass away till it had seen all "these thing," which would include the return of Jesus. Yeah, right. Whenever I read Hutchinson's "explanations" of what disputed biblical texts really meant, I can't help wondering why God didn't providentially arrange for Hutchinson to have been born in biblical times so that God could have chosen him to write at least some books of the Bible. Why, if the omni-one had done that, he wouldn't even have needed to "inspire" Hutchinson, who undoubtedly would have known how to explain everything clearly without divine inspiration.

The Throne of David Prophecy

From the Errancy Discussion list, 1-19-98:

At 09:55 PM 1/18/98 EST, ITS786 wrote:

>Dear Farrell Till, 

>Assalam Alaikum,

>A Christian wrote to me saying that his Faith is true because many prophecies

>have come true; I know that there is an answer to these; can you send them to

>me.  Thank you; Jazakullah.

>THE HEIR TO THE THRONE OF DAVID
>
>Prophecy: "Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end.

>He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and

>upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever."

>(Isaiah 9:7) 

>Fulfillment: "A record of the geneology of Jesus Christ the son of David, the

>son of Abraham." (Mathew 1:1, 6)
>
TILL
As we continue to look at the prophecy fulfillment claims of Stevan's
Christian friend, we should keep in mind that his/her method of
argumentation is merely to cite an OT passage and then a NT passage as
"proof" that the OT prophecy was fulfilled.  In neither case, does the
Christian offer any kind of textual or corroborating evidence to support his
position.  For example, the prophecy fulfillment claim above doesn't even
attempt to show that Isaiah meant that the kingdom of David would be
established forever only in a spiritual or figurative sense, and neither
does he present any kind of evidence to show that Matthew's genealogy of
Jesus was accurate in the listings that showed Jesus to be a descendant of
David.  I will discuss these two points separately to show that they both
pose serious problems to Christian claims that the kingdom of David would be
established forever.  

Did Isaiah have Jesus (a person who wouldn't even be born for seven more
centuries) in mind in the passage cited above?  Well, let's notice first of
all that this text doesn't even stipulate that this person would be a
descendant of David.  It merely says that whoever this was would establish
the throne of David forever, so it would be possible for someone who was not
a descendant of David to establish his throne.  However, since other OT
prophecies did predict that a descendant of David would establish his throne
forever, we will grant to Stevan's Christian friend that descent from David
would have been a requirement to fulfill this prophecy.  The prophecy claim
is still in serious trouble because of the following problems.

1.  The context of the statement clearly shows that it was intended to have
an immediate application or fulfillment rather than one that wouldn't happen
until centuries later.  The verse just before the one cited as a prophecy
shows that it had reference to the time in which Isaiah lived: "For unto US
a child IS born, unto US a son IS given; and the government shall be upon
his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty
God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Of the increase of his government
and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his
kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
FROM HENCEFORTH EVEN FOREVER" (9:6-7). Notice the tense of the verbs in
verse six.  Isaiah said, "(U)nto us, a child IS born, unto us a son IS
given," so this was not something that was going to happen seven centuries
later but something that had already happened to "US."  The promise or
prophecy in this verse is like the one two chapters earlier (7:14) that
Christians have twisted and distorted into a prophecy of the virgin birth of
Jesus, but just as Isaiah had said in chapter 7 that the birth of a child to
a maiden (not virgin) who was at that time with child would be a "sign" that
the military alliance of Syria and Israel would not succeed against Judah,
so in chapter 9, he was making another prophetic statement to "US," the
people living at that time.

