A careless omission...
Jeffrey Wolfe's letter and your reply prompted me to write this one. His disjointed style may be characteristic of others in the same vein you've received, but as his address is Montreal, I couldn't help but wonder if French might be his primary language.
The second item is that in your reply you quoted a couple of Mr. Wolfe's statements that I didn't find in his letter as printed. The two quotes are, "Yes, there are contradictions in Scriptures but not here," and, "(t)he contradictions are to trip up people like you." Since you claimed you published Mr. Wolfe's letter just as he wrote it, I'm wondering if something dropped out by the time it made it to print. I've experienced this on occasion myself.
I enjoy and appreciate your work. I read every newsletter front to back as soon as they arrive.
(Wayne Orlicki, 39682 Wild Flower Drive, Murrieta, CA 92563-5842; e-mail, worlicki@pe.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Yes, I did make a careless omission when I typed Mr. Wolfe's letter from a handwritten copy. I omitted the final paragraph and didn't notice it until Mr. Orlichi called it to my attention. I referred to the handwritten letter in making my reply, so that is why I mentioned comments Wolfe had made in the paragraph I omitted. Here is the paragraph as Wolfe wrote it.
"Yes there are contradictions in scriptures but not here. The contradictans are to trip up people like yourself- you know a stumbling stone- you have elevated reason to an unreasonable height- Of course you are already- dead- in the spirit- when you do pass on the brain is no longer and your soul will have nothing to taste but bitterness you fool."
As for the possibility that the poor grammar, spelling, and punctuation resulted from Wolfe's writing in English, that may be the case, but I doubt it. Having worked as a missionary in France, I had the opportunity to learn French, so I have some familiarity with the way that a French person not entirely fluent in English would express himself. I didn't see indications of this in Wolfe's letter. The original copy, however, does show signs of writing done so hastily that punctuation was omitted, sentences were run together or separated with hyphens, and ideas were dashed off as sentence fragments.
The Jonah legend...
In the mailbag section of the November/December 1999 issue of TSR, you said this about the modern-day Jonah legend: "Newspapers as prestigious as The New York Times had been duped into publishing the whale story as `news.'" Some well known authors have also been duped. Enclosed is a photocopy of a column in the August 16, 1981, issue of Parade magazine in which the well known Wallace Family of authors reported the modern-day Jonah story as factual.
Another author, Frank Edwards, included the modern Jonah story in his book Stranger Than Fiction. It was published by Lyle Stuart, with seven printings from 1959 to 1967. The Bantam paperback edition also had seven printings, from 1967 to 1973. That's a lot of books promoting the whale legend!
There is a big difference between the urban legends and the modern-day Jonah story. Most urban legends don't have personal names, specific locations, and dates, but the modern Jonah story has all of this and more. Other than being very unusual, it has the details of a historical event. In his book, Frank Edwards says the following is on the tombstone in Gloucester, England, of the sailor who was swallowed by a sperm whale in 1891 and lived: "James Bartley, 1870-1909, a modern Jonah." I can understand how Edwards, the Wallace family, and others were duped.
(Don Robertson, 644 Walnut Street, Rock Hill, SC 29730-5851)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The Wallace family that Robertson referred to consists of Irving Wallace, the novelist, and his children David and Amy. David wrote The People's Almanac series under the family's real name, Wallechinsky. According to the photocopies from Parade that Robertson included with his letter, Amy Wallace claims to have psychic skills of clairvoyance and healing.
I would be curious to know if the tombstone of James Bartley, referred to in Frank Edwards' book, actually exists, because the research of Edward Davis, which I detailed in "A Legend in His Own Time" (January/February 1999, pp. 2-5,11), showed rather conclusively that this James Bartley in the whale legend never even existed. He wasn't listed on the "crew agreement" (contract) that Davis found in his research, and the widow of the ship's captain said after this legend had begun to circulate that "there is not one word of truth in the whale story." She went on to say, "I was with my husband all the years he was in the Star of the East. There was never a man lost overboard while my husband was in her. The sailor has told a great sea yarn" (TSR, January/February 1999, p. 5). Those interested in the article that Davis published to debunk this myth can find it in Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, December 4, 1991, pp. 224-237.
Subscriptions for relatives & friends...
