Answering a
Christian Fundamentalist
Regarding the Bible
>So what you are
claiming here is that the Bible is not really the word of God
>but really something made up by the Jews in
their quest for self justification.
>If this be the case then upon what
authority do you make this claim?
I responded:
Before I address your question, let me emphatically state my belief that Scripture is inspired, and that, as a result of inspiration, a magnificent revelation of God can be found in the Bible.
However, among some other differences, I strongly disagree with the claims of fundamentalists that: (1) the entire Bible is the word of God, and (2) that the OT authors always reported accurately the words of God. As I said before, I believe strongly that they sometimes reported: (1) what they THOUGHT was the word of God, or (2) the official story offered by the Israelites to justify their aggressive foreign policy, e.g. the genocide against the Amalekites which included the intentional slaughter of all the Amalekite infants. You have asked upon what authority I make the claim. I make the claim based on the authority of common sense and scholarship. Mine is the view of the OT that makes the most sense, a view that presents more than a thousand fewer serious problems than yours. And it’s the view of the vast majority of Bible scholars.
It usually comes as a surprise to fundamentalists when they learn that my view is the majority view, even among Christians and Bible scholars. Their usual response in discovering this is to triumphantly proclaim, “Truth is not decided by majority vote.” Then, having achieved in their minds some kind of victory, they don’t feel any necessity to offer any sensible comments regarding whatever is the specific issue at the time. My calm answer to it is, “Neither is truth decided by minority vote.” Since the purpose of scholarship is to discover truth, the opinion of a vast majority of scholars should not be disregarded or taken too lightly.
Regarding my reliance upon the authority of common sense:
Those who share my view are not forced to take, as you do take, the positions that the intentional killing of infants is not murder, that what happened to the Amalekites was not genocide, and that the land of the Amalekites was not stolen.
They don’t have to explain how God could have favorite people, and not have favorite people.
They don’t need to hold that God commanded people not to murder and to murder (Ex. 20:13 and 1 Sam. 15:3); not to steal and to steal (Ex 20:15 and Ex. 3:21-22); not to lie and to lie (Rev. 22:15 and Ex. 3:18-20).
They don’t have to defend the wisdom and fairness of prohibiting males with wounded testicles, or bastards and their children down to the tenth generation, from entering the congregation of the Lord (Deut. 23:1-2).
They don’t have to explain how the “word of God” could say both: 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1(Who caused David to number Israel, the Lord, or Satan?); 2 Sam. 24:13 and 1 Chron. 21:11-12 (Was it seven years of famine, or three years of famine?); 2 Chron. 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 (Was Jehoiachin eight years old, or eighteen years old, when he began his reign?); and 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18 (Was it seven hundred chariots, or seven thousand chariots?).
They don’t have to defend the death penalty for unruly children (Deut. 21:18-21), adulterers (Lev. 20:10), homosexuals (Lev. 20:13), and those who pick up sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36).
They don’t have to explain why women who have given birth (even Mary, who gave birth to the divine Jesus – see Luke 2:22) need ritual purification, and why women who give birth to girls are unclean twice as long as women who give birth to boys (Lev. 12:2-5).
They don’t have to explain the morality of the law that says that, when the rapist of a young virgin girl is discovered, the rapist shall pay the father fifty shekels and the girl shall be forced to live with the rapist as long as he lives (Deut. 22:28-29).
They don’t have difficulty explaining why, in the story of David and Goliath, King Saul hears of Jesse (David’s father) and David, sends for David to serve as a harp player to calm his nerves (1 Sam. 16:16-19), likes David very much and makes David a personal armor-bearer (1 Sam. 16:20-21), continues in personal contact with David (1 Sam 16:22-23), speaks lengthily to David concerning Goliath (1 Sam 17:30-39), offers David his own armor when David is about to go out and face Goliath (1 Sam. 17:38-39), and then does not know who David is after David returns from slaying Goliath (1 Sam. 17:57-58).
They don’t have to explain why God’s word would contain hundreds of failed prophecies, prophecies of events that either (1) never occurred, or (2) did not occur when they were prophesied to happen, or in the way they were supposed to happen.
They don’t need to explain, for example, why Isaiah 17:1 predicts that Damascus would cease to be a city and become a heap of ruins. Damascus, though it has been sacked, NEVER stopped being a city and is a city today. The present day city of Damascus includes the area of the ancient city of Damascus to which Isaiah 17:1 referred. (Incidentally, Straight Street, the only street named in the Bible, still exists in the same place as it did when it was mentioned in Acts 9:11.)
