This is one of the most expensive Skeptical books on the market (60 dollars) aside from a related volume by McKinsey (that sells for 146 dollars!) and it is hard to justify the price. McKinsey has no qualifications whatsoever in any Biblical field (in issue #4 of his newsletter he says that he has "a bachelor's' degree in philosophy and a master's in the social sciences"), knows no Biblical languages, and has no relevant training; he works only with his "plain reading" of the texts to offer his critiques.

In a few places McKinsey disdains the use of extra-biblical sources to aid in understanding the Biblical text, and often quotes more than one English version to prove his point, without any concern for what might be reflected in Greek or Hebrew. McKinsey is also skilled at debate tactics, which he uses to obscure his errors and lack of cogent argumentation.

For this review, we will provide some general comments to start, followed by a chapter-by-chapter "answer key." We will not cover chapters beyond our concern (such as claims of contradiction in Mormon and Muslim scriptures).

General Observations

• Much of the content of EBE consists of "argument by outrage."
• Repeatedly in EBE, McKinsey offers answers with the qualification that "most scholars say" what he claims, but he seldom if ever names any scholars. The few times that McKinsey does name sources, they are from sources no more qualified in Biblical interpretation than he is - Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Bernard Shaw, Gerald Sigal, Shmuel Golding, Joseph McCabe, etc.

  On the other side, his Christian sources are mostly "anti-contradiction" pieces by the authors like of McDowell and Henry Morris, but even these he barely uses, only quoting points that he agrees with and seldom responding to their arguments. (For example, he quotes the introductory material in John Wenham's Easter Enigma in regards to the difficulties of harmonizing the resurrection narratives, but does not even deal with the harmonizing data that Wenham offers - much of which answers objections that McKinsey brings up.)

• The EBE bibliography is nothing short of inadequate: One would expect a book with 548 pages that claims "encyclopedic" treatment of an issue to have more than just 3 pages of source listings.

On Jesus' Existence

• McKinsey endorses the notion of the Christ-myth (that Jesus did not exist). His chapter on the secular references to Jesus includes all of the mistakes we pinpoint in our material here, plus many more that are rather obscure.
• On Josephus, McKinsey opts for the "interpolation" theory for both passages, adopting the "all or nothing "approach derided by Charlesworth. There is no hint that McKinsey is aware of the works of Thackery, Feldman, or any other Josephan scholar.
  
• 19 objections are called out against the Testimonium Flavium. 4 of the 19 object to phrases in the Testimonium that are recognized as interpolated. Several items (4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-18) repeat what we have already dealt with elsewhere (here). Here McKinsey incorrectly asserts that Josephus "was always careful to have a logical connection between his statements." This assertion is directly at odds with the findings of certified Josephan scholars who recognize that Josephus was a "patchwork" writer, not a careful one.

  Item 8 simply quotes Joseph McCabe's opinion that "it is astonishing to find a single theologian left in our time who accepts (the passage as genuine)." This amounts to McKinsey quoting himself as an authority: McCabe is no more qualified to assess a Josephan text than McKinsey is.

  Item 10 notes the Arabic version of the Testimonium and says that it "bring(s) the validity of the entire passage into doubt," which is exactly the opposite conclusion asserted by Josephan scholars, who take the Arabic version as a confirmation of authenticity.

  Item 12 objects that the Testimonium is "not found in early copies of Josephus," which is false as stated: It is found in EVERY extant copy of Josephus that we have.

  Item 14 cclaims that "in the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius." Interesting if true, but all we are given here is a phantom fact, with no source cited whatsoever.

  In Item 19,: Mckinsey reports that Edward Gibbon and "many theologians" think the Testimonium is a forgery. Aside from being merely an argument from authority, we can ask: Is Gibbon, an 18th-century writer, and unnamed, unnumbered "theologians" any basis for authority here?

  On the small passage, regarding James the brother of Jesus, McKinsey registers 4 objections. Two of these we have covered in our major essay linked above.

  Item 3 claims that "it is extremely doubtful that James is understood by Josephus to be the physical brother of Jesus, since brotherhood might very well mean only that he belonged to the Jesus sect or was one of the brethren." This objection has no basis in fact at all: McKinsey has provided no support (such as parallel usage of "brother" by Josephus in other citations).

  Item 4 simply lists four "Christian scholars" who think that the passage is a late interpolation. If this is an argument, we could name 20 times as many who are of the opposite mind.

• Regarding Tacitus, not even one Tacitean scholar is cited or consulted. 6 objections are offered in EBE (a few more, from the newsletter, we will look at also). Some of these we have already dealt with, including item 13, which quotes the 18th-century writer Dupuis, and Item 5, which suggests that Tacitus may have been referring to "any one of the many other so-called Christs" in Judea - which is beyond reasonable, since as we have noted, none of these pretenders went by such a title.

  Item 1 says that "the worshippers of the sun god Serapis were also called Christians and could be referred to." Tacitus connects the Christians with a specific person in Judea, and wrote about the worshippers of Serapis elsewhere; his care for accuracy mitigates against such confusion as suggested. But an alert reader has informed me that the ultimate source for this argument is a work by Robert Taylor called the Diegesis, which quotes an alleged letter of Emperor Hadrian to his brother-in-law Servianus, which states:

  Egypt...I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about every breath of fame. The worshippers of Serapis are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis, call themselves bishops of Christ.

  This cite has many problems with it.

  First, it is generally dated around 134 AD -- much too late to prove what McKinsey wants it to prove.

  Second, there is more to the quote: It goes on to speak of rulers of Jewish synagogues, Samaritans, and presbyters of the church, and Hadrian says that there are none of these "who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures," and though they proclaim allegiance to either Serapis or Christ, their only real god is money. Hardian's objection is about a syncretistic, huckster environment and offers no evidence of a bona fide use of the term "Christian" by Serapis-worshippers.

  Finally, there are many problems with the authenticity of this letter: An authority as liberal as Walter Bauer (who would have loved to have used this letter for his case for a diverse Christianity) notes that this letter is actually quoted by Flavius Vopiscus (a historian writing in 300 AD), who in turn is said to be quoting Phlegon, a freedman of Hadrian. Bauer himself says the letter is of "uncertain value" and regards it as "spurious." (See Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity.)

  Item 2 objects that Tacitus nowhere else refers to Christians. This is hardly meaningful: Tacitus was not writing a history of Christianity; he was concerned with Roman political history and the deeds of the Emperors. Why should Tacitus have made further mention of Christians? (Although a fragment preserved in Sulpicius Severus indicates that Tacitus did mention Christians in a part of his Histories now lost to us.)

  Item 4 objects that there is no record of the Crucifixion in Roman records. McKinsey fails to mention that we have no Roman records from the time of Jesus concerning any judicial execution performed by a provincial governor -- or for that matter, any record of anything from a provincial governor's office.

  Item 5 then objects (oddly) that there would have been no need to mention an insignificant event like the Crucifixion in Roman records. This may or may not be true, but it is beside the point, and no barrier at all to Tacitus' proficient research capabilities.

  Item 6 says that "most scholars admit that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any degree of fidelity." That's all it says. Who are these "scholars"? Not the Taciteans, who have said no such thing.

  Item 7 objects that the confessions the Christians made was to setting the fire, not being Christians, so that the issue "is probably not one of persecuting Christians for what they believed but it was a mere police procedure." Not quite: Tacitus makes it clear that the Christians were singled out precisely because they were hated for what they did as members of a new system of belief.

  Item 9, referring to the punishments delivered unto the Christians, says that "death by fire was not a form of punishment inflicted at Rome in the time of Nero," so McKinsey asserts that the descriptions of Christians being used as living torches has "little title to credence, and suggest(s) an imagination exalted by reading stories of later Christian martyrs."

  McKinsey is clearly unaware of the fact that, according to the Roman law for arson, being burned was the proper punishment, in line with what was prescribed in the Ten Tables.

  The newsletter adds the objection that "[t]he victims could not have been given to the flames in the gardens of Nero, as Tacitus allegedly said. According to another account by Tacitus these gardens were the refuge of those whose homes had been burned and were full of tents and wooden sheds. It is hardly probable that Nero would have incurred the risk of a second fire by his living torches."

  This is an odd objection that presupposes ancient people were unable to keep fires contained. Even assuming this cite to be correct, fire was always needed for light at night and for cooking. They assuredly had the technology to contain a fire to a limited area.

  The newsletter also adds, "Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments Nero took particular care that no lives should be sacrificed, 'not even those of condemned criminals.'"

  This was no "public entertainment" Nero offered, and McKinsey provides no cite (ironic, since McKinsey regularly objects when Christian commentaries do not provide exact data); an alert reader pointed me to a passage in Suetonius' De Vita Caesarum section XII, which is probably the source:

  "These plays he viewed from the top of the proscenium. At the gladiatorial show, which he gave in a wooden amphitheatre, erected in the district of the Campus Martius within the space of a single year [58 C.E. -- added by editor], he had no one put to death, not even criminals."

  This refers, yes, only to public entertainment, and to only one particular year and place, which was before Nero insane.

  Item 10 objects that "the Roman authorities had no reason to inflict special punishment on the new faith." This particular argument is best answered by reading Wilken's The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. There was plenty of social reason why authories (and many others) would persecute Christians. But let us recall as well that at this time, Nero was not in the most reasonable frame of mind.

  Item 12 responds to the idea that the passage in Tacitus cannot be an interpolation because it is in perfect Tacitean style and language. McKinsey asserts that "there is no 'inimitable' style for the clever forger, and the more unusual, distinctive, and peculiar a style is, like that of Tacitius, the easier it is to imitate."

  McKinsey is wrong on every point. Not even the cleverest forger could achieve such a likeness to Tacitean style as would be required for this passage.

  The newsletter adds, against Tacitean scholarship and with no support at all, that the passage "has nothing distinctively Tacitean about it". Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" has found out that this is actually from Arthur Drews' work Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus. McKinsey doesn't even credit his source.

• On the letter of Pliny, out of 7 objections, here are the ones we have not handled in here.

  Item 4 objects that "the passage implies Trajan was not acquainted with Christian beliefs and customs" even though there were Christians in Rome. It implies no such thing; perhaps McKinsey thinks that Pliny's detailed descriptions indicate that he is trying to inform Trajan's ignorance; but why should the fact that there were Christians in Rome mean that Trajan had to know what they believed? Even if Trajan was informed enough, Pliny here, recall, is recounting in detail what he did because he is not sure if he has done the right thing - so you can bet he was going to get VERY detailed in order to keep himself covered.

  Item 6 objects that this letter "is found in only one ancient copy of Pliny the Younger."

  What is the point here? That it is not in OTHER copies? That we have only one ancient copy of Pliny's letters period? If we're trying to say that this passage is a forgery, then McKinsey will have to do a lot better than citing reputed "experts" from the 16th century (as he does in Item 7) who said that the letter was forged.

  McKinsey adds that the age before Tertullian was "notorious for Christian forgeries" - let me add to that, that the 16th through 18th century was notorious for "experts" declaring this or that ancient document to have been forged. The entire works of Tacitus were once regarded as such.

  In Item 2 McKinsey says, "if this passage is referring to Christians, then it is also saying that Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims."

  Where does McKinsey get this from? He gets it by quoting the letter of Pliny exactly as follows:

  ...I therefore deemed it the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave women whom they call deaconesses. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition...the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse [by them] are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere, though til recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it.

  The ellipses in the middle cover a multitude of sins, however. Here's what McKinsey left out of the quote. After a further word about the proceedings, Pliny writes:

  For this contagious superstition is not confined to the city only, but has spread through the villages and rural districts. It seems possible, however, to check and cure it. It is certain at least that the temples, which had almost been deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred festivals, after a long intermission, are again revived, while there is a general demand for sacrificial meat, which for some time past had met with few purchases.

  The indication here is that pagans are the ones doing the sacrifices - not the Christians. McKinsey has so badly handled the sense of this letter that he must either be making a deliberate fabrication or else he did not consult his primary source.

Some additional notes from Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" --

On Josephus in the Biblical Errancy newsletter:

McKinsey: "This passage is so obviously spurious that it is astonishing to find a single theologian left in our time who accepts it." Interestingly, McCabe goes on to talk about his idea that the passage originally contained a reference to Jesus that was cut out by the interpolator and replaced by what we have today. This cuts straight against McKinsey's intent. (McCabe cites no scholarship in the Josephus section whatsoever, not even those he finds astonishing in its support. In the Introduction by E. Halderman-Julius, an atheist, we read "THE scholarship, immense and convincing, of the present volume will enlighten any reader" - how's that for false advertising!) Thus McKinsey is using deceptive sources, which furthers the deception.

Several of McKinsey's points on Josephus are simply copied from Remsburg, and several from the Tacitus section are from the Diegesis without citation.

Tacitus #15 BE newsletter -- Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians took their denomination from Christ which could apply to any of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, including Christ Jesus.

This comes from Thomas William Doane, Bible Myths And Their Parallels in Other Religions, Appendix A [imagine putting arguments about whether Christ exists in an Appendix! Most of it is culled from the Diegesis, it is rather obvious since no one but Taylor would translate "nominis" as "denomination". (Ann.XV.44)]

Item 7, about the victims being given to flames in Nero's gardens, is straight from Hochart's thesis extending the work of JW Ross which Fabia called "ingenious guesses".

McKinsey makes several points in his newsletter from the Diegesis regarding Johannes de Spire and how the fidelity of the passage rests on him, etc, (item #24) - he says the passage was "first published in the annals of Tacitus in the year 1468" - well he's wrong, it wasn't called "the Annals" then, it was called "the Cornelius Tacitus" and comprised both Annals and Histories, and the two works were split in the following century - only when they were recognised as separate works was the text where our passage is found termed the Annals.

Now about manuscript origins: Taylor in the Diegesis says that the manuscript de Spire worked on was eighth century (p393, although Taylor cites no source for the date and appears slightly doubtful about its age) - JW Ross' argument was that Poggio Bracciolini forged the entire thing in the 1420s, so to use both Hochart (relying on Ross) AND Taylor, despite the latter's doubts, shows McKinsey contradicts himself.

The fact that he uses brief statements without arguments (4(c) on Justus is word for word from Remsburg) and arguments by authority (e.g. citing Renan on Jesus' bio when Renan almost fully approved of the Testimonium!) in his *conclusion* makes me wonder, what was he doing in this compilation?

