I have read nearly every article in TSR since I first discovered you on the internet 3 years ago, and I truly appreciate the service you provide for truth seekers everywhere. You have opened my eyes to the lunacy of the inerrancy position, and you do it in a classy, intellectual way.
However, I have found the more recent TSR entries to be a tad bit too arcane for "average" lay readers like me. I have been reading about the early versus late dating of the Book of Daniel in several TSR editions now, and this latest one (May/June) appears to be almost entirely devoted to that subject. While I understand the relevancy of this pursuit, I am not convinced that the more casual reader will find this particularly interesting, or relevant to the subject of inerrancy. In fact, over the last year or two the pages of TSR have generally contained a lot of technical, academic quibbles over the language used by biblical authors and the interpretations thereof, but there has been precious little space devoted to the ridiculous contrasts between today’s mainstream Christian thought and the barbaric, vapid world views of the Bible’s authors.
For example, I’d love to hear a discussion of how Yahweh, who reputedly personifies Love, can say he actually hates some people (Malachi 1), and that his love has run out (Hosea 9:15). Or how about an exposé on God’s many endorsements of slavery throughout the Bible, with passages instructing slaves be treated as "property"? And with today’s fundamentalists attempting to euphemize many of Paul’s sexist writings, I should think a plunge into the subject of God’s flagrant misogynist views would be insightful. Or how about commenting on the cultlike phallic preoccupation of the Bible’s authors (circumcision, priestly penile perfection, etc.), or the ridiculousness of seminal, menstrual, and (God-forbid!) mildew uncleanness, and the overall hygienic ignorance of the Bible’s authors. Then there’s the moral dilemmas relating to war, xenophobia, and war crimes (such as God’s instructions to "take" virgin girls as spoils of war) that seem so out of place in the contemporary perceptions of God’s supposed mercy and grace. And I'll bet few people know about a passage in the Book of Exodus, chapter 21, which suggests God doesn’t view fetuses as fully human, or of similar worth as adult humans (since only a fine must be paid if one kills a fetus, but with nonslave adults the penalty is "life-for-life"). How tantalizing would that be -- demonstrating God is not "pro-life"?
So what I’m asking is: Would it be possible to shift to a more cultural/theological approach in the denunciation of the biblical inerrancy position, rather than the current heavy emphasis on technicalities and linguistics? The early years of TRS certainly had this cultural/theological emphasis, but in the last few years there’s been a dearth of articles like these. Is there a reason for this? Do you find your readers prefer exegesis?
Again, thank you for creating TSR. It truly is helpful for those of us former inerrantists who thought we were alone when we first started reading the Bible with skepticism.
(Rick Cina, 310 Jackson Street, Morrisonville, IL 62546; e-mail, rlcina@chipsnet.com)
Editor's Note: No, I really don't think that readers prefer the types of articles that have been featured in TSR the past two years, and no one has been more concerned about this than I have. I began TSR with an open-door policy that would permit biblical inerrantists to defend their positions. That policy, however, was never intended to give inerrantists a forum to do essentially nothing but quote or cite fundamentalist sources that agree with their positions. Despite many requests for inerrantist contributors to remember their responsibility to defend as well as quote, those requests were ignored by Everette Hatcher. I decided to publish his last article, which I had to divide into three parts, but he was served notice that no more of his articles will be published if they do little more than just patch together quotation after quotation or string together long lists of books and articles with no real effort to defend the positions of the authors being quoted. Such articles are tediously boring, and I will no longer impose on the patience of subscribers by giving a forum to writers like Hatcher who know how to quote but don't know how to defend.
This is not to say that I will no longer publish articles from Hatcher or others who have relied primarily on almost endless appeals to fundamentalist authorities. If they want to submit articles that actually engage in serious forensic attempts to state arguments for inerrancy and then develop those arguments, they will find me receptive to their articles, but there will be no more Archer said this, Thiele said that, and so on to the point of tedium that ends up quoting and quoting but never really proving anything in the string of quotations.
I apologize to subscribers for having imposed on their patience. There may be more articles on the Daniel issue, because some have felt the need to defend themselves against charges and misrepresentations that Hatcher made about them. If he wishes to reply, he will have to reply with logical argumentation and not Colless said, Wiseman said, Shea said, and so on ad nauseam. These writers must understand that we want arguments and not quotations of what biblical fundamentalists think.
E-mail exchange with Colless...
I have been reading some of your material in which you seek to establish that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Great were the same person. Do you have any evidence in support of this theory other than the possibility that waw could be used in an explicative sense in Semitic languages? Your materials that I have been reading cite examples from Ugaritic texts, but I am eager to know whether you know of any examples in Aramaic where this idiom was used. Isn't Daniel 6:28 in the part of Daniel that was written in Aramaic? If so, I'd like to find some support for this view in Aramaic texts.
