Back in September I posted a series of questions regarding Biblical
errancy in order for Jason Gastrich to answer them. I am still
awaiting his answer. He posted a *response*, but this did not
constitute an answer in any useful sense. What it was, was a typical
side-step that we are so used to from theists coupled with his usual
smug arrogance that his sly evasions constitute a real response to
anything.
Knowing I would get about as far with his attitude as people typcially
do with Jabriol's, I didn't bother with the thread for a while, but
eventually decided I had better not play into his empty hands by not
responding at all.
Unfortunately, when I got the time, Google would not offer me a "click
to respond" link! Now it has become important that I do highlight the
inadequacy of his response, I am hopeful that owing to the foibles of
Google, this will be inserted in that same thread.
The First Issue:
1. The Bible claims the entire universe was created out of nothing
and the Earth created and populated in a period of six, literal 24
hour successive days. Are you saying this is true? If so, please
post your three best evidences supporting such a claim. If not,
please withdraw your claim that he Bible is inerrant.
Gastrich's response was:
Casting doubt on a biblical miracle is not an error.
But he is predictably and quite simply avoiding the issue. If the
Bible makes a claim and science offers abundant evidence adequately
demonstrating the Biblical claim to be false, then this, quite
unequivocally, is a Biblical error, period. Unless Gastrich can
respond as I asked, and offer his three best evidences that the Bible
is right and science is wrong on this matter, then the Bible is in
error no matter how desperately Gastrich tries to whitewash the error.
His smug swallowing of the myth that a miracle fixed it all up but
left the evidence that scientists see to contradict the timeline is
yet another form of error! If God did do it all in six days, yet left
evidence to mislead scientists into thinking the universe is fourteen
or so billion years old, then God himself is not to be trusted, so
where does Gastrich get off putting his faith in what is supposed to
be God's word, especially when God wrote not a letter of it, instead
letting fallible men do it?
That's the biggest error of all. People like Gastrich claim inerrancy
in the Bible, but the sole thing in that book in which you can have
absolute and unshakeable faith is that it was written by humans, not
by any god. So Gastrich's faith is not in any god at all, but in the
anonymous scribes who put quill to paper, and then in every hand that
translated the stories ever since! And he now has the audacity and
arrogance to claim inerrancy?
The Second Issue:
2. Has everyone sinned or not? According to John 15:22, there were
at
least some people who had no sins until Jesus talked to them, and
from
that point on they were apparently awash in sin: "If I had not come
and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no
cloak
for their sin." But Paul, the inventor of christianity, said, "For
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Ro 3:23).
So
which is it?
Gastrich's response in this case was to try and hide the problem under
another bucket of whitewash. First he tries the standard technique of
burying it in Bible blather:
Let's read this passage. John 15:19-24 reads, (NIV) "If you belonged
to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not
belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is
why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No
servant is greater than his master.'£ If they persecuted me, they
will
persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours
also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do
not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them,
they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse
for
their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not
done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of
sin.
But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both
me
and my Father."
By the context, before and after the partial verse that you quoted,
we
see that Jesus is clearing talking about sinners (indicated by their
hate for believers). Therefore, we know that Jesus was saying, in
verse 22, that they would not "feel guilty of sin" if He did not
speak
to them, but since He did, they are with "no excuse for their sin."
No! The verse does not say "they would not 'feel guilty of sin'" - it
specifically says, as you quote, "they would not be guilty of sin".
Your convenient and predictable reinterpretation doesn't change the
fact of what's written. And your claim that because a person doesn't
like or intensely dislikes the apostles (even assuming that's true),
they are automatically sinners is nothing but self-serving nonsense.
All throughout the Bible, we see that all people have sin. This
concept isn't unique to the Old Testament, it's not unique to Jesus'
teaching, and it's not unique to the remainder of the New Testament.
In short, you misinterpreted this passage by not reading the context.
I took the passage as written. You are the one who is conveniently
(mis)interpreting it to serve your inability to answer the charge and
your dishonesty in pretending there is no charge to answer.
The Third Issue:
3. How many people were at the tomb of Jesus when it was
discovered
to be empty? Was it Miriam of Magdala and Miriam the mother of
Jacobus (according to Matthew), or was it Miriam of Magdala, an
unnamed israelite or Christian whose name became Joanna/Salome over
retellings, Miriam the mother of Jacobus, and a host of women
(according to Mark/Luke), or was it Miriam of Magdala alone
(according
to John)?