Miscellaneous Summary

• On the Canon: Mckinsey devotes less than five pages to the canon and its development. We are offered a statement by an author of unstated qualifications, Schmuel Golding, who says that in 397 AD, "the church fathers compiled the New Testament...collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. They decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made should be the word of God and which should not."

  This statement, McKinsey describes as "accurate but succinct." Well, he is half right, and if you have already read our material in here on the compiliation of the canon, it will not take two guesses to say on which half.

• On the JEDP theory: Light is made of the inerrantist doctrine that only the autographa (original manuscripts) of the Bible were inerrant. How is this linked to the JEDP (Documentary Hypothesis) theory of the composition of the Pentateuch? Noting McDowell's observation that no one has ever seen the alleged documents J, E, D and P that the Hypothesis is based upon, McKinsey writes:

  Talk about blind faith! McDowell has the unmitigated temerity to allege that no one has seen these documents (JEDP)...when that is precisely the position of Bible adherents....

  ...(McDowell's) attack is directly applicable to the Bible. Nobody has ever seen the originals.

  Aside from neglecting the other complexities and problems with the JEDP theory, McKinsey here makes a basic category error: The hypothetical JEDP books are not in the same league with the books of the Bible. We do not have originals of either one, but we do have copies of the latter. All we have of the former is a theory - there are no copies or originals. McKinsey is comparing apples and oranges.

• On textual criticism: Those who have read our material are by now familiar with the basic principles of textual criticism. McKinsey is not, as these statements regarding our wealth of NT manuscript evidence show:

  ...the more extant manuscripts the greater the problem becomes because no two manuscripts anywhere in existence are exactly alike.

  If you have a verse in which five thousand manuscripts say it says one thing, while four thousand say it says another, why assume that the five thousand are more correct than the four thousand?

  The more variations on a story that are submitted, the less chance one has of reconstructing what really occurred.

  McKinsey is here mixing together a great many category errors and coming up with conclusions that Biblical and general textual critics alike would find outrageous.

  No, the greater number of extant manuscripts does not make the problems greater; we do not find incidences of 5000 mss. saying one thing and 4000 another, or anything close to that; and even if we did, there are standard methods of determining which version was the original or closest to it.

• On internal quotations: One common answer to charges of error in the Bible is to note that when the Bible quotes someone, it is illicit (except when the speaker is God or Jesus) to cite it against another statement in the Bible with which it conflicts, for inerrancy only maintains that the person's words are reported accurately, not necessarily that what they say is true.

  McKinsey, in the 159th issue of his newsletter, was called on this point, and it is instructive to read his answer:

  If that transparent defense were allowed, every erroneous statement in the Bible could be attributed to the character who made it rather than the author of Scripture who is supposedly God. If Moses, David, Solomon, Paul or Peter made one of their usual absurd remarks, you could just say, "Well that's just them speaking, not God." In that event, the inerrancy of Scripture would be all but decimated and every reader would be unrestrained with respect to which parts can be attributed to characters within the Bible as opposed to the alleged author of Scripture itself. In trying to save the Bible you have all but destroyed its credibility. You say, "Job 7:9 is Job speaking, not the author of Job." How do you know it's not God speaking through Job? After all God is allegedly the author. What is your criterion for determining when God is speaking as opposed to one of the characters in a book written by God who is merely speaking for himself?

  McKinsey goes on to restate the above again and again in different words, but piling on makes an argument no more effective. Beyond that, his warnings of impending chaos and decimation are a chimera: Unless such abuse actually does happen, and unless he proves that there is a wide-ranging (not merely occasional) difficulty in discerning attributions of words in ancient documents in general and Scripture in particular, he is merely making a vain appeal.

  Likewise his "How do you know it wasn't God speaking through Job" argument is no more than his "How do you know Lazarus did die" argument (with regards to the difference between his resuscitation and Jesus' resurrection; see below) in a different form.

• On original languages: Many alleged problems in the Bible come about because of the inadequacy of English in bringing across ideas given in the original Hebrew and Greek. This does not mean that we need to know Hebrew and Greek to understand the Bible, but it does mean that we may get more out of the Bible if we know the original languages - just like we are likely to get more out of Wagner's operas if we know German; and, if we are going to offer objections, then we had better well know what we are talking about before we do so.

  McKinsey knows nothing about the original languages of the Bible, and so in many places makes rather outraegous statements as a result. For example, he uses the Galatians 6 "burden contradiction."

  Strangely, on this topic, McKinsey calls for ideological support from the "KJV-only" camp, which produces such statements as, "You need Greek grammar like a baby kangaroo needs a cradle." Well, yes: If one wishes to remain drinking milk and ignoring solid food, the analogy is appropriate. But if you wish to be an advanced student of the Bible, it is a good idea to learn something about Hebrew and/or Greek, just as a student of Wagner had better learn something about German.

  In the 6th issue of the BE newsletter, McKinsey quotes Robert Ingersoll -- who was also not an ancient languages specialist -- for support: "It has been contended for many years that no one could pass judgement on the veracity of scripture who did not understand Hebrew. This position was perfectly absurd. No man needs to be a student of Hebrew to know the shadow on the dial did not go back several degrees..."

  Ingersoll here commits the classic fallacy of apples and oranges: That particular instance is not one where language is at issue, but both he an McKinsey have raised objections where language was at issue.

  I believe McKinsey's true attitude towards this subject is revealed when he says, "Disputes in these matters are never-ending and often boring."

• On the Crucifixion: Citing Mark 8:34, the famous "take up your cross and follow me" passage, McKinsey asks: "The obvious question is, what cross? There is no cross to take up. jesus had not yet died on the cross...So any reference to the cross before the Crucifixion would have made no sense to anyone unless they knew the future."

  We do assert that Jesus did know the future, but as for those he spoke to - does McKinsey realize how common crucifixion was in the ancient Roman world? Even without knowing the future, it would have been quite clear to anyone hearing these words at the time that Jesus was indicating, "If you follow Me, be prepared to do so, unto death."

  McKinsey's notion that "take up your cross" could "mean any one of a large number of things" [48] is without basis. We have a very obvious and direct sociological context for Jesus' comment; every person listening would have known exactly what Jesus meant when he said this.

  In the 80th issue of the BE newsletter, a writer pointed this out to McKinsey, who then claimed then that Jesus "was referring to a specific cross, not crosses in general, and that was the cross on which he was going to be killed. But that cross couldn't possibly be a symbol until after he died on it. There was no Christian cross when he spoke to this man; the cross was not a Christian symbol until after the crucifixion. Consequently, for Jesus to tell a man to pick up a symbol which did not yet exist is absurd. The man would have had no idea what Jesus meant unless he knew the future."

  There is not a single thing in the context of the verse that requires that Jesus be referring to the cross as a "Christian symbol" -- and I find it rather ironic here that McKinsey fails to note what Dan Barker already has, that the cross was not a Christian symbol until quite some time after the NT was composed.

• On the Resurrection: In his first chapter on Jesus, McKinsey asks, "Why would the Resurrection be of significance to begin with, when other people rose from the dead before Jesus?"

  Who are these "other people" who were raised? McKinsey lists, among others, a dead child raised by Elijah; Samuel raised by the witch of Endor; Elijah raising a child; Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration; Matthew's dead saints, Jairus' daughter, Lazarus, Tabitha, and Eutychus. "So," McKinsey concludes, "emerging from the dead is of no real consequence. Paul attributed immense importance to what had actually become a rather bland event." (!!!)

  Let us be generous here and allow for the category error of including Samuel and the Transfiguration episode in the lists of those raised from the dead. How many people do we have? McKinsey lists nine individuals plus the resurrected saints (probably less than 20 in that batch). From this he deduces that resurrection was "actually rather a common occurrence. Rather than being hailed as a fantastic event, common sense would lead one to believe that it would have been greeted with a resounding yawn followed by 'So what else can you do?' "

  Common sense? Aside from the fact that, contrary to McKinsey's assertion made several times in the 68th issue of the BE newsletter, Paul is not placing emphasis on the resurrection and citing it is unique simply because it happened at all, 29 people raised from the dead, most of them within the span on Jesus' time on earth (and as a result of His ministry and/or life events) and the few left in a span of over a thousand years, would lead to a "common sense" resolution that being raised from the dead was no big deal?

  But of course the key answer to this whole issue is that in Jesus' case (and probably that of Matthew's saints, an incidence connected with Jesus' own resurrection) the "raising from the dead" was done by means of the "glorified body" -- this was the only true resurrection; the remainder were either resuscitations (Lazarus, Tabitha, Jairus' daughter -- note that Greek terminology used to describe resurrection is not applied to any of these) or else some manner of appearance (Samuel, Moses and Elijah). They were not resurrections at all. The concept of resurrection during this period, and the fundamental difference between it and the other "raisings from the dead", needs ot be considered.

  A comment from the 106th BE newsletter shows that McKinsey is unaware of this distinction: "Both Lazarus and the widow's son died and they both came back to life. That constitutes a resurrection. If the authors choose to view this as a revivification rather than a resurrection, then so be it; Jesus was revivified too. There is no difference." A comment from Chapter 5 of EBE is of the same vein; speaking of the comment that others recorded as brought back to life were resuscitated, not resurrected, it is written [91]:

  This defense is little more than an act of desperation. The fact is that they were dead, just as Jesus was dead according to Scripture. So if they were resuscitated, then so was he. If he was resurrected, then so were they; there's no difference. Have apologists no decency, no intellectual integrity?

  To which we may reply, has C. Dennis McKinsey no knowledge of the Jewish concept of resurrection, no desire to do the research needed to differentiate between a resurrection and a mere resuscitation?

  In the 68th issue of the BE newsletter, James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries added a point that the others named [and here I would exclude Matthew's saints] died again, which does relate to the point about the uniqueness of the glorified resurrection body over and against the other instances. McKinsey replied by saying asking, "where is the evidence showing that it's 'clear' others 'lived on and died a natural death?' White is obligated to provide chapter and verse. Otherwise it's merely conjecture. Nowhere does the Bible clearly state these people died again."

  The readers of these texts were expected to simply assume that Lazarus and all these other folks were still alive somewhere and walking the earth, or would continue to do so? It is incredible and very telling that McKinsey would argue for this sort of speculation simply in order to preserve a very tenuous objection.

  In the 24th issue of the BE newsletter, a letter-writer added this argument: "How could Jesus' body have changed, since he is 'the same yesterday, and today, and forever' (Heb. 13:8)?"

  How can this writer suppose that Heb. 13:8 means that Jesus never changed in any way? Does he think that it means that Jesus always stood in the same spot, or never changed his clothes?

• Re John 12:21, which refers to "Bethsaida of Galilee." McKinsey objects that Bethsaida is in Gaulonitis, not Galilee.

  The reference by John is a geographical one, not a political one. Bethsaida was politically in Gaulonitis, and not in the political region of Galilee, but it was in the geographic region of Galilee. Pliny the Elder in his own work on geography puts Bethsaida in Galilee in the same way. Alternative: The name "Bethsaida" means "house of fishing" and could have been applied to any number of unidentified sites along a lake. That John specifies "Bethsaida of Galilee" suggests strongly that he is aware of another "Bethsaida" from which he must differentiate this one.

• Re Acts 1:12, which says: "Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city." McKinsey writes: "This must be false in view of the fact that Olivet, the Mount of Olives, was just outside the wall of Jerusalem near the Temple, hardly a sabbath days' journey."

  Does McKinsey even know what a "Sabbath's day journey" is? It was the distance that the Pharisaic oral law declared that a person could travel on the sabbath without violating the Sabbath law in the Torah. That distance, so they figured, was 3/4 of a mile - about the distance of the journey reported in Acts 1:12, just as Luke reports.

  In his newsletter a letter-writer made McKinsey aware of this fact, and his response speaks for itself.

  First, he demanded a copy of whatever rule this was that proved this -- why can't McKinsey do this research?

  Second, he objected that the only cite he knew of was from a Jewish commentary, the Gemara, which, being only "opinions and beliefs" he found unacceptable. It seems rather convenient that McKinsey feels free to draw lines around sources in this fashion, deciding based on his own rules (not academic ones) what is or is not acceptable.

  Third, he said:

  From experience I've concluded that Christian commentaries are primarily rationalizations permeated with dishonest scholarship. Keep in mind that we are relying on extra-biblical information to determine the length of a Sabbath Day's Journey. The latter is mentioned only once in the entire Bible and nowhere is a definition given. Since the problem under discussion is found in the Book of Acts, Christians, not Jews, are obligated to provide an explanation. And in order to resolve dilemmas of this nature they have often relied upon the time-honored technique of referring to some extra-biblical writing they claim exists to prove their point. Can you cite one rabbinic ordinance that specifically states a Sabbath Day's Journey is 2,000 cubits long? Self-serving apologetic commentaries aren't sufficient, if, indeed, they are anything. The source must be original, not second hand or hearsay.

  And this of course is a non-argument: Just calling the opposition biased and dishonest, without showing this to be the case, is nothing of substance. The bit about Christians needing to provide the explanation rather than Jews is peculiar; McKinsey himself argues elsewhere in trying to debunk the Tacitus reference that Christians and Jews were so alike as to be indistinguishable to the Romans. Christianity came from Jewish roots and carried on many Jewish customs; his requirement for a "Christian explanation" is outlandish.

  As for extra-biblical sources, and hearsay: Following such principles of historical investigation would have the entire field of historical research defunct. (And on hearsay, see here.)

  The debate continued in issue #40 of the EBE newsletter when a letter-writer provided Jewish literary citations indicating what a Sabbath's day journey was. McKinsey responded by objecting that there was no "official ordinance" on the subject -- just oral law and the Mishnah.

  Note that this is frequently how McKinsey does business. The issue was never whether there was some "official" ordinance or law that established what a Sabbath's day journey was. The issue was whether there was anything that merely defined an SDJ and proved that it was not some sort of long journey that ought to have taken more time that the passage in Acts implies. McKinsey arbitrarily raised the bar.

  But in fact, even without external sources, we have enough clues to figure this one out. If Luke makes light of the journey being a "Sabbath's day" journey, it implies that there is something different about it, as opposed to a "regular day's" journey. Since the Sabbath involved restrictions on behavior, it doesn't take a lot of sense to deduce that a "Sabbath's day" journey was something shorter than a normal day's journey. From there, it is logical to deduce that whatever the distance between Jerusalem and Olivet was the distance of such a journey.

