Regarding the debate about whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch,
please see Genesis 14:14, which states that Abram and his men pursued
their enemy as far as Dan and then to Damascus. In Judges 18:29, which
was many years after the death of Moses, Danites took the town of Laish
(near Damascus), settled there and named the town Dan. Moses could
never have known the town Dan near Damascus, since it wasn't named this
until long after he was dead. Also, Numbers 26:19 refers to two men by
the name of Er and Onan, who were the sons of Judah, but they "died in
Canaan." The census in Numbers was taken long before they entered
Canaan. Please excuse me if these two points were brought up before, as
I am a fairly new reader.
I would advise those stubborn Christian readers of The Skeptical Review
to please go to their local libraries and find a book on Canaanite
mythology with the translation of the Ugaritic texts. If your library
does not have one, talk to your librarian about an interlibrary loan.
You will find that the mythological figure "El" is the Yahweh of the
Bible. He and his contemporaries (and usually also his main rivals),
Baal and Asherah, are gods of the Old Testament. Then reread the Bible
and you will see it in a whole new light. Every religion in the Near
East affected and transformed the religion of the Hebrews: the ancient
Aryan religion (Zoroastrianism), Assyrian and Hittite mythology, but
none as much, in my opinion, as the Canaanite religion. You will find
"El" named in Genesis 33:20 and by Jesus himself while dying on the
cross in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. Many of the well known figures
in the Bible are named after El: Elijah, Eleazar, and even Israel
itself, which means "soldier of God."
I enjoy reading The Skeptical Review more than I can ever say. Keep up
the good work.
(Cathy Briley, 2119 First Corso, Nebraska City, NE 68410)
Editor's Note: The discrepancy about Dan that Ms. Briley identified was
cited also by Dr. Harwood in his article on pages 2-3 of this issue.
Biblical inerrantists, of course, will have an "explanation" for it.
They will claim that a scribe, copying the manuscript long after Moses
was dead, knew that Laish was a Canaanite city that later became Dan
after the Danites had captured it, so he changed the name so that the
readers of his time would know to what city Abram and his men had
chased their enemies.
Such an "explanation" may satisfy Bible believers who are willing to
grasp any straw that will give them an excuse to maintain their belief
in biblical inerrancy, but it is an "explanation" fraught with
problems, for if a scribe decided on his own to make this change, how
can we know whether scribes made other changes in the Hebrew text that
materially altered the meanings of what was in the original?
Furthermore, such a change as this would result in historical
inaccuracy, because Dan wasn't Dan until the name of Laish was changed
to Dan. If an American history book should refer to New York City at a
time when New York was a Dutch colony and the city was known as New
Amsterdam, no one would have trouble recognizing that this was a
historical inaccuracy, but when errors that are errors everywhere else
are in the Bible, they somehow are not errors.
In the matter of Er and Onan, who "died in the land of Canaan," the
reference to them in Numbers 26:19 cannot be considered an error,
because they did die in the land of Canaan before the Israelites went
into Egypt. The account of their deaths is in Genesis 38. Judah married
the daughter of a Canaanite, who bore three sons to him: Er, Onan, and
Shelah (vs:3-4). Because of something unspecified, the petulant Yahweh
killed Er (v:7), and then he killed Onan for refusing to impregnate
Er's widow (vs:9-10). All of this, if historical, happened before the
Israelite descent into Egypt, and the list of those who went with Jacob
into Egypt mentioned that Judah had had two sons named Er and Onan, who
had "died in the land of Canaan." This, then, would have been a
tradition that Moses could have known about.
A Misconception Corrected...
Well, you can chalk up one more brother locked in the ZOG birdcage. I
am currently serving a 6-year sentance [sic] for Assault [sic] with a
deadly on a jew [sic].
To get right to the point, I got your address from another brother and
wanted to see if you could help me out with a few things. I was
wondering if you guys have any pamphlets, flyers, event info or
anything like that, if I can get on your mail list if you have one.