I just received your first issue of TSR, and I am enjoying it thus far. I am still somewhat of a Christian studying these things out. I have started talking to my sister about some of these things. I was wondering if you could send my sister a subscription also or would she have to contact you? It would be appreciated. I think I am beginning to see that I and many people have been tricked! My sister's address is below (deleted). Thanks a lot!
(Jim Brown, RR1, Box 92, Waveland, IN 47989; e-mail, jbrown01@tds.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm always glad to hear that TSR is helpful to those finding their way out of religious superstition. I do send the free subscription to those whose friends and relatives request it. In the case of Mr. Brown's sister, it seems that she will know who has requested the paper for her, but those who request subscriptions for friends or relatives who haven't expressed any interest in studying the biblical inerrancy issue should notify them that you have asked that TSR be sent to them. This would reduce chances that the paper will be sent back with an angry demand to be removed from the mailing list.
Chuck Missler....
Well, it's been several months now and I have quit trying to get Chuck Missler to debate much less to even acknowledge a message. Chalk it up to another one that cannot defend the faith. I tried.
I would like your permission to run a series called "The Best of Till" in my newsletter starting this month. Please let me know if you have any objections, requirements, or concerns.
Good stuff on the life and crimes of David in the last issue. Is there a commandment he did not break?
(John Hill, 1210 C Potters Road, Kettle Falls, WA 99141; e-mail jhill@plix.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Chuck Missler is a pulp apologist, who, in my opinion, makes Josh McDowell look downright scholarly. Missler's web site was the source that Michael Bradford quoted in the September/October 1999 issue (p. 8) in support of the view that the 3rd-century B. C. translation of the Septuagint would have required the book of Daniel to have been written before the 2nd century B. C. In this issue Bradford acknowledges that Missler is probably an unreliable source. This time, Bradford quoted Hank Hanegraaff, President of the Christian Research Institute, who had asserted that Chuck Missler is "notorious for peddling factually flawed information" (p. 9).
This is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, but I cite the information just to show that Missler doesn't have a great deal of respect even in the ranks of pulp apologists. With my permission, John Hill had been trying to arrange a debate with Missler on biblical inerrancy, but as Hill's letter indicates, these efforts were apparently unsuccessful. I'm not at all surprised, because I knew from my own efforts to arrange debates with "apologists" like McDowell, Archer, and Geisler that these fellows are interested only in peddling their wares to the already converted and will avoid situations where they would have to defend the Bible against an informed opposition.
Hill asked for permission to republish some of my materials. I allow anyone to do this as long as the address of TSR is included so that those who want additional information will know where they can obtain it.
Medieval atrocities...
In TSR, Issue 6 for 1999, a Mr. Goldberg imprecisely referenced in a letter the large number of atrocities in much earlier centuries. I recently completed a book, Why They Kill by Richard Rhodes, who illuminated the work of a little-known criminologist. A chapter of that book explores extensively the violence in medieval times. Copious references are included. The book also has several paragraphs on how the fundamentalist doctrine of "spare the rod and spoil the child" can be a contributing factor to today's violence.
In all, the book was surprising and very enlightening and possibly might have use as a reference in your excellent and comprehensive work.
I am an exile from the Church of Christ via Presbyterianism. I've been a subscriber to TSR for two years. I echo the praise of several of your correspondents regarding your dedicated efforts and my disentanglement from biblical folderol. As yet though, I have not found a satisfying "fellowship" among the skeptic/freethinker/atheist "community." One cannot breakfast together via e-mail, eh?
(Ken Cornelius, 600 Sanders Road, Birmingham, AL 35226-1509; e-mail, KROSCornAL@aol.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Goldberg sent a follow-up letter in which he reported that he had found the article he had remembered from the "Week in Review" in the New York Times. He said that it can be accessed at http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s211a.html. Goldberg noted in his second letter that democracy and freedom are "exclusively humanist ideas" and that "anyone who makes the claim otherwise is either quite ignorant or is into myth perpetuation out of the most dire necessity." I've asked my library to find Rhodes's book that Mr. Cornelius recommended.
I'm always glad to hear from someone who escaped from Church-of-Christism, since that was the particular brand of Christian folly that caught me in its tentacles. In my opinion, Mr. Cornelius has identified a major problem in the freethought movement, i. e., a lack of satisfying "fellowship," but we are too scattered to do much about this at the time except to schedule regional or national meetings occasionally. I hope that this will improve over time as our numbers increase when people living in technological times find it increasingly difficult to believe that absolute truth was discovered by a tribe of iron-age desert nomads.
