CHALLENGE

"...but, try the spirits whether they are of God..." (1 Jno. 4:1)

. .

THE MCDONALD-MCKINSEY DEBATE

McKinsey's Tenth Defense

Letter #508 from JM Continues from Last Month (Part cc)

[Point # 19 in our pamphlet was: Surely you don't believe Eccle 1:9 in the RSV which says, 'What has been is what will be, and what has been done, is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun'? How many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945, and how many people walked on the moon before 1969?ED]

JM's Defense is: It is really embarrassing to have to respond to objections such as this. If this is the best he has to offer, he should just quit. Mr. McKinsey did not allow for the context. The writer is not saying that nothing new will happen. He points out that people are vain. (v.2) People work to make a profit. (v.3) One generation dies and another takes its place. (v.4) The sun rises and the sun sets. (v.5) The wind blows to the south and to the north. (v.6) The rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not filled up. (v.7) Everything is full of labor. The eye is not satisfied with what it sees, nor the ear with what it hears. (v.8) This simply shows the regularity of life. Man is on a cycle which ends and begins over and over again....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part cc)

The scholarship of apologists such as yourself never ceases to amaze me, JM. Like so many of your compatriots, if you don't like the script you either rewrite, reinterpret, or ignore it. What does the text say? THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. Could the author have been more clear? I don't see how. Yet, you not only allege the author is 'not saying that nothing new will ever happen,' which he most assuredly is claiming, but try to defend your pathetic position by listing a series of acts that are decidedly repetitious by your own admission. How does your listing of a series of monotonous and repetitive acts prove that there is, in fact, something new under the sun? By referring to the 'regularity of life' and the repetitive cycle in which man is involved, you are only substantiating the position of the author who said that there is nothing new under the sun. In effect, you are agreeing with his observation. Yet, you earlier stated he was not saying there is nothing new under the sun. I quoted an author as saying one thing, while you said he meant the opposite. You then to proceed to provide evidence that proves he meant what I said. [sic] As I have said before, your 'logic' is a sight to behold. Your explanation is nothing more than a rambling stream of pseudothought. If this is the best you have to offer, the bowling leagues have some vacancies you might want to consider. I'm still awaiting an answer to my original question. How many cities endured atomic attack prior to 1945 and how many people visited the moon prior to 1969? By failing to provide an adequate response, you have only helped to prove that new and unique events do arise. There is something new under the sun after all.

Letter #508 from JM Continues from Last Month (Part dd)

[Point #20 in our pamphlet was: If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: '...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you' (2 Kings 18:27)? Is that what you want your children reading in Sunday School?ED.]

JM's Defense is: Mr. McKinsey labors hard to find something wrong with the Bible because he has already made up his mind that it is not inspired. Here we have the results of a long and drawn out war in which the remaining soldiers are scraping the bottom of the barrel (so to speak) just to stay alive and continue the fight. They eat and drink their own waste because the supplies have run out and this is all there is left to keep them alive.

If Mr. McKinsey thinks this is pornographic, I wonder what he thinks about the PG13, R and X rated movies that are being pushed off on the public by allowing them to be rented in video stores every day? Will he say that these are pornographic and should not be rented? What about the movies on T.V., where language is often worse than these words? Is this pornographic? I am sure that Mr. McKinsey would find very little wrong with these. Why, then, does he consider the Bible pornographic? Because he has to find an argument against it, and he is at the point that any old thing will do.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part dd)

To begin with, JM, I really wish you and your allies would stop alleging that I have to 'labor hard' to find things wrong with the Bible. I assure you that few comments are further from the truth. Finding problems within Scripture is easy, almost to the point of being ridiculous. Second, my mind was not made up 'prior to' the analysis; my mind was made up by the analysis. Anyone who has objectively studied the evidence without any preconceptions or indoctrinations could come to only one conclusion. Third, if I am scraping the bottom of the barrel, it's only because that is where one must go in order to discuss the Bible. Fourth, I notice you said, 'They eat and drink their own waste...' What's wrong? Can't stand the Bible's terminology. [sic] Are you choking on the Bible's fourletter words? We both know the Bible doesn't say 'waste.' Fifth, who cares why they are eating the stuff, that's irrelevant. We are talking about terminology; don't try to shift our focus to another topic. Sixth, you state, "If Mr. McKinsey thinks this is pornographic....' What do you mean, 'if." [sic] You mean you have doubts? 'Piss' is not filthy language. [sic] Where did you grow up? If it isn't filthy language, then why did you choose the word 'waste,' instead? Seventh, what do you mean by saying that I am 'at the point that any old thing will do'? Apparently a 50,000 watt radio station in Atlanta, Georgia doesn't think it is 'any old thing.' I was promptly censored when I used the word 'piss' on the air and all I was doing was quoting the 'good book.' Eighth, don't try to put me on the defensive by putting me in the position of defending movie ratings and content. Your statement that, 'I am sure that Mr. McKinsey would find very little wrong with these' is wholly inaccurate. I am disturbed by any situation in which labels must be put on movies before you can know if they are reasonably appropriate for viewing and I'm also bothered by the tremendous amount of trash and violence currently circulating in abundance and masquerading under the rubric of artistic freedom and creativity. But my views aren't the issue; your book's profanity is. So let's stay with the issue. Ninth, don't try to implicitly excuse, justify, or minimize the Bible's contents because the content of movies and television is reprehensible. And lastly, you need not engage in hyperbole by saying, 'Why, then, does he consider the Bible pornographic?' Where have I ever said the Bible is pornographic? There are undoubtedly pornographic statements contained therein, but that doesn't mean the entire book is pornographic.

Letter #508 from JM Continues (Part ee)

Would I want my child reading this on Sunday? Yes! Providing that he is taught why these words were used, it would be perfectly acceptable. They are not used in a pornographic way; they were used to speak of bodily functions and the last extremities of a prolonged siege. I have even quoted this language from the pulpit. The Bible uses the word 'ass' to speak of the donkey; men, today, make it dirty and filthy. The Bible speaks of 'hell' to refer to either the grave, the realm of the unseen for the wicked, or eternal punishment for the wicked. Men, today, use it as a slang and dirty word. The problem is not with the Bible, it is with our attitude in how we use certain words. If one finds these words offensive, another translation can be used.' [sic]

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part ee)

All you are doing, JM, is resorting to the old 'you are taking it out of context' defense. Do you realize how many novelist, writers, poets, musicians, painters, playwrites, composers, sculptors, photographers, and artists could make the same argument when their works are attacked as pornographic by others? I can only conclude that you would have no objection to your children reading, viewing, and hearing their works as well. After all, you have already admitted that you don't mind your child reading the word 'piss' in Sunday School as long has it is viewed in the context and 'providing that he is taught why these words were used.' Shouldn't those works you and your compatriots attack be accorded the same opportunity to explain and justify their product? [Dennis' address is Biblical Errancy, 3158 Sherwood Park Drive, Springfield, OH 45505]

McDonald's Tenth Rebuttal

I thought that responding to Dennis' first attack on Eccl. 1:9 was embarrassing. I didn't think that Dennis could make himself look more foolish than he did in his tract. However, I was wrong. It seems the older I get, the more I am surprised. I often say that nothing else can surprise me, and just as surely as I do, someone comes along with something so ridiculous and absurd that I am surprised that anyone who claims to be a humanbeing would conjure it up. This is exactly the way I feel about Dennis' response to my booklet.

Dennis begins by telling us that, "(t)he scholarship of apologists like [myself] never ceases to amaze [him] JM. Like so many of your compatriots, if you don't like the script, you either rewrite, reinterpret, or ignore it." Now what part of this scripture have I rewritten, reinterpreted or ignored, Dennis? I pointed out in my booklet seven things that the writer of Ecclesiastes said to explain his statement, "there is nothing new under the sun." I showed that he was not talking about scientific exploration or technology (atomic warfare). Dennis seems to think that these are things that I produced just out of the clear. If he will reread my response, he will see that I listed a scripture reference behind each one of those statements. Those were things that Solomon listed before he ever made the statement, "there is nothing new under the sun." He made that list to explain the statement he was about to make. Therefore, we can know just exactly what it was that he was saying.

Then Dennis gets all confused and charges me with producing this list to show how Solomon was saying that new and different things do happen. That was not my purpose. My purpose was to show that what Solomon was discussing was the regularity of life. Solomon did not intend for his statement, "there is nothing new under the sun" to be taken as saying that nothing new would ever happen. He listed several things that were common to man to show how regular life is. Then he said: "there is nothing new under the sun." By this he meant that in the regularity of life, there is nothing new under the sun.

He never meant that a certain automobile would not be made. He never meant that a child would only get one "F" in twelve years of school. As I pointed out in my booklet, "(t)his simply shows the regularity of life. Man is on a cycle which ends and begins over and over again." Then to show the truthfulness of Solomon's statement I (originally) stated:

"One generation dies and another takes its place and is faced with the same temptations and tribulations. One generation dies and another takes its place and fights the same battles it fought. An example is that I am having to fight the same battle over the Bible that my dad fought when he was a young preacher. This does not say that new and advanced technology will not be discovered. However, life will go on as usual until all time stops and Christ returns."

There are 85 words that Dennis deleted from my booklet with a simple "...". In other words, those 85 words had no relevance to the issue under discussion. Oh, I believe they were relevant. And I believe that McKinsey saw their relevancy, but did not want his readers to see it too. Thus he deleted them, as he has done so many other times since he started his defense of his tract. It seems that when an argument really paints Dennis into a corner, or when he knows that there is no way he can respond, he merely deletes that argument or those words with a simple "...". Again, I ask, "Is that honorable?". Would Dennis sit still for me to delete as many words out of his articles as he deleted from my book? If you think he would, you are only fooling yourself.

Solomon's list of repetitive acts do not prove that there is something new under the sun. It does prove, however, that life is regular, it is predictable. It explains his statement: "there is nothing new under the sun." If that isn't plain enough for Dennis, I don't know how much plainer I can make it.

Dennis says that my logic is a sight to behold. How would he know? After reading his publication for the last several years, one thing stands out: He knows nothing about logic. It's almost as if everything with him is "trial and error." "Let's try this one and see what happens!" He says that my, "explanation is nothing more than a rambling stream of pseudothought." In other words, my explanation is nothing more than a sham, or false thought. Again, after reading Biblical Errancy and especially his anemic response to my tract, he has no room to be talking.

He tells me that I would be much better off to join the bowling leagues. Well, I might be at that. At least on a bowling league I would see a certain amount of honesty and honor out of my opponents, something that is lacking in my opponent in this exchange.

His question is moot because that type of event is not included in Solomon's statement. Yes, there are new things which happen, but Solomon was discussing the regularity of life. Do the things in his question have anything to do with the regularity of life? If not, then they are not even in the same ball park as Solomon's statement.