Also I've read somewhere about a white pride prison organization that
corresponds with those of us that are locked up and sends lit and
stuff. If you guys know anything about it I'd appreciate it if you send
the info. I'm surrounded by a bunch of brillo heads and race traitors
as you can imagine. Also if you know and address where I could get a
Doc Marten catalog, if you know of a supplier or somthing [sic], that
would be cool.
I greatly appreciate it, thanks and keep up the good work.
Editor's Note: I have reluctantly published this letter, because I
wanted to correct a misimpression that has been circulating in the
prison system for several years now. Ever since I began publication, I
have sent free subscriptions to those who are in prison, and the number
has now grown to around 200. For some time, I have realized that there
has to be some communication system that enables prisoners to learn
about the paper. About three years ago, I received a subscription
request from someone who called himself an "Aryan atheist." Although
Aryanism is a belief that I find offensive, I put this person on the
subscription list. From that point, subscription requests began to
trickle in from other prisoners who were apparently white supremacists,
and a few letters like Mr. Leonard's (one of which came from another
"brother" in the same correctional institution) have indicated that
they believe that I am a sympathizer with their racist philosophy.
I want to correct that misimpression now. I have no sympathy at all
with those who think that Caucasians are ethnically superior to "mud
races," and I find that attitude contemptible. Just because I oppose
the belief that the Jewish people were "chosen of God" does not mean
that I am anti-Semitic. (I addressed this issue in the July/August
issue.) I oppose Judaism for the same reason that I oppose
Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, and other religious philosophies. I
consider them religious superstitions that damage the societies in
which they flourish, but I don't consider the people who embrace these
religions to be ethnically inferior, just as I don't consider Caucasian
Christians to be ethnically inferior. The problem here is an
intellectual one, not a racial or ethnic one.
If Mr. Leonard wants help finding racist materials to distribute in his
prison, he will have to look elsewhere. He will get no help from me.
A Double Contradiction...
I would like to cite the following passage, that is a double
contradiction in the Bible, and as said in your article, "inadvertently
betrayed the perspective of the real writer(s) of the Pentateuch"
("Twisting in the wind," TSR, May/June 2000):
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and
his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his
female" (Gen. 7:2).
But what "is or is not clean" would only have been discussed enough
after that time as, e.g., it is shown in Leviticus 11, so this must be
a posteriori addition.
(Tiago dos Santos Silva, R. Mario Vianna, 380/604, Bairro Santa Rosa,
Niteroi, RJ, Brazil CEP: 24.241-002)
Editor's Note: Mr. Santos Silva is just one of many foreign subscribers
to TSR. His letter was sent by e-mail, but unfortunately, I didn't
include his e-mail address when I transferred the letter to a disk on
which I keep correspondence to the mailbag column. By the time I had
noticed the missing e-mail address, my computer had crashed and the
original letter with the address was lost.
His letter identified a long recognized discrepancy. The probable
reason for the reference to "clean" and "unclean" animals in a story
that allegedly happened centuries before the Levitical law was given
can be found in Dr. Harwood's article (pp. 2-3). The compiler of the
Pentateuch merged J's and E's accounts of Noah's ark, and P,
professionally concerned about adherence to the Levitical law,
anachronistically made reference to "clean" and "unclean" animals, a
concept that came much later in biblical history. Such discrepancies as
these underscore the folly of those who cling to an outdated belief
that the Bible is the inspired "word of God" and therefore inerrant in
history, science, geography, chronology, and all other subjects, even
when they do not pertain to matters of faith and practice.
Mitchell's Reply to Glasser...