That Isaiah so intended the prophecy in 9:7 to have immediate application is
clearly indicated by the phase that ends verse 7 (which I have typed in
uppercase letters above).  In other words, this child who was born to "us"
at that time would establish the throne and kingdom of David FROM HENCEFORTH
EVEN FOREVER.  Anyone who knows both Jewish history and the meaning of the
word "henceforth" should be able to see that rather than this being an
amazing example of prophecy fulfillment, it is a clear case of prophecy
failure.  "Henceforth" means "from this time forth" or "from now on."  So
Isaiah was saying that a child IS born unto US and that he would establish
the kingdom and throne of David "from this time forth" or "from now on."
Obviously, this didn't happen, because after king Zedekiah was taken to
Babylon (2 Kings 25), no other king has sat upon David's throne, and
certainly David's throne and kingdom were not established "from HENCEFORTH
even forever."  Even if one is going to claim that Jesus sits on the throne
of David (something impossible to prove), he/she would have to explain the
six-century gap from Zedekiah to Jesus when no one sat on David's throne,
when Isaiah had clearly said that the kingdom of David would be established
HENCEFORTH even forever.

Biblicists will, of course, contend that the promise to establish David's
throne forever was intended only in a figurative sense, but it is easy to
show that OT writers clearly intended their readers to understand that the
establishment of the literal throne of David was supposed to happen.  That
can be shown by looking at Psalm 132:11-12: "Yahweh has sworn in truth to
David: He will not turn from it: 'I will set upon your throne the fruit of
your body.  If your SONS (plural) will keep My covenant and My testimony
which I shall teach them, THEIR SONS also shall sit upon your throne
forevermore."  So the promise wasn't that A SON (only one) would sit on
David's throne but that his sons and their sons (plural) would sit on the
throne forever.  Clearly, OT writers ethnocentrically believed that Yahweh
would establish the literal kingdom of David forever in that descendants of
David would always literally reign in Jerusalem.

I could examine many OT passages to show that this was the clear intent of
the Davidic prophecies, but to keep the posting reasonably short, I will
look at just one other.

>Jeremiah 33:14  The days are surely coming, says Yahweh, when I will

fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

>15  In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to

spring up for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.

>16  In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety.

And this is the name by which it will be called: "Yahweh is our righteousness."

>17  For thus says Yahweh: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne

of the house of Israel,

>18  and the levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to

offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for
all time.
>
Notice that Jeremiah said that when the time came that he was speaking about
"Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety," so he was clearly
speaking about something that would happen to secure the safety of Judah and
Jerusalem.  Whenever this happened, Jeremiah claimed (v:17) that "David
shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel."  So
once again, we have a prophet promising that David's throne would be
established forever.  If biblicists contend (as they will) that all of this
is to be understood figuratively and that it is only in a figurative sense
that Judah and Jerusalem have lived in safety since Jesus was resurrected to
sit on David throne, then they will have to explain the very last verse in
my quotation from Jeremiah (above).  Jeremiah said not only that David would
never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel but that "the
levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt
offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices FOR ALL TIME."
Jeremiah was clearly predicting the establishment of BOTH the kingdom of
David and the OT levitical system forever, so biblicists can find no support
for their "figurative" interpretation of the Davidic prophecies in this
passage from Jeremiah.  To the contrary, it shows that their figurative
interpretation is merely a dodge to try to get around a clear prophecy failure.

2.  The second point that Christians must prove is that Jesus was a
descendant of David.  Stevan's Christian friend obviously thinks that he has
accomplished that just by quoting from Matthew's genealogy, where it was
claimed that Jesus was the "son of David."  What Christians must prove is
that Matthew was accurate in making that statement.  I understand that by
the first century A. D., the lines of descent were so obscured that it
wasn't possible to determine what tribe individual Jews had descended from,
so what evidence do Christians have to show that Jesus really was a
descendant of David? We demand more than Matthew's mere word.  What evidence
did Matthew have that enabled him to know this?   I won't even raise the
issue of the Christian claim that Matthew's genealogy is only a genealogy of
Joseph and not a genealogy of Jesus, who wasn't fathered by Joseph.  I'll
wait to see what Christians on the list may have to say about this point
before I say any more about it.  I suspect that inerrantists who were on the
list when the conflict between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies was
discussed will choose to remain mum on this subject.

There is much more that I could write about the failure of the Davidic
prophecies, but I will wait to see if Stevan's Christian friend even
attempts to reply to what I have already said.