• McKinsey takes Ezra 1:9-11 to task. The passage lists several types of silver and gold items, the particulars of which add up to 2,499 items; but the passage ends by saying that 5,400 items were counted. 2,499, McKinsey tells us, does not equal 5,400.

  No, of course not: But the list of particular items is not said to be exhaustive. McKinsey reads into the text more than is said.

• Re the "bat is not a bird" objection of Leviticus 11:19. McKinsey cited this, and in response, someone wrote him a letter making the same point we did about taxonomic classification not yet being invented. McKinsey's incredible reply, in the 123rd issue of the BE newsletter, tells us a great deal about the lengths McKinsey will argue to in order to keep from being, in his mind, proven wrong:

  I don't have to prove the Bible was in error with the classifications of that day. If those classifications were wrong, and they were, then the Bible is in error. Moreover, just because man's classifications are in error does not allow God's to be. We are supposed to be dealing with a perfect book that is beyond time and space. It can't be erroneous. The Bible must be perfect at all times and under all conditions.

  Note the false step here: McKinsey has argued himself in a circle. The classes of the day were functional rather than scientific, but he has arbitrarily designated them as "wrong" and in error simply because they do not conform to a different classification method, the modern one of science. This is like arguing that someone who sorts foods by color is "wrong" because they have group a banana with a squash -- after all, one is a fruit, the other is a vegetable.

  Moreover, McKinsey has made it so that all we have to do to make the Bible mistaken is change our terms for something. If the Bible said "the sky is blue" all we would have to do is rename the color we now call "blue" and say, "We are supposed to be dealing with a perfect book that is beyond time and space. It can't be erroneous. The Bible must be perfect at all times and under all conditions. Since it didn't anticipate the change in terms, it is in error." This is outrageous reasoning on McKinsey's part.

• The following letter appeared in the 56th issue of the Biblical Errancy newsletter, written by a staff member of the Christian Research Institute. McKinsey replied at some length to this letter, which reads as follows:

  Your criticism of the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation is based, I would venture to say, on a complete lack of familiarity with the literary forms of the ancient Near East, and in particular with that form which has been dubbed "apocalytic." If you were familiar with these literary forms, you would not have made the mistake that Ingersoll, Jefferson and Paine made in thinking the author of the Book of Revelation to be insane. No one in first or second century Judaism would have questioned the sanity of that author. Modern literary and other media art forms (music, films, etc.) employ equally weird symbolism to communicate ideas. While we may not find such art to our taste, it is narrow-minded and simplistic to dismiss all such works of art as the products of insane men. By the way, some have hailed the book of Revelation as "the only masterpiece of pure art in the NT" {See: William Barclay, The Revelation of John, Vol. I (Westminster, 1976), page 2}.

  The reply by McKinsey that follows shows how McKinsey uses "debate tactics" rather than sound reasoning and data to answer arguments. Here is McKinsey's reply in entirety:

  Most of your comments are without merit and deserving of correction, Robert. First, your statement that I erred "in thinking the author of the Book of Revelation to be insane" like Ingersoll, Jefferson, and Paine is inaccurate. I said "the writing, itself, may bring the author's sanity into question. The books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and especially Revelation, are sufficient within themselves to bring the author's mental stability under scrutiny" and I reaffirm that observation. "I'm reminded of the comments by Ingersoll, Jefferson and Paine" was an addendum. I never flatly said the author was insane. For me to have directly stated as much would have been inappropriate as I have no more awareness of the mental state or motives of ancient authors than do you. In fact, why would you even make such a comment when your own letter on page 3 in the Feb. 1987 issue has the same question and my response. Your letter stated: "My first question had to do with the motivation and sanity of the biblical writers. You answered that because the identity of the writers is in many cases uncertain, their motives and sanity cannot be ascertained with any certainty....Your answer amounts to 'I don't know and that's fair." How often must I address the same query? Second, your statement that "no one in first or second century Judaism would have questioned the sanity of that author" is rather presumptuous, wouldn't you agree. After all, how could you possibly know what was in the mind of, or speak for, every Jew living nearly 2,000 years ago? Third, your comment that my "criticism of the books of Daniel...is based, I would venture to say, on a complete lack of familiarity with the literary forms..." is nearly as tenuous, since you know little about my knowledge of ancient Near East literary forms. Of course, you covered yourself to some extent by saying: "I would venture to say" which concedes an element of guesswork. Fourth, you even admit these writings employ "weird symbolism" to communicate ideas, so don't be so eager to indict those who have doubts about the mental stability of the authors involved. Fifth, although "some may have hailed the book of Revelation as the only masterpiece of pure art in the NT" others clearly disagree. Martin Luther, who holds a position in Christendom immeasurably higher than that of William Barclay, stated in this regard: "About this book of Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinion.... I miss more than one thing in this book and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic....there is no prophet in the OT, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it....they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep...My spirit cannot accomodate itself to this book...Christ is neither taught nor known in it....Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely. {Luther's Works, Vol. 35, American Edition, Philadelphia, 1960, pages 398-99}. Luther subsequently stated: "This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it, but until this very day they have attained no certainty. Some have even brewed into it many stupid things out of their own heads. Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John the Apostle.... For our part, we share this doubt." {Ibid. page 400}

  McKinsey has obvious skill at piling on and plotting his responses for the greatest effectiveness -- it is not surprisingr that he excels at direct debate on radio and has a preference for that medium. But taken in pieces, we shall see that his efforts fail.

  Most of your comments are without merit and deserving of correction, Robert.

  McKinsey typically begins larger his responses this way -- with a short, descriptive comment denigrating the quality of his opponent's argument. I don't begrudge him this; it is a literary and polemical tactic used very commonly and quite honestly by many, including myself. However, be aware of it, and know that he is expert at "piling on" such body blows for the purpose of effect. It is not in itself an argument, and proves nothing. It merely sets the stage for the point of view that follows.

  First, your statement that I erred "in thinking the author of the Book of Revelation to be insane" like Ingersoll, Jefferson, and Paine is inaccurate. I said "the writing, itself, may bring the author's sanity into question. The books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and especially Revelation, are sufficient within themselves to bring the author's mental stability under scrutiny" and I reaffirm that observation. "I'm reminded of the comments by Ingersoll, Jefferson and Paine" was an addendum. I never flatly said the author was insane. For me to have directly stated as much would have been inappropriate as I have no more awareness of the mental state or motives of ancient authors than do you...

  True, McKinsey never "flatly" states that the authors of these books are insane; he roundaboutly says it, thereby gaining the polemical advantage of associating in the reader's mind these Biblical writers with insanity. He gains the point without stepping into commitment -- an tactical move, but once exposed, completely useless. The same polemical advantage is gained by quoting the likes of Paine, Ingersoll, etc. as saying that the writers were insane.

  Let us put it this way. Whether said "flatly" or not, McKinsey is indeed arguing that the Biblical authors are not sane. Consider the argument this way: "I never said flatly that the ball was not red. I merely stated that the appearance of the ball was sufficient within itself to bring its redness under scrutiny."

  What is the point in saying the latter, unless it is your point to show that the ball is not red? What, otherwise, is being argued? That the ball might not be red? Granting that the determination of sanity is a far more complex issue, it still behooves one, if insanity is implied as a possibility, to thereafter offer some reason why insanity is suspected.

  Perhaps McKinsey could have offered samples of actual works written by the insane in order to make a comparison. But without some kind of backup data of this sort, all that is left is the questioning of sanity based on the critic's own preconceived notion of what "sanity" comprises. There is no objective basis. How does McKinsey know that it is not he who is insane, while the Biblical writers are in their right mind?

  Bottom line: While seeming somewhat solid, it should be realized that this is no more than an obfuscation on McKinsey's part, a way of arguing something while claiming not to be arguing it, without dealing with the hard data -- and that leads to our next entry.

  Second, your statement that "no one in first or second century Judaism would have questioned the sanity of that author" is rather presumptuous, wouldn't you agree. After all, how could you possibly know what was in the mind of, or speak for, every Jew living nearly 2,000 years ago?

  Presumptuous? McKinsey, in raising questions of the sanity of the Biblical authors, has already "presumed" a certain value judgment in that regard. What evidence is there that any Jew thought that the writers of Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. were insane? Commentaries by rabbis of the period give no such indication. Nor do the works of Josephus, or the New Testament, or of any other writers of the period.

  Of course it is possible that only the works of those who do not question their sanity have survived, and if we had a chance to ask, every other Jew in existence in that period down to the humblest fishmonger would have agreed with McKinsey. But I rather doubt it. Every indication we have is that these writings were regarded with reverence and respect.

  Third, your comment that my "criticism of the books of Daniel...is based, I would venture to say, on a complete lack of familiarity with the literary forms..." is nearly as tenuous, since you know little about my knowledge of ancient Near East literary forms. Of course, you covered yourself to some extent by saying: "I would venture to say" which concedes an element of guesswork.

  This is likewise an obfuscation, and a distraction from the issue. Note here that McKinsey never addresses the issue of whether or not he does have any knowledge of Ancient Near Eastern literary forms; he merely castigates the CRI rep for suggesting his non-knowledge of such things, pointing out that he knows nothing at all about McKinsey's qualifications, and leaves it at that.

  Once again, this gives McKinsey every tactical advantage, as it leaves it open for readers to believe that McKinsey is indeed familiar with the literature; now, then, McKinsey, if confronted, can say: " I never flatly stated I was familiar with ANE literary forms. I merely stated that the CRI rep's knowledge of my familiarity of such forms was tenuous."

  Fourth, you even admit these writings employ "weird symbolism" to communicate ideas, so don't be so eager to indict those who have doubts about the mental stability of the authors involved.

  Here was an admittedly a slip by CRI's rep. He should have said, "...what we in this time and context would regard as weird symbolism...". As it stands, he also appears to be making a value judgment, one that validates McKinsey's own, and McKinsey took full advantage of this.

  Fifth, although "some may have hailed the book of Revelation as the only masterpiece of pure art in the NT" others clearly disagree. Martin Luther, who holds a position in Christendom immeasurably higher than that of William Barclay, stated in this regard: "About this book of Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinion.... I miss more than one thing in this book and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic....there is no prophet in the OT, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it....(etc)

  This is another slip by CRI's rep. He engaged the argument by authority, and McKinsey engaged it back. Of course Luther was hardly as informed as Barclay, a writer of our century, about the variety of literary forms in the Ancient Near East; archaeology had not been fully discovered in Luther's time; there was yet more literature to be found and analyzed; and Luther, with due respect, was quite well known for allowing his personal prejudices to color his thinking (i.e., about James).

  All that McKinsey has done here is masterfully played the "authority" card -- once again enabling him to avoid the hard data.

• In is closing chapter McKinsey offers some advice for Skeptics hoping to follow in his footsteps. For example, McKinsey advises his readers to put certain subjects on the "back burner" such as "Babylonian influence on the formation of the canon" (???), "pagan influence on Christianity," dating and authorship of Biblical books, "historical disproofs of biblical history," the history of the formation of the canon, the beliefs of America's Founders, and so on.

  Why make these topics second-tier? He says, because:

  1. Bible-believers won't allow contrary evidence to sway them in these subject matters (which I would think, by his view, would also apply to the "first-rate" topics); and,
  2. "to dwell on historical matters will only cause biblicists to trot out historians whose data proves the opposite. The problem with historical argumentation is that ultimately the issue comes down to whom you want to believe, because none of us were there."

     Or, as McKinsey also puts it in the 158th issue of his newsletter: "Scholars can say anything they like and often do. That, along with the fact that none of us were there and we're forced to rely upon the historian we prefer, is why I have never put much stock in the historical approach to biblical refutation."

     Aside from pointing out this unrealistic view of historical argumentation, let me suggest the real reason McKinsey wants to put such topics on the back burner: Because he knows that he will lose every time. It is far more productive for a Skeptics to use emotional arguments by outrage and vague philosophical arguments than deal with hard, cold facts. Just imagine someone saying the same thing when discussing secular history, and you'll get some idea just how unrealistic this viewpoint is. (Here's my counter advice: When a Skeptic starts opting out of historical argumentation, press hard and hit home over and over again.)

Indeed, McKinsey's disdain for scholarship is poignantly exemplified in the following exchange from the 102nd BE newsletter, beginning with this note from that same CRI rep referred to earlier:

In issue #56, your reply to my points about the authorship of the NT writings was condescending and largely irrelevant. I asked you for a list of "authorities" who question the Pauline authorship of the seven undisputed Pauline letters (Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Phil., 1 Thess., Philem.). You gave me one scholar who questioned "the full authenticity" of four of these--Alfred Loisy. It should be noted that Loisy (who died in 1940) was writing mostly in the 1910's and 1920's, and that most of his extreme views (e.g., that Acts was written in the second century) have been completely abandoned by even the most liberal scholarship. (The scholar you quoted as endorsing Loisy, F.C. Conybeare, died in 1924!). In the postwar scholarship it is widely regarded as certain that these seven letters were written by Paul, and their authorship is not even debated. I can supply you with a list of scholarly references several pages long if necessary; but if it is necessary, then, frankly, you don't know anything about contemporary Pauline studies.

Note carefully the direction of McKinsey's reply:

To begin with Robert, my answers were neither irrelevant nor condescending. Yours, however, are quite irrelevant. The fact that you don't like the sources I cited and don't consider them reliable is as irrelevant as your recitation of the dates upon which they died. I have no doubt they consider most of your scholars to be of questionable integrity. As I have said before, when it comes to arguments over history, every man picks the sources he prefers. You asked for some scholars and I quoted two well-known men who are scholars whether you like them or not. For you to say that "these seven letters were written by Paul, and their authorship is not even debated" is absurd. I don't know of any book in the Bible whose authorship is not debated by knowledgeable scholars. You really should stop talking as if biblical conclusions were air-tight and fixed in granite.

Sandwiched between two polemical points are a host of irrelevancies and obfuscations: The citing of the dates of death is a minor illustration point which shows how more research has been done since the time that these men lived, and points up the extent to which McKinsey is neglectiing further scholarship. McKinsey makes the death-dates a major point and dismisses all else as picking sources that one "likes" -- as though all sources are in fact equally (in?)valid and therefore it is pointless to engage in critical analysis, since there is no really knowing who is right.