He continues his attack on the Bible's usage of the words piss and dung. I pointed out that the reason McKinsey found pornography here is because he has already made up his mind that the Bible is not inspired, and now he must formulate a premise to fit his conclusion; and any old thing will do. In response he says: "my mind was not made up 'prior' to the analysis; my mind was made up by the analysis." WHAT ANALYSIS? He hasn't made any analysis. Had he made an analysis of this passage he would have seen that the words "dung" and "piss" weren't used as profanity, but rather to speak of bodily functions; human waste. The dictionary says that the word "piss" means: "to urinate...to discharge as or with the urine...urine" (Webster's New World Dictionary, p.1084). Then it continues on to say: "NOW VULGAR IN ALL USES" (Emp mine jdm) (Ibid). The word simply means to urinate, but now it is a vulgar term. Humans use it as a slang; something vulgar. However, when the KJV was written, it simply meant to urinate, or rather in this case it meant urine. These people would drink their urine. I guess that would have been a nicer word to have used, then Dennis wouldn't have thought so much about it; maybe.

I think that it's odd, that one of the versions that McKinsey quotes from frequently (the RSV) uses the word "urine" rather than "piss": "to eat their own dung and drink their own urine." Is that profanity too, Dennis? Hum? The KJV uses the word "piss" because that was the common word that was used to describe "urine" back then. Should it have changed, simply because man would make something vulgar out of the word? What if man makes something vulgar out of the word "urine," should we never use the word again? Give me just a small break! As I stated, if one is offended by the word "piss" he can use another translation on that word. The word that the KJV translators translated "piss" from is the word "shah'yin " which means: "to urinate; urine" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance The Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, p.115). When the translators of the KJV used the word "piss" the word was not a vulgar word, any more than "urine" is a vulgar word today.

He tells us that I used the word "waste" rather than "piss" in my explanation. The reason I did was to show that human waste (urine) was what was being discussed rather than vulgarity. No, I am not choking on the Bible's socalled "fourletter words." I was explaining what it was.

The word "piss" can be used as vulgarity, but it can also be used to describe urine. When used to describe urine, it is not vulgar. It's only vulgar when we use it in a vulgar setting. Many people use the word "pee" which the dictionary also says is a vulgar term: "to urinate, urine. Now a somewhat vulgar usage" (Webster's New World Dictionary, p.1047). Would it have been alright for the KJV translators to have used the word "pee" rather than "piss." Is a small child using vulgarity when it uses the word "pee" to describe urine?

I won't be held responsible because some radio station in Georgia censored him for reading the word "piss" out of the Bible. However, I have heard much worse come over the radio than that word will ever be.

I asked how he felt about all the PG13 , R and X rated movies that are being pushed off on us. I then stated that I doubted that he felt that there was all that much wrong with them. By way of response he says:

"Don't try to put me on the defensive by putting me in the position of defending movie ratings and content. Your statement that, 'I am sure that Mr. McKinsey would find little wrong with these' is wholly inaccurate. I am disturbed by any situation in which labels must be put on movies before you can know if they are reasonably appropriate for viewing, and I'm also bothered by the tremendous amount of trash and violence currently circulating in abundance and masquerading under the rubic of artistic freedom and creativity."

Well good! I'm glad to know that Mr. McKinsey was one of those who fought against the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" and Steven Bocho's series which aired in 1993 "NYPD Blues", both in which nudity was shown. Farrell Till claims that he began his fight against the Bible when Dr. Holler (a Presbyterian minister) went around boycotting "The Last Temptation of Christ." Apparently Farrell didn't see too much wrong with the movie. Tell me, Dennis: did you fight against those two shows?

Well, he did say that he is disturbed by trash (nudity) and violence that is being shown, did he not? Maybe he is like Farrell Till, who deplores abortion, but not enough to speak out against it. Maybe McKinsey is disturbed by what is shown, but just not enough to do anything about it. Yet, he will take words like "piss" and "dung" and beat them with all of his might. I have yet to see anything that he has written against what is shown on TV and the movies. Maybe he will provide me with things that he has written on that subject.

I pointed out that the Bible uses the "ass" to speak of the donkey. However, the dictionary says that it is, "a vulgar term" (Webster's New World Dictionary, p.82). The Bible also uses the word "hell" to speak of the grave, the waiting place for the wicked in the unseen realm, and eternal destruction, but men use it "(a)s profanity..." (Webster's New World Dictionary, p.650). The Bible doesn't use either word as vulgarity or profanity, and neither does it use the words "piss" and "dung" as profanity or vulgarity. The problem, as I said before, is not with the Bible, but rather with man's thinking.

Finally, after all he has said on the matter, he said: "Where have I ever said that the Bible is pornographic? There are undoubtedly pornographic statements contained therein, but that doesn't make the entire book pornographic." Oh, I thought his original objection was: "If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: '...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you' (2 Kings 18:27)?" He is saying that because of that passage we cannot claim that the Bible is our guide in morality simply because it is a pornographic work. If that statement does not make the Bible pornographic, what would? How many pornographic statements would it take to make the Bible pornographic? Is a movie a pornographic movie if it has one pornographic scene in it? If not, how many pornographic scenes would it take the make the movie pornographic? If an X rated movie had scenes in it which were not pornographic, would that mean that it was not a pornographic movie? He knows better than that. He knows that if a movie has even one pornographic scene in it, that it is a pornographic movie. He is trying to have it both ways with the Bible.

On the one hand he wants to claim that the Bible is not to be considered our moral guide because it contains pornographic words, while on the other hand he does not want to go on record as stating that the Bible is pornographic. Well, we'll not let him by with that tactic. If the Bible is pornographic, then it is pornographic. Even one place would make the entire book pornographic. Choose a side and stand by it, Dennis. The only thing I despise worse than a false teacher, is a false teacher with no guts. They make me sick. If you are going to state that the Bible is pornographic, then do it, but be a man about it.

Finally he says that my statement about my being willing to allow my son to read the words "piss" and "dung" in that passage provided that he is taught why the words were used, is resorting to the old 'you are taking it out of context' defense. One thing that atheists don't like is when we insist on remaining with the context. You see, if they were to remain with the context, then they would have no argument against the Bible much of the time. So yes, the context must be taken into consideration.

He says: "(d)o you realize how many novelists, writers, poets, musicians, painters, playwrites, composers, sculptors, photographers, and artists could make that same argument when their works are attacked as pornographic by others?" Really! Please be so kind as to show how nudity, explicit sexual intercourse, could be justified on the basis of context. Please show how taking God's name in vain could possibly be justified on the basis of context. I would really like to see that!

No, I would not want my son viewing those works or reading them because they cannot be justified on any basis. A picture of a naked woman is a picture of a naked woman, regardless of how you slice it. A film showing sexual intercourse is a film showing sexual intercourse regardless of what anyone may say. However, when the KJV was translated, the translators used a word "piss" which was not vulgar, but rather meant "urine." The word didn't become vulgar until our time. Pictures showing sexual intercourse have always been pornographic and always will be. Taking God's name in vain has always been considered profanity, and it always will be. Therefore, your argument is without merit. We have but one more exchange left in this discussion and we will get to it in the next issue of Challenge.

JUST WHO ISN'T READING THE BIBLE CAREFULLY ENOUGH?

Farrell Till

In replying to my article "Squeezing Fifty Years into Twenty" (Challenge, Summer 1994, pp 56), Editor Jerry McDonald said, "I never cease to be amazed at the lengths that skeptics and atheists will go in order to prove an untenable position." Well, perhaps he should take a good hard look at the ridiculous extremes that he resorts to in his effort to defend Bible inerrancy. If there was ever a position that is completely untenable, it is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

The thrust of McDonald's response to my article was that Abinadab who was given custody of the ark of the covenant did not live on a hill in Kirjathjearim but in the town of Gibeah. His "evidence" consisted of two points: (1) Second Samuel 6:3 (KJV) states that David brought the ark "out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah" and (2) the word gibeah in Hebrew means "the hill." Hence, he reasoned that 1 Samuel 7:1, which states that the men of Kirjathjearim brought the ark to the house of Abinadab "on the hill," didn't mean that they took the ark to Abinadab's house on a hill in Kirjathjearim but to Abinadab's house on a hill that was in Gibeah. In other words, McDonald is arguing that "on the hill" was mistranslated in 1 Samuel 7:1; it should have been translated to read that the men of Kirjathjearim took the ark to the house of Abinadab in Gibeah.

One wonders, of course, why McDonald doesn't recognize the possibility that mistranslated in the KJV version [sic] occurred in 2 Samuel 7:3 where it says that the house of Abinadab, from which David took the ark, was 'in Gibeah." Since gibeah in Hebrew meant "the hill," why isn't it possible that the KJV translators erred in saying that Abinadab's house was "in Gibeah" rather than "on the hill"?

The evidence indicates that this is exactly what happened. I have checked the ASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, JB, REB, NEB, NAB, NCV, GNB, NWT, the Amplified Bible, the New Berkeley Version, Moffatt's, Young's Literal Translation, Hendrickson's Interlinear Bible, the Septuagint, Brenton's Translation of the Septuagint-all of these versions render the location of Abinadab's house in 2 Samuel 6:3 as "on the hill" or equivalent. Even the NKJV says, "So they set the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill." Obviously, Bible scholars don't agree with McDonald's farfetched theory of mistranslation in 1 Samuel 7:1. Instead, they recognized that mistranslation in the KJV occurred in 2 Samuel 6:3, not 1 Samuel 7:1. Abinadab's house wasn't in the town named Gibeah (the hill) but it was located on the hill in Kirjathjearim.

I won't play McDonald's game that consists of speculating without offering proof, so let's now look at the textual evidence that supports my claim and discredits McDonald's. Let's notice first of all that 2 Samuel 7:1 says that David "arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale Judah to bring up from there the ark of God." Now why did David go with all the people from Baale Judah to bring from there the ark of God if the ark of God was in Gibeah? The answer is simple: the ark was at Kirjathjearim, and Baale Judah was another name for Kirjathjearim. Let's just let McDonald's inerrant word of God prove that I am right about this.

Joshua 15:9 refers to the town of Baalah and then adds, parenthetically, "The same is Kiriathjearim. Verse 60 of this same chapter refers to the town as Kirjearim.