Farrell Till

The Problems in Bradford's Complaint

An excellent article by Farrell Till comparing the logical, empirical-based presuppositions of naturalists versus the illogical, unsupported suppositions of supernaturalists. From *The Skeptical Review*, Sept-Oct. 2001:

by Farrell Till

Mr. Bradford seems sincerely convinced that I have a prejudice that will not allow me to see that supernatural presuppositions are just as logical as naturalistic ones. Because of his apparent belief that I won't listen to any arguments in the articles he submits to me, I am asking another person to reply to his attempt to prove the existence of God. It will be published in a later issue, although the subject is not really suitable for The Skeptical Review.In the very first  issue of TSR, published in January 1990, I specifically stated that the paper would not debate the issue of God's existence, but if I had declined to publish Mr. Bradford's article, he would have accused me of being too prejudiced to give consideration to attempts to prove the existence of his deity by scientific argumentation. What Mr. Bradford doesn't seem to realize is that he doesn't really argue his positions. He just asserts them and then vents his frustration when we refuse to fall in line and accept his assertions without questions.

Although I am leaving the "God part" of Bradford's article for someone else to answer, he made some personal remarks about himself and me that I will reply to in this issue, because no one else would really be qualified to speak on some of the accusations he made about me.

Do I resort to "subjective ridicule rather than logic and evidence"? I have to answer this charge with both yes and no. Yes, I do ridicule the inability of biblicists to think rationally. Perhaps I should not do this, but it is somewhat difficult not to do it when a biblicist persists in clinging to an irrational belief when he has seen mountains of evidence that the biblical inerrancy doctrine just cannot be true. When biblicists argue that "soon"or "at hand" didn't really mean soon or at hand when they are shown New Testament promises that the return of Jesus was to happen imminently, it is difficult to be patient with their intellectual dishonesty or irrational determination to make faith more important than common sense. On internet forums, I have often said that a time comes in debates with biblicists to call a spade a spade, and when an inerrantist keeps trying to defend a position that has been shown to be untenable, I think it is time to say without apology that the inerrantist is allowing allegiance to an irrational belief to overrule his/her common sense. In a letter on page 15 of this issue, Tom Broom expressed wonderment that I have the patience to discuss biblical minutia with the likes of some inerrantists whose articles appear in this paper. Believe me, it isn't easy, so when I do at times show a lack of patience and resort to ridicule, it should be understandable. Anyway, if I am guilty as Bradford charges, his complaint would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, because look at his own subjective remarks about me. Saying that I resort to subjective ridicule rather than logic and evidence isn't exactly a compliment.

A Familiar Game

From the Errancyn Discussion group, 8-1-99:

TILL
No, we will not know if you Christians are right or not when we die,

because if there is no consciousness after death, and there is no 
evidence to prove that there is, then we will be dead. Even your 
inspired word of God says the same: "The living know that they 
will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, 
and even the memory of them is lost" (Ecc. 9:5).

Eric:
Yes, the passage you cite (Ecc. 9:5) states "The living know
that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no
more reward, and even the memory of them is lost". The word
"know" as used in regard to the living and the dead is
"yada" which means 'to know'. 

TILL
That's really profound, Eric. You're saying that know meant know.

ERIC

Since it is applied to both the living and the dead, it must mean

the same thing. So, your point is well made with -this- verse.

However, there are other verses speaking of the life beyond
the grave. Let's take a look at them:

1). "But God will redeem my life from the grave, he will
surely take me to himself."-Ps. 49:15.
One cannot escape the conclusion that the writer expects to
be given life again by God and will live in the presence of
God after he dies.
2). "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will
awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and
everlasting contempt."-Dan. 12:2.

TILL
We see that Eric is playing a familiar game. "Yes, yes," he says, 
"the Bible does say that the dead know nothing, but over here in 
another passage, it indicates that the dead have awareness." All 
he has done is prove that the Bible is inconsistent. 

ERIC

So, what do we see. On the one hand we see that the grave
is the end of existence, but on the other hand we see that
life goes on after the grave.