Editor's Note: I sent this e-mail message to Dr. Brian Colless a fundamentalist professor in New Zealand, who was the primary author whom Hatcher quoted as proof that Darius the Mede and King Cyrus of Persia were the same person. His reply is immediately below in unitalicized print.
Right, it is in Aramaic, but the example of Pul/Tiglath-pileser (in Hebrew) is in the Bible, and if the Bible is inspired and inerrant, why look further?! It is a common Semitic phenomenon; that is my argument.
Second Editor's Note: This reply from Dr. Colless is a good example of why Hatcher's quotations from writers like Colless are completely worthless. First of all, he ignored the request for a supporting example in Aramaic rather than Hebrew, so I assume that he knows of no Aramaic text that would support his "explicative waw" theory, but more significant than that is his obvious belief that there is no need to look beyond the Bible for supporting evidence of one's belief. How can those who are more critical in their reading have confidence in the judgment of someone who basically says, "The Bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it"? The attitude that Colless expressed here is why I took the time in one of my replies to Hatcher to report the fundamentalist affiliations of the sources he was relying on.
Patience with inerrantists?
I have been a subscriber for several years and am continually amazed at your patience and your meticulous replies to so many inerrantists and their absurd arguments and replies, even pausing to correct grammar and spelling. I couldn't restrain my own impulse to reply to Mr. Hatcher and thought you might find it of interest.
(Nick Gatz, 470 Riley Avenue, Worthington, OH 43085-3039; e-mail, NickMGatz@aol.com)
Editor's Note: Maintaining civility with biblical inerrantists who cling to positions that have obviously been proven wrong is hard to do. It is easier to do it in this forum, where articles exchanged with them will be spread out over several months. It is much harder to be civil with them in internet debates where messages may be spaced only an hour or so apart, and hundreds may be exchanged within just a few days. I have a low threshold for illogical argumentation. When I encounter biblicists who cling to positions that have obviously been proven wrong, I think back to my own days as an inerrantist preacher and wonder why they can't see the absurdity of their beliefs when they have before them much more evidence than I did.
In fairness to inerrantists who submit articles, I must say that theirs are not the only ones that require correction and editing.
Mr. Gatz's letter to Hatcher is immediately below. I am publishing it so that Hatcher may see that others beside Wildish, Matson, Sierichs, and I can see that his dependence upon stringing together fundamentalist quotation after quotation as "proof" of inerrancy in Daniel has accomplished nothing except to convince readers that he has no real evidence to offer.
A letter to Hatcher...
In reference to your "Daniel" defense in The Skeptical Review of March/April 2001, someone must have done a terrific job brainwashing you for you to believe so steadfastly that a book written over centuries by different writers is inerrant and the word of God. In defending that absurdity against, Farrell Till you are in way over your head. I marvel at his patience in the face of your pathetic apologia. Don't you realize that your writing and citations are naive and sophomoric beyond belief? I can see that and I've had only one bible course.
It seems you've abandoned your reason. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Man surrendering his reason (as you apparently have) has no remaining guard against the most monstrous absurdities, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
Time to move on?
I just got around to reading the May/June issue of TSR, and I noticed on the back the address for the Age of Reason books. (Someone in PA) To the best of your knowledge, are these still available? I'd like to order a copy.
In reference to the authorship of Daniel, one point that you haven't emphasized over the past several issues is the genre of much of Daniel, especially the last 6 chapters. It's apocalyptic nature points toward a Maccabean-period origin. From my own studies, this particular genre originated and proliferated during this era. Of course, the fundamentalists should also consider that there are two extant versions of Daniel, one in the Protestant Bibles and the other in Roman Catholic Bibles, which feature the Deuterocanonical (apocryphal) version. The two stories of Daniel in the Lion's Den are quite different, and the apocryphal version includes the story of Susannah and the two "dirty old men" and the silly story of Bel and the Dragon. Also, the apocryphal version has ca. 66 more verses in chapter 3 (the "fiery furnace" narrative) than does the Protestant version....
The Daniel thing, after so many rehashings is getting to be a "dead horse." Time to move on, don't you think?
(Dave Hooker, P. O. Box 8584, Kansas City, MO 64114-0584; e-mail, Dav581081@aol.com)
Editor's Note: Yes, I think it is time to move on, and Hatcher and cohorts who accept his view of authorship should know by now that no more of their articles will be published unless they can go beyond quoting evangelical sources and present arguments supported by solid evidence that the author of Daniel was a 6th-century B. C. official in the royal courts of Babylon and Persia. Another subscriber told me in a phone conversation that it was hard to read Hatcher's endless lists of books and articles without falling asleep. I again apologize to subscribers for having given to Hatcher far too much leeway to impose on their patience.