Joshua 15:9 refers to the town of Baalah and then adds, parenthetically, "The same is Kiriathjearim. Verse 60 of this same chapter refers to the town as Kiriathbaal and then adds parenthetically, "The same is Kirjathjearim." The same name and the same parenthetical explanation are repeated in Joshua 18:1415. Eerdmans Bible Dictionary gives the following definition of Kirjathjearim:

A city on the border of Judah and Benjamin, near where those territories adjoined Dan (KJV "Kirjathjearim"). It was reckoned among the possessions of Judah (Josh. 15:9, 60; 18:1415), although at verse 28 some versions assign it to Benjamin. Probably originally known as Kiriathbaal (Josh 15:60; 18:14), Kiratharim (Ezra 2:25), Baalah (Josh 15:9; 1 Chr. 13:6, and Baalejudah (2 Sam. 6:2) [1987, p.628].

Later in this same context, Eerdmans said that the Philistines returned the ark of the covenant to the Israelite inhabitants of Kiriathjearim who enshrined it in the house of Abinadab under the care of his son Eleazar (1 Sam. 6:217:2); "here it remained for twenty years before David transported it to Jerusalem."

Is this enough to convince McDonald that he is wrong? Certainly not. I have had enough debating experience with the man to know that nothing will budge him from his Bibleinerrancy position. However, for the benefit of those who are more open minded, let's look at 2 Samuel 6:14 alongside the parallel version of David's removal of the ark from the house of Abinadab in 1 Chronicles. I will quote both passages from McDonald's beloved KJV:

2 Samuel 6:14, Again, David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up, from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims. And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah....

1 Chronicles 13:57, So David gathered all Israel together, from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hemath to bring the ark of God from Kirjathjearim. And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjathjearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the LORD, that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it. And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab....

Now what could be clearer than this? David gathered the people together "to bring the ark of God from Kirhathjearim," exactly where 1 Samuel 7:12 says that the ark was taken to. After the people were gathered together, they went up to Baalah, which is explicitly identified as another name for Kirjathjearim. Why did they go to Kirjathjearim? Well, they went to "bring up thence" the ark of God. Does McDonald know what thence means? If so, perhaps he will tell us why they went to Kirjathjearim to bring the ark "thence," if the ark wasn't in Kirjathjearim but in a town named Gibeah.

Let's notice also that this place where David and the people went to get the ark "belonged to Judah" (v:6), but the town named Gibeah (the hill) belonged to Benjamin. This is where the rape of the Levite's concubine occurred (Judges 19:1230), which caused the bitter intertribal war between Benjamin and the other tribes of Israel (Judges 20). All of the textual evidence objectively considered shows that McDonald has it all backwards. Mistranslation did not occur in 1 Samuel 7:12 but in 2 Samuel 6:14. Abinadab's house was on a hill in the town of Kirjathjearim, and the men of this town took the ark to Abinadab's house, where it remained for 20 years, or so we are told in 1 Samuel 7:2. We are supposed to believe that somehow the ark was taken to Abinadab's house before king Saul began his reign but that the ark wasn't removed from Abinadab's house until after Saul had reigned for 40 years (Acts 13:21). If this isn't squeezing 50 years into 20, what would you call it?

McDonald concluded his imaginative attempt to explain away this problem by saying, "Now there is not a thing in the world wrong with that interpretation (except for the fact that it doesn't fit Mr. Till's conclusion that the Bible is not inspired by God," but I beg to differ with him. There is something seriously wrong with his interpretation besides the fact that it disagrees with my position that the Bible was not inspired by God. It simply doesn't agree with the overwhelming textual evidence that I have cited above. If we accept the facevalue meaning of the Bible text, we will have the following facts:

The ark of God was taken to Abinadab's house on the hill in Kirjathjearim (1 Sam. 7:1).
This happened before Saul became king (1 Sam. 9).
The ark stayed in Kirjathjearim for twenty years (1 Sam. 7:2).
Saul reigned as king for 40 years (Acts 13:21).
After Saul's reign was over and David was king, he took men to Kirjathjearim "to bring up from there the ark of God" (1 Chron. 13:6).
David's men "set the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill" (2 Sam. 6:3).

Now as I said before, if this isn't squeezing 50 years into 20, I don't know what you would call it. McDonald accused me of not reading the Bible carefully enough, but the predicament he is now in is the result of dreaming up a whatitcouldhavebeen hypothesis and then not testing it against all relevant passages in the Bible before publishing it in his onagain, offagain paper. So we have to wonder just who needs to read the Bible more carefully. McDonald never tires of saying that if I would "spend half as much time trying to harmonize these accounts as [I] spend trying find contradictions, [I] would find far fewer places to complain about." But look whose talking. If he would spend just half as much time trying to understand the facevalue meaning of the biblical text as he does looking for howitcouldhavebeen scenarios to "explain" away flagrant textual inconsistencies, he just might begin to see that the Bible is nowhere close to being the uniquely consistent work of perfect harmony that he constantly claims it is. At any rate, we will all look forward to watching him try to climb out of the hole he has dug himself into this time. (Farrell's address is P.O. Box 717, Canton, IL 615200717)

________________________________

EDITOR'S NOTE: With this issue, Challenge, will be going on line with the Internet through AOL. Certain atheistic groups and individuals have been on line in this manner for some time. Recently Farrell Till and his publication The Skeptical Review has gone on line. Mr. Till is one who thinks that the information age will be the downfall of Bible believing individuals. The downfall of the Bible has been forecasted down throughout time by atheists for a variety of reasons. We feel that the information age will no more be the downfall of Bible literacy in this age any more than it has been in any other age. Therefore, we wish to go on line to provide Bible answers and responses to individuals and publications, such as Mr. Till and his Skeptical Review.

MR. TILL ISN'T READING THE BIBLE CAREFULLY ENOUGH!

Jerry D. McDonald

In responding to my article: "...In The House Of Abinadab..." which came out in the Summer '94 issue of Challenge, Mr. Till has dreamed up all kinds of imaginations;

He imagines that the Bible inerrancy doctrine is a completely untenable position.
He imagines that the KJV translators mistranslated 2 Sam. 6:3.
He imagines that the list of versions he gives properly render the word ghibaw' as "on the hill" in 2 Sam. 6:3. [he had 2 Sam. 7:3, but I'm sure he meant 6:3.]
He imagines that the word "thence" in 1 Chron. 13:57 shows that the ark was in Kirjathjearim when David went to get it.
He imagines that I am closed minded and will not listen to reason.
He imagines that the predicament that I am, "now in is the result of dreaming up a whatitcouldhavebeen hypothesis and then not testing it against all of the relevant passages in the Bible before publishing it in [my] onagain, offagain paper."
He imagines that I should spend my time, "trying to understand the facevalue meaning of the biblical text...".
He imagines that I have dug myself into a hole and all are apparently going to have fun watching me trying to climb out.

These things are nothing more than figments of Mr. Till's overactive imagination. But...we'll let him imagine all he wants too, and while he is basking in his imagined spotlight, I will completely destroy his article along with another argument he is fond of making.

[1] He imagines that the Bible inerrancy doctrine is a completely untenable position. Yea right! That's why he hasn't been able to destroy it in the six or so years he has been at it. Oh...yes, he does get a convert once in a while. He gets people like Mark Smith, Patrick Phillips, and Bob Hypes whose faiths could not have been very strong. You see the only person Farrell can convert is one whose faith is weak; one who is not sure of his position. He has tried to change strong Christians and has found it to be more difficult than he first thought.

Before he came to Sullivan in '91 he called me and told me how grateful he was for the opportunity to stand before strong members of the church of Christ and show them why they shouldn't believe in the Bible. However, after that debate he went home like the fox in the story of "Sour Grapes." He didn't have anyone there to pat him on the back and tell him what a good job he was doing, so he got upset and went home and grumbled about there being no one there but, "confirmed fundamentalists." I mean, "What can you expect from a bunch of old hardline, diehards?" Hey, count me in with that bunch, they are the one's I want to stand with.

Well, the Bible inerrancy doctrine has been here longer than Farrell and myself put together, and I just have a sneaking suspicion that it's going to be here for a long time after both of us are dead. Untenable? Well, Farrell hasn't made much headway in proving it to be so, anyway.

[2] He imagines that the KJV translators mistranslated 2 Sam. 6:3. He asks: "why isn't it possible that the KJV translators erred in saying that Abinadab's house was in 'Gibeah' rather than 'on the hill'?" What proof does he have that the KJV translators erred in their translation? Oh, well, translators of other versions used the phrase "on the hill" rather than "Gibeah." Is that it? Is that all the evidence that he has? The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, in its discussion of Abinadab, states: "The man in whose house the men of Kiriathjearim placed the ark, after its return from the land of the Philis, his house being either in Gibeah of Benjamin or 'in the hill' (1 S 7 1; 2 S 6 3,4)" (Vol. 1, p.12). This volume goes on to say that it is natural for one to think that Abinadab lived in Kirjathjearim, but the account does not specify this as being his home. So he can bring up Bible scholars all day long, but then, so can I. Where is his proof that the KJV translators mistranslated that verse.

The word ghibaw is translated either "the hill" or "Gibeah." Should we go through every verse where that word is used and find where the translators translated it Gibeah and change it to "the hill"? Saul lived in Gibeah (1 Sam. 10:26). The same word used here is the word that is used in 2 Sam. 6:3,4. If we are going to change 2 Sam. 6:3,4 why don't we also change it in 1 Sam. 10:26? Oh well, that is where Saul's home was! Really? And how would he go about proving that? Well the scripture says that, "Saul also went home to Gibeah...". Well couldn't it properly be translated: "Saul also went home on the hill"? Well no, because that doesn't tell where Saul's home was, but if it is translated Gibeah, then we know that his home was in Gibeah. Very well.

Now if we go back to 2 Sam. 6:3,4 the passage reads: "And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah...And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was at Gibeah...". It makes no more sense to translate the word ghibaw in these two passages "the hill" than it makes to translated the same word "the hill" in 1 Sam. 10:26. The same word is used in both places to describe where someone lived and Mr. Till wants to translate it "Gibeah" in 1 Sam. 10:26, but "the hill" in 2 Sam. 6:3,4. He wants to blame the KJV tanslators for mistranslation when he has no evidence for his accusation. He has no textual reason for doing this except he needs the word in 2 Sam. 6:3,4 to be translated "the hill" so he can maintain his argument that the Bible is not inspired by God.

[3] He imagines that the list of translations that he gives us properly corrects the mistranslation of the KJV translators in 2 Sam. 6:3,4, and this seems to be his main source of evidence. Well no one denies that the translations translate the word ghibaw in those verses as "the hill", but what I do deny is that there is any reason for it, other than the fact that they thought they were correcting an error.

However, if Mr. Till is willing to accept this change on that basis, he must also be willing to accept the change that some, in his list, made on 2 Chron. 22:2. The New American Bible, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the New International Version all changed the wording in 2 Chron. 22:2 from saying that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign to saying that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign. Along with that list I could add the New American Standard Bible and the Living Bible Paraphrase. The Jerusalem Bible changed it to read that Ahaizah was 20 years old when he began to reign. Now, while I don't possess all the versions he listed I have shown where some of them changed Ahaziah's age from 42 to 22. Now will Mr. Till allow that? Certainly not! If some inerrantist was to bring those versions up and say that they recognized that this was a scribal error and they were correcting it Mr. Till would quickly jump up and challenge the inerrantist to show evidence that this was a scribal error.

