No flat earth in the Bible?
Please allow this "foolish" ol’ Christian inmate to subscribe to The Skeptical Review. In order to "give an answer" (1 Peter 3:15) to skeptics, I need to know their arguments. Therefore your periodical is like a whetstone, which I use to keep an edge on my sword of the Lord.
I don't have the time or space to answer much of what was written in the November/December 2001 issue, which I picked up off the run outside my cell door, but I would like to address a couple [of] issues.
From your mailbag, p. 13, Mr. Twarog seems to insinuate that Jesus and the writer of Matthew thought the earth was flat. Of course, we know this cannot be the case, since God revealed in scriptures like Isaiah 40:22 and Proverbs 8:27 that the earth is spherical. The former verse also revealed that the universe is expanding.
The editor's note on Mr. Twarog's letter is in error as well. "While thousands of people were dying from diseases caused by poor sanitation," the Israelites were not suffering the same fate. Why? Because God, in His word, was meticulous in instructing His people about hygiene and sanitation. He told them to designate a place outside their camp where they were to go and dig a hole to relieve themselves and then to cover it (Deut. 23:12-13). If anyone had an infectious disease or a discharge, they were to be sent away so as not to defile the others (Num. 5:1-4). He instructed them to bathe and wash their clothes when they got dirty (Lev. 15:25-27). For several hundred Biblical references to hygiene and sanitation, just grab a complete concordance and look up words like clean, unclean, wash and their variations.
People need to understand that the [purpose of the] Bible
(basic-instructions-before-leaving-Earth) is to reveal God to man and
to show man how he must be redeemed. You can accept it and receive God
into your being, or you can reject it because you want to live in your
sin and be separated from God for eternity.
I’ll pray for your salvation, Mr. Till.
(Vallon England #868021, P. O. Box 4500, Tennessee Colony,
TX 75886)
Editor’s note: Oh, boy, just what I need-another Christian praying for the salvation of my soul. In the Spring 1995 issue of TSR, Judith Hayes exposed the absurdity of the belief in the efficacy of prayer, so I have sent a reprinted copy of this issue to Mr. England for his consideration. Somewhere else in the back issues of TSR is a logical argument that I presented to show the folly of the notion that praying for the salvation of another person will bring the desired results. The argument is simple enough that I'm going to present it here rather than search through the archives to find the article.
Showing that prayer for the salvation of others is illogical, all one needs to do is look at what the New Testament teaches about prayer and then apply common sense to it. First John 5:14-15 says, "And this is the boldness we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him." If Mr. England is praying for the salvation of my soul--as hundreds before him have told me they are doing--the only reason I won’t be saved would have to be that my salvation either is not the will of God or else Mr. England doesn’t believe in what he is praying for, because Jesus promised elsewhere in the New Testament that whatever one prays for believing it will happen he will receive it: "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done. Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive" (Matt. 21: 21-22). I’m not trying to be facetious about Mr. England’s incarceration, but I have to wonder why, if he really believes what Jesus said here, he doesn’t pray for the prison doors to swing open (as they sometimes did in biblical times) so that he can walk out a free man. Perhaps he doesn’t believe that it would happen if he did pray for this, so in that case the fault would lie in his lack of faith. If he isn’t willing to accept that conclusion, then about the only alternative left to him is to accept that what the Bible teaches about prayer isn’t necessarily true.
If we put together everything claimed in the verses I quoted above, we see that the New Testament claims that (1) if one believes in what he is praying for, (2) God will hear the prayer, and (3) he will receive it, (4) if what he is asking for is in accordance with God’s will.
If Mr. England is praying for my "salvation" and if he believes that what he is asking for will be granted, the only thing that could keep me from being saved--if what the New Testament teaches is true--would be that a prayer for my salvation is not a request in accordance with God’s will. However, if my salvation is not God’s will, then the Bible is not inerrant, because the apostle Paul said, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3).
With all this information about the New Testament’s doctrines on prayer now before us, I can show Mr. England just how illogical his belief in prayer is: (1) It is the will of God to have all men be saved. (2) Farrell Till is a man. (3) Therefore, it is the will of God that Farrell Till be saved. (4) Hundreds of Christians have told Farrell Till that they are praying for his salvation. (5) Whatever--anything--that a believer asks for with faith that it will happen will be granted.
I abandoned biblical nonsense 37 years ago after having spent 12 years "preaching the gospel" and doing foreign missionary work. In those 37 years, I’m sure hundreds of "believers" have told me that they are praying for my salvation, so why am I still publishing this paper and engaging in internet discussions to try to convince people that the Bible is a crock of you know what? One of three things must logically follow: (1) What the New Testament teaches about prayer is untrue. (2) There is no god to hear all of those prayers on my behalf. (3) Those "believers" praying for me don’t really believe that my salvation is going to happen.