In Russell Glasser's letter in the May/June 2000 issue of The Skeptical
Review, he quoted this part of my article: "Now, I chose 0.99 to
simplify the math, but if there are two or more 'how-it-could-have-
happened' explanations for a particular event, we might assume 100%
certainty that at least one of them is correct, but the probability
that one particular one (say of three choices) was correct would have
to be 33% or 0.33. So for at least this event, we would have to
multiply our series times 0.33 with drastic effect! (Mind you, the
entire series wouldn't consist of 0.33, to whatever power... merely
that particular event!)"
Mr. Glasser responded with: "This is not at all correct. There may be
three separate explanations, but the inerrantist is not claiming that
all three are correct at once. He is merely claiming that at least one
of the explanations is true. This is an "or" conjunction of terms, not
an "and" conjunction, so different rules apply. The chances are
slightly increased, not decreased by each additional explanation."
I'm afraid Mr. Glasser must have misread the article. He stated that
the inerrantist is claiming that at least one of the explanations is
true, and I did too, by assuming 100% certainty that at least one of
them is correct. I have no idea where Mr. Glasser thought I was making
the claim that all three explanations would have to be correct. He is
correct that they would be "or" conjunctions, or "mutually exclusive
events," and that different rules apply, but those are exactly the
rules I used to determine the new probability. When you have "mutually
exclusive events," the sums of the probabilities would have to add up
to 100%, so with my example, there would be three explanations of 33%
each. I will admit only to round-off error.
A common analogy is a bowl with a penny, nickel, and quarter in it. If
we assume that one of those coins is the "correct" one, then the other
two are not. Therefore, the probability of reaching in and getting the
"correct" coin is 1 in 3 or the 33% that I related. However, Mr.
Glasser makes a silly claim that additional explanations would slightly
increase the chances. We are giving them 100% certainty for explaining
that particular error. There is no increasing that.
Perhaps Mr. Glasser would like to expand exactly where he thinks the
error exists.
Editor's Note: Mitchell's article that Glasser "corrected" was about
the odds that the Bible is totally inerrant as biblicists claim. A
favorite tactic of biblicists is to "refute" the theory of life
originating from nonlife by postulating absurd arguments based on
"odds," so Mitchell wrote his article to show biblicists the odds
against their claim that the Bible is inerrant.
More about Glasser...
I just finished reading your last publication. I should write you every
issue to tell you how much I appreciate your work.
Your reply to Russell Glasser was excellent. I feel so comfortable
knowing that someone is there with your perspective on theology.
(James A. Williams, 221 Alemeda Drive, Lake Worth, FL 33461-1602)
Still More about Glasser...
Russell Glasser (May/June 2000) brought up an interesting point,
arguing that, to a biblical inerrantist, the belief that the Bible is
"literally" true is not a conclusion to be proved but an axiom on which
their entire belief system is based. From their viewpoint, then, it is
true unless proven wrong beyond any possible doubt. They regard error,
therefore, as an extravagant claim that requires extraordinary proof.
But, as indicated by Till's extended discussion, that approach cannot
be sound. Let me add a theoretical note to that discussion.
True axioms, such as the rules for chess, define a logical system. A
knight, in chess, moves a certain way. However, the axioms, themselves,
cannot be evaluated in terms of truth! There is no such thing as a
"true" knight's move. If you play chess, then a knight moves a certain
way; in other chesslike games, it may move differently. Thus, in a deep
and very real sense, axioms are arbitrary.
Euclidean geometry, for instance, is based on the axiom that only one
straight line can go through any two points. In fact, that is the
geometry of our everyday world--as may be roughly demonstrated by
drawing two points on a flat piece of paper and seeing how many clearly
different straight lines can connect those two points. Shall we, then,
conclude that this axiom is true in an absolute sense?
If we changed the axiom to declare that more than one straight line can
go through any two points, then, far from contradicting ourselves, we
have created a perfectly consistent, non-Euclidean geometry! This time
we are dealing with curved space. A two-dimensional analogy holds for
the surface of a sphere, where you can easily ascertain that more than
one straight line can go through any two points. If the axiom were
changed to say that no straight lines connect any two points, then we
have a consistent non-Euclidean hyperbolic geometry!