Mr. Till argues that the original autographs had 42 years old in them, and I agree with him. I don't believe that the translators of those versions had the right to make that change, but I can see where they thought that they were correcting an obvious scribal error. They did that, however, with no more authority or textual evidence than they had when they changed the translation of en ghibaw in 2 Sam. 6:3,4 from "in Gibeah" to "on the hill." In 2 Sam. 6:3,4 they thought that they were correcting a mistranslation of the KJV, and in 2 Chron. 22:2 they thought that they were correcting a scribal error of the Masoretic Text and the KJV.

There is no way that Mr. Till would allow that reading to stand unchallenged. As a matter of fact when he and I were engaged in our written debate he wanted me to take the position that 2 Chron. 22:2 was a copyist mistake so he could lay into me and force me to show how I knew it was a copyist error. I do not happen to be a believer in that position, so I refused to take it. Instead I put pressure on him to show how he knew that it was a contradiction rather than a coreign. We spent quite a bit of space discussing that one alleged discrepancy, and when it was all said and done, Mr. Till was the one who wanted to quit discussing it. He would have liked for me to have taken the copyist error position on that verse because he would simply have asked me to show how I knew it was a copyist error.

Well, I want him to show how he knows that en ghibaw in 2 Sam. 6:3,4 was mistranslated in the KJV. I am not content with him showing translations changing the translation of that verse anymore than he would be content with an inerrantist showing translations changing Ahaziah's age from 42 to 22. To show that I am not merely speaking through my hat, brother Gaston Cogdill had a radio debate with Dennis McKinsey (atheist editor of Biblical Errancy) and in that debate, McKinsey produced the difference between 2 Kings 8:24 (22 years old) and 2 Chron. 22:2 (42 years old). When he did brother Cogdill produced the New International Version which had changed 2 Chron. 22:2 from 42 to 22 and McKinsey hit the ceiling. He said that brother Cogdill was saying that the translators of the KJV didn't know how to translate and that they didn't know anything, and McKinsey said that they did know how to translate, and he indicated that they did know what they were doing. He demanded that the KJV's rendering of 2 Chron. 22:2 was the correct one.

Well, we can all see why he would demand such. If the translators were allowed to change this passage because they believed that they were correcting an obvious scribal error, then McKinsey, Till and other atheists would have no argument there. They would just have to let that one alone. However, they are not going to do that. They will hold out until Christ comes again that the KJV's translation of 2 Chron. 22:2 is the correct rendering and it should be left that way.

Well, I contend that 2 Sam. 6:3,4 in the KJV is the correct rendering and it should be left that way. I don't doubt that the translators of later versions thought that they were correcting an obvious mistranslation, but they did more harm to the text by changing it than they would have had they left it alone. Whenever men begin tampering with the text simply because they think that they are correcting an obvious mistake (or for any other reason for that matter) then grave problems result. I say let it be. The translators of those versions had no more authority to change en ghibaw from "in Gibeah" to "on the hill" than some of those same translators had to change 2 Chron. 22:2's rendering from 42 to 22.

Mr. Till and I are in agreement that the translation in 2 Chron. 22:2 should remain as "42" because the translators had no evidence for changing it to "22." However, we are in disagreement that the translation in 2 Sam. 6:3,4 should remain as "in Gibeah", even though the translators of those versions he listed had no more authority for their mistranslation than they had for their mistranslation of 2 Chron. 22:2. The two will either stand together, or they will fall together. Mr. Till, which do you prefer?

[4] He imagines that the word thence in 1 Chron. 13:57 shows that the ark was in Kirjathjearim when David went to get it. He asked if I knew what the word thence meant. Let's see-how's this Farrell? "1 there, in that place..." (The Analytical Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon, p.722). Or maybe this one is alright: "shawm; a prim. particl [rather from the rel. 834]; there..." (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, p.117). Or maybe this one would suite him better: "SHAM, in it, there, therein, thither, etc." (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, IndexLexicon to the Old Testament, p.44). It simply means: "there". Did I do OK daddy Till?

2 Sam. 6:2 says: "And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God...". Now 1 Chron. 13:6 says: "And David went up, and all Israel, to Baaleh, that is, to Kirjathjearmin which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the Lord...". One verse says that David went up to bring up with the people of Baale of Judah, "to bring up from thence the ark of God" while the other verse says that David went to Baalah (Baale Judah) "to bring up thence the ark of God."

From what I read, the two verses are saying two different things. 2 Sam. 6:2 says that David went with the people from Baale of Judah to where the ark was. The place where the ark is not named in the passage. It just states that he went with the people from Baale Judah to bring from there (where the ark was) the ark of God. However, 1 Chron. 13:6 says that David went with all the people of Israel (the people whom he had numbered) to Kirjathjearim to bring the ark there. Verse 5 says he was going to bring the ark from Kirjathjearim, but verse 6 says he went to bring the ark thence (there to Kirjathjearim).

Remember the definition of "thence"? It means "there, in that place." Thus the interpretation that David went to where the ark was, had it transported to Kirjathjearim (thence 1 Chron. 13:6) and with the men from Kirjathjearim began transporting it back to Jerusalem. However, it did not reach Jerusalem at that time because Uzzah touched the ark and God smote him, so David had the ark carried to the house of Obededom where it stayed for the next three months.

[5] He imagines that I am closed minded and will not listen to reason. No, I am not closed minded, but I have yet to see one ounce of evidence from Mr. Till or any other atheist I know that gives me reason to even consider making a move from Christianity to atheism. Everything they bring up is so absurd that rational people wonder how humanbeings could even conjure up such garbage. So until some atheist gives me something substantial, I am going to hold on to my faith that the Bible is God's inerrant word. However, they are going to have to come up with some arguments that are a lot stronger than the ones they have before I give up.

I have yet to debate a man who did not, at one time or another in the debate, accuse me of being closedminded. An antiorphan's home preacher once told me that if I would be openminded to his cause and go into the debate with the thought in mind that I was possibly wrong that he would be able to convert me to his cause. Well certainly, if I was to go into a debate with that man (or any other for that matter) truly believing that I was possibly wrong, he would stand a very good chance of converting me. However, I did not go into that debate with that frame of mind, but neither did he. I asked him if he would go into the debate with that attitude, and his response was: "Well, no!" When I asked him why he wouldn't he replied: "Because I believe with all of my heart that I have the truth, and I am not going to change until you show me where I am wrong." I then informed him that I would live by the same principle.

Mr. Till does not go into debates with us with a socalled "open mind." He may say that he does, but he doesn't and his actions prove him wrong. He is as closedminded as a closed steel trap. You couldn't budge him if your life depended on it. So why should I be any different from him? Let him show me where I am wrong, and then we will talk about my changing. But as I have previously stated, he is going to have to come up with something better than what he has offered in the past to change me. That is as "openminded" as I am going to get. Until that time, I am going to hang on to my beliefs.

[6] He imagines that the predicament that I am now in is the result of my dreaming up some whatitcouldhavebeen hypothesis and publishing it in my "onagain, offagain" paper without checking it out with all relevant references to see if it would hold up. In the first place, I am in no predicament at all. Everything that Farrell has argued in his response has been superficial. He is the one who dreamed up some whatitcouldhave

been hypothesis and sent it for publication in Challenge without testing it against all relevant scriptures to see if it would hold up. {1} He is the one who stated that the KJV translators mistranslated 2 Sam. 6:3,4 without offering objective proof for his accusation. {2} He is the one who produced versions which not only changed the translation in 2 Sam. 6:3,4, but also changed the reading of Ahaziah's age in 2 Chron. 22:2, a change that he knows that he would never accept or allow to go unchallenged. {3} He is the one who jumped on 1 Chron. 13:6 without looking up the word "thence" to see what it meant, or to see how it would affect his interpretation. So I am not in any predicament at all, he is.

(2) He talks about Challenge being an "onagain, offagain paper" but I think he needs to be reminded of the fact that he has had the privilege of having his own personal articles in every issue of Challenge since it began in 1990 with the exception of four, and two of those four ran articles which were reprints from TSR written by other atheists. The only reason he didn't have an article in those issues is because I didn't have the room to run them. In one of the remaining two I took statements from him out of TSR and from Dennis McKinsey out of Biblical Errancy and responded to them. Only one issue, in four years, of Challenge, has been printed which had nothing to do with the atheistic/skeptic belief. That was the Summer '92 issue, and that issue was devoted the subject matter of Bible authority, and instrumental music. The reason for that was that Roger Barron and I had held a debate that summer with two preachers from the Christian Church, and we thought it fitting to dedicate that issue to that subject. Every other issue has had something in it dealing with the atheistic/skeptical beliefs. And most of those issues ran articles by Farrell Till.

Would you like to know how many articles I have been allow to print in The Skeptical Review during it's five year tenure? TWO! After my second one, Farrell wrote me and told me that some of his readers were complaining about my articles and he felt that he had to succumb to their desires. So he told me that unless I could write something rational, I would no longer be allowed to publish articles in his publication because printing space was too valuable to waste on someone like me. I, then, called him and asked him who would be the judge as to what was rational and what was not. His reply: "Well-I'm the editor!". In other words, he was going to be the judge as to what was rational and what was not. He has never, even once, stated that anything I have ever written was rational. Therefore, the logical conclusion: "Jerry McDonald is banned from publishing articles in The Skeptical Review" is logically drawn. Now, he recently stated that I can resume sending articles to TSR, so we shall see. He can call Challenge an onagain and offagain paper all he wants, but he needs to remember that this onagain, offagain paper gives him an audience, any time he wishes (and I have yet to refuse to print one of his articles and he knows it), and this is a consideration that he has not always given me.

[7] He imagines that I should spend time trying to understand the facevalue meaning of the biblical text. It is this idea of accepting "facevalue" meaning of the biblical text that keeps Farrell off in the clutches of atheism. There is not a piece of literature on this earth of which one can just accept the facevalue of everything in it, and make the proper intepretation of its contents.. The Bible is full of examples of figures of speech such as metaphors, metonymy, synedoches, etc. When one comes to the point that he just accepts the "facevalue" of these texts he stands on dangerous ground.