The CRI rep went on:

I also stated that Donald Guthrie's book New Testament Introduction thoroughly answers the arguments of liberal scholars (such as Loisy) whereas they continue to ignore most of Guthrie's arguments. In response you told me that I should devote more study to various scholars that you named. This is no answer. I am familiar with many of those scholars (especially Loisy, Renan, Briggs, Wellhausen, and Conybeare), and my point is that their arguments are answered by Guthrie (and others), but not the other way around. I am not interested in authorities as such but in the reasons they give for their views.

The CRI rep has rightly tagged McKinsey for disdaining critical evaluation. The reply, again, is telling:

You quote Guthrie as if he were the fountain of all truth, my friend. Just because you are enrapped with him, carries no weight with others, including myself. I have scholars who say something quite different. And I happen to feel that mine know more about the issue than yours. Even more importantly, you shifted your strategy. Earlier you said I could produce no authorities in support of my position. Now you are admitting there are such beings but contend they are wrong. "I am not interested in authorities as such but in the reasons they give for their views." That's a different issue entirely and a virtual concession that my original contention is valid.

The source-cite is simply dismissed again as a matter of preference, with no critical evaluation; and McKinsey then uses the demand for critical evaluation to blacken the rep's reply -- indeed, sees it as some sort of victory, never mind that it thoroughly exposes his unwillingness to dig too deep. In all of this, the very thing needed, critical evaluation and comparison of the arguments, is simply bypassed.

In another place, McKinsey offers advice for tools of the trade, saying that a Layman's Parallel Bible is a good purchase. Good advice -- however, he then advises: "Avoid Christian commentaries. Don't be swayed as to what is being said or what commentaries allege is intended. Just read it cold." In the 34th issue of the newsletter he adds:

Read (the Bible) yourself and don't consult commentaries and other works which tell you how to view the narrative. Approaching the Bible with an uncluttered, unindoctrinated outlook devoid of pre-conceptions and expectations is of first magnitude in importance. Indeed, it's the key to effective critical analysys. Once the Book has been sufficiently mastered, commentaries and other apologistic works, which are nearly always nothing more than rationalizations, justifications, and obfuscations, can be viewed in proper perspective and effectively dealt with. It's important to observe the Bible through your own eyes, not those of others.

And consider this advice also from the 187th newsletter, concerning the variations in the wording on the cross -- which professional commentators view either as point-of-view reportage or else as redactional:

Who cares how many speakers, audiences and interests are involved! They are all immaterial, if not irrelevant. The fact is that there can only be one wording on the cross and there can be only one correct duplication of that wording. I don't care how you are tailoring it to the interests or idiosyncrasies of anyone or any group; if you change the wording from what actually existed, then it becomes erroneous, period.

Just read it cold? In other words, ignore social, historical, literary and cultural context; set aside all who have studied the texts, the languages, and the cultures for years on end, simply dismissing them as unable to agree on anything or as mere "rationalizations" designed to solve the alleged problems and contradictions you, reading with your own untrained perceptions, have found (also, without "doing the homework" of critical evaluation of their arguments yourself)? That speaks for itself in terms of McKinsey's academic credibility.

In closing for this summary, a note on a personal correspondence I had with McKinsey a while back that is especially revealing of his character. We had some fun trading barbs (at least I did), and in the midst, McKinsey made a statement to me about listening to my "conscience". I replied with a joke about "Jiminy Cricket". McKinsey responded in part by claiming that I had spelled the name wrong -- it was JIMMY Cricket, he said, not Jiminy.

As anyone who grew up watching Disney on Sunday night knows (and especially, if you live in Central Florida as I do, and see these characters every day), my spelling of the name was indeed correct -- and when I pointed out this fact, McKinsey didn't admit error, he merely changed the subject.

And I say further: Check the places in the BE newsletter where someone writes in to point out a typo. McKinsey in reply will almost always make some extended explanation about lacking time, not being surprised with all the work he has to do, etc. Such behavior should be a signal to us that there is no way whereby any other person can prove McKinsey wrong, in his own mind.

EBE Answer Key: Chapter by Chapter

The remainder of this page shall be a by-chapter response to EBE, as applicable to our purposes. For this it is assumed that the reader has a copy of EBE and needs a specific answer for a certain point therein.

This project was originally composed by myself and several contributors. Where a chapter was not answered by me, the author's name shall appear after the chapter heading. In very many cases our answers will be found in links, as McKinsey is often not the only one making the objection.

Chapter 1 is covered by above material.

Chapter 2: "Jesus is the Answer?"

Description: 22 general objections with Jesus as the subject. This chapter is composed of "questions about Jesus" put together in a pamphlet distributed by BE.

I think it is fair to surmise that this means that these are 22 of the best or hardest-hitting "questions" that BE could come up with on this subject. Indeed we need not even make any surmises: McKinsey calls these "some of the best questions one could ever employ while confronting Christianity in general and the Bible in particular" [35], and "twenty-two of the best questions one could ever employ in the struggle against Christianity in general and Jesus in particular. Every rational person should find them to be a welcome addition to his or her antisuperstition portfolio." [52]

McKinsey clearly believes these to be among the best questions in his own portfolio. Their use in a pamphlet; their special allotment in a chapter of EBE; these very direct statements, all mean that if these questions are easily dealt with, a serious wound is dealt to the competency of McKinsey and the credibility of his mission. These 22 questions are McKinsey's elite troops (along with 24 others in the chapter following). All others are mere foot soldiers.

Meeting the Opposition: McKinsey offers in addition to his own comments "some of the responses that apologists often use in opposition to the questions that are posed," adding that "Armed with information of this kind, analysts of the Bible will be far better prepared to confront Christians on their own turf. One should always know what lies in the other side's arsenal before engaging in ideological combat." [35]

In fact, the "responses" used are from the lowest-level apologetics resources available: General-interest books for the lay reader. One will not find here responses from professional journals of study or from high-ranking scholars.

Darkness Reigns: Also as a primer, McKinsey observes that "many people do not even realize that problems exist within the Bible." [35]

Fair enough. It is also fair to say that many people do not realize that these "problems" are overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, due to our own lack of knowledge or comprehension.

Of course McKinsey will have none of this: His only response is to label any attempts at solution as a case of conspiracy. He quotes Bucaille as referring to "subtle explanations calculated to reassure (the Christian reader) and orchestrated by an apologetic lyricism." [36] McKinsey himself refers to "obfuscations" and "smokescreens."

So might we expect from those who will not read an ancient text in any terms but those of their own modern mind. To those thusly convinced by their own cleverness, any explanation is merely an irrational and desperate attempt to cover up the obvious. Trying to show otherwise makes you party to the illusion. Whether the data supports the polemic, however, remains to be seen.

1. Now answered here.

2. Now answered here.

3. Reference to the idea that Jesus never existed; see above. There is no reason to resort to the theory that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, a theory which McKinsey devotes a great deal of space to discussing.

The "Jesus was not in the tomb 72 hours" objection; see the relevant item as one of the replies in this longer essay here. essay on this subject.

vs.

Now answered here .

Answered here and here.

Answered here.

I'll keep this answer here, because I don't see how McKinsey supposes this to constitute a lie by Jesus. What's the explanation? It is asked, "How could they have entered paradise that day when Jesus lay in the tomb for three days?" Paradise, of course, was the Jewish abode of spirits (not the bodies) of the righteous dead. (cf. 2 Cor. 12:4) This is the same as someone saying today, "I'll see you in heaven" with a time prior to the resurrection of all men in mind.

Of course, McKinsey does not believe in heaven or Paradise, but that is not the point of the objection.

vs.

McKinsey says: "In effect, Paul is saying that Jesus lied. Either that or Paul is rewriting the script and has usurped the leadership of Jesus in Christianity." Now answered here.

As a side note, it is worthwhile to note that McKinsey endorses by quotation (but never "flatly states" support for) the idea that Paul was the true founder of Christianity who distorted the teachings of Jesus. In this regard he quotes two highly irrelevant authorities: the playwright George Bernard Shaw, and Thomas Jefferson, neither of whom were better informed than Pauline scholars like E. P. Sanders, W. D. Davies, and David Wenham, who show that Paul presents nothing that is not in continuity with both mainstream Judaism and with the teachings of Jesus.

Now answered here. I would also like to know how McKinsey knows that this is "one of those problems that is systematically ignored and evaded by nearly all apologists." [41] Is this McKinsey's way of saying that no one he has read has ever addressed it? If so, does it perhaps occur to him that it has not been addressed because it is not actually a problem?

9, 10. A series of objections to the Trinity, which is termed "one of the most ludicrous religious ideas ever proposed." It is clear that McKinsey's grasp upon Trinitarian theology is rather tenuous. He states in the ninth objection, "According to Christian theology, Jesus is God." He then hauls up verses like John 14:28 and cites them as Jesus "denying that he is God's equal." This is followed upon by selected quotes from "apologists" who, he says, "admit that the Trinity is incomprehensible."

Incomprehensible to them, perhaps, and also incomprehensible to McKinsey and his sources like Ingersoll, but not to me, nor to anyone who has bothered to investigate the relevant background material. I will point the reader first to my material on the divine claims of Jesus (here), especially my material on Jesus' claim to be divine Wisdom. With this foundation, we may provide the following observations and general responses to McKinsey's rather inane inquiries.

His errors begin with the statement, "According to Christian theology, Jesus is God." This is not specific enough. According to Christian theology, Jesus is not "God" but "God the Son", the Word/Wisdom of God. Recognizing this basic distinction defuses all of McKinsey's sub-objections in objections 9 and 10: The "denials" of equality with God above; who Jesus was talking to on the cross when addressing the Father; the allegation of tritheism; the supposed problem of the relation of Jesus to Mary (which makes no distinction between the physical and legal derivation of the incarnate Jesus and the non-corporeal spiritual derivation of Jesus).

At best McKinsey shows the inadequacies of certain analogies used to explain the Trinity, but until he confronts the Wisdom concept, he is addressing nothing but inadequate modern conceptions and problems with modern terminology.

vs.

Now answered here and here. McKinsey here uses the same arguments used by a Skeptic that we have addressed elsewhere. His further comments are also telling [44]:

I have often told apologists who constantly use this tactic that they should set aside the King James, the New American Standard, the Revised Standard, and every other well known version of the Bible on the market, and instead write their own version of the Bible, and send me a copy, which I would be glad to critique. Frankly, I'm becoming rather tired of people telling me that they have a more accurate version of what a particular verse should say...This kind of defense has to be squashed immediately; otherwise, apologists will be able to run from version to version as expediency dictates and choose the wording they prefer...

A few observations are in order.

First, this is not simply a matter of translations, but also a matter of meanings in context. The interpretations we have offered of John 2:4 and Luke 14:26 both rely upon parallel phrases found in other ancient literature (Greek and rabbinic) and literary design for the period. One may not arbitrarily assume in the context of ancient literature (derived as it is from a primarily oral period) that words carry the same degree and shades of meaning that they do in our own day, especially since ancient languages had a much lesser number of words compared to modern English (mere thousands versus over a million and a half).

Second, note how McKinsey has automatically dismissed out of hand as "expediency" the act of going from one version to another, when the issue is not versions, but meanings in context as we have delineated above. He has jumped from "write your own version" to "don't jump from one version to another" and classed these together as "expediency".

12. Now answered here.

It is our view that these verses were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. If McKinsey is able to address and refute the arguments here, then we will take the matter further. We therefore see no need to address his own remarks which interpret "generation" as race, etc.

14. Now answered here.

15. Now answered here.

16. This is a series about the Matthean and Lukan genealogies. See Glenn Miller's work on this subject and here.

17. Mark 8:34. See here.

vs.

Now answered here.

vs.

Now answered here. A brief note is also in order on McKinsey's dismissal of Christian martyrdoms. He claims that the history of martyrdoms is "based far more on Christian mythology than sound history."

In this he does not interact at all with any of the works of secular historians and relevant authorities (i.e., Michael Grant, Robert Wilken, Rodney Stark) who, while noting that many late accounts of martyrdom have the taste of myth, nevertheless affirm that such martyrdoms (along with less "permanent" types of persecution) did indeed take place.

McKinsey also confounds the issue by demanding "biblical confirmation" of such sacrifices; it is hardly necessary that such evidence MUST be found in the Bible to be true, and until McKinsey deals with the evidence outside the Bible critically, rather than simply ignoring it, his arguments are of no merit.

But then again, if he wants biblical confirmation, he might try reading Paul's own admission (Gal. 1) that he persecuted the church with "zeal" -- a word that recalls the responses of Phineas in the OT and the Maccabees in the intertestamental period who killed their opponents.

20. This is a repeat and composite of previous objections.

21. This is a set of points about the atonement and original sin. For the former, see our material here. For the latter, see here.

vs.

Jesus is accused of "indecisiveness" in terms of whom Christians are to have missions to. Context means all here: Jesus is the first instance refers to his own, personal ministry on earth; the latter verse refers to a time after the resurrection.

At the same time, it is obvious since Jesus did go on to heal the woman's daughter, and the fact that he was already in Gentile territory, that this was far from being an established and absolute prohibition, but was rather some sort of test of response for faith.

In issue #46 of the EBE newsletter, James White made a similar point, noting that there is no indication that Matt. 15:24 was intended as referring to a mission for all time. McKinsey replied by suggesting that this means that one could say the same of the Ten Commandments. But a comment by Jesus in response to a specific situation and a covenant law spoken from Mount Sinai cannot be treated on exactly equal terms.

Other cited verses:

Matt. 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." This has no applicability outside of this specific mission episode; it is hardly expressed as a general principle.

John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. - This also has no applicability to the subject at hand.

Ch. 2 Sources

1. Alb.Mt -- Albright, W. F. and C. S. Mann. Matthew. Doubleday: 1971.
2. Beas.J -- Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word: 1987.
3. Brow.DMh -- Brown, Raymond. The Death of the Messiah. Doubleday.
4. Brow.GJ -- Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John. Doubleday: 1966.
5. Harr.Mt -- Harrington, Daniel. The Gospel of Matthew. Liturgical Press, 1991.
6. Hill.GM -- Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. Marshall and Scott, 1972.
7. With.JW -- Witherington, Ben. John's Wisdom.

Chapter 3: "The Bible is God's Word?"

Description: 24 general objections with the Bible as the subject. This chapter is derived from a BE pamphlet. They are introduced with much the same words of endorsement as "best questions" that Chapter 2 is.

1, 2, 3.