Axioms define a system, and within that system they are "true."
However, in an absolute sense, axioms are neither true nor false; as
the example above indicates, they are arbitrary!
That brings us back to Glasser's point. The "inerrancy" of the Bible
cannot be axiomatic, because, in principle, its verses (to the extent
that claims are made) are true or false in a very absolute sense.
Believers may take biblical inerrancy as an unquestioned dogma, but
that does not excuse them from the usual standards of reasoning. The
burden of proof is very much on their shoulders, and extraordinary
claims still require extraordinary proof. What makes a claim
"extraordinary" is not the fervor of someone's belief. Rather, it
relates to the observed track record of actual solutions. For instance,
supernatural miracles have never been rigorously documented whereas
lies, misunderstandings of all stripes, hoaxes, illusions, and
delusions have explained many a situation. Thus, a claim of a miracle,
rather than that of a delusion, requires the extraordinary proof.
In judging a biblical discrepancy, as always, the question is whether
the case for contradiction is clearly superior to the best defense. If
the answer is yes, then the only reasonable conclusion is that we have
a contradiction. That should be taken tentatively if we are dealing
with a situation where the defenses have been poorly explored, but that
is hardly the case for the Bible.
The claim that further knowledge might overturn an unfavorable result
is an exercise in wishful thinking, for the argument that is
demonstrably superior will have the best chance of being sustained by
further discovery! Those few exceptions will be more than balanced by
an avalanche of cases where the best call is upheld by further
discovery. The rational mind will bet on the likely outcome, and that
strategy is the only good strategy for chasing truth.
(Dave E. Matson, editor, The Oak Hill Free Press, P.O. Box 61274,
Pasadena, CA 91116; e-mail; 103514.3640@compuserve. com)
About the Apology...
Regarding your front-page article for May/June, perhaps the only
apology Jews really owe is for foisting a pious fraud (Yahwism) onto a
gullible world. Although their supplanting of the Canaanites
undoubtedly entailed some bloodshed in those barbaric times, the
stories of Joshua are fictions written along with the Pentateuch (or
Hexateuch). Archaeologists have found no evidence of the great battles,
but say the actual successions came not by glorious conquest but by a
gradual process of infiltration, much like what Hispanics are doing now
in the Southwest.
Mexicans believe, quite speciously, that they have a legitimate claim
to this section of the country. Imagine what it could be like after
they have become numerically predominant there. They could split off to
form a Chicano nation del Norte (Aztlan), which some even today are
calling for. A few centuries from now, after having assimilated the
non-Hispanic population, they may well possess a fanciful history of
having stormed in and vanquished the evil Yanqui gringos, and by then
not realize (or care) that it would be a falsehood. That seems to be
what happened when the nomadic Israelites, believing their god had
given the land to them, gradually became predominant in southern
Phoenicia, amalgamated with the original inhabitants, and developed a
proud but fictitious history of having liquidated the "wicked"
Canaanites, when in fact they mostly absorbed them.
I think your dispute with Russell Glasser about tactics mostly shows
that it is probably futile to try to convince hard-core Christian
fanatics that they are wrong. Roger Hutchinson is just one case in
point. Our best hope is to reach wishy-washy Christians before they get
sucked in any deeper and before they can contaminate the next
generation with their traditional nonsense. These may be open to the
truth about their religion and be suitably shocked by the other side of
the fairy tale.
I've just produced a tract "The Fundamentals Revisited" for working
with the wishy-washy. It's 19 pages long, and I think I can let people
have a copy for two first-class stamps, one of which mails it back, and
break even on the deal.
(Stephen Van Eck, RR 1, Box 62, Rushville, PA 18839-9702.)
Editor's Note: Two pages of the tract were on the backside of Van Eck's
letter. The topics discussed were the deification of Jesus and the
doctrine of the trinity.
Five More Years?