Even though no figure of speech is involved in the texts under discussion, one must still study them in order to be able to rightly divide them (KJV) or handle them aright (ASV) according to 2 Tim. 2:15. What Farrell means by "understanding the facevalue of the biblical text" is he wants me to just accept a verse on its own merits, don't look anywhere else to see what the interpretation of that verse may be. One could not even do that with the writings of the atheist Farrell Till. Some of you may remember that we even put that statement to the test back in the Spring of '92. Mr. Till came out with a short article where he just put statements from the Bible without comment to show that they were in error. However, when we tried that with some statements from Farrell Till, we found that he didn't fare much better. This raised his hackles somewhat and I got a long letter from him trying to explain what he said he meant in those statements. However, his trying to explain those statements only proved that his theory of accepting at facevalue was nothing more than a farce that atheists use against Christians to get them to doubt the Bible. They won't allow that rule in regards to their work, so why should we be forced to allow it regarding the Bible. Sorry Farrell, but I don't accept the "facevalue" theory. I study each scripture in light of its immediate context and the overall Biblical context. I study all that is to be studied on the given subject; an area in which you seem to fail. If you want to study the Bible according to your idea of understanding "facevalue" be my guest, but don't expect me to fall for such an idiotic rule.

[8] He finally imagines that I have dug a hole for myself. Well, I'm not the one who listed translations to support my theory only to have them turn around and do the very thing that I would not allow them to do on another argument. He would not allow their actions to go unchallenged for changing Ahaziah's age in 2 Chron. 22:2 for one moment and he knows it. Yet, he will allow this to be done on 2 Sam. 6:3,4 and that's only because he needs that to make his case.

Now everything I have said, so far, is enough to destroy his article, but I can't help (as he put once it) but give it the coup de grace before I leave him.

1 Sam. 10:10 says: "And when they came thither to the hill (underline added), behold a company of prophets met him." The word for "the hill" here is the same word ghibaw that we have been discussing in this exchange. Right about now, Farrell is probably wondering what this has to do with anything, but just sit tight for a moment and I will make my point. The ASV, the NASB, the NKJV and the NWT all agree with the KJV and translate the word "the hill." The LBP uses the words "the Hill of God." However, the amazing thing is that the NAB, the NIV, the JB, and the RSV translate the word ghibaw as "Gibeah." Well lookie here! Just who is correcting whom here, Farrell? Well, while Farrell is muddling this all over in his mind, I want to say that I believe that this shows (and I believe that the translators of those translations also recognize) that the word ghibaw can be rightfully translated either "Gibeah" or "the hill" and both speak of the city of Gibeah. I don't believe that the ASV, the KJV, the NASB, the NKJV and the NWT were referring to some hill somewhere while the NAB, the NIV, the JB and the RSV were using it to refer to Gibeah. All the translations were using it to refer to the city of Gibeah, a city in the territory of Benjamin.

The point is this: If the city of Gibeah can be referred to as either "the hill" or "Gibeah" when it has reference to Saul's home town, why can't they both be used to refer to the same city when it comes to Abinadab's home town? Answer please!

I would say that, unless Mr. Till has a rabbit that he can pull out of his hat, this sends his entire argument about the mistranslation of the KJV in 2 Sam. 6:3,4 right down the tubes. And it is not I, Farrell, that have dug myself into a hole by dreaming up some whatitcouldhavebeen hypothesis and published it without testing it against all other relevant passages on the subject, THOU ART THE MAN, who has done that.

Well, Farrell has one more opportunity to deal with this before I close the exchange down for good. I certainly hope that he can come up with something a little more substantial than he has in the past. Let's all watch as he attempts to climb out the hole he has dug for himself.

THE MCDONALD-SMITH CORRESPONDENCE

___________________________________________________________________________EDITOR'S NOTE* The following is the correspondence that I had with a socalled freethinker from Sherman Oaks, California between the months of July and December 1994. This correspondence was prompted by a letter that Mr. Smith wrote Dennis McKinsey which was published in the July 1994 issue of Biblical Errancy in which he criticized Christians very heavily even calling us "intellectual cowards." On July 13, 1994 I wrote a letter to Mr. Smith inviting him to debate, but he apparently did not understand what was meant by the word "debate." So he sent me another letter informing me that I could publish our correspondence as the debate if I would allow him to send it to any atheistic paper he desired. I, of course, gave him permission and now I am publishing this correspondence as our debate. I still wish to have a formal debate with Mr. Smith and hold the invitation open, but if correspondence is all that he desires, he has the opportunity to respond to these exchanges. I will reprint Mr. Smith's letter to McKinsey from Biblical Errancy. I believe that this letter shows just how easy it is for an atheist to write a letter to one of his own publications, but how hard it is to respond to someone's objections to that letter.

___________________________________________________________________________

Reprinted from Biblical Errancy...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter # 585 from RS of Sherman Oaks, California. Dear Dennis, Just want to say hello and thanks again for your great publication. It is a great contribution to intellectual integrity, exposing, as it does, the fantasy world of Christian apologetics where two plus two equals five and red is green. It's about time someone attacked the head of the snake and exposed the appalling befuddlement underlying Christian "scholarship." Anyone who takes the time to study Christian apologists and their writings will eventually see the convoluted web they weave. It's truly amazing how they can off load such drivel onto an unsuspecting public. Their apologies are really a cut below medieval science and scholarship at best.

If we were forced to believe the arguments of apologists, we would eventually become rambling imbeciles, forever forcing facts to fit fallacies. I often hear Christians regurgitating apologetic denials like magical incantations to ward off Biblical errors. For example, when shown a contradiction in the scriptures, some of them will say the verse has been taken out of context, or the verse is better in the original Greek or Hebrew, or some other such obfuscating nonsense. But in every case when you call their bluff and read the actual verse in the context and analyze the original Greek or Hebrew so that there can be no mistake about it, their argument collapses for sheer lack of support. Eventually, they are wrestled to the mat with their own spurious information and have to take the "faith" amendment. Really, they must reexamine the false information of their apologetic sources if there is to be any light on the matter. Then, maybe, just maybe, they will see how apologists work with shadows and smoke to effect their miscreant sophistry.

Christians rarely think independently, and, more often then not, rely on some "expert" with a new "magic bullet" against the innumerable problems of the Bible. They'll read apologetic drivel till the cows come home, yet rarely will they review scholarly critiques found outside of Christian bookstores. The reason for this shameful farce is simple. They are not looking for truth; they're looking for a bandaid to cover their selfdeception. They have no real faith to begin with. If they did, they would not fear getting a second opinion from independent scholars. In my mind, most Christians are intellectual cowards. They'll die at the stake for their beliefs, but run like hell when the silver bullet of reason flies at them.

I have encountered similar subterfuges as you have in apprehending apologetic criminals like Carl Johnson. I recently talked to a Christian who had Zondervan books up the kazoo and still he couldn't answer the question: "Why does God create evil?" He gave the same response as Johnson so I had him look up the Hebrew word used in the verses in which it is stated that God creates or causes evil. The meaning of the word includes "calamity" but it most certainly also includes "iniquity." I told him that if the verses were intended to mean "calamity" only, then they should have used the Hebrew word for "calamity" rather than using a word that means "iniquity," especially since the word clearly means "iniquity" wherever it is used in the Bible. Finally I asked him how can anyone trust a God who creates evil. There was no response.

The more I talk to persons of the Christian persuasion, the more I realize what a foul mess of sloppy thinking they have gotten themselves into. If the propensity to believe Christian apologists reflects the intellectual development of the Christian millions who populate the earth, then we are definitely headed for a grave decline in moral and intellectual achievement. B.E. provides the only "review board" that examines apologetic authors and exposes their intellectual depravity at the root. By the way, your tape transcripts were excellent. (Roy Smith's address is 15237 Sutton St., Sherman Oaks, CA 91403)

___________________________________________________________________________

97 Florence St.
Sullivan, MO 63080
July 13, 1994

Roy Smith
15237 Sutton St.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Mr. Smith:

I am a subscriber to Dennis McKinsey's publication Biblical Errancy. I read your letter to the editor on pages 4&6 of issue 139 in which you are very critical of Christians. You stated, "(i)n my mind, most Christians are intellectual cowards. They'll die at the stake for their beliefs, but run like hell when the silver bullet of reason flies at them." Do you really believe that garbage? Do you honestly think that we are cowards who run from you people? I have been defending the Bible in debate for 15 years now. To date I have had eight written and oral debates and exchanges with atheists like Farrell Till, Adrian Swindler, Ernie Brennaman, and yes, even your beloved leader "Dennis McKinsey." And I have yet to run from any of them. As a matter of fact I am in negotiations with Farrell Till and Dan Barker for future debates on the historicity and resurrection of Christ, and the inspiration of the Bible. I was just telling a friend of mine, the other day that I needed to get another written debate going with an atheist, but I didn't know who to ask. Well, it seems that providence has smiled upon me for when I read your statement, I decided to ask you. You ought to be willing to debate an intellectual coward who will run when the silver bullet of reason flies at him. So say "yes" and make my day.

You charge us with reading apologetic drivel till the cows come home, but rarely will we review "scholarly critiques found outside Christian bookstores." You say that the reason for this is because we have no real faith to begin with. Well, go ahead and accept my challenge and see just what kind of faith I have to begin with. I know your arguments better than you do. I have read from Joseph Wheless; Bertrand Russell; Robert Countess; Steven Hawking; Richard Elliott Friedman; Ian Wilson and other atheistic philosophers past and present. And I have never seen anything that any of them have ever said that would cause me to even be concerned about my belief in God and his word.

So the time has come. Either "put up or shut up!" I am tired of atheistic propaganda about how intellectually weak we Christians are. If you think you have a "sense of total control over [your] interchanges with Christians," then you ought to be willing to debate me. Since you believe yourself to be "a competent spokesperson" for the atheistic cause, I will gladly open the pages of my publication Challenge to you and let you preach to my readers, who are mostly Christians. You see, I have a quarterly debate journal which allows both sides of the issue on the Bible inerrancy doctrine to be heard. If your argument on the word "evil" is any example of the kind of arsenal that you have against us, we certainly have nothing to fear. I would like to see you "call my bluff" when I charge you with taking verses out of their context or not understanding the Greek or Hebrew. You say: "It's about time someone attacked the head of the snake and exposed the appalling befuddlement underlying Christian 'scholarship'" Ok, let's debate. You should have nothing to fear, after all I am nothing more than a "rambling imbecile" who forces facts to fit fallacies. What have you got to worry about? After all I will eventually end up taking the "faith" amendment, according to you. So go for it, what do you have to lose?

I await your response, if you have the intestinal fortitude to respond at all.

I await, Jerry D. McDonald.

___________________________________________________________________________15237 Sutton St.

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

July 16, 1994
Jerry McDonald
97 Florence St.
Sullivan, MO 63080

Mr. McDonald:

Congratulations for being one of the few to come out of the closet to defend the lost cause of fundamentalism. Its [sic] to find your breed after the beating you took at the Scope's Monkey Trial, and it's a wonder the head of the snake is still alive and kicking. Yet, here you are in all of your cockiness, ready to do battle against the indisputable findings of science, reason and scholarship that have long since laid your case to waste. I doubt you can make even a small dent in the growing wall of facts arrayed against you.