Divine foreknowledge...
I just ran across a "doozy" from a Christian fundy in an internet forum that you might want to keep in mind in future articles and debates. (Forewarned is forearmed.) He said that those "anachronisms" were put in there as evidence of god's divine foreknowledge, and should be added to the list of "prophecies"!
Go figure!!
You might want to keep in mind or address that sort of "argument" (nonfalsifiable as it is) in your future articles.
(Yes, we still have snake handlers here and more than our fair share of fundies.)
(Doug Newman, Louisville, Kentucky; e-mail, kdoug@bluegrass.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm familiar with this "explanation" of anachronisms. Stephen Van Eck, in fact, addressed this "solution" to the problem in his article about the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (September/October 1999, pp. 2-3, 16). Biblical inerrantists are experts at postulating far-fetched, how-it-could-have-been explanations to remove biblical discrepancies. Some have even tried to remove the problem of virgin-born, resurrected saviors in pagan religions that antedated Christianity by claiming that prior to the birth of Jesus, Satan had devised pagan stories similar to the life of the yet-to-be-born son of God so that when the real thing finally did come, people would consider him just another virgin-born savior. If one is inclined to believe religious nonsense, there seems to be no limit to the absurdities that he/she will accept to justify clinging to nonsensical beliefs.
As wonderful as an orgasm...
I am a Christian, at least I was. I read most of your articles and debates with much excitement for it confirmed to me what I tentatively knew was true. I have been on a quest for truth for four years now, a search which started when I was fourteen. I have read the Bible twice through, and although I noticed many of the discrepancies I was willing to put them aside for the sake of psychological and intellectual security. That is the only thing that I am ashamed of now.
I cannot, in all honesty, say that I share your atheistic views, but the one thing that is certain to me is that if there is a god, she/he is definitely not the Christian God. Right now I am in the agnostic phase, which will almost inevitably give way to atheism. For now I revel in my doubts and ignorance.
I know you hear of this a lot, but I have to declare it simply because it happened to me and I am quite the egotist. The freedom from dogma and horrible theology that I have experienced is indescribable, almost mystical. If there was one thing that Jesus was correct about, it was that the truth would set one free. And the feeling is as wonderful as an orgasm. I do hope you are not the prudish type.
After that long discourse I would not be surprised if you are wondering why this e-mail has the above subject matter. Well, I caught sight of the word free next to subscription and I thought to myself how delightful it would be to get this wonderful magazine for absolutely nothing. Yes, I admit it; I am cheap. I am also a recent graduate (admittedly from high school) who earns minimum wage. So I hereby tender my application for a free subscription of The Skeptical Review. Thank you for your consideration.
(Atieno Odak, 14920 Gagely Drive,Apt 2, La Mirada, CA 90638; e-mail, lwandamagere@hotmail.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: A few have complained about publishing so many letters like this one, but a common fear that I hear from those who are in the early stages of doubt is that their lives will be filled with gloom and doom if they give up their religion. My own experience and the overwhelming testimony of those who have done the same is that the opposite will happen. The person who faces reality and admits to him-/herself that religion is just superstition will find much greater satisfaction living as a rational person.
As weak as any other prick?
To Whom It May Concern: Maybe I should change the title of that, because you obviously are not concerned with anyone, or anything, because of your actions. First of all there will always be war, pestilance [sic], famine, and especially natural disaters [sic]. What gives you the right to leech off of that!
There are people who pray for those things not to harm them personally, and hope for the best for other people. Without our help, and the help of God, people will always suffer. I don4t [sic] know what makes you think htat [sic] you can take advantage of the fact that they will always be. I challenge you to ask God yourself, nobody will be able to convince you better of that fact taht [sic] he does help better than Him [sic]. If you do not accept my challenge, then you are as weak as any other prick who tries to say these things.
(Mary Belnap; e-mail, belnapmary- @hotmail.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: This letter came to me by e-mail in response to something I had evidently written somewhere. I tried to communicate with Ms. Belnap, but she didn't respond. Needless to say, I am very impressed by her Christian conduct, but those who engage in internet activities know that such anger and language as hers are not at all uncommon among those who claim to be Christians.