When I presented this argument to someone concerned about my "soul," he said, "Well, you aren't dead yet." In other words, he meant that there is still time for it to happen. If this is the way out that Mr. England tries to make, I’ll inform him that I will be 69 by the time he receives this paper, so I’ll ask him to try to keep a close eye on me to find out if I make any deathbed repentance. I can assure him that it just ain’t going to happen, because I am as convinced as anyone could possibly be on any issue that the Bible is--well, that crock of you know what that I mentioned above.
One other point is in order. Mr. England says that he is praying for my salvation, but I have to wonder why he doesn’t just simplify matters and pray for all men to be saved. After all, the text quoted above clearly said that it was the will of God for all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so why doesn’t Mr. England make this a much better world by just praying for all men to be saved? It must be that he doesn’t believe it would happen if he did pray for this, and if the Bible is truly inerrant, he would be right. All men cannot be saved without making the Bible wrong in what it teaches, because it clearly teaches that not just some but most people will be lost in hell (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-22 Rev. 21:8 14:11). I guess that it just isn’t God's will for all men to be saved, but wait. That guess can’t be right, because if it is not God’s will for all men to be saved, the Bible is again wrong in what it teaches, because it says that it is God’s will that all men be saved. Ah, the burden of trying to find consistency and inerrancy in the Bible!
On the flat-earth issue, I am also going to send to Mr. England copies of the Spring and Summer 1990 issues of TSR, in which Adrian Swindler and Jerry McDonald debated the flat-earth issue. That will be the simplest way to dull Mr. England’s whetstone a bit in his belief that the Bible teaches that the earth is a sphere. Those who want to read these articles can access them here. Judith Hayes’ article on prayer can be accessed at the same site .
The claim that God took care of "His people" by teaching them all about sanitation raises an issue that I can’t discuss here without devoting the entire Mailbag column to Mr. England’s letter, so I have replied to it in a separate article on pages 2-4 of this issue. There should be enough in this article to keep Mr. England whetting away for a long time on his "sword of the Lord."
Was Paul forgetful?
The epistles were simply letters written by someone to a group of people or an individual. In the letter of Romans written by Tertius (16:22), and dictated by Paul, Paul ended his letter three times. In 16:20, he ended his letter the first time by saying, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." Then he remembered something else he wanted to say, so he added a PS in verses 21-23 and ended again with verse 24, which says, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." Then he remembered yet something else to say to the Romans, so he added another PS in verses 25-27. Finally, after saying this, he concluded his letter with a another "amen."
To forget to say something and add a PS or two is just human. There is another example of Paul’s forgetfulness in 1 Corinthians. He was saying to them in chapter 1, verses 14-15, that he had "baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." Then Paul remembered some more he had baptized, so he added in verse 16, "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas besides, I know not whether I baptized any other."
So, you see, Paul had a forgetting problem, just like all of us. He even admitted this in the last part of this verse, that he didn’t remember if he had baptized anyone else or not.
Another PS that Paul put at the end of a letter is in his epistle to the church at Philippi. In 4:20, he concluded with a benediction: "Now unto God and our father be glory forever and ever. Amen." Then he wanted to say something more, so he added a PS in verses 21-22, then added his conclusion again in verse 23.
There is another possible PS in Hebrews. Whoever the writer of this letter was, in 13:21, he apparently concluded the letter with, "(T)hrough Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen." Then he remembered something else to say, so he added a PS in verses 22-24 and then ended it again with verse 25, "Grace be with you all. Amen."
Peter probably did the same thing, showing he was human also, which is seen in 1 Peter 5:11: "To him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." Then he added a PS in verse 12, and again finished the letter in verse 14 with, "Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen."
So did the Holy Spirit actually "carry along" the writers of
the New Testament and guide each word, or did they simply write their
own thoughts, and sometimes forget their thoughts?
(William F. Henness, 314 West Walnut Street, Colchester, IL
62326-0073 e-mail, wildbillh@ winco.net)
Editor’s note: Some of Mr. Henness's examples may have been only initial "sign offs" that were then followed by special salutations to friends of the writers, but some do appear to be cases of second thoughts after the writers had initially ended their epistles. This seems especially true of the epistle to the Romans, and some translations have apparently tried to gloss this over by omitting some of the "amens." The ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, and others, for example, omit the "amen" in verse 20 and leave out entirely verse 24, which appears to be a second signing off. The NAB divided verse 23 into verses 23 and 24 so that this translation would have a verse 24, which was omitted outright by the translations above.
Paul’s inability to remember whom he had baptized at Corinth is a clear example of biblical error, which Dr. Robert Countess discussed in "A Case in point" in the Winter 1992 edition of TSR (pp. 2-4). Dr. Countess was a member of the International Congress on Biblical Inerrancy, which issued the now famous "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" in 1978. Unfortunately, at my last contact with him, Dr. Countess had become a holocaust revisionist, but that does not affect the position he argued on 1 Corinthians 1:14-15 in his article, which can be accessed at the TSR website..