Enclosed please find my check for five more years of TSR.
Would you also send one year's subscription to Keene Memorial Library
(address deleted)?
(W. E. Jensen, P. O. Box 151, Uehling, NE 68063-0151)
Editor's Note: A five-year renewal? The renewal has been entered, but I
must remind readers that I am 67. There is no way to predict how much
longer I will be able to continue to maintain what has been and still
is a one-man operation. No one but me knows where anything is in my
office and computer, so when I go TSR goes, and records of those who
have renewed subscriptions for 5 or 10 years from now will probably be
gone too. I keep repeating this so that everyone will understand what
the situation is with the expected duration of the paper. I hope that
those who pay for multiple-year subscriptions are as realistic as the
writer of the letter that follows this one.
A subscription has been sent to the library too, as requested, but I
should remind everyone that those who request free subscriptions for
their local libraries should follow up the request to see if the paper
is being displayed. Some libraries do, and some don't. Libraries can be
important channels of distribution if TSR is displayed in the
periodical section. I once received a phone call from a woman in
England, now a subscriber, who had found a copy of TSR while browsing
in a library in Vancouver, Canada. She wrote down the address and phone
number and called to request a subscription. This example, however, is
not typical. Even my local library will not display TSR, because
library officials don't want to deal with complaints they think it
would generate. If you have requested a subscription for your library,
please check to see if it is being made available to the public. If
not, I'd appreciate receiving notification. There is no need to waste
money on libraries that will simply throw the paper away.
Ten More Years...
What a wonderful service you are offering. I hope you can keep up your
strenuous pace for many years to come. Enclosed is $60, which will keep
me paid up for the next 10 years. Since I am 74 now, I doubt that I
will be reading in another 10 years. As busy as you are, I am sure you
could use 10 secretaries. I just wish I lived closer so that I could
help you with your mailings. If you ever need a chauffeur/ driving
buddy to take you to your next debate, keep me in mind. I just bought a
new automobile, which has a wonderful stereo system and rides very
comfortably.
I constantly use your articles as references when discussing "god" with
my Christian friends. Keep up the good work. You have thousands of
admirers, and that is more than most can claim.
(Joseph Cunningham, 320 Grant Drive, Mascoutah,IL 62258-1031)
Editor's Note: Ten secretaries would be nice, and sometimes I think it
would take that many to do all the work generated by TSR; therefore,
much that should be done has to go undone.
I haven't engaged in an oral debate in four years. The last one showed
me how much work will backlog in the age of electronic communication if
I am away from my office for more than a day. Someone in Louisville,
Kentucky, has inquired about arranging a debate there, so if it
materializes I will notify Mr. Cunningham. My travel route will take me
by Mascoutah.
Hutchinson's Fulminations...
To those who have heard before the metronomic regularity with which
ululating Christians resort to threats of their loving god slaughtering
his own children with eternal torture as they fry on the griddle of
hell, Hutchinson's fulminations in the May/June mailbag were no
surprise. The cornerstone of Christianity, the sermon on the mount,
preaches not an ethic of character but one of self-absorption and
prudence. This sermon mentions the word reward nine times, the idea of
reward 19 times, the threat of excruciating punishment a dozen or so
times, and concludes that those who do as they are commanded are
"wise," while those who do not are "foolish."
The idea that good deeds have value in and of themselves, that they
enhance one's lives and the lives of others, and that they bring about
a salubrious community climate is foreign to the average fundamentalist
or eschatological bully. They are galvanized into following virtue only
by the blustering threat of hellfire or the vulgar bribe of heavenly
reward. Your response to Hutchinson was right on target.
In fact, I enjoy your marksmanship so much that I enclose ten bucks for
another subscription so that I can savor your prowess for yet another
year. Please keep the residuum for whatever you deem fit. Keep up the
good work.
(John Carver, 10517 Oklahoma Avenue, Chatsworth, CA 91311)