Although I don't know specifically what article or internet posting she was reacting to, she missed the point entirely. The fact that pestilence, disease, and natural disasters exist and have always existed is inconsistent with the claim that the world was created by and is under the control of a benevolent, loving deity. Furthermore, in recognizing that tragedies like these have always happened, Ms. Belnap shows the folly of those who see such events as signs that we are living in the "last days." Religious fanatics have always thought that the world was going through the "last days," but it's still here. The fanatics are still here too. It seems that they, like disease, pestilence, war, and natural disasters, will always be with us.
A servant of Jesus Christ...
I am writing in response to your comment about balaam [sic]. I humbly disagree with your logic. I just want to say that you are completely without understanding to be writing about balaam [sic], a man who loved the wages of unrighteousness. Your article clearly shows that you don't even know the basis of the things for which you speak, and I would appreciate it--as would other Christians--if you would keep the subjects of what you write about limited to those things which you do understand. I am tired of authors and philosophers and other people who only open The Bible in order that they may criticize or judge God's Holy Word.
If any man disagrees with The Word of God, it is because that man is ignorant and knows nothing. God's Word is Truth and endures Forever.
(Jason Shick, servant of Jesus Christ; former e-mail, jashick@webtv.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Here's another amateur apologist who read a TSR article on its web site and then fired off an angry note. Efforts to communicate with Shick failed. I first sent him requests to send me his mailing address so that I could publish his letter, but these requests went unanswered. After sending him an offer for free space in TSR to publish any rebuttal argument he might want to submit, other e-mail correspondence was returned as undeliverable. Shick had changed his e-mail address.
Speculation is not eisegesis?
I recently received the January/February 2000 issue of The Skeptical Review, in which was contained your rebuttal to my comments on the book of Daniel entitled "Speculation is Not Exegesis" (page 4). In that regard, we agree that speculation is clearly not exegesis. Indeed, the published manuscript that I submitted which you published, entitled "A Simple Dispensational Exegesis of the Book of Daniel" (pages 2-4), contains a clear distinction between speculation and exegesis. Immediately prior to the subtitle "Discussion" is the phrase: "Herein, a dispensational exegesis of the book of Daniel is used...." Immediately after the subtitle "Stumbling Blocks" is the clause: "Although the preceding dispensational exegesis of the book of Daniel [illustrates that within the text it is obvious that Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian empire in 539 B. C.]...." Clearly, therefore, the content between these two statements was intended as a simple exegesis. The remainder of the document is clearly speculation, as is evident by the terminology used throughout that portion of the text. In that regard, it must be asserted that speculation is not eisegesis, contrary to what you allege in your manuscript.
Speculation is neither exegesis nor eisegesis. Regardless, prior to my submission of anything else in the future to The Skeptical Review, I will attempt to minimize all speculation. If nothing more, this should significantly reduce the volume of any submitted text.
(Michael C. J. Bradford, Ph.D., 12 Clematis Avenue, Waltham, MA 02453; e-mail, mbradford@ceramem.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I have to disagree with Mr. Bradford. Since exegesis is the process of taking from a text the ideas that are communicated by the language used, then postulating interpretations that are unjustified by the language would be eisegesis, which is a process of reading into the text ideas that the language does not communicate.
On page 2 of this issue, my continuing response to Bradford begins, in which I show that it is not "obvious" from the text that the writer of Daniel thought that Babylon had fallen to a "Medo-Persian" empire.
Sacrifices to demons and idols...
In your article on human sacrifices you referenced Psalm 106, where the writer condemned the Israelites for sacrifices made to demons and to the idols of Canaan. You also referred to Ahaz making his sons "pass through fire" (2 Kings 16:3). Here it isn't clear just what god was the recipient. When you refer to Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6) doing the same with his son, it appears (vs. 3-5) that he was sacrificing to Baal and to the stars, rather than to Jehovah. When the people of Israel sacrificed their sons and daughters (17:17), it's clear that they also were doing so for Baal and the stars. When the Israelites were again condemned for such practices in Ezekiel 16:20, it was for sacrificing to idols they had made.