Matson's historical criteria...
On November 30, Michael Bradford sent me a "carbon copy" of his e-mail to Farrell Till, which took us to task for not listing our presuppositions. Given my past letters and articles in TSR, which often detailed the theoretical basis of my reasoning, I’m a bit surprised to hear that complaint. Although I’m short on time, I'll go that extra mile and attempt to answer his questions. (I am aware that whole articles might address any one of his requests without exhausting the subject.) Bradford wanted me to supply the following: "the primary objective criteria that [I] personally apply toward discernment of historical fact."
If professional historians accept the historicity of a claim without significant disagreement, then that is good enough for me. Thus, I have no problem with King Herod’s building projects, the major doings of Julius Caesar, etc. I simply accept the workable standards that are already in place. If Bradford needs more details as to how historians judge the credibility of events, I suggest that he visit a good library. Archaeological findings, of course, strongly influence the credibility of an event. And, of course, any claim that runs contrary to known, scientific principles is not very credible.
Next, Bradford asked for "the primary objective criteria that
[I] personally apply toward evaluation of historicity of individuals."
I accept the standards commonly used by professional historians. (I
imagine that contemporary evidence is the deciding factor in most
cases. Writings may exist by the individual or there may be credible,
contemporary references. The historian must factor in an author’s known
or suspected prejudices, his reliability in other matters, his
agreement with other credible sources, his consistency with known
principles, both historical and scientific, how well his account is
supported by archaeological findings, his internal consistency, which
may identify later interpolations and changes, and other factors. Where
original material is absent, credible quotes by later writers may
suffice in many cases.) Again, if Bradford seeks greater detail I
recommend that he exercise his library card or find some good internet
sources.
He asked for "an example of one individual from the
1st-century AD who lived in Israel who satisfactorily meets [my]
criteria and an objective evaluation of why Jesus Christ of Nazareth
does not meet [my] criteria." This is a trick question-Israel didn’t
exist in the first century! However, if he was referring to the general
vicinity of Palestine, how about Flavius Josephus? How about Titus, the
son of Vespasian, who spent several years conquering the area? How
about Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Persea? How about Akiba
ben Joseph, who was a Palestinian, Jewish sage, and principle founder
of rabbinic Judaism?
These people are universally accepted by secular and religious historians Jesus is not. A significant number of noted scholars have rejected Jesus as a historical person. Even those who disagree, as did the great Albert Schweitzer, often admit that the evidence is very tenuous. After years of study, Schweitzer concluded that the historical Jesus was totally lost to us. Evidently, those scholars who favor Jesus’ existence, as a man, have made a personal (sometimes dogmatic) choice rather than being forced by the evidence. I tend to favor the historical existence of Jesus myself, but that doesn’t make him a historical fact. (A historical fact ought to be supported by evidence of such strength as to preclude significant dissention. Obviously, that is not the case with Jesus.)
Bradford said, "Your mantra is that one should not believe anything without sufficient evidence thus, by inference, it should be rather easy for either you or Mr. Matson to provide a purely objective basis for your belief that Jesus Christ may have never existed."
We are not claiming that potential proof does not exist for some kind of historical Jesus. Neither do we claim that it is totally unreasonable to accept the historicity of an obscure preacher of the end-time, known to us as Jesus. Instead, if I may risk speaking for Farrell Till and me, we have affirmed, after diligent study, that we know of no compelling evidence for Jesus' historicity. Furthermore, in the light of what we have learned over the years, which is in good agreement with serious scholarship, we have noted that the traditional Jesus is but a fabrication of the church. The real Jesus, if he ever existed, has been clothed in layers of pagan theology, turned into a kind of sun god (and a savior god) in accord with universal traditions that predate Christianity. This painful fact was apparent to the early church fathers-many of whom had been pagans, themselves, before adopting Christianity. Indeed, one or two of these church fathers were sufficiently alarmed so as to proclaim that Satan, with a foreknowledge of Christianity, had sought to discredit it by having the early pagans ape its doctrines! Such a pathetic defense may have soothed the faithful then, but it will scarcely fly by today’s higher standards of reasoning.
To address Bradford’s question directly, just how are we to
"provide an objective basis" for a negative finding in a reasonable
space? Must we review all the insane arguments that we have ever heard
of? Not practical! Of course, Bradford could present his best argument
for our consideration. If he wants us to believe in the historicity of
a traditional Jesus, then let him present a convincing argument--if he
has one! But please, Mr. Bradford, spare us the standard, McDowell-like
claims, which have been shot down in numerous books and on the
internet. If you must present one of those standard arguments, at least
address the usual objections.