We may now proceed with some comments upon the first three objections of this chapter. The first objection concerns John 14:6.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

McKinsey recommends that the "dilemma" this verse causes be "brought into the fray as soon as possible" in all debates, and claims that he has "never encountered a biblicist with a good explanation" because "there is none." [53] The problem, as he sees it [53-4]:

If you must accept Jesus as your savior in order to be saved...(W)hat do you do about the billions of beings who died as fetuses and infants, mental deficients, and people who lived in the New World before missionaries arrived? One should not lost sight of the fact that it says "no man." It doesn't say "some men," "most men" or "a few men."...There are no exceptions and that includes infants and fetuses.

McKinsey then proceeds over several pages to critique arguments from various basic apologetics sources in which the same litany is repeated that "the verse allows no exceptions," "no alternative was allowed," [54], "nothing in the Bible allows for an exception," [57] etc.

I passed up comment here earlier because the matter of the fate of those who have not heard the gospel is a complex topic deserving far more attention than this context allows; and my answer is found here. However, I can actually resolve the issue fairly quickly without recourse to detailed analysis of the issue...merely by considering the genre context of John 14:6.

The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as God's divine Wisdom. (For more on this, see this article.) Jesus speaks as Wisdom speaks in the Jewish intertestamental literature and in Proverbs, in long discourses...such as the one in John 14.

This being the case, our admonitions re Proverbial Literature directly apply. Simply because the statement of 14:6 (likewise John 3:18, 3:36, and 1 John 5:12, which is didactic in nature, and therefore also not absolute) is stated in absolute terms does not mean that there are no exceptions. It is simply that, in the genre of wisdom literature, exceptions are not stated. They are intended to be deduced through applied thought.

Beyond that, the phrasing "no one comes to the Father except by me" includes the notion that Jesus determines himself who comes to the Father, and that he may decide to allow someone to come to the Father for other reasons.

So what "exceptions" might there be to John 14:6? That's what has to be decided, and that's where all of these arguments that McKinsey simply dismisses (and others not considered by him) come into play.

To simply retort that "all means all" is not only made without respect to the genre of the wisdom discourse; it is also a too-simple answer that allows McKinsey to respond with less than critical care and analysis.

He does attempt to analyze the standard presentation from Sproul about Romans 1, which is classically read to indicate that "general revelation" might lead to saving knowledge (though whether anyone has come to salvation thusly is another issue). McKinsey decries this as an "apologetic maneuver" [58] and argues that this would allow Jews, Muslims, and other theists to be saved. "If all you have to do is believe in God," he writes, then millions of non-Christians will go to heaven.

But this is an extremely simplified distortion of what Sproul is talking about. McKinsey has ignored the fact that Paul stresses that general revelation reveals not just the existence of God, but reveals things about God as well. God's character is revealed in creation, and a person who has only general revelation must therefore recognize not only the existence of God, but must also accept the truth about what God is like.

Therefore, a mystic, for example, who holds that God is an unconscious force and has never heard the Gospel, is out of luck; for Paul's argument implies that general revelation would teach him otherwise.

On the other hand, the animist who is dissatisfied with his beliefs about God, and senses that there is something else that is the truth, is on the way to salvation, and may even possess it. But that's what debates in this arena are all about.

Concerning the second objection: McKinsey here misapplies Deut. 24:16 (as well as Exod. 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:19-20) to the question of how we can be punished for the sin of Adam. As we have shown elsewhere, Deut. 24:16 has no application to the issue.

However, Deut. 24:16 is just a small part of a larger argument arguing against the unfairness of "being punished for Adam's sin." Quite frankly, my simple response to this argument is that if there is anyone who has no sins of their own, then they can object to being "blamed" for those of Adam to their heart's content. McKinsey, who dismisses this as a "subtle alteration in blame" [61], doesn't make any claims to qualify on these grounds.

Passing by arguments about Adam as federal head of humanity, a true point which McKinsey quotes, but does not respond to, a position that understands that Adam's actual role is that of one who passed on a propensity to sin. This view understands not that it is the act of Adam's sin that we pay for, but that all have sinned in Adam in the typological sense that Adam set the pattern (see Rom. 5:12). Both views can be found in first-century Judaism, and Paul does not specify which one he holds.

Other than offering a typical misapplication of Ps. 51:5 and 58:3, however, McKinsey has absolutely no response to this. The former states (and the latter is more or less the same, mentioning the wicked), "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." This is standard Ancient Near Eastern exaggeration for the purpose of expressing a point: That we're sinners and we express it from even the youngest age; in this case, David expressing the utter depth of his own sin, in light of events with Bathsheba. Relatedly, anyone who has a baby knows that their impulses have to be modified and directed lest they become vices in adulthood.

Concerning the third objection [61]:

...God created Adam, so Adam must have been perfect. How then could Adam have sinned? Regardless of how much free will he had, if he chose to sin he was not perfect.

This involves a confusion of categories. Furthermore, if this is how "perfection" is to be defined, then no, Adam was not created perfect -- God created Adam "imperfect". Consider this: God is perfect. Yet does God have free will? No, for God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18), for example. He is not free to lie because His nature forbids it. So if this is how "perfection" is to be defined, then Adam wasn't created "perfect."

Freedom implies, indeed, a lack of "perfection" if that is how we define the word. But that is an arbitrary way to define "perfection." It is doubtful that anyone would regard America's Revolution as an exercise in the pursuit of "imperfection."

In between objections 3 and 4 comes a comment worthy of note, in which McKinsey presents his version of the "all means all" argument. He advises:

Try to stay with absolutes as much as possible. The Bible digs itself into a hole when it makes statements dealing with "all," "each," "never," "every," "none," and other statements that allow no exceptions. We have all taken exams and been confronted with true or false answers. Experienced test takers will tell you that statements containing absolute terms are nearly always false.

This is much equal to McKinsey's advice to read the Bible "like a newspaper", only here it is implied that we should read it like a true-false test. If the Bible digs this sort of hole for itself, then so likewise has every piece of proverbial or didactic literature from around the globe throughout history.

The Bible is neither a newspaper nor a pop quiz, but a complex document with a rich history, derived from a specific literary genre. Once again McKinsey must impose his anachronistic views upon the text in order to find error where it does not exist.

vs.

Now answered here.

5. Now answered here. McKinsey offers with this cite -- which involves a copyist error -- a story of how he confounded a Church of Christ minister on a radio show with this question. I doubt if a textual critic like Bruce Metzger or Emmanuel Tov would have been similarly confounded.

6. Now answered here.

vs.

Now answered here.

Used to ask how Moses could have written the Pentateuch. See Glenn Miller's work on the authorship of the Pentateuech.

9. Now answered here and here.

10. Objection that Jesus' resurrection was not unique. See above in general response.

11. Now answered here, here, and here.

12. Now answered here.

13. Now answered here.

14. Matt. 27:9-10. See response here and also, we offer this:

As Brown rightly stressed, "given the care with which Matt reflects on the citation in 27:9-10, only by last resort should we consider the attribution to Jeremiah simply an error." Dismissing Matthew as "confused" -- even "honestly" so -- does no justice to the rich and intricate complexities of his work. We are better off seeking another solution. We can begin by offering a two simple options of our own before bringing out the one that gives Matthew the most respect as a writer:

1. Copyist error. This is a weak one in terms of textual evidence, but it has some minor corroborating literary support. Zech is named nowhere else by Matthew, and the only other place he quotes Zechariah, he is not named. So perhaps a later scribe was confused rather than Matthew. But this, again, is an entirely speculative solution.
2. Theme fulfillment. Our problem may be that we are concentrating only on verses 9-10, when we should be looking at the passage beginning with verse 3. Menken [Menk.RJ, 10-11] offers this analysis:

   A partial answer lies in the fact that in narrative (27, 2-8) and quotation (27,9-10) passages from Jer exercise their influence as well. Jer 18,2-3, where a potter is mentioned but no purchase of a field, is often adduced, as well as Jer 32,6-9, where the purchase of a field is dealt with but no potter occurs. A reference to Jer 19 may be more to the point: in front of the elders and priests, Jeremiah has to shatter an earthen potter's vessel, as a symbol of the disasters which will strike Judah and Jerusalem because of their idolatry, and because "they filled this place with blood of innocents" (Jer 19,4). The prophet has to do this on the place that is called Tophet but will be called "Valley of Slaughter", and will be one large burial-place. The points of contact between this passage and Matt 27,3-10 are obvious.

   Menken thereby asserts that it is an atmosphere, rather than a quotation, that is being evoked: That of Jeremiah as being in Matthew "pre-eminently the prophet of rejection of the Messiah". This, along with Matt's theme of Jesus as a Jeremiac figure (Mt. 16:14), explains the "wrong" attribution of the Zech passage to Jerry. Zech may have been the writer, but the whole theme that Matthew is invoking is derived from Jeremiah.

   This type of attribution, of course, seems very odd to our Western mind that demands documentary exactitude in all things. But we should recall again that the ancients did not think as we did, and it is chauvinistic to regard such thinking as theirs as erroneous. Matthew is not stupid, but he is subtle. He wrote as an educated Jew and as a craftsman with a point to prove to his readers, and it is our own fault that it has taken us so long to "get the point" ourselves.

Now answered here.

A criticism of these verses. In response to the answer that these verses were not in the original manuscripts, McKinsey offers the same counters of text-critical principles that we have recounted in our Foundation piece on Copyist Errors. (I.e., he says, in response to the point that the passages are not in two early key manuscripts: "Why this would jeopardize their validity one can only speculate, since much of the Bible is absent from one or another key manuscript." [67]

Indeed: One who is out of touch concerning the principles of textual criticism can only speculate, because they are satisfied with broad, generalized, and non-specific arguments like, "much of the Bible is absent from one or another key manuscript."

How does McKinsey define much and key? For the actual matter of evidence on these verses, look here.

17. A criticism of the supposed conflict between Jesus and Paul regarding the criteria for salvation, with Matt. 19:16-18 (the rich young ruler story) as a focus point versus Paul's salvation by faith. For further details on this issue, and a point on how OT saints and others living before Jesus were saved, see our responses to this issue.

18. Now answered here.

19. Now answered here.

Deemed "offensive." Is it? Life in a besieged city was harsh in ancient times; this is no more offensive than pictures of starving Third World children. This is the first of many places where McKinsey imposes post-Victorian values on ANE culture. See our essay on this topic.

21. Is. 45:7 and Lam. 3:38. See our reply here.

vs.

Now answered here.

23. Asks how a finite number of sins results in infinite condemnation. We do not agree with this paradigm; see here.

Now answered here.

Chapter 4: "Contradictions: Numerous, Theological, Chronological, Factual, Philosophical, Ethical" (Eric Vestrup)

Description: In this chapter, McKinsey offers the following polemics to open up the chapter, found on page 71:

Every analyst of the Bible should realize that the Book [the Bible] is a veritable miasma of contradictions, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, poor science, bad math, inaccurate geography, immoralities, degenerate heroes, false prophecies, boring repetitions, childish superstitions, silly miracles, and dry-as-dust discourse.

If there is any aspect in which the Bible is unique among pieces of literature it lies in the number of contradictions it contains. For one to list all of the Bible's inconsistencies would require score of chapters if not several books.

This is very strong wording indeed that is likely to provoke an emotional reaction of either strong agreement with McKinsey's words or strong disagreement. But, the honest thing to do is to investigate the evidence that McKinsey brings forth. Certainly, if even a fraction of his polemics above are true, then we believers have at best a shaky historical foundation for our faith, and at worst our faith is a delusion. W

e must always keep in mind that our faith is a historically based faith whose foundations rest on the alleged occurrence of certain phenomena in human history. If the Bible is as McKinsey claims, then our faith is reduced to a fideistic position or an existential one. Both positions are not satisfying for myself.

So, in this essay, McKinsey's claims are taken and analyzed in the light of the research of a student of Bible issues possessing a genuine interest into whether certain Scripture-related claims are true and is willing to consider the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

To begin, let me state who the intended audience is for this essay. I am writing this essay for the Tekton site to Christians with the attitude of genuine inquiry. I do not want to be a Christian if the Bible is as McKinsey claims, for I will have nothing on which to base my faith. I do not know how skeptics, freethinkers, and thinkers holding opposite persuasions will react. Regardless, I would hope both sides would at least acknowledge that facts and issues have been presented fairly and honestly here. I shall endeavor to avoid hostile and ad hominem rhetoric that distracts from the issues. Also to be avoided are statements concerning people's character. However, this must not be taken to mean that when I see what is to me a spade I will not call it as such. It is the evidence for and against McKinsey's claims that we must examine. Psychologizing an opponent's position does not address the issues raised, nor do inflammatory words.

Something now should be added concerning the a priori views that I bring to this essay. This must be done so that deductions and contentions concerning the evidence can be separated from my assumptions. I am a Christian and a communicant in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). I approach the Scriptures from the view that the Biblical texts in question are innocent of error until proven guilty.

For those who approach the Biblical texts in question with the opposite framework, it must be said that their approach does evangelical scholarship a favor by keeping it on its toes. It would be best to be able to cheerfully state something like "We will approach the points raised by McKinsey in a completely unbiased way", but it seems that ultimately a person will in practice follow a guilty-until-innocent approach or the opposite one.

Why do I take the innocent-until-guilty approach instead of the guilty-until-innocent approach of the Bible's attackers? It is not an arbitrary decision on my part to take this approach. I consider it the most natural and reasonable of the two starting points because human language and communication break down with the guilty-until-innocent approach. Secular historians give documents from ancient times the benefit of the doubt. When we hear something, we at least for an instant seem to naturally operate under the assumption of the truth of the that something we have heard. It is only when that something overwhelmingly conflicts with our sense of reason that we begin to doubt the truth of that something. Imagine yourself having to verify beyond a shadow of a doubt everything that you say -- imagine yourself being assumed wrong for everything until you could exhibit evidence for it. I personally would not appreciate that approach (and fortunately humans don't operate under that approach) and thus I find no good reason to abandon this approach for the study of Scripture, which, after all was written by human beings (and we believers would also say under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit). The starting point for any study of an allegedly historical document or an alleged ancient account of something is to allow the possibility that what the document says is true in [at the very least] part of what it says. It is strange how people can forget this general (and common-sensical) principle as soon as the Biblical texts are mentioned.