Human sacrifices to the LORD were specifically approved of, in Leviticus 27:28-29, when a person dedicated some person or some animal in his household. In such cases, the person or animal is said to be "most holy to the Lord. No one devoted, who is to be utterly destroyed from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death" (RSV)
Devoting one's servants or children to the Lord wasn't a requirement, but once the promise was made it was irrevocable (Deut. 23:21-23). This was possibly the dilemma in which Jephthah found himself.
(Neil Slater, 17910 West Spring Lake Drive SE, Renton, WA 98058; e-mail, agnostical@msn.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm certainly in agreement with Mr. Slater and didn't mean to leave the impression that I thought the Bible was claiming that Yahweh was the god to whom children were sacrificed in the passages I cited. The fact that the psalmist said that the children were sacrificed to demons and idols would make that rather clear. In the matter of Ahaz and Manasseh, the writer said that they had walked after the manner of the kings of Israel and the nations whom Yahweh had cast out before the Israelites, so this would certainly indicate that their human sacrifices were made to other gods. I also agree that Leviticus 27:28-29 probably alluded to a time when human sacrifices were offered even to Yahweh. At the very least, the passage teaches that humans who were "devoted" to Yahweh "from among men" would "surely be put to death" (v:29), and that doesn't say a lot about the moral character of the god whom the Israelites worshiped.
Like precocious children...
My favorite version of the urban legend is the Jack Chick classic "Big Daddy." The courageous Christian stands up to the evil evolutionist professor and, with bogus assertions that anyone familiar with logic, rational thinking, and the evolutionary sciences could (and constantly do!) refute, nevertheless renders the hell-bound evolutionist into a gibbering, apoplectic fit of impotent rage and despair.
The courageous Christians in these urban legends remind me of precocious, petulant children trying to "correct" adults but only end up making themselves appear silly.
Darwin on Trial and Reasons to Believe are two such attempts by such "precocious children" that fall under that category. Puerile, grossly flawed "reasoning" by lay people, who have never studied the subject, is presented as truth that can't be refuted by even those who are educated in the subject.
It is often the case that the "irrefutable arguments" are so blatantly absurd that they do not merit refutation. Just how many times will a scientist refute a courageous Christian's false claim that "the Second Law of Thermodynamics invalidates evolution" before just giving up?
(David Rice, 723 Calle Casita, San Clemente, CA 92673-2708; e-mail, shydavid@ktb.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Everyone has seen the types Rice mentioned above. The day before I wrote this, the Peoria (Illinois) Journal Star ran letters from three writers who objected to an earlier article about evolution. I know two of the writers personally and therefore know that neither of them has any credentials in science that entitle him to speak with any kind of authority, yet they both pontificated on the falseness of evolution, with the usual nonsense about "micro-evolution" and the second law of thermodynamics. My last three letters to this paper were never published, yet one of the writers complained about the "liberal media" that favor those who seek to discredit the Bible. He has made the same complaint to me in private letters.
Van Eck's reply to Sears...
I'm happy to comment on Clarence Sears' letter in the previous issue. I'd like to clarify that Babylonian (and Persian) influence on Judaism was part of an evolving process over time, while the Pentateuch was produced rather early in the captivity (before Persian influence especially came to bear) in a desperate effort by the priests to prevent assimilation and loss of identity. To the extent that Judaism as we now know it was strengthened and preserved, they succeeded, but to the extent that it was eventually transformed by these alien influences, they can be said to have failed.
Satan, as the near-Supreme Being of Evil that he came to be for Christians, was the result of the later influence of Persian dualism. In Job, however, it's clear that Satan is not the devil! Here Satan was allowed to come and go from the presence of God and work on a mission from God, but according to Christian theology, the devil is permanently banished from heaven, and to accept that he would be doing God's bidding would be to concede that God is evil himself. So it's clear that the concept of Satan has undergone a radical change.
Originally, Satan was the accuser of man in the heavenly court, sort of a prosecutor. This function was so unwelcome to the people that when Persian concepts of angels and demons spread among Babylonian Jews, Satan came to be understood as a devil, even as the Prince of Devils who worked in opposition to God (instead of as his agent). This concept developed in the apocryphal literature, and despite the fact that this literature is noncanonical, it was highly influential in how later Judaism, the New Testament, and Christianity understood "the devil." The common belief that devils are fallen angels who rebelled against God, and who now comprise an alternate kingdom of evil, is from late Enochian literature, as is the retroactive identification of the serpent in Genesis 3 as Satan himself. In the original Babylonian myth, it was merely a snake.