(Dave Matson, editor, The Oak Hill Free Press, P. O. Box
61274 Pasadena, CA 91116 e-mail, 103514.3640@compuserve.com)
Editor’s Note: Bradford seems to be one of those gullible Bible believers who have swallowed the fundamentalist claim that there is as much historical evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Julius Caesar. Sometimes, these types become so bold that they assert that the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is as good as the evidence for Napoleon or George Washington. Anyone who would make such a claim as this has obviously not examined the historical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and George Washington. Contemporary records referred to all of them, but there are no known contemporary records that mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, who presumably attracted vast multitudes to him and went about healing the lame and blind, feeding with just a few scraps of food the multitudes that followed him, walking on water, raising the dead, etc., etc., etc. Who can really believe that a man who did such wonders as these wouldn't have attracted the attention of at least one contemporary writer? Well, I guess Michael Bradford can.
Letter from Philip Davies...
This is a joint reply to Everette Hatcher and Gavin Steingo, who have both contacted me about the Daniel debate in The Skeptical Review.
I don’t know why I in particular am singled out as an expert. I suppose my popular book is the main reason, but there are others who have written large commentaries: John Goldingay of Claremont Divinity School and John Collins, now at Yale (or soon to be at Yale Divinity School he has been at Chicago Divinity School).
Whatever the reason, I am clearly on the side of those who think that Daniel’s stories are largely legendary and anyone who insists that they are historical in all or even most details does not know how to read literature.
I must say on the other hand, though, that "skeptics" sometimes fall into the fundamentalist trap. It is not really necessary to go through the book in minute detail trying to refute as many details as possible, including things like the size and gold content of the statue of ch. 2 [sic]. Only an idiot would insist on such minute points. Equally, whether Belshazzar was a "king" or not is a quibble. Clearly the book is not wrong in depicting him as on the throne. This does not mean that the story of the writing on the wall has any historicity whatever.
Daniel simply is not a book that is entirely unhistorical or entirely historical. Its general character is legend, and like all legend, there are historical contents and details to be found in it. But what good is served by adding up how much fact and how much fiction? You'll never get to 100% either way, and the poor fundamentalists are on a hiding to nothing, because they lose even if the book is 99% accurate, whereas even if it’s even 75% true, that still means 25% "fiction," and they can't accept that. This is why going after every minute little error is a waste of time.
I hope skeptics are not going to be like fundamentalists in reverse, arguing about the fictionality of every little detail! This is "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."
The one glaring fact is that the end predicted by Daniel did
not come after "seventy weeks of years," and the various chronological
predictions in the last chapter (= more or less 3.5 years) were wrong,
like every other prediction of the end of the world before and since.
Given that, who would care if the rest of the book was entirely
historically accurate (which it evidently isn’t!)?
(Philip Davies, Department of Biblical Studies, University
of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2UJ, England p.davies@sheffield.ac.uk)
Editor’s Note: This letter was forwarded to me by Gavin Steingo, who decided to check into the positions of some of the scholars whom Everette Hatcher had quoted in the debate on the book of Daniel. Philip Davies was one of those scholars Hatcher quoted both here and in the internet forum, where this debate is still in progress. It seems that Davies does not share Hatcher’s opinion at all on the historicity of Daniel. I knew, of course, that Hatcher was quoting scholars whose position on the dating and historicity of Daniel was in diametrical disagreement with his, but the letter from Davies removes all doubt about this.
Hatcher seems to think that if he quotes a scholar who agrees with his position, that should settle the issue, so I have to wonder why he doesn’t surrender his position on Daniel and agree that much of the material in it is unhistorical. After all, one of his own scholars is now on record that the stories in this book are "largely legendary."
As for whether one is an idiot for debating "minute points"
in the book of Daniel, I have to
admit that I sometimes find myself asking why I am wasting time
debating with inerrantists points that, to borrow Dr. Davies’ term, an
idiot should see are obviously not historical, but I can only surmise
that Davies has not had much experience trying to reason with biblical
fundamentalists. I know from my own experience that my belief in
biblical inerrancy finally collapsed under the weight of too many
minute points of discrepancy. I was able to tolerate a few of them, but
as minute point after minute point piled upon the others, I finally was
unable to rationalize them all. When one deals with the fundamentalist
mind, there seems to be no way to escape discussing minute points that
any reasonable person should understand are clear examples of
discrepancies or absurdities. Whether three men could walk unharmed
through the flames of a "fiery furnace" or whether a deity would "shut
the mouths" of hungry lions to keep them from eating a man left
overnight in their den are minute points that any reasonable person
should realize are fantasy tales that originated in superstitious
times, but if one expects to discuss the issue of biblical inerrancy
with fundamentalists, these are points that can’t be avoided.