Gastrich's summary of his response
* These accounts do not contradict. First, there can be no argument
from silence. With this in mind, there are no conflicting stories,
only separate accounts. In order for a true conflict, one author
would need to say that one of the women listed, in one or more of the
gospels, was not there.
Another convenient interpretation. So we should *not* assume that
Elvis wasn't crucified with Jesus because not a single gospel says he
*wasn't* there?
* If we take these accounts literally and assume each author knew
exactly who was where at all times, then Mary Magdalene went to the
tomb first. Next, the other Mary joined her. Immediately
thereafter,
Salome joined them. After this, they returned and told the disciples
what had happened.
This is not what the stories say. They either mention one woman
alone, or a group of women all going at the same time. Your
interpretation is nothing but a self-deceit at best.
The fact is that John describes Mary alone. It does not mention
anyone else. It says clearly that she went to the tomb, found the
stone rolled away, and apparently under the assumption that the body
had gone, ran immediately to Peter and told him. It makes no mention
of her or anyone else entering the tomb as Luke has it, nor of any
men/angels in shining garments.
Mark contradicts this by having them enter the tomb and seeing only
one man. Matthew contradicts this yet again by having an Earthquake.
Matthew further has them meet Jesus along the way, which flatly
contradicts John's claim that Mary alone ran to Peter's house with the
story that the body had been taken and she knew not where it was lain.
How could she tell such a story to Peter if she had met Jesus on the
way to Peter's house?
So once again a Bible contradiction has not been even remotely
explained away. On the contrary, Gastrich has failed to address it at
all, instead substituting standard apologist blather.
The Fourth Issue:
4. Why are there two different genealogies, different names,
different
lengths, given for Jesus, one in Matthew 1, and the other in Luke
3?
And what is the point of these detailed genealogies if Joseph was
not
Jesus' father anyway?
* Genealogies were important up until the time of Jesus Christ. He
fulfilled the numerous, lineage prophecies. However, after His
birth,
life, death, and resurrection, it wasn't necessary to trace the
Jewish
lineages.
Fine, but when are you going to actually address the issue that there
are two contradictory lineages? If it were not necessary to trace
them, why are they there at all? Regardless of whether or when they
were important, they are there and they do not agree. This is an
error.
* Joseph was Jesus' father by law.
Irrelevant to the falsity of at least one of the lineages.
* There are some omissions in
the genealogies. Neither claim to be
exhaustive.
Another convenient device to avoid dealing with the error. It is your
self-serving *assumption* that they were not exhaustive. Now since,
above, you claim that if the Bible did *not* mention a person as
visiting the tomb we should assume she was there, then why can we not
assume here that, since the Bible does not say these are *not*
exhaustive, the genealogies were exhaustive? or is that loose
interpretation not convenient for *you*?
It is Luke who insists that he has had a perfect understanding of all
things from the start, yet his genealogy in 3:35-36 differs from that
in Gen. 11:12 by adding in another person so that Sala is a son in
Genesis but a grandson in Luke, who counts the intervening name of
Cainan twice. Is this not an error?
So thanks for the assurance that this *isn't* an error. I am sure we
all swallow that one.
The Fifth Issue:
5. Why does god use the word 'us' to describe himself in several
instances, such as gen 1:26, 11:7, etc?
He was referring to the Godhead (the trinity): God the Father, God
the
Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They are eternal.
So even though those characters were not invented until the New
Testament, for you, they conventiently did exist back then? Even
though the radical insistance in the Old Testament was one god, a fact
which separated the Jews from so many other local cutlures, there was
actually, confusingly, a tripartite monotheism? How convenient for
you.
The Sixth Issue:
6. Was man really made from silicon (dirt) and woman from calcium
(bone?). If so, how come they are essentially made from the same
things nowadays?
Yes. God performed a miracle as He created man and woman.
Once again you have completely avoided the issue, which was the
errancy of the Bible in claiming human males are made from dirt but
human females from bone. While many women may agree with this
assessment, science can find no evidence of it, yet the Bible insists
it's true. How is this *not* an error?
The Seventh Issue:
7. Which generation was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?
This word for "generation" is also translated "age." Jesus was
referring to the church age that we are still in. The church age
began in the 1st century.
Sure - that's why in Mark 8, using the same word, Jesus admonished a
group of pharisees, refering to them as "this generation" and telling
them they will not see a sign.
Of course it *would* be translated that way, conveniently for you.
But it also has other specific meanings which make more sense in the
"greater context" of everything Jesus was supposed to have said (for
example Mat 10:23, where he talks of his return as being during the
lifetime of those alive then), so where is your authority for
translating it so conveniently when Mat 16:28 (and Luk 9:27)
specifically narrows it down: "Verily I say unto you, there be some
standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of
man coming in his kingdom." Is that the church age too? Are there
people alive now who were also alive when Jesus was supposed to have
said this?
