Please remove my name from your mailing list. I do not find that your publication meets my expectations or needs. I had been led to believe by a supporter of yours on AOL that your publication would point out Bible "contradictions," etc. Instead, I find that your publication seems to be having a running controversy with the Biblical inerrantists. I am also very greatly disappointed at the level at which the argumentation takes place, especially yours, since you claim to be more rational and logical than those who believe in the Bible.
For instance, in your latest issue you lead us to believe, in the first column, on the first page, that you are going to present 3 articles by believers defending the 430 year sojourn in Egypt vs. the alleged discrepancy with Exodus 6. Instead, I find only two articles and only one of these deals with the 430 year sojourn and doesn't even deal with Exodus 6! And you have the gall to complain about their supposed "discredited method of argumentation"! Okay, Pa Kettle, whatever you say!
You claim that "all offered explanations, yet all are different" and yet you fail to even present all of the ideas so that we can judge for ourselves.
In my dealings with so-called Bible critics I find that it isn't just the biblical inerrantists [who] seem to be infected with an any-interpretation-will-do virus." And you are quite correct that "to those who belong to this any-interpretation-will-do school of hermeneutics, truth is not important. The only thing that matters to them is the inerrancy doctrine, and it must be protected at all costs, even at the cost of common sense and intellectual integrity." Even those who criticize the Bible fall under this criticism. For if you deny the inerrancy of the Bible their whole argument falls flat. In fact, when you ask the critics to define the terms according to Scripture they never return or respond. Or, on rare occasions, they will persist in attempting to use 20th century, Western man's definitions which is ludicrous. Just ask any cultural anthropologist whose definitions and meanings they use when attempting to understand a different culture. And in this case, we are dealing with a culture that is also widely separated from us in space and time.
Also, on page 9 you cite Acts 13:17-21. Then on page 10 you claimed that Paul said the judges ruled for 450 years. If instead of taking the overly simplistic approach of assuming that the KJV is the only reliable, or "real," translation (which is typical of Bible critics), or, even better if you had checked out the text in some scholarly commentaries, you would have found that the judges came some time after, not during, the 450 years (which is also given only as a "round number," an approximation). And, on page 10 you point out that 40 years "always seemed like a good round number for biblical writers to use" and then you use it as if it were set in concrete! Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the "round" numbers were absolutely infallible and can therefore be used to establish an accurate chronology. Would you attempt a launch into space if you knew that the rocket design and computer calculations were based on the assumption that pi is equal to 3?
By the way, your whole argument against the inerrancy of the Bible is based on the false assumption that the text constitutes, or is, the Bible. The text is all we have to work with, but, it is not logically necessarily "the Bible."
(David Conklin, 1235 Reaney Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55106-4011.)