It is possible that the Daniel 12:2 passage is a further
amplification of the Ecclesiastes 9:5 passage you cited. If
taken by itself, Ecc. 9:5 would indicate that you are
correct and that after we die, we cease to exist. But,
other passages indicate more information about the state of
the soul after death.

And this indicates something which -must- be understood by
believers and critics alike: The bible reveals spiritual
information gradually over time. The bible took some 1,500
years to compile. During that time more and more knowledge
was revealed. One cannot expect to cite one verse in
'proof' of some doctrine. One needs to (as the bible puts
it) "take the whole council of God" on a given issue, and
see what -all- the scriptures are saying on a given subject.

TILL
So what Eric seems to be saying is that God "inspired" writers 
to  record incorrect information, but "gradually over time," God amplified his prior revelations through inspiration and corrected 
the false impressions that his earlier inspirations had revealed.

Who can believe such gibberish as this? What was to prevent 
God at the time he "inspired" the writing of Ecclesiastes to reveal 
to the writer that when a person dies, his/her awareness or consciousness continues on into another life? Furthermore, Eric 
is playing the let-scripture-interpret-scripture game. We will see inerrantists quoting what the apostle Paul said in orderto interpret what Moses really meant in a passage in the Pentateuch. This
line of argumentation attempts to prove inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. It is arguing that Moses couldn't have meant what he obviously said, because if he meant this, then what he said contradicts what Paul said. This irrational argument fails to take into consideration that "Moses" was an entirely different person from the apostle Paul. They were separated in time by several centuries, so it is entirely possible that they had conflicting views. The writer of Ecclesiastes could easily have thought that death 
was the end of human awareness, whereas the person writing 
Daniel thought that human consciousness continued into another life. No one can prove by quoting what "Daniel" said that the 
writer of Ecclesiastes didn't mean that human awareness ended at death. To so argue is to assume the question that is being debated.

Farrell Till

The Old Logic

The following article is from *The Skeptical Review*, 1996:

By Farrell Till 

I think we can safely assume that Louis Rushmore didn't think very much of the March/April 1995 edition of Biblical Archaeology Review. Before I say anything else about Rushmore's denunciation of modern archaeology, I should explain his comments about the "new hermeneutics." Rushmore is a preacher in the old-guard faction of the Church of Christ that opposes a liberal movement within the denomination to reexamine some of its hardline doctrinal positions that have isolated it from fellowship with other churches. As a first step toward mending the breach that divided the old Campbellite movement into the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, this liberal movement has in particular advocated taking another look at the scriptures on which the Church of Christ has based its exclusion of instrumental music from worship. The old-guard contemptuously refers to this movement as "the *new* hermeneutics."

From what I have read on the subject (and also heard in lectures that were held in conjunction with the Portland, TX, debates I participated in), the old- guard preachers aren't willing even to consider the possibility that their doctrinal beliefs have been based on incorrect interpretations. They simply assume that the "old" way is the right way. They declare the "new hermeneutics" wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Looking For Reasons To Believe

"The message of the Bible is such that any rational person will want to believe it. And, wanting to believe it, he will look for rea­sons to be­lieve rather than reasons to dis­believe."

The above quote is from a Church of Christ preacher from an article in his weekly publication. A primary message of the Bible is that most humans will suffer forever in Yahweh's eternal hell (Mt 7:13-14). Why would anyone want to believe that? But, really, shouldn't a rational person be looking for the truth rather than only looking for reasons to believe or disbelieve? 

KWH

Christian Apologetics In A Nutshell

If two things don't fit, but you believe both of them, thinking that somewhere, hidden, there must be a third thing that connects them, that's credulity.  --Umberto Eco

An Impossible Task

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

Adnan

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

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

counter this claim:

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

support from virtually the entire Jewish nation. They were on

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

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

oppressed by the Romans, and willing to do anything He

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

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

TILL

Your opponent assumes the inerrancy of the scriptures. The gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farrell Till