The Eighth Issue:
8. Just what did the inscription on the cross say, since there is a
different description of it in each of the gospels. Are all of these
differing inscriptions inerrant?
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matthew)
"THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Mark)
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Luke)
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" (John)
In this case, we have four authors recording similar things. It is
altogether possible for this to happen. If you were to have four
people see a crime or something emotional, they would surely give
stories with differing details. Therefore, it is likely that one is
correct and the other contain omissions. They all contain "The King
of the Jews."
In other words you have just admitted that the Bible is indeed errant
in recording words that must have been (were any of this true)
emblazoned in the minds of all those who were his followers and saw
this on the cross. Yet here we have four people who were supposedly
eye witnesses, recording supposed actual events, plagiarising each
other's material, inspired by a god, but who could not agree on what a
simple sign said. It's an error and you have implicitly admitted it
here, yet you do not have the courage and honesty to admit to it
forthrightly.
Are we supposed to take these same writer's words for everything else,
even events they were not witness to, especially when we really don't
even know who the writers of the gospels were? If they cannot get
even something this simple correct, how are we supposed to rely on
them for much more critical and complex matters, upon which they also
disagree? Right, Sure. Whatever you say.
The Ninth Issue:
9. If Jesus' "death" on the cross destroyed the devil, as Hebrews
suggests (Heb 2:14: "...he also himself likewise took part of the
same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of
death, that is, the devil.") why is he still alive and well today?
This verse indicates that Jesus destroyed the Devil's power over
people. It doesn't indicate that He literally destroyed the Devil.
Another convenient escape for you. "Katargeo" means to render idle,
to abolish, to cease, to destroy or do away with, to render
ineffectual, to bring to nought, to vanish away or make void. So this
doesn't mean he effectively destroyed the Devil? And even if it
didn't, the fact is that the Devil is still alive and kicking if we
are to believe modern day Jeremiahs, so once again the question is not
answered. Since the Bible's claim that Jesus' mythical death on the
cross defeated evil, yet there is still evil, the Bible clearly is
errant. This actually marks the second time that this Christian god
tried to wipe out evil and failed. The mythical Noahic flood was the
first.
The Tenth Issue:
10. Why didn't Adam die "in the day" he ate of the tree of
knowledge,
as God had predicted in Gen 2:17?
* The death Adam suffered was separation from God and imputed sin to
his descendants. This Hebrew word for death can be used
figuratively,
so literal death was not the punishment for his sin.
Once again the convenient Gastrich "can be" clause. How useful for
you. And are you your own authority on this? Because in this
instance, Strong's is pretty literal about this both being the day
(meaning that very day upon which it happened) and die, meaning
literal death. So your opinion must remain that - a self-serving
excuse for pretending this is not a contradiction.
(It was not me who posted this next one about the sins of the fathers
being visited on their children, I merely gave the reference that
Gastrich demanded. here is his response):
* Exodus 34:7 states that the "iniquity of the fathers" will visit
their children . . . to the fourth generation.
And this is from a god who is supposed to be longsuffering, full of
love and kidness. Yeah. Right. I'll buy that.
Deuteronomy 24:16
states that the son shall not be put to death for the father's sin
and
the father shall not be put to death for the son's sin.
But this is precisely what the Bible insists will happen since, if the
sins of the father are visited on the children, and the children die
very young, they will go to hell for something they never did.
Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?
* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the
smallest seed. He said it was the "least."
According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated
as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try
again.
Untrue. Trying reading Strong's, again. "Least" is clearly
mentioned
as one of the definitions.
Once again Gastrich equivocates to get out of having to admit to yet
another Biblical error. Even if we do use the Gastrich "Convenience"
Translation (TM) of the Bible and accept "least", it still means
smallest. What other meaning could it have? And once again it
*isn't* the smallest. The seeds of the epiphytic orchids are the
"least" of all seeds. The Bible is wrong. Period.
Budikka failed to present anything that was unique. These alleged
contradictions have been floating around the internet for years and
are easily clarified. Would you care to tell us where you got them?
Or was it a coincidence that you regurgitated the same ones?
Yes, they are if you conveniently and freely translate the Bible using
the word that most suits your interpretation regardless as to whether
it belongs or fits in context, and then also conveniently ignore other
important points raised.
Budikka
P.S. I didn't see this message until today, but I was happy to
correct and explain your misunderstandings.
.