In your letter you stated that you've gone head to head with Til [sic], Swindler, Brennaman, and McKinsey; that you've read, Wheless, Russell, Countess, Hawking, Friedman, and Wilson; that you have a publication called Challenge, that purports a free forum for debate, etc. I suppose you think yourself an informed debater though you failed to mention the countless numbers of other scientists, scholars and researchers who have long since undermined the credulity of your backward doctrine. What's more, you haven't said anything that even remotely convinces me you've won any of your arguments, and this is suggested by the way you sidestepped the issue of my letter which pointed out the fact that the Bible states that God creates evil. Are you conceding the point?

Perhaps, we are already seeing an example of your ability to debate here, and that it was never your intent to debate on the issues in the first place, but rather to spew out a rambling series of statements as to how great you are in the field of debate and in defending your unworthy cause. Or, will you answer here and now why anyone should believe in a god who creates evil:

(Judges 9;23, 1 Sam. 16:23, 18:10, Lam. 3:38, Ezek. 20:2526, Micah 2:3, Jer. 23:6, 18:11, 19:3, 19:15, 36:3, 32:42, 11:11, 14:16, 23:12, 26:13, 35:17, 36:31); deceives (2 Chron. 18:22, Jer. 4:10, 15:18, 20:7, Ezek 14:9, 2 Thess. 2:912); lies (Gen 2:17, 2 Sam 7:13); tells people to lie (Ex 3:18, 2 Sam. 16:2); makes false prophecies (Gen. 35:10, Jon 3:4); causes adultery (2 Sam 12:1112); sanctions slavery (Ex 21:2021, Deut 15:17); practices injustice (Ex 4:2223, Josh 22:20, Rom 5:12); punishes many for the acts of one (Gen 3:16, 20:18); punishes children for the sins for their fathers (Ex 12:29, 20:5, Deut. 5:9); prevents people from hearing the word (Isa 6:10, John 12:3940); supports human sacrifice (Ex 22:2930, Ezek 20:26); orders cannibalism (Lev 26:29, Jer 19:9); demands virgins as part of war plunder (Num 31:3136); sanctions the violation of enemies [sic] women (Deut 21:1014); excuses the beating of slaves to death Ex 21:2021) [sic]; requires a woman to marry her rapist (Deut 22:2829).

Mr. McDonald, you've sidestepped the issue of my argument and that's a good example of intellectual cowardice, rambling, dodging the silver bullet of reason, and how you have no real faith to begin with. Second, you refer to me as an atheist although I haven't stated my position; that would seem to suggest a propensity to force facts to fit the fallacy, as well. I support Biblical Errancy [sic] because it exposes the appalling befuddlement underlying Christian "scholarship," not because of a particular philosophy. Mr. McDonald, your bluff has been called and you have failed to answer. Are you taking the "faith" amendment now?

I await your response if you have the intellectual integrity to respond at all.

sincerely, Roy Smith

P.S.: You have my permission to publish my letter in Challenge if you give me permission to publish your letter in Biblical Errancy or other publication [sic] of my choosing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHALLENGE 97 Florence Street, Sullivan, Missouri 63080, 314/8602821/4684991

December 5, 1994
Roy Smith
15237 Sutton St.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Mr. Smith:

Is your letter dated 7/16/94 what you want me to print in Challenge as your part of a debate? When I challenged you to a debate, I was in hopes that we might have a real debate. I was in hopes that we might have something like Brennaman and I had. In that debate we did not spend time talking about how great we were, instead we spent our time discussing the issue under consideration. I do not feel that you fully understand what a debate is. However, if exchanging letters is what you want printed, I will gladly oblige you. You, of course, have my permission to print my letters (in their entirety) in any atheistic publication you choose.

Let me say that I have not come out of the closet, I have never been in the closet. Your problem is that you are too arrogant to see that the socalled devastating results of the socalled "Monkey Trials" were not so devastating as you atheists would like for the rest of the world to believe. If those results were so devastating against the Bible inerrancy doctrine, then why is it that your beloved leader Madilyn Murray O'Hair boasted that 10% of the U.S. population were atheists. She seemed to think that such was a pretty good percentage. That meant that 90% were not atheists.

You say that here I am in all of my, "cockiness, ready to do battle against the indisputable findings of science, reason and scholarship that have long since laid your case to waste." Right. What science has laid my case to waste? Would you care to elaborate on that? Also, I know of no group of people more cocky than atheists (Oh, I'm sorry, you haven't made the claim to be an atheist. What are you, then? Surely you are not one of those people like Ron Labbe who claims to be a Christian theist while rejecting the only book that tells him how to be a Christian? Just what are you?). If "scholars" have laid my case to waste so terribly, I have yet to see the evidence. Just who are these scholars? Dr. Antony G.N. Flew? He debated Dr. Thomas Warren in 1974 and before the debate was over he was saying that he would not be writing any more saying that there is no God. Who, Dr. Wallace Matson? He took the agnostic position (after signing an atheistic proposition with Dr. Warren) in 1978. Just who are these scholars?

You listed the scholars and scientists that I told you I had read from and state: "I suppose now you think yourself an informed debater though you failed to mention the countless other scientists, scholars and researchers who have long since undermined the credibility of your backward doctrine." Does that mean that you don't think that Hawking, Countess, Russell, Wheless, Friedman, and Wilson have been able to do that. Hawking, as Farrell Till puts it, is one of the worlds foremost authorities in theoretical physics. I chose those names because they are pretty well known by all. But since you don't think they are very reputable, just who do you think has put my "backward doctrine" to rest? What about Dr. Robert Jastrow, who stated:

"For the scientist who has lived his life by faith in the power of reason, the story (the quest for origins) ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries" (God and the Astronomers).

Dr. Robert Gange, a research scientist, engineer, and professor and who has been repeatedly honored by NASA, states that God did create the world:

"The awesome splendor of a 30 billion lightyear wide universe so precisely balanced that a butterfly can stay perched at the edge of a flower petal points not to chance, but to cause; not to matter, but to maker; and more than that, to a maker who matters" (A Scientist Looks At Creation).

Maybe these men aren't known to you, but they are known to most. Jastrow is a famed astronomer and agnostic. Gange used to be a skeptic until he began looking at the evidence, now he is convinced that there is a God.

You say that I have said nothing to convince you that I have won any arguments. I didn't know that I was suppose to convince you. Convincing you is not a very high priority on my list of things to do. I just want to debate you to expose your anemic doctrine. I have not set myself to do the impossible task of convincing you (or any other atheist ?) of anything. So I'm not real concerned with whether you are ever convinced or not.

My reason for not dealing with your argument on the word "evil" in my letter is because I wanted you to make that argument in the debate so it could be dealt with there. However since you seemed to have missed the entire idea of what a debate is, and since you think that I am unable to deal with your argument, I will deal with it in this letter.

In your letter to McKinsey you made this statement:

I have encountered similar subterfuges as you have in apprehending apologetic criminals like Carl Johnson. I recently talked to a Christian who had Zondervan books up the kazoo and still he couldn't answer the question: "Why does God created evil?" He gave the same response as Johnson, so I had him look up the Hebrew word used in those verses in which it is stated that God creates or causes evil. The meaning of the word includes "calamity" but it most certainly also includes "iniquity." I told him that if the verses were intended to mean "calamity" only, then they should have used the Hebrew word for "calamity" rather than using a word that means "iniquity," especially since the word clearly means "iniquity" wherever it's used in the Bible.

The English word "evil" is translated from the Hebrew word "rawah" or "rah". The word has several meanings. It means to be displeasing, to be sad, to be injurious, to be wicked, to suffer hurt/injury, to break, to be broken into pieces, to be wicked, misery, distress, calamity, adversity, distress, and so on. You cannot arbitrarily take only one meaning, and place it on the word "evil" every time you see it. There are some times the word "evil" is referring to iniquity, and some times it is referring to calamity. If you doubt this notice the following example.

Atheists have often said that God cannot exist because evil exists. One of the things that they call evil is natural calamities. They say, as Brennaman did: "Not all of the evil in the world is caused by men. Nature also causes evil" (McDonaldBrennaman Debate, Brennaman's Fourth Affirmative, p.4). Now, was Brennaman saying that nature causes iniquity or calamity? I think that anyone who honestly reads this will have to admit that Brennaman was using the word "evil" to mean calamity. Iniquity is not even implied in the the statement. Nature does not cause iniquity, but rather calamity.

Now it is admitted that sometimes the word "evil" does mean "iniquity," but such is not the case, "wherever it's used in the Bible."

The Bible tells us that God creates "evil." The Bible tells us that God allows "evil." And the Bible tells us that God cannot behold "evil." Now how can God create and allow that which he cannot behold? One has to look at the word "evil" in the context that it is in and then determine how it is used. In some contexts "evil" refers to "wickedness." In some contexts the word "evil" refers solely to "calamity." Let's take your passages one by one and see just what they say.