And now, if the reader can permit me a few personal statements which are offered to further understand my background and approach, let me state that I am a new academician by profession, an assistant professor in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. I have developed an interest in Christianity-related questions, both positive and negative, through the development of critical thinking skills that mathematics and philosophy have developed in my mind. I am also a former hardened skeptic and thus can lay claim to the right to assert that I have been on both sides and have at times in my life made arguments from both sides. Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on your persuasion!) I was won over to Christianity by my studies. As of the present I think that I am right with my worldview. Others might say that I just was not a very good skeptic.

And finally, as if this introduction was not long enough, let me state some points that might be painfully obvious to the reader, but should be mentioned just so no misunderstandings arise. In discussing various problems that arise in the Biblical texts, there are two rocky pillars that must one must navigate his mental ship through: the first is to be satisfied with an answer because it alleviates the problem and not on its merits, reasonability, precedent, etc. The second extreme is to fail to recognize that a proposed solution is in fact a reasonable parry to the charge of error and contradiction. There are certain places in this chapter of McKinsey's books where I feel that I would be committing an error of the second kind if I acquiesced to McKinsey's contentions. In other places, I would be committing an error of the first kind (in my opinion) if I disagreed with his negative criticism of previously-offered solutions. These will be mentioned as they arise, and it is left up to the reader to determine for himself or herself whether I am being reasonable or am committing one (or both!) of the errors given above.

Let me state the goal of this essay. I am not here to prove Christianity, nor am I attempting to prove that certain miracles happened at certain times in human history. I am not attempting to prove the veracity of every sentence of Scripture. What I am attempting to do is to show that the allegations of error and contradiction advanced by McKinsey are either fallaciously based or are so inconclusive that any dogmatism for skeptics is unjustified. The reader must decide for himself or herself if my attempt is successful.

2. The Nature of Contradictions.

Here let us briefly consider what a contradiction is. There is a narrow and strict sense in which the word "contradiction" is used, and there is a wider sense in which the word is used. The narrow usage of the word is defined as an objective propositional statement (ops) (that is, a group of words that express a meaningful concept that has an intrinsic truth or falsity to it) that itself contains an ops conjoined to its negation. Some examples of this narrow usage of the word "contradiction" can be given:

• x is an even integer and x is and odd integer.
• George Washington was the 32nd czar of Russia and George Washington was not the 32nd czar of Russia

Now let us discuss the broad usage of the word contradiction. Often two statements that are hard tor reconcile are called contradictory. For example, the statement "Steve was born in Cook County" is hard to reconcile with the statement "Steve was born in Smith County". These two statements may be called contradictory in the very broad sense. I personally find this usage of the word "contradiction" and its variants to be rather misleading, but the usage of the word "contradiction" in this broad sense is out there and must be dealt with. For the two ops's above, and, in general, for any two statements that are not immediately reconcilable, there are the following options:

• Both statements are false when all information is known.
• One statement is true and the other is false when all information is known.
• Both statements are true when all information is known.

The trailing qualifier "when all information is known" keeps us humble when it comes to being overly dogmatic about which of the three positions to take. If Steve was in fact born in Cook County, but then, say, Smith County absorbed Cook County after Steve was born, then this critical piece of information allows us to claim that both statements are true. Without this piece of information, though, our natural instincts would point to the first two possibilities.

It should also be mentioned that when human language, cognition, and idioms of speech are involved, two statements might look contradictory in the strict sense upon first glance, but in fact be reasonably harmonizable. For example, consider the statement that I made to a friend once in a conversation: "faith saves". Not much later in the same conversation I stated that "faith does not save us". Both of these statements at first glance seem quite contradictory, for on the surface it seems that the truth of one of these ops's necessarily implies the falsity of the other. But the nature of human discourse, of human writing, and of human language is much more vibrant and three dimensional than we often give it credit for. The reader should now be made aware of the fact that in the former statement I was using the word "faith" in the Pauline sense: a gift given to us by the Holy Spirit that produces the fruits of repentance and works pleasing to God. In the latter statement I was using "faith" in the sense of mere religious sincerity. It is now seen that there is no logical contradiction between the two statements once this information is made known. Certainly both statements could be false, or one could be true while the other is false, or both could be true, but it is not valid to state that it is necessarily the case that the truth of one excludes the truth of the other.

Another example will perhaps help. Consider the following famous argument:

• Only men are rational
• No woman is a man
• Therefore no woman is rational

The above demonstrates the flexibility of human discourse and speech. One might raise the objection that words should not be used in more than one sense, but that objection -- which sounds reasonable in principle -- is vitiated by the plain fact that we humans often (but not always) use words which can have a plethora of shadings and different meanings, with the context hopefully determining the correct shading. In the course of the aforementioned conversation with my friend, the context of our conversation made it clear which shading of "faith" was being used and no confusion arose. For the eavesdropper who could only hear selected tidbits, then confusion would more likely arise than not. Unfortunately, given the flexible nature of human discourse, whether written or spoken, it is actually much more work to reasonably assert a discrepancy in Scripture than skeptics seem to appreciate.

And so it is with the many allegedly contradictory passages that honest students of Scripture come across. Usually, but not always, the problem can be quickly resolved, harmonized, or even solved beyond reasonable doubt if extra information, possibly even non-Biblical information is made available. Sometimes, the available information may make things harder for the defender of the passage in question. And, in some cases, there may just not be any information to evaluate conflicting passages. In this latter case, the a priori of the student manifests itself, for in the darkness of apparently conflicting texts with no illuminating information, the hardened skeptic will have (in his mind) a contradiction or a new tool to question the Bible's truthfulness, and the believer will assert that the discrepancy is but apparent, with future information one day resolving the issue.

In evaluating McKinsey's many claims, we must thus ask the question of whether a reasonable amount of clarifying information has been presented along with the conflicting texts. If extra information presents a reasonable and possible solution to the discrepancy, then we can perhaps still agree with the skeptic that the reasonable and possible solution is after all just only possible and not necessarily the solution, but we cannot agree with those who refuse to consider evidence against their case and maintain that there is a necessary contradiction here. Thus, my approach will be to show that in many alleged discrepancies that McKinsey brings up there is in fact a reasonable solution that may very well be correct, though this possible solution may or may not in fact be the correct solution. Of course, people will have their own definition of what constitutes "reasonableness". The reader might have an intrinsic definition of "reasonable" that agrees with McKinsey's. Or the reader might have one that agrees with me. Or, the reader might have his or her own that is not comparable to either McKinsey's or mine. Ultimately, the reader must decide for himself or herself if my deductions and statements concerning McKinsey's claims are reasonable or are not. And now let us consider some of the points that McKinsey brings up, one by one.

3. On the Number of People who Went to Egypt. Answered here.

4. A Problem With Military Numbers Between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. Now answered here.

5. A Problem With the Number of Michal's Sons.

Now answered here.

6. Where Did Cain Find His Wife? Answered here.

7. In the Day Thou Eatest Thereof Thou Shalt Surely Die.

Now answered here.

8. Does Wisdom Bring Happiness of Grief?

Now answered here.

9. A Review So Far. It is always good to review one's standpoint so that one might continue to strive for clarity of presentation. So to restate: I am endeavoring in this essay to show that for those who take the innocent-until-guilty approach to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek autographa of Scripture and are willing to let possible evidence convince them that there is a reasonable case against inerrancy, the items addressed in this essay (brought forth as evidence by McKinsey) fall substantially short of convincing proof.

On the other hand, it should be stated again that McKinsey and those who vociferously attack inerrancy approach the Scriptures from the standpoint that any divergence is an error which requires convincing proof to the contrary. If one adopts this tack, then the claim of inerrancy is indeed hard to swallow intellectually. McKinsey's fourth chapter and the copious list of alleged contradictions presented is testimony to this a priori .

For the reader's sake, let me get somewhat personal here. In the copious list of allegations in McKinsey's fourth chapter, one might be inclined to think that with the numerous points raised McKinsey would have a convincing argument for those who hold to an a priori fidelity of Scripture but are willing for reasons of integrity to test that a priori against any charges of error. This is a temptation that I must avoid -- for it is not reasonable to assume that (say) 50 points brought up by somebody yield no convincing arguments. And, indeed it is most unreasonable, given that both parties in the discussion have the same assumptions and evidential framework . Had I the same bag of assumptions as McKinsey, I would have agreed with him after the first or second example. But our assumptions are not the same as his. It has been my observation that both believers and their more militant opponents fail to keep the fact of different starting points in a clear perspective. It is unrealistic to expect to convince someone who approaches the text with different assumptions that certain facts are present and that certain deductions and hypotheses are reasonable. The discussion must be waged over philosophical presuppositions. Skeptics will see contradictions where it pleases them, because they do not consider it reasonable to take context, idiom, genre, linguistics, etc., into consideration. One who approaches the text with a 20th century Western mind and expects a 20th century Western historical account will run into so many contradictions in Scripture that he will not have time to write them all down. One who believes in approaching the text in as Semitic or Greek a fashion as possible, letting idiom and internal factors help clarify shadings, and nuances, and the main points of the text, can parry off many of the errantist's thrusts. Thus, this is why McKinsey and I have the same text before us, yet come to radically different conclusions.

With these points stated, let us return to some selections from McKinsey's list.

10. An Alleged Multi-Discrepancy Between 2 Sam 10:18 and 1 Chr 19:18. Now answered here.

11. The Divergences Between Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. Now answered here. Excursus. The reader who knows Greek and/or Hebrew and takes the time to study Scripture in its original languages probably has one of the critical edition testaments. Most likely, the reader has a UBS Greek New Testament (3rd or 4th edition) and/or a Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece by UBS as well (26th or 27th edition); for the OT the reader probably has the UBS version of Biblia Hebraica . The discussion of the possibility of copyist errors for some of the divergent figures in this section is given by McKinsey:

As you have probably realized by now, the most common excuse [value-laden term ?!] one will hear for the kinds of errors we have noted so far is that a copyist made a mistake...The Book's defenders love this approach because there is no way it can be definitely checked. The situation mimics the story of the man who says that he literally talked to Jesus this morning in his bedroom, Jesus in the flesh. When asked to provide proof he replies that he has none and you'll have to take his word for it. When asked to repeat the event with others present, he will say that the event was unique and can't be repeated. When asked to provide some tangible evidence, such as a piece of Jesus' garment, he will reply that Jesus took everything with him. When asked to provide some pictures, drawings, or other visual aids, he will say that easels and other equipment were not available. In other words, an alibi will be readily provided for any and every question. The `somebody copied something wrong' explanation falls into the same classification and is nothing more than sophisticated intellectual evasion with a liberal overlay of deception. The contradiction remains until apologists can provide evidence to the contrary.

I suppose that the critical apparatus in my Hebrew Bible, the product of thousands of man-hours of tedious scholarship, as well as books such as Aland and Aland's The Text of the New Testament and Wurthwein's The Text of the Old Testament are studies in a field which allows "sophisticated intellectual evasions". I personally would like to hear McKinsey give this speech at a seminar for textual criticism and have him defend his words reasonably. As far as his remark that apologists love the copying error excuse because there is no way that it can definitely be checked, I find myself in the bizarre situation of being psychoanalyzed by a man who has never met me. I would personally love to see what the originals said. The we could have definitive answers as to whether there are errors or not. If there are errors then as an inerrantist I am wrong. If the originals don't have errors then McKinsey is wrong. I would rather be able to have access to the conclusive truth by possessing the autographs. But we don't have the originals. So textual matters are important, even when words by McKinsey argue to the contrary. I would be interested in hearing a rational presentation for his opinions without all of the hostile snarling that pervades his work.

12. Temptations. Now answered here.

13. Midianites or Ishmaelites? Now answered here.

14. Fish or Whale? (It Can't Be Both!) Now answered here.

15. Was Lot Abram's Nephew or Brother? (He Can't Be Both!) Now answered here.

A general note should be made about scholarship here. It is very easy in general to raise questions, and it is often very difficult to answer them. In two minutes, I could ask more questions that are philosophically challenging to classical theism than I could probably answer in a millennium of research. And the same goes for Biblical questions. Certainly one can read the text superficially, not taking into account idiom, context, genre, word-studies, history, archaeology, a working knowledge of the original languages, and so on, and find alleged discrepancies. But when one charges a document with errors, one should be honest and investigate whether such a charge is merited based on the evidence. McKinsey fails, as do the some of the others who feel called to attack the trustworthiness of Scripture, to begin a fair examination of the evidence for and against a position. If McKinsey knows anything about the original languages, his work certainly does not show or exhibit such knowledge. If McKinsey appreciates context, genre, and idiom, as any thoughtful study of literature both secular and sacred should entail, he does not exhibit such appreciation. If he values honesty and fairness in discussions, he does not exhibit it with his cavalier dismissals of other apologists' writings and with the temper tantrums that mar his writings in many places. If he has a basic core of civility and gentlemanship, he fails to exhibit it. In short, McKinsey fails to prove to me that he deserves to be taken seriously in good discussions of problems and facets related to Scripture.

16. On the Satan/Yahweh Census Incitation of David. The reader is encouraged to see the most excellent article by Glenn Miller on this issue in his Christian Thinktank here

17. The Witness of Jesus: True or Not True? Now answered here.

18. Who was Joseph's Father? I am personally amazed at the fact that this allegation is trumpeted so often. McKinsey states "Matt 1:16 states that Joseph's father is `Jacob', while Luke 3:23 says it's `Heli'. The reader who wants a fine discussion and probable resolution of the differences of names in the Matthean and Lukan genealogies is referred to the commentaries of William Hendriksen on Matthew (pp. 105-130) and pages 220-7 of Luke (volumes in his New Testament Commentary series, and to a most excellent discussion by Norval Geldenhuys in his New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) volume on Luke, pages 150-155. (These page numbers correspond to the latest printing of Geldenhuy's classic commentary by Eerdman's Publishing. I do not know how the page numbers line up with the earlier printings.) After studying these clerics' solutions and hypotheses, I find nothing about them that is unreasonable. I would be interested to hear from any skeptics or serious students of the Bible who could make the case that the hypothesized solutions of either Hendriksen or Geldenhuys are not feasible. And the serious student should study these solutions for profit. Until skepticism can bring up some honest and reasonable objections to the hypothesized solutions of Geldenhuys and Hendriksen (which solutions themselves are the "classical" solutions), students of the Bible who are inerrantists have very reasonable reconciliations for the differences among the names in the Matthean and Lukan genealogies. I personally wished that McKinsey would have explored the options and presented his findings to the readers so that his argument's strength could be fairly evaluated.