As for Thomas Paine's book Age of Reason, it is still available at the cost of $5 per copy postage paid. It can be ordered from Wet Water Publications, RR1, Box 62, Rushville, PA 18839-9702)
Freed from faith...
Thanks for your fearless publication. I say fearless, because for over 10 years I was a victim of religious scaremongering, having been converted by the International Churches Of Christ. It takes courage to question deep-seated beliefs, with the fear of hell and damnation tormenting the natural processes of reason. However, I am thankful for your ongoing work. Just sitting back from the hype of Christianity and analyzing its core documents (especially the gospels) has freed me from superstition and fear. One need not even bother to waste time on the myriad of church doctrines. A careful study of the texts upon which their beliefs are based proves beyond any doubt that the gospels cannot be inspired. Hence, the proud-mouthed authoritarians who control the churches have no real insight or wisdom.
I now view faith as the most overrated virtue. I still believe in a creative power, but that is about as far as my doctrine goes. Ritual cannibalism and blood drinking, hymn singing and worshipping a child murdering deity no longer play any part in my life. Thank you for referring your readers to Is it God's Word? by Joseph Wheless. What an eye opener!
Even though I no longer attend church, I study the Bible with a greater intensity than ever before! I look forward to every issue of TSR, devouring it like food. Thanks for taking a stand. It must have taken courage to step out of your Church-of-Christ background, because I know the intensity of their indoctrination methods.
(Daren Willcock, 143 Cavendish Road, London SW12 9RQ, UK; e-mail, darenwillcock@hotmail. com)
Editor's Note: I print letters like this in order to keep readers reminded that ex-Christians are almost universal in saying that they found relief in being freed from superstition and fear. In western society, people are indoctrinated from childhood to belief that "faith" is good and skepticism/atheism is bad. Those who finally can take the absurdity of religious faith no more eventually come to realize, as Mr. did, that faith is an "overrated virtue." If other towns are like the one I live in, the people selected for civic honors like citizen of the year are almost always praised for some religious connection, such as member of such and such church board, or a Sunday school teacher at this or that church, or a YMCA/YWCA official, etc. We are a long way from ever bestowing civic recognition on people for having had the courage to rid themselves of religious superstition.
The book by Joseph Wheless is not perfect by any means, but I still consider it a good reference to have for those interested in researching biblical discrepancies. It is out of print but a reprint can be obtained for $34 from Rob Marks, Bookseller, P. O. Box 350, Rockford, IL 61072-0350.
The timidity of skeptics...
I have been reading The Skeptical Review for about two years. This is my first acknowledgment of how much the little newsletter means to me. My reaction on reading my first copy was one of great relief. I knew there were many people out there who had views similar to mine, but I seldom had any contact with them outside of the books they have written. Skeptics are a timid lot. Like me, I guess they are so completely surrounded by conventional wisdom at best, or at worst the fundamentalist perspective, that they are afraid to rock the boat. I live in the deep south, the Bible belt, the buckle of the belt, it seems, Rincon, Georgia. In this region there is a church on every block. Seldom does anyone openly question the "wisdom" of the church. It is depressing just how much folks in this neck of the woods take for granted the power of churches over the human condition without even a hint of skepticism. When there is a little criticism it is superficial. Absolutely no one, it seems, would ever charge the church/religion/ bible with the immorality it is guilty of on a weekly basis through its acceptance of, if not advocacy of racism, gender discrimination, abuse of power, disregard for truth, hypocrisy, etc., etc. Thankfully you have had the courage to speak up. I for one greatly appreciate your work and worry that it will not continue when you are gone. It seems to me that if man is to prevail (mostly over his own folly) he absolutely must become more open and free with his intellectual pursuits.
Question: How did you acquire the patience, not to mention the stamina and courage to discuss biblical minutia with the intellectual likes of Mr. Hutchinson? And, it strikes me that the Bible, Torah, and similar aged documents are so mythical, imaginary and made up that to discuss their inerrancy (the little that seems to be there) is to imply truth where there is none. On the other hand to cut off communication, as I might impulsively do, serves no good purpose at all. I think, somewhere in here I will eventually uncover more of my own intellectual or reasoning deficits. In any case, thanks from me for the work you do.
(Tom Broom, P. O. Box 327, Rincon, GA 31326-0327; e-mail, Rach226042@aol.com )
Editor's Note: I don't know that I agree that skeptics are timid. I think rather that they have allowed themselves to be intimidated. I have been approached in public many times by people, usually business owners, who look around quickly to see if anyone is in hearing range before they tell me that they agree with what I have written in letters to the local newspaper but that they dare not let this be known. They fear retaliation from "Christians," who may boycott their businesses. I suppose their fears are justified, but unless skeptics become more willing to take the risks that come with their skepticism, the situation that makes them fearful will remain unchanged.