1. Judges 9:23: "Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech." This in your mind means that God creates evil. This says nothing about God creating evil, but rather that God sent this evil spirit to go between Abimelech and the men of Shechem so the men of Shechem could deal treacherously with Abimelech. Like so many atheists (or whatever you are) you did not read all of the context. You took just what you wanted to take and left the rest and now claim: "See, God creates evil". Abimelech had killed his brethren (with the aid of the men of Shechem) and now God is punishing Abimelech by causing the men of Shechem to fight against him. However, according to verse 20 Abimelech was also to devour the men of Shechem. So this is a case where God was pitting them against each other and he sent an evil spirit to work them against each other. The word evil here, gives the connotation of distress and injury. It does not mean iniquity as you suppose, and had you been honest enough to read the context you would have seen that to be the case.
2. 1 Sam. 16:23: "And it came to pass when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well , and the evil spirit departed from him." Again, you chose not to look at the context. Verse 14 plainly says: "But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him." Here the word "evil" has reference to misery. In other words, Saul was a miserable person. Saul had disobeyed God and was now being punished for his disobedience. His servants asked if they could seek out someone who would play for him so that God would take the evil spirit (spirit of misery) away from him and Saul allowed it. They chose David to do that. There is nothing here about the word "evil" having any reference to iniquity. 1 Sam. 18:10 is the same spirit which came upon Saul at a different time, and he was taken away by the very same method.
3. Lam. 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" Where does this necessitate iniquity? As a matter of fact, where does this say that God creates evil (iniquity)? This says that God can speak both evil and good of a person. Evil here, again, has to do with distress and injury. God can speak injurious of a person who disobeys him, and bring evil upon him; evil meaning injury.
4. Ezek. 20:2526: "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord." In 2 Thess. 2:1012 Paul wrote: "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sent them strong delusions that they should believe a lie: That they might all be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." God will not make anyone obey him. Man has a choice to make (Josh. 24:15), either obey God or disobey him. It's up to us. If we obey, he will help us overcome temptation (1 Cor. 10:13), but if we do not obey him, then he will not help us, he will even allow us to believe a lie. The figure of speech "anthropopathea" where human attributes and characteristics are applied to God (Oh, I forgot, atheists (?) don't believe in figures of speech, do they?) so God can condescend to man's level so man can understand him. God, in allowing men to believe a lie, is said to have sent strong delusions to these people. Actually, all he has done is to allow them to believe the lie as strongly as they want. He will not make a way of escape for them, as he does those who are faithful to him.
In Ezek. 20:2526 the word "evil" is not used. However the passage does say that God polluted them in their own gifts. This is the same thing as is found in 2 Thess. 2:1012. God allowed the children of Israel to be polluted in Idolatry because that is where they wanted to be. They began worshipping the god Molech and sacrificed their infants to him by putting them in the belly of the idol which was filled with hot coals of fire. God allowed them to go off as far off into idolatry as they desired before he punished them for their evil works.
5. Micah 2:3: "Therefore, thus saith the Lord; Behold against this family do I devise an evil, from which ye shall not remove your necks; neither shall ye go haughtily: for this time is evil." Again you did not consider the context. God is punishing those who, "devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds...they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his souse, even a man and his heritage." God says that those who do such things, he will punish (do evil to) them for their iniquity. God is not doing iniquity when he punishes people for wrong doing. Punishment is also called "evil."
6. Jer. 26:3: "If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I propose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings." God is getting ready to punish Israel for their iniquity. Is it wrong for God to punish his people for their iniquity? If so, why? In every other case in Jeremiah that you have listed, where the word "evil" is attributed to God, the context plainly shows that God is punishing Israel for their iniquity; their disobedience. All those passages would be nonsensical with your interpretation of the word "evil" where it applies to God. Does God work iniquity when he punishes people for working iniquity? Remember, the word "evil" has several meanings. What gives you the right to take only one meaning and place it upon the word "evil" every time it is used, especially when you admit that the word means calamity?
In everyone of the passages you have produced you have twisted the context or twisted the meaning of the word in that context, to fit your own pet doctrine. You have not proven that God creates iniquity or wickedness. All you have proven is that you know nothing about how to interpret the Bible. Now to look at the rest of your passages.
1. You say God deceives and produced several passages one of which I have already dealt with above (2 Thess. 1012). 2 Chronicles 18:22 is just another account of that which took place in 1 Kings 22:14ff. The passages state that God put a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab's prophets. Here, again the figure of speech "anthropopathea" is used to show that what God allows is attributed to him as doing. God allowed the false prophets to speak lies and thus it was attributed to him. Michiah had told them of a vision he had seen where God was going to punish Ahab for his wickedness by allowing him to die in battle. However, his prophets all told him that he would be victorious and live. They lied, and God allowed it because that is what he wanted to believe. Thus it was attributed to him.
Jer. 4:10 has Jeremiah saying: "Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul." Is all deception sinful? When our spies go into enemy territory they deceive the enemy by making them think that they are their friends. Is that sinful? Sometimes in a baseball game the pitcher will throw a fake pitch so as to catch one of the opposite players off base and then throw the ball to the baseman thus getting the runner out. Is that sinful? Farrell Till, editor of The Skeptical Review sent out bogus debate propositions to preachers in the churches of Christ claiming to be preachers from several denominations so he could show that they would debate the denominationalists, but not him as an atheist. Was that sinful? I contend that in some cases deception can be used without sin. When God told the Israelites to run away from the men of Ai as though they were trying to escape, but really there were men hiding in the rocks on the sides waiting for the men of Ai to follow those running then they would close the trap, this was not sinful, but was rather military strategy. Yet it was a form of deception. Did God sin? Our military does things like that! Is an undercover police officer sinning when he deceives a drug dealer by making him think he is there to buy drugs for himself? Think about that before you answer. Here God allowed Israel to think that everything was going to be alright when actually there were going to be punished. In doing so, they were deceived, but I contend that not all deception is sinful.
In Jer. 15:18, Jeremiah is not accusing God of being deceptive, but rather is asking if he is going to be deceived into thinking his pain will cease when it is not. In 20:7 Jeremiah did complain to God about being deceived, but I feel that his complaint was unwarranted. God did not deceive him. He had the false notion that if he spoke to Pashur, the chief governor, that he would repent, but in reality, not only did he not repent, but he smote Jeremiah and put him in stocks for rebuking him for lying to the people. Jeremiah felt that he was deceived, so he complained to God. However, his complaint was unwarranted. He promised himself that he would no longer preach God's message, but he also later realized that he could not refrain from such. He later changed his attitude and began doing what God had instructed him to do. Read the context Roy. Concerning Ezek. 14:9: Again not all deception is wrong. God deceived a false prophet by allowing him to believe that he was doing right, when in fact he was wrong and was going to be punished.
2. You say that God lied when he told Adam that if he ate the fruit of the forbidden tree that he would die that day (Gen. 2:17). Adam did die that day. He died spiritually. He also began to die physically. So where is the lie? There is no lie in 2 Sam. 7:13 because the word "forever" does not always mean without end. Sometimes it means "age lasting" or during a "given time period." When my son was born I, wearing street clothes, went into the nursery and picked him up and carried him out. A nurse jumped me and told me: "Don't you ever pick that child up without wearing a smock, again." My first thought was: "I'm not going to buy one of those things to wear every time I want to pick him up." However, after I reflected upon it, I realized that she was telling me not to pick him up without one for as long as he was in the hospital.
Once we took him home, we could do as we pleased. You see, the words "ever" and "forever" do not always carry the connotation of "without end." Sometimes they mean "during a given period of time." That is what is meant in 2 Sam. 7:13.
3. You say that he tells people to lie. Exodus 3:18 was not a lie. God did want them to go three days journey into the wilderness to worship him. That three days journey would lead them to Sinai. Nothing is said about God promising to return them. He wanted them to come to Sinai to worship him, which was three days journey. I fail to see where God instructed anyone to say anything in 2 Sam. 16:2. By presents and false suggestions Ziba obtained his master's inheritance. However there is nothing there to suggest that God had anything to do with it. The word "lord" is used in verse 4, but it refers to Mephibosheth, the king. So where are the lies that God has authorized others to tell?
4. You say that God has made false prophecies. In Gen. 35:10 he told Jacob that he would no longer be called Jacob, but rather Israel. However, there were times when he was called Jacob after that. Yet, when we consider that as far as being the head of the twelve tribes of Israel, he was no longer known as Jacob, but rather as Israel. That does not mean that no one would ever call him Jacob again. It simply means that his formal name would be Israel. Concerning Jonah 3:4, God had every intention of destroying Nineveh until Nineveh repented. Suppose you owed someone a sum of money and did not pay it, for whatever reason, and that person after trying every thing he knew to do to get the money from you, finally told you: "Well, I'm tired of messing with you on this, I am going to take you to court and sue you to get the money." Suppose you came up and paid the entire bill before the court date, should that person go ahead and sue you? He would look like an idiot and a blood thirsty tyrant if he did. Was he a liar for not going ahead and sueing you? Now God had intended to destroy Nineveh, but when they repented, he would have looked like an idiot and a bloodthirsty tyrant for destroying them after they had repented. There is no false prophecy there.
5. You say that God causes adultery because of what he told David he was going to do to him in 2 Sam. 12:11,12. There was going to be no adultery involved. God was simply going to take David's wives away from him and give them to his neighbor. They were then to be his neighbor's wives. This was going to be done to show David just how it felt to take the wife of someone else and make her his wife as he had done Bethsheba. However, when David heard this, he repented and God did not take this action against him. The child did die because it would have been in line for the Kingdom and an illegitimate person could not rule in Israel. Had he lived and ruled, it would have given occasion for Israel's enemies to speak against her.
6. God does not sanction slavery, he just made rules to regulate it because he knew that they were going to do it. (Ex. 21:2021; Deut. 15:17). He did not sanction divorce (Mt. 19:69), but he did give rules to regulate it (Deut. 24:14) because he knew they were going to do it anyway.
7. Ex. 4:22,23; Josh. 22:20; and Rom. 5:12. When man sins, he often brings hardship upon his entire family. When a man gambles his paycheck away, his family often has to suffer for it. When God killed the firstborn of Egypt it was because the Pharaoh refused to turn Israel loose from their slavery. He had been warned sufficiently, but still refused to do it. Achin committed a trespass and involved his whole family in it, thus the family died. When Adam and Eve sinned, they allowed sin into the world so now it plagues all mankind. When men sin, they can just expect the consequences to go further than just themselves. Sometimes they destroy the man's entire family.
8. Gen. 3:16 does not say that man will be punished for one person's sin. However, because of the wrong doing, God promised Eve that her desire would be only to her husband and she would conceive in sorrow. Do women conceive in sorrow today? It all depends on how you look at pregnancy. It is painful at times, but even then this is a consequence of Eve's sin. Women today are not being punished for the wrong, but they sometimes suffer the consequences of her sin. Her pain in conception was written into her makeup which would be passed on to every generation following her. In the military, when one person breaks rules, others often have to suffer. If a person does something to cause an explosion or a leak others will have to suffer. They are not being punished, but they are suffering the consequence.
In Genesis 20:18 God had closed up the wombs of Abimelech's wives because he was going to commit the sin of adultery with Sarah. This seemed to be the only way of getting his attention. When he got Abimelech's attention and he repented, God opened up his wives wombs.
9. You say that God punishes children for their father's sins. In Exodus 12:29 God had given sufficient warning as to what would happen if Pharaoh did not turn Israel loose. This was the only way of getting Pharaoh's attention. Even after he lost his son, and turned Israel loose he went after them to bring them back into slavery again. There is no injustice here. God is the giver of all life and as such he has the right to terminate it any time he sees fit. He warned Pharaoh, and Pharaoh did not heed it, so he was punished. The children were not punished, their lives were taken, but not as punishment upon them, but rather as punishment upon the Pharaoh. Exodus 20:5 simply shows just how evil idolatry can be. Once it is ingrained in a family, it will take several generations to get it out of the family. God was telling them what would happen if they followed after idols. Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children simply means that this sin would pass down to them. Now notice the last part of the verse: "unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." This shows that the fathers would be at fault for allowing it into their families. They would teach it to their families and their families would follow after it. They would hate God, and thus God would have to punish them as well. Deut. 5:9 is the same thing as Ex. 20:5.
10. You say that God prevents people from hearing the word (Isa. 6:10; Jno. 12:39,40). Look at the people God is talking to. They are hardhearted, stiffnecked, disobedient people. As earlier stated, God will not help these people. He will allow them to live in their sin, and will send them strong delusions that they might believe a lie. These are not honest people who are looking for the truth. These are hardhearted disobedient people who care nothing for the truth.
11. You say God supports human sacrifice. In Exodus 22:2930 the word "offer" does not necessitate a "burnt offering." It simply means that these humans will be dedicated to God's service. For Ezek. 20:26 see argument earlier mentioning this passage. God did not cause them to offer their children to Molech, they did this of their own accord.
12. You say that God orders cannabalism. In Lev. 26:29, God is simply telling them what they will do. In Jeremiah 19:9 God is allowing them to do these things, because of their disobedience to him, and thus says that he is the cause of it. Again you have the figure of speech "anthropopathea." Whatever God allows is attributed to him.
13. You say that God ordered that virgins be part of war plunder (Num 31:3136). Well, I guess they could have been killed along with the others. Would that have been more humane? There was no impropriety here. No one can even come close to showing what atheists claim; that they were used as sex slaves. Even Farrell Till in our oral debate in '91 stated that he did not know for sure that that is what they were used for. Again in Deut. 21:1014 there is no violation. This woman was to become a wife; with all the rights and privileges of any Israelite wife. The nation would be taken captive, and she was to be a slave. However, if she was taken as a wife, she would not be a slave. Now just which is more humane? Deut. 22:2829 does not require a woman to marry her rapist. There is no rape here. The man finds a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he lays hold on her, and lays with her. She has something to do with this, she allows it. The man is to pay her father a sum of money and he is to marry her and take care of her for the rest of her life. He cannot divorce her because he took her virginity outside of marriage. He must provide for her and take care of her all the days of her life.
14. You say that God excuses the beating of a slave (Ex. 21:2021). Wrong again! God states that if he smites his servant and he dies immediately he is to be put to death for murder. However, if the servant continues for a day or two and then dies, he will not be put to death for he is his money. He has paid for the servants medical fees and if the servant goes ahead and dies anyway, he will not be put to death because he tried to save his life.
So where are all these awful atrocities that God is supposed to be guilty of? Well, let's see you answer the arguments I have made. You call me a coward, but as you can see, I am not. If you are so brave, why don't you sign propositions with me and let's have a real debate? Anyway, let's see what your silver bullet of reason can do to my position now.
I apologize for taking so long to answer, but I work two full time jobs plus I have other debates going on, so I will get to you when I can.