As another example, they don’t need to explain why Ezek. 26:7-12 predicts that Tyre would be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, and that Nebuchadnezzar would enter the city, plunder it, and slay its citizens. As historians know (and as Ezek. 29:18-20 admits), Nebuchadnezzar’s thirteen-year siege of Tyre failed. No ancient historian, and no modern historian of any credibility, has ever claimed that Nebuchadnezzar defeated, plundered, and destroyed the city of Tyre. The city of Tyre was not taken until hundreds of years later (by Alexander the Great), and no Nebuchadnezzar was involved.
Also, Ezek. 26:14, 21 and 27:36 predict that the destroyed city of Tyre would never be rebuilt and re-inhabited. But you can see from Matthew 15:21, Mark 3:8, Mark 7:24, Mark 7:31, Acts 12:20, and Acts 21:3,7, that Tyre was a city in NT times, and it is still a city. The island (which had contained the walled city) became attached to the mainland after silt deposited around the remains of Alexander’s wooden mole, but all the original land of Tyre is inhabited today. If you wish to check it out, you can fly to an airport just outside the city.
Ezek. 29:9-16 predicts that the land of Egypt would become a desolate wasteland, a ruin from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. It says that no foot of man or animal will pass through it, and that no one will live there for forty years. It says the Egyptians will be dispersed throughout other lands, and that after forty years they would be gathered and restored to Upper Egypt, the land of their ancestry. Egypt would be the lowliest of nations and never again exalt itself above other nations. Egyptian history is extremely well known, and scholars of Egyptian history know of no forty-year period when Egypt was a wasteland with cities uninhabited by people and animals. There was never a forty-year period of forced dispersion or captivity, and (of course) never a re-gathering following such. Egypt never became the lowliest of nations. The nations that attempted to conquer Egypt militarily: (1) were not entirely successful (usually only northern Egypt was even affected), (2) did not destroy its cities making Egypt a wasteland, and (3) never had the long-lasting affects on Egypt predicted in verses 15 and 16.
In Jer. 34:4-5 it is said that the Lord promised Zedekiah that he would die a peaceful death, and that he would be honored by a funeral pyre in the same way the earlier kings were honored. But later we read of Zedekiah’s actual fate. After being captured in battle, he was forced to watch his sons being slain. Then Zedekiah himself had his eyes removed and he was bound in chains and placed in a prison in Babylon until he died (Jer. 52:10-11). No funeral pyre in Babylon to honor him is mentioned, but, in the extremely unlikely event there was one, there is still no rational way in which the death of Zedekiah can be called peaceful.
You are quite positive that the OT authors were accurate in reporting the word of God, despite their obvious partiality. You are so sure of yourself you are even willing to condone the Israelites’ intentional slaughter of infants, claiming it wasn’t murder, but just a good deed. Do you think that the Son of Sam should have been found innocent? As I understand the case, he said God spoke to him through a dog. The Son of Sam was no more biased in telling his story than the Israelites were in telling theirs.
I have listed above only a few of the thousands of serious difficulties that fundamentalists face when they insist the entire Bible is the word of God. Occasionally one of the above difficulties, or one like them, is addressed, and a theory will be proposed in order to explain away the difficulty posed by a Bible text. Often the theories are incredibly far-fetched. Almost never does anyone address the entire picture, the many patterns of difficulties that illustrate the weaknesses in the explanation(s) of one or two troublesome Bible texts.
Fundamentalists are quite vocal in proclaiming their beliefs in the power of prayer, the reality of miracles, and the eagerness of God to intervene personally in our lives on a daily basis. But they are remarkably unable and/or unwilling to back up their supposed convictions. Why don’t they, for instance, ask God in prayer to unmistakably let all of us know which one of more than two hundred thousand versions of His word is the right one? Some versions even have several whole books that other versions don’t have. After all, if the Bible were truly all God’s word, you would expect Him to have an interest in preserving and promoting an accurate version, and to desire to make men/women reluctant to alter it. At the very least, following the production of all these versions of His word, you’d think He would unmistakably make clear to all of us which one is correct. It seems to me that this is a prayer God would eagerly answer, if any single fundamentalist Christian would dare test his/her faith by praying it, and if the Bible were entirely the word of God.
George Desnoyers
Modified 9/14/01