As for the patience to discuss biblical minutia with inerrantists like Roger Hutchinson, an article on page 9 of this issue accuses me of having no patience at all. Why I bother to discuss biblical matters with inerrantists is easy to explain. I don't do it with any illusions that I will convert Hutchinson or Hatcher or other biblicists who contribute articles to TSR. I do it for the benefit of readers who may be teetering back and forth between the desire to believe that the Bible is "God's inspired word" and the suspicion that a book filled with inconsistencies probably isn't what they were taught to believe it is. The more people come to see the absurdity of the biblical inerrancy belief, the less likely biblicists will be able to impose that belief on the public through their efforts to influence legislators. I'd be content to let the Roger Hutchinsons of the world wallow in their ignorance were it not for the threats that they pose to basic freedoms through legislators whom they may influence. The more people in the general public who are able to see through the claim of biblical inerrancy, the less influence this belief will have on our society.
A shift in policy?
I have been reading The Skeptical Review almost since its inception. I was introduced to it by Frank Lovell, with whom I had a number of discussions about religion back in the days when computers connected to bulletin board systems. He thoughtfully provided me with a subscription and copies of all of the back issues. I let my subscription lapse and thought little more about it until I happened across your web site and noticed that you were posting your work there. I caught up on back issues and now read them when they are posted. (My only regret is that they aren’t posted more quickly. This is August and the March/April issue just appeared.)
The reason I am writing is because I am concerned about what seems to be a trend in your writing (and that of your other contributors as well). In the very first issue of TSR you wrote the following:
"At no time will we be found admonishing our readers to "believe in God"; we won't even get involved in the theism-atheism controversy. Being primarily agnostic in our convictions, we will leave this matter to those who are far more sure of their positions (on both sides) than we could ever be." (TSR, Volume 1, Number 1, 1990).
In the beginning you were fairly faithful (if I may use that term) to this commitment. However, over time the tone of your writings has shifted from an ostensibly neutral stance to one of overt hostility. This hostility has been directed not just to those who cling to inerrancy, but in recent issues, has been directed toward Christianity in general. The use of "the misbegotten cult we know as Christianity" in the March/April mailbag, in a letter from Stephen Van Eck, one of your regular contributors, is but one example. I also point to the series of articles dealing with atrocities and who gets the blame for the most. In a publication devoted to a "critical examination of the Bible inerrancy doctrine" (ibid.) and whose "editorial purpose will focus in each issue on an important religious matter -- the doctrine of Bible inerrancy" (ibid.), these articles seem woefully out of place.
Having said this, I still believe that your publication is worthwhile because of its efforts to debunk Biblical inerrancy. I applaud your efforts even while I am dismayed at the way that you (and your contributors) seem to believe that the only two choices available are fundamentalism/inerrancy or freethought. As a Christian, one who believes that it is possible to accept both the fullness of what scientific thought has to offer and the fullness of life that is available through Jesus Christ, I believe that there is a "middle way" that avoids both extremes. I have no qualms with saying that the Bible has errors, because I believe that the Bible is a record of God’s revelation of God’s own self to humanity. That revelation is mediated through fallible human beings using fallible language and transmitted by fallible means through the ages. Indeed it takes more faith to believe that there is still truth in the Bible and that said truth can be found despite the fallibility of those who wrote it than it does to believe that the Bible is inerrant.
My belief in the ability to accept both the truths of reason and the truths of faith is built on the assumption that there are different "realms" of knowledge that are accessible to the individual. One of these is the rational realm and is the source of truths such as "2+2=4" and "e=mc2." The other is what I call the "nonrational" realm and is the source of truths such as "Beethoven’s 5th Symphony is a beautiful piece of music" and "I love you" -- truths that are outside the boundaries of reason and yet provide no less truth for being so. I also act from the belief that reason can give us all of the factual information we may desire (and possibly even more than that). But it can never provide us with the answers to the questions that are most significant for human beings -- the "why" questions that dwell in our innermost selves.
Should you feel that any of this is worth publishing in TSR, please feel free to do so.
(Steven D. Brown, 912 Pennsylvania Avenue, Jeffersonville, IN 47130-5749; e-mail, earedel1@ juno. com)
Editor's Note: Mr. Brown's letter is the
subject of the frontpage article in this issue, so I can be brief in my
comments here. TSR articles
can be accessed at the infidels.org internet site, but I am not the one
who posts them. I just send the articles to someone else who converts
them to html text and puts them onto the web site. I don't know what is
involved in doing this, but it is all volunteer work that is done when
the other party has time available. The web site has always run a few
issues behind, so those who are eager to keep up with what is currently
being discussed in TSR should subscribe to the hard copy. The
subscription rate is reasonable enough that the average person should
be able to afford it.