19. For Your Perusal Speaking on apologetics, McKinsey states:

One can't help but become very weary with the enormous amount of intellectual dishonesty that is so clearly evident in most apologetic literature. Defenders of the Bible are far more closely allied to the Book and Jesus than they will ever be to truth and objectivity. Defending Jesus and the Bible at all costs are paramount in their thought processes. Their war cry is: damn the facts, man the barricades.

20. Is John the Baptist the "Second Elijah" or Not? Now answered here.

21. How did Judas Die? Now answered here.

22. Who Bought the Field: Judas or The Priests of the Temple? Now answered here.

23. Who Killed Saul? (Or How Did Saul Die?) Answered here.

24. How Old was Jehoiachin When He Became Monarch? 25. How Long did Jehoiachin Reign? Now answered here. The reader is encouraged to examine McKinsey's fourth chapter carefully, and to see the highly cavalier fashion with which text-critical questions are shrugged off or pushed aside. If McKinsey knows anything about the guiding principles of sound textual criticism, he does not begin to exhibit such knowledge. As a result, readers of his book are robbed of a chance to see both sides in order that they can have a good survey of the situation.

26. Seventh Day or Tenth Day? Now answered here.

27. How Many Chief Officers: 250 or 550? Now answered here.

28. Alleged Discrepancies in the Gospels (pp. 82-3).* Here McKinsey has compiled a list of alleged discrepancies between parallel accounts in the four gospels. The synoptic gospels have long been a supposed feeding ground for skeptics and those who question the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. And, when imposing lists such as McKinsey's are presented to a believer for the first time, such lists can be quite rattling.

A personal note is presented for people's edification. I was very rattled the very first time I ran into my first list of gospel contradictions. There were so many on the list -- how could all of the alleged contradictions be wrong? I believe that we must follow the facts where they lead. And let us not be deluded as to the importance of the trustworthiness of the gospels. If skeptics can indeed demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the gospels, read in the original language with a sensitivity to idiom, internal literary styles, word-usages, and the like, have errors, then we are placed in an epistemological darkroom with regards to the historicity and the words of Christ. For if there are errors in the Greek autographa of the gospels, then those of us two millenia removed from the alleged historical events that give the Christian faith its non-existential character have to be infallible in separating truth from error. I can vouch for my fallibility, and it is a safe bet that most people will vouch for their own as well.

The key to studying the differences and divergences in the gospels is to always remember that style, structure, idiom, and syntax are flexible creatures. Sometimes it is clear that a particular gospel writer is grouping things together in a topical order and not a linear chronological order that we 20th century Westerners assume and often take for granted. If this fact is lost sight of, then one will find an abundance of contradictions in the gospels.

More exhortations from somebody who has fought in the trenches: sometimes one gospel writer gives a more complete account than the other. Sometimes in similar accounts different perspectives will be emphasized. Sometimes it is lost sight of that as an itinerant preacher Jesus said the same thing more than once. Other times it is lost sight of that certain accounts are only superficially parallel. There are other factors to consider as well. The important thing in approaching the gospels honestly and faithfully (according to literary standards) is to conscientiously try to remember that the 20th century idioms of speech and conventions cannot be forced on the text.

Even if one is careful as the above paragraphs warn, there are still going to be a few places where research does not allow one to be conclusive either way. For me, how John reckons the hours in various accounts is still a bit mysterious -- perhaps I am too fussy with the current solutions offered, (see Morris' revised The Gospel of John , pp. 684-95 for a most excellent and sober presentation of the problem), or perhaps my guardedness is proper.

So when a person runs into problems in the gospels, and it is certain that a person will, does this prove the skeptical claims that there are errors in the originals? I would suppose that the answer depends on your presuppositions. For myself, it is to be expected with certainty that even if four people faithfully describe a person and selected events in that person's life, there will be items that appear to be hard (or even next to impossible!) to reconcile. If we were there and knew all of the facts, we would be in a position to more authoritatively evaluate matters. But we weren't there in Palestine 2000 years ago, and the gospels present only a few selected pictures of Jesus' and the disciples' lives. We have no right to be dogmatic either way about errors here and errors there. Believers in many instances should not propound a solution as being necessarily correct, but should be content with asserting and reasoning that a solution has reasonable probability. Likewise, skeptics must exercise discipline before jumping to dogmatic conclusions of the opposite nature. We are all, believer and skeptic alike, in the same boat as not having much information. Let us stay humble and acknowledge the particular strengths of good arguments for or against errors in the originals.

My friend and colleague JP Holding informs me that the list of alleged gospel contradictions put forth by McKinsey have been addressed in the series of essays (which I find most excellent and solid) here. If competent skeptics have any factual or logical rebuttals to these essays on harmonization in the gospels, I would appreciate being informed of them via correspondence.

Another collection of heavyweight essays is written by apologist extraordinaire Glenn Miller in his most excellent "Unravelling Wittgenstein's Net: A Christian Thinktank" website. Selected essays for the reader's benefit are found on the following URL's:

• http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ordorise.html ,
• http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nostaff.html
• http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2or1.html
• http:www.christian-thinktank.com/spices.html

29. Does Jesus Judge or Not? John 5:22 versus John 8:15 and 12:47. Now answered here.

30. Matt 26:52 versus Luke 22:36. Now answered here.

31. If the Father Has Given All Things into Jesus' Hand, Then How Can Jesus Tell James and John That Sitting At His Right Or Left Hand Is Not His To Give? Now answered here.

32. A Most Important Question: Does Faith Alone (Sola Fida) Save or Not? Paul vs. James. Now answered here.

33. Are Children To Be Punished or Not To Be Punished For Their Parents' Deeds? Now answered here.

34. Is God the Author of Evil or Not? Now answered here.

35. The Quest for a Righteous Man. Now answered here.

36. John 10:30 versus Matt 27:46. Now answered here.

37. Unclean Spirits from God? Now answered here.

38. On Swearing. Now answered here.

39. To Kill or Not? Now answered here.

40. General Comments The remark that it takes time and effort to study the Bible is usually greeted with surprise even in the Church. Yet I have found that time and effort are necessary staples of patient study. We are dealing with documents millenia old, translated from other languages, written for people in different cultures and who had far different customs than we Occidentals have. As such, we must continually realize that Scripture is not a 20th century "how-to" manual that tells us everything we want to know or explains everything to our satisfaction. Skeptics often fall prey to the idea that Scripture must be as we would think it to be in the 20th century. And when this 20th century ideal is violated, the litany against Scripture begins. And yet, such a litany is fallacious, for where is it necessarily the case that Scripture must fit out 20th century ideals? One can emote all one wants [as McKinsey does] about this and that, but where does this excuse one from patient study of the texts and a continual consideration of idiom, context, genre, etc? Emotion is not logical argument. Emotion, while used quite liberally as a substitute for reason in our postmodern culture, still does not make the text errant or inerrant. My emoting will not change whether Scripture is true or not. Nor will any skeptic's emoting.

I hope that long ago the reader has realized that most of the allegations of contradiction which were brazenly trumpeted by McKinsey [and others throughout history] really have no foundation in logic or critical thinking. The reader might have been overwhelmed with the sheer number of allegations, and one could not be blamed for thinking that there had to be some undeniable allegation in the whole lot. Yet, I believe with all intellectual honesty that in all of what has been presented so far, there is not one compelling case for contradiction. There are a few interesting problems indeed in places where harmonization is not obvious. Yet, it is the height of intellectual arrogance to pronounce the case as settled, for we don't know all of the facts.

We Christian students should never be afraid of acknowledging that there are places in Scripture where the ultimate solution escapes us. McKinsey has listed a few places. And yet, the case is not convincing. If there are/were errors in the aforementioned texts of Scripture, we don't have enough evidence as of yet to make a dogmatic pronouncement. There simply are too many unknowns in these places to be dogmatic either way. We cannot prove that the texts are true with respect to idiom, language, genre, etc, and skeptics really cannot prove the reverse. All both sides can do is study the issue and remain humble in light of the dearth of facts.

So why do I call myself an inerrantist in the light of what I have said above? The answer is that enough of Scripture which I can verify has checked out to be true so that I can reasonably have confidence that the areas where all or most of the facts are unknown would indeed check out were I to come into greater knowledge of the facts. In other words, the track record of those verifiable parts of Scripture allows me to have confidence in the as-of-the-present unverifiable parts of Scripture. This principle is not one that I apply to Scripture in contradistinction to all other things. It is a principle that I apply to everything. If I can trust something for most of what it says, then it is reasonable to have confidence that the unverifiable statements are true. This confidence does not excuse the student of studying the problem areas, but it gives him a reasonable justification for being humble when there are surface discrepancies that are not immediately resolvable.

Therefore, when skeptics make claims that our case is not proven until all of the Bible is proven true, they are correct in the strict logical sense. My position of inerrancy is not rigorously proven until all of Scripture is shown to be true. And we must realize that there will never be a day when this will happen, for there are some questions about the past that will apparently never be answered definitively. But skepticism of McKinsey's stripe really doesn't accomplish much by beating on the areas where facts are not known, for these question areas are historical mysteries to both sides equally. Merely raising the possibility that something cannot be true does not do anything for demonstrating that a statement [or set of statements] is necessarily false and/or contradictory.

41. On Blasphemy . Now answered here.

Excursus to 41 -- Ignorance on Display. In the discussion of blasphemy, McKinsey later makes the rhetorical question "Does that make sense considering the fact that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equal? How can you believe in Jesus and not the Holy Spirit and vice-versa?" The Nicene and Athanasian creeds of the Church completely deny that the Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equal in the universal sense that McKinsey poses. The creeds assert that the Christ is true God and true man, whereas the Spirit is "Lord and giver of life", that the Person of Christ is not to be confused with the Person of the Holy Spirit, etc. Here, the person rattled by McKinsey's claims or one who is giving them credence should be made aware that McKinsey is unaware of the most basic teachings of Christianity concerning the nature of God. Again, McKinsey deserves a 10 for emotion, and a 0 for actual knowledge in this defining doctrine of the Church.

42. Lying Spirits. Now answered here.

43. Inspiration and the Lord's Words. See here and here for relevant discussion. <.

44. Rest, Discipline and Tribulation. Now answered here.

45. Resurrection or Not? Now answered here.

46. Who Rose from the Dead First? Now answered here.

47. Ascent to Heaven. Now answered here.

48. Flesh and Blood and Heaven Too. McKinsey charges thus:

The text of 1 Cor 15:50 declares that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, while Heb 11:5 says that Enoch went to heaven without dying. So flesh and blood did enter heaven as did Elijah in the chariot.

49. Anger. Now answered here.

50. To Covet or Not. Now answered here.

51. Running. Now answered here.

52. What About the Great Commission? Now answered here.

53. Bearing Burdens. Now answered here.

54. Contention and Striving. Now answered here.

55. Sinning and Abiding in God. Answered here.

56. Some More Claims of Error. Answered here.

57. How Many Baths? Now answered here.

58. How many horsemen? Now answered here.

59. How Old Was Ahaziah at Inauguration? Answered here.

Conclusions on McKinsey's Allegations. McKinsey wraps things up with

Beyond any doubt the number of biblical contradictions available for analysis borders on the incredible. Additional bombs would only make the rubble bounce. More than enough examples have been provided to convince any reasonably open-minded person that the Bible is a fraud.

What we have seen is that, apart from a very small minority of charges, the allegations are groundless when examined carefully. The small minority that can present problems seem beyond any dogmatic claims by either the apologist or the skeptic. Perhaps these are genuine errors and contradictions. Perhaps they are not. We just don't have any information to make an informed judgement either way. So the case is inconclusive for those charging error and contradiction to these passages. Perhaps new information will come to light which helps one to make a more informed judgement. Until then, it is wise to refrain from making strong assertions either way. Those of us in the inerrancy position will maintain that it is reasonable to give the text the benefit of the doubt in areas where we lack information.

I write this paragraph for the student of Scripture who is rattled by skeptical claims. First, the student should not be overwhelmed or intimidated by the bravado of many skeptics. Second, the student should always realize that it is quite easy to sound and look informed and educated when attacking Scripture. McKinsey's list of contradictions took about 17 pages in his book. This essay, when printed, takes 50+ pages, and many of the allegations were handily disposed. It is quite easy to attack Scripture and to look correct without further investigation; it is quite dull and unexciting [and not too glorious] to actually research the claims themselves. Third, the student should have access to the original languages or at least be willing to look that way. Fourth, the student should realize that there will invariably be some places that make one pause and scratch his head. In a book as large as the Bible, with so many different authors writing at different times, such places are really inevitable. Yet, one must always approach the unknown from the known and not the other way around. So we don't have a necessarily correct solution to some problems; that does not affect the fact that we do have clear solutions to alleged problems in many other places. Expect problems here and there, and don't be surprised if these problems are not solved easily. Nothing in Scripture promises that reading Scripture is easy and effort-less. It is a red herring fallacy when skeptics make the claim that the difficulty in reading Scripture somehow implies its invalidity. Remember that they have to prove [not just assert!] that passages are necessarily contradictory. I hope I am not sounding too pedantic here. I just write this as one who has had to learn these things on his own.

I write this paragraph for skeptics: I believe that what I have written is fair and faithful to the ideal of sound inquiry. Any factual errors or well-argued rebuttals to my arguments are welcomed by myself. Much of what I have learned in the defense of Scripture has come from healthy dialectics with skeptics. I have been corrected at times and I have done my share of correcting. If those of you who call themselves skeptics want to be taken seriously, then you will have to present far better and more detailed allegations than has McKinsey in his fourth chapter. Maybe some of you will end up convincing me that I am in the wrong position. Maybe not. But if you consider McKinsey's and Farrell Till's work to be rigorous and logical, you will not convince me, nor will you educate me. If you aspire to be more logical than these two representatives, you shall always have my attention and friendly curiosity as to your opinions and reasoning.

I offer the following conclusions in a matter-of-fact sense, and not as an ad hominem type of argument. I conclude that (1) McKinsey has shown himself to be completely unqualified to speak on Biblical issues; (2) McKinsey has shown himself illiterate when it comes to context, genre, idiom, etc; (3) McKinsey has shown himself ignorant of textual criticism; (4) McKinsey has shown himself ignorant of the languages; (5) McKinsey, if debated on these issues, would lose to somebody who did know context, genre, idiom, the languages, etc; and (6) McKinsey is incapable in this area of presenting sustained logical argumentation.