Babylonian influence is noticeable but not overwhelming in the Pentateuch. Despite the end of the exile, though, Babylonia remained the capital of world Judaism for several centuries. Continued Babylonian influence, and especially Persian, came over time, and was essential to the development of the misbegotten cult we know as Christianity.
(Stephen Van Eck, RR 1, Box 62, Rushville, PA 18839-9702)
Time-Life Books...
TSR may not be devoted to humor but it nevertheless contains an occasional chuckle. The January/February 2000 issue contains one courtesy of Michael Bradford. He cited a Time-Life Books publication in support of his biblical inerrantist stance. If a more smug, self-satisfied bunch of biblical religion biased, uh, people (I am struggling to keep my language within acceptable bounds) exists, I have not met them. It would be interesting to know how much of their bias is motivated by actual belief and how much is lip service dictated by the circulation department. I personally take them for a flock of sanctimonious hypocrites.
Concerning Atheists in fox holes, I have met a few and am sure there were many who kept it to themselves. I know for a fact that there was at least one atheist on a destroyer. I have met him, and he is me.
(David L. Nelson, 3944 Chickory Road, Racine, WI 53403; e-mail, dnel@execpc.com)
TSR and the internet...
Enclosed is a check to renew my subscription to TSR and to help with the free subscriptions to inmates. I would also like to thank you for all you do on the internet and with TSR. Your Errancy list and TSR have helped me a lot in reinforcing my decision to deconvert. They have both helped me to be educated so that I might educate others.
(Julia Rivers, 6525-5 Stoney View Lane, Simi Valley, CA 93063)
Advice to Hutchinson...
If Roger Hutchinson would bother to consult two or three excellent translations of the Bible before shooting from the lip, he would make less of an ass of himself. I'm flabbergasted by his claim that Genesis 36:31 is referring to Egyptian kings! It's almost funny.
The problem is that Roger, like other amateurs, has become fixated on one translation of the Bible. He then squeezes out meanings that were never intended. Oh, sure, "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" might conceivably refer to Egyptian domination. It might also refer to the kings of Israel. The best way to clear up such ambiguities in the Bible is to consult several excellent translations. If one meaning is clearly intended, the different ways translators handle it will make the point obvious. So, let's look at a few translations of Genesis 36:31:
"Before there were any kings in Israel..." (Today's English Version).
"These are the kings who ruled over Edom before there were kings in Israel..." (The Revised English Bible).
"These are the kings who reigned in Edom before an Israelite king" (The New Jerusalem Bible).
The New Oxford Annotated Bible, of course, gives the traditional rendering. However, the footnotes make it clear that nobody is talking about Egyptian kings!
For the rational mind, that settles it. We have four groups of expert Bible translators here who have produced scholarly, world-renown translations. All four use the interpretation arrived at by Stephen Van Eck. Too bad, Roger, that you shot off your mouth and accused him of "inventing difficulties with the Scriptures in order to justify conclusions that [he] could not otherwise support." Funny, that you should accuse him of taking verses out of context to create a misinterpretation. It's odd, that you should accuse him of undermining the integrity of the text "because he wants a certain outcome." Tragic, that you should accuse skeptics, in general, of distorted logic. Have you looked at a mirror lately? In your relentless attack on honest minds, you have aptly described your own condition.
(Dave Matson, editor, The Oak Hill Free Press, P. O. Box 61274, Pasadena, CA 91116; e-mail, 103514.3640@compuserve.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: As I said in my reply to Hutchinson in the January/February 2000 issue (p. 10), it is the epitome of absurdity for Hutchinson to accuse skeptics of having an "agenda" that makes them "slant their investigation to achieve the conclusions they seek," because only someone with an inerrancy agenda could tie himself into knots as Hutchinson repeatedly does to "explain" discrepancies in the biblical text. His "kings of Egypt" was one of his most extreme examples, but we see that he is back again on page 5 of this issue with another far-fetched how-it-could-have-been designed to eliminate a prophecy failure from the mouth of Jesus himself.
I have often said that biblical inerrantists are their own
worst enemies, and Hutchinson has repeatedly proven me right on this.
If he wants to hang himself, I'll continue to give him the rope to do
it. One of his articles does more damage to the biblical inerrancy
doctrine than I could do with a hundred articles.