I await your response.

Respectfully, Jerry D. McDonald

OBSCENITY STATUTES

Jerry D. McDonald

Not long ago I received a package of material which was soliciting subscriptions for the humanist publication Free Inquiry, a magazine published by CODESH (Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism), and which is probably one of the largest humanist organizations extant. The material published is for the promulgation of secular humanism. The heading on the envelope caught my eye, so I opened it up. The heading was:

FUTURE SHOCK!

It's April 27, 2003. 10:30 p.m.

It's 12:01 a.m. tonight, less than two hours from now, a 30 year old woman will be put to death by lethal injection for the crime of abortion.

She'll be the first. But not the last. No fewer than 37 women inmates across America are awaiting a similar fate. Fundamentalist groups everywhere are rejoicing over their hardwon victory.

Why it could happen. Why it will happen. Why you can't afford to let it happen. What you can do about it NOW.

Inside was a subscription application along with the article from the future. However, there was also a letter from the Executive Editor to the prospect:

Dear Concerned American

Just recently, a California couple was convicted on eleven felony charges. They both face up to 55 years in prison and over a million dollars in fines. The crime? Placing a sexually explicit image on their computer bulletin board system, which a state prosecutor in highly conservative Tennessee, over fifteen hundred miles away, then downloaded over the phone lines onto his computer and used as the basis for a Federal indictment alleging "obscenity" violations....

Obscenity statutes arise out of, and are meant to impose, the JudaeoChristian tradition-a fact that is all too easily obscured by the surface appeals to defending public decency, discouraging promiscuity, upholding the dignity of women, and preventing the corruption of young minds....

Now, I have been telling the church for years that humanists are working hard to overthrow everything that's decent in our great country, and I believe that this package is proof of what I have been saying.

Not long ago Farrell Till argued, in debate with Lindell Mitchell, that atheists (secular humanists) are very moral people who do not need the Bible to tell them how to live. Brother Mitchell had given Till a scenario of what he could do to him, if there was no objective moral standard, and Till's response was:

...As I read this, I wondered just how Mitchell expects to convince rational thinkers that his position on morality is superior to mine. I don't even believe that objective (absolute) morality exists, yet I would never even consider doing any of those things to him. So I have to wonder why, if he should suddenly realize that objective morality does not exist, he would want to do them to me. Is he saying that he needs some spookinthesky to restrain him from torturing and killing his fellow man?...

So what is it with these fundamentialist preachers who envision total moral chaos in a world that doesn't believe in absolute morality? I have established many friendship and associations with atheists and skeptics, most of whom do not believe in absolute morality, yet none of them has ever said, "Well, we don't believe in a standard of absolute morality, so why don't we find a preacher, beat him up? It would be fun to inflict multiple contusions and lacerations to his head and then spoil his goods, kill his children, ravage his wife, and torture him mercilessly.' I can assure all absolute moralists that a suggestion like this would not be favorably received in a gathering of skeptics and atheists. Anyone making such a suggestion would be urged to seek professional help" (The Skeptical Review, Spring, 1994, pp.4,9).

Although nothing was said in the material from CODESH about torturing people (except it upholds abortion), morality is morality. In TSR, Till says that no gathering of atheists or skeptics would favorably receive a suggestion to commit violent acts. However, the material from CODESH was in favor of breaking obscenity statutes because they, "arise out of, and are meant to impose, the JudaeoChristian tradition." So what is the difference? Is it wrong to advocate torture, but right to advocate breaking of obscenity statutes?

Till isn't the only one who contends that atheists live moral upright lives. In our written debate on the Existence of God, Ernie Brennaman stated: "The fact is most, if not all atheists live upright lives" (The McDonaldBrennaman Debate, Brennaman's First Affirmative, p.1). There is no way to misunderstand that statement. So we can clearly see that Till and Brennaman, both, believe that atheism is a proper moral standard for men to follow. However, the material sent from Free Inquirer complained because a couple in California was being prosecuted for, "placing a sexually explicit image on their computer bulletin board," as if the prosecution had committed some terrible crime against this couple's rights.

Well, didn't the material say that our present, "(o)bscenity statutes arise out of, and are meant to impose, the JudaeoChristian tradition" which they believe are wrong from top to bottom? So, the whole thing in a nutshell is that the statements by Till and Brennaman are wrong. According to this material, atheists and skeptics do not all live upright lives, least ways, not according to what the Bible would call upright, or according to what is decent and good.

Isaiah pronounced a woe upon those, "that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa. 5:20). Isn't that exactly what this material does? Doesn't it complain because of the good that was done by the prosecutor from Tennessee (by obtaining a Federal Indictment upon the couple from California for placing a sexually explicit image on their computer bulletin board) and call that good evil? Doesn't it imply that the placing of the sexually explicit image on the bulletin board is actually good? I wonder how that sits with Till and Brennaman? Will they uphold this material as good, or will they call it evil? If they uphold it as good, then their statements are false. If they uphold it as evil, then they will be at odds with one of the world's largest humanist organizations. What will they do? Knowing both of those men, I don't think I would be out of line by saying that they probably won't even bother to take a position.

Putting Till and Brennaman aside, let's examine this material's accusation that "obscenity statutes arise out of, and are meant to impose, the JudaeoChristian tradition."

(1) Why is it wrong to enforce obscenity statutes? Isn't it immoral, to any decent minded person, to exhibit sexually explicit images for all to see? If not, why not? God made sex for enjoyment between men and women who are married to each other. Didn't God tell Eve, "thy desire shall be to thy husband" (Gen. 3:16)? Didn't Paul tell the church at Corinth, "let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife, due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband" (1 Cor. 7:2,3)? He also made sex for the purpose of procreation: "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" (Gen. 1:28). He, at no time, intended for sex to be used so cheaply: "Marriage is honorable all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will punish" (Heb. 13:4). I guess that the critics of the Bible think that since these dictates came from the Bible that they are automatically wrong. Would that mean that God's demands not to murder are wrong as well?
(2) Is there anything wrong with defending public decency, discouraging promiscuity, upholding the dignity of women, and preventing the corruption of young minds? I thought that is what we were supposed to be doing. Have we gone so far away from anything that is decent that we now argue that it is good to do evil and evil to do good?

If we didn't enforce obscenity statutes, the country would not be a decent place to live. We have come too far as it is. Nudity is shown right over the TV airways (NBC's NYPD Blues), which is something that the production company promised it would do before the show was aired. Is that good? In Dallas, Texas one woman was shown complaining because so many in the Dallas area didn't want the series to show nudity, and she said that this was the 90's and that we had come to far to be set back by fundamentalists. Is it wrong to contend for moral decency?

Well, if we can show nudity on TV, then can we walk around in the nude, out in public? If not, why not? If nudity can be shown on TV and on computer bulletin boards, then surely atheists should not complain if people decided to walk around in the nude, out in public. Do they complain about nudist colonies?

Let's take it one step further. Would it be alright for two consenting adults to have sexual intercourse in public places for all to see? Why not? I mean, it is alright, apparently, to show sexually explicit images on computer bulletin boards, and nudity on TV, and it is alright to have nudist colonies. So why not make it alright to be able to walk around in the nude in public places and even have sex with consenting adults in public places. If there is no objective moral standard, then morality becomes nothing more than a function of the human mind. In other words, whatever the human mind decides is moral is that is moral.

If placing sexually explicit images on computer bulletin boards is alright, and if showing nudity on TV is alright, and if it is alright to have nudist colonies, then logically the atheist cannot complain about people walking around in the nude or even having sexual relations with a consenting adult in public places if they so desire. Once you open the door, you can't close it. I think that the prosecutor from Tennessee ought to be commended for his actions rather than being upbraided.

_______________________________

VOLUME FOUR, NUMBER FOUR WINTER ISSUE 1994

CHALLENGE: Jerry D. McDonald, Editor; Michael Hughes, Associate Editor; Roger Barron, Consulting Editor; . CHALLENGE is published quarterly by Challenge Publications. The first year's subscription is free. Yearly subscriptions for single subscriptions are $5.00 and $4.00 for groups of eight or more.

Challenge
97 Florence St.
Sullivan, MO 63080
(Address Correction Requested)

Return to LIST

RETURN TO HOME PAGE