This essay is already much longer than I expected it to be. I hope that it has done some service to honest students of Scripture. What started out as a little essay by a well-read layman turned into something much larger. If any of the research in this essay helps anybody to understand the Scriptures better and to study them any more systematically, I shall be content.

Chapter 5: "Jesus I"

Description: First of four chapters with Jesus as focus. Seven sections: Resurrection, Crucifixion, Ascension, Genealogy, Ancestry, Historicity and Extrabiblical Sources, and Pagan Figures.

Resurrection - 4 items.

2. A series of objections about differences between the Gospels. Rather than answer these individually, we refer the reader to our essay on Harmonization and Glenn Miller's essay on that topic and Wenham's Easter Enigma.

3.Eccl. 3:19-21 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?

Now answered here.

Crucifixion - 12 items.

The majority of the objections here are "harmonization" issues. We have covered some of these in detail elsewhere or else they are extremely simple: Matt. 27:28 vs. Mark 15:17//John 19:2 (the color of Jesus' robe - I challenge anyone to discern a difference between those colors), for example.

vs.

It is said that these provide contradictory locations for the Crucifixion - though it is added that "Some apologists disputably allege Golgotha is the Hebrew rendering while Calvary is Latin."

But there is no "disputably" about it. Both words mean the same thing ("skull").

As added notes on this subject:

• McKinsey rgards as a "major problem" the issue of "who or what died on the cross." [96] "If a man died on the cross, then nothing was accomplished, for a man's death can save no one. If God died on the cross, then we have an impossibility since God cannot die." Looking for Christian "solutions" to this, our subject consults Hal Lindsey (!), who concludes that since Jesus was fully man and fully God, the problem is solved; our subject persists in saying that this does not resolve the problem.

  The solution is actually found in recognizing that the Hebrews viewed the body and the spirit as a total identity: If the man died on the cross, then it counts as a "death" of the spirit of the man as well, in that it undergoes a given experience.

• It is objected that the Bible does not mention anyone other than "Stephen and possibly John the Baptist" dying for the Christian cause, and this is taken as indication that martyrdom is part of "Christian mythology".

  Without exploring issues such as the reliability of Church tradition and the contrary opinions of secular historians, it may be said here that this is yet another example of McKinsey writing in a way that implies that the Bible is all there is that records relevant Christian history, although he certainly knows better. We recommend the works of Robert Wilken and Robin Lane Fox as a corrective to the general idea that martyrdom is the only type of persecution that matters.

Ascension - 1 item. See here.

Genealogy - 7 objections.

See Glenn Miller's work on this subject.

A general objection: "Christians should be glad people aren't judged by their ancestry" in light of Jesus' ancestors including bad folks like Rahab.

No has asserted otherwise. This is merely well-poisoning.

See here.

Two paragraphs endorsing the "pagan borrowing" notion. See Glenn Miller's work on this subject and ours.

Chapter 6: "Jesus II"

Description: Second chapter with Jesus as focus. Sections: Non-Messiah, Debunked, Incarnation, False Prophet, Virgin Birth, Trinity. This chapter purports to examine Jesus' credentials and determine whether Jesus "meets the requirements laid down throughout the Bible as the one who is to be recognized as the messiah, the savior of humanity." [109] ...A number of these objections are either repeated elsewhere or are answered by material outside of this page.

Non-Messiah

2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Objections about genealogy of Jesus; see Glenn Miller's work on this subject.

7, 8. Misunderstanding of typology. See here.

Debunked

2. Misapprehension of typology. See above. We'll offer one example. In one case Nahum 1:11 ("There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counsellor.") is pitted against Is. 9:6 ("For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."), and it is asked why the verse in Nahum is not applied to Jesus while the one is Isaiah is.

Considering that Nahum's book is a message to Nineveh (1:1), it is quite unlikely that one could make even a typological application here, unless one can show that Jesus somehow "came out of" Nineveh; moreover, the appellation in Nahum is to a wicked counselor, which one must show Jesus was.

3. Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Also Job 25:4, 15:14)

Said to operate against the possibility of Jesus being born sinless; ignores the proverbial and therefore non-absolute nature of the passages in question, as well as that they are merely records of what was said and therefore not, of necessity, true teachings.

5. Misapprehension of typology; see link above.

See entries in Encyclopedia for Dan. 2:11 and Gen. 6:3.

False Prophet

vs.

Now answered here.

Now answered here.

Said to be unfulfilled since the high priest never saw any such thing in his lifetime. McKinsey fails to understand the eschatological context of the statements. No Jew would have interpreted this to mean that he would one day look out the window and see Jesus riding by on a cloud. The language expresses symbolically the exaltation of the Son of Man, which the high priest did indeed live to "see" in the Resurrection and in the foundation of the new community of believers. (See N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God.) See more here.

vs.

and

Now answered here.

11. Matt. 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again. (Parallel Mark 10:33-4, Luke 18:32-3)

vs.

The former said to contradict the latter which indicate that Jews were involved in the killing of Jesus. McKinsey omits the verses previous which indicate the Jewish role of delivering him unto the Gentiles.

Said to be in error since Jesus was not beheaded as John the Baptist was. The "likewise" does not refer to method of execution but to the "have done unto him" whatever they wanted. "Likewise" does not have to mean "in exactly the same manner with absolutely no variations." If it did, McKinsey could object that e.g., even if both were beheaded, one was beheaded with a sharp axe and the other with a dull one.

Said to be in error since John the Baptist didn't restore anything. The Greek word here has the connotation of reconstitution; in that sense, John did indeed "restore" something, inasmuch as he paved the way for the new covenant offered by Jesus.

15. John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

vs.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. (Also John 13:21, 25-27)

The alleged problem: Jesus supposedly "lost" some sheep in the second set of verses. The first two verses do not contradict the third, for Judas was not one of the sheep. John 18:9 and 17:12 complement each other and the former is informed by the latter since it precedes it. The last has no application for the point of the second and third is loss by death.

Now answered here.

17. Now answered here.

Said to be easily shown false, and indeed it can be if read outside the social context. God's will in the matter is presumed to be a pre-condition for any prayer or petition in Judaism; to ask for something in someone's name presumes, under the Hebrew rubric that name = authority, that you have permission and clearance to use the authority given and would not abuse it.

2,000 years is said to disprove this verse, but it was fulfilled in 70 AD (see here).

Said to be disproven by the Dark Ages. McKinsey has apparently not been aware that historians no longer use this prejudicial term, preferring to call it the "Early Middle Ages," and hardly agree that Christianity caused it to any serious extent (it was the Black Plague that was the most critical factor).

1. Cites verses where Joseph is called the "father" of Jesus. (John 6:42, Matt. 13:55, Luke 2:48, etc.) Some of these are recorded perceptions of people who obviously would not know of the virginal conception (like the townspeople of Nazareth). Others are a case of Mary speaking publicly, where we would hardly expect her to say, "I and this man who is not really your father..."

3. Repeat of previous objection on Job 14:4, with the added note of purification of Mary indicated in Luke 2:22-4, which has nothing to do with Jesus needing purification.

4. The old saw about Is. 7:14; see Glenn Miller's item on that verse.

5. A critique of the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, which we will not defend.

6. An observation that several OT figures had births that McKinsey thinks were more spectacular or miraculous, which reflects his own opinion well, and really doesn't make a lot of difference.

As a side note, McKinsey downplays the miraculous nature of the virgin birth by suggesting that such a birth is not miraculous, since artificial insemination can produce a virgin birth. This does well to remind us that it is the conception that was miraculous, not the birth per se, but one wants to ask how McKinsey thinks artificial insemination was done in the first century.

Various issues about the Trinity. The major issue is that the Trinity is contradictory. Contradiction comes about when one says that "A" is also "non-A", but that is not what the Trinity states. The Trinity doctrine states that God is "A" and "3B" - one essence, but three persons. This is not in violation of the law of non-contradiction at all.

On this subject, we refer the reader to Glenn Miller's trinity series and several works on this page, notably the claims of Jesus (here) and especially our analysis of Wisdom theology.

We consider that between these items every one of McKinsey's objections are answered and every concern he presents is alleviated. Neither het nor his sources Gerald Sigal, Shmuel Golding, or John Biddle have any concepption of how the Trinity works or of the Jewish background of the concept.

Unlike many of the apologists McKinsey quotes, I see no reason to resort to describing the Trinity as a "mystery" or as somehow incomprehensible.

Here is one miscellaneous note: 2 Cor. 4:4 ("In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.") is cited as a problem of some sort, inasmuch as the devil is called a "god" just as Jesus is. This verse identifies the Devil as the "god of this world," however -- not as the Wisdom or Word of God. The "god" belongs (within the obvious context of Jewish thought) in sarcastic quote marks; it reflects the position given the devil by the world.

Sources for Chapter 6

1. Brow.GJ -- Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John I-XII. Doubleday, 1966.
2. Gue.Mk -- Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Waco: Word.

Chapter 7: "Jesus III"

Description: A third chapter on Jesus in two sections on "Character" and "Deceptiveness", comprising 59 objections. At this point, we have covered so much of EBE that quite half of the objections in this chapter are repeated in whole or in part elsewhere. The chapter introduction includes an allusion to Mark 10:18.

1. John 7:8-10

2. Matthew 5:22, 23:19; Luke 11:40

3. Matthew 5:44 vs various cites

4. Mark 10:19, John 13:34

5. Matt. 15:1-3

6. Luke 6:1-4

7. Luke 12:4 vs. various cites

8. Luke 8:43-5

41. Mark 13:32

See commentary.

9.Matthew 5:22

10. Mark 2:15.

11. Matthew 27:46

12. John 18:37

13. Luke 22:31-3

14. John 20:17

15. John 2:4

16. Luke 14:26

17. Matt. 5:39

18. Matthew 15:28

19. Repeat of prior objection.

20. John 3:13

21. Matthew 26:18

22. Mark 9:25-6

23. Mark 8:35

24. Revelation 22:16

25. John 7:38 -- despite McKinsey, this qualifies as an allusion, although it does beg the question (as does the doubting side) of Jesus' ability to claim the allusion.

26. Repeat of prior objection.

27. Matthew 10:34, etc.

28. Matthew 11:29-30

29. Mark 7:27

30. Matt. 9:13//Mark 10:18

31. Mark 6:10

32. John 5:31, 8:14

33. Matthew 5:16, etc

34. Luke 16:9, 13

35. Matthew 19:26//Mark 9:29

36. Matthew 12:12

37. Matthew 27:11, etc.

38. Matthew 28:18, 20:23

39. Mark 10:11

40. Matthew 28:20

41. See above.

42. Luke 6:37, John 7:24

43. John 8:15, etc

44. John 9:5

45. Matt. 12:40, John 12:24

46. Mark 9:50; Matt. 13:12; John 3:13

47. John 8:50, etc.

48. Matthew 7:7-8

49. Mark 10:29-30

50. Luke 15:7

51. Mark 8:11-12, etc.

52. Matthew 27:46//John 12:27

53.Matt. 9:18, 24-5

54. Mark 10:18

55. Matthew 24:35//Ecclesiastes 1:4

56. John 20:9

57. Matt. 4:10

58. John 5:37

59. Mark 16:17-18

Chapter 8 is outside our subject interest.

Chapter 9: "The Character of Biblical Figures"

Description: Accusations against the character of God, the patriarchs, the matriarchs, the prophets, and Peter. We will address only those objections regarding God, which encompass 33 items.

While not necessarily endorsing any of the remaining material, we would point out that no one doubts that many humans of the Bible did immoral things. No one suggests that we ought to read aloud in Sunday School to children the story of Lot and his daughters; no more so would we expose a child of suggested age to the evening news.

Likewise, obviously, such instances of human imperfection are described in the Bible not for emulation, but for education, just as is the case for similar descriptions in secular history books. I daresay McKinsey would accuse the OT and NT writers of whitewashing had every person in the Bible emerged as an angel.

1. Is. 45:7, Lam. 3:38

2. 2 Chron. 18:22

3. 1 Sam. 16:1-2

4. Gen. 2:17

5. Jer. 25:27

6. Prov. 26:10

7. Judg. 1:19

8. Malachi 2:3

9. Jonah 3:4, 10; Gen. 15:13//Exod. 12:40; Gen. 35:10, 46:2

10. 2 Sam. 12:11-12

11. Hosea 1:2

12. Num. 16:35 -- simply "argument by outrage" with the presumption that God has no right to deliver a just judgment.

13. Gen. 7:21 -- ditto.

14. Job 5:2

15. Jer. 23:24, etc.

16. Gen. 3:9, etc.

17. Ex. 32:14, etc.

18. Ex. 4:22-3

19. Deut. 10:17, etc.

20. Slavery and the Bible

21. Deut. 23:2

22. Ezek. 20:26, etc.

23. Jer. 19:9, etc.

24. Josh. 14:2, etc.

25. Josh. 11:6

26. Deut. 22:28-9

27. Ezek. 4:12

28. Gen. 4:8-15

29. Gen. 38:9-10

30. Is. 3:17

31. Ezek. 9:6 -- mere argument by outrage. 1 Sam. 15:3 --- used to charge brutality; see here as applicable Glenn Miller's essay on the destruction of the Canaanites.

32. Answered here.

33. Multi-part charges of hypocrisy against God, summarized by this statement: "If it's wrong for us, then it should be wrong for God."

Let it be said bluntly: God owns us and has every right to do as He pleases, and He does it justly, even if we think otherwise.

More specifics include charging the Holy Ghost with adultery with Mary (the sin of adultery involves sexual contact - not miraculous overshadowing); finding of contradiction between ENGLISH verses of the OT and NT based on the same or similar English words, with no concern for the nuances of the original Hebrew or Greek; misreadings of proverbial literature, and repeats of many objections found elsewhere.

Chapter 10: "Injustice"

Description: This chapter addresses some philosophical objections to Christianity. All of these issues have been addressed elsewhere, so all we have are links in reply:

The subjects of Evil, Innocents, Suffering, and Hell are addressed by Glenn Miller here.

The subject of sexism is addressed by Miller here, and slavery here.

Atonement is addressed, based on the objections, here. Heaven issue is addressed within this item. Original Sin is addressed here.

Chapter 11: "Science"

Description: Six objection sets titled Mathematics, False Science, Geography, Flood, Creationism, Biblical Day. The latter three topics are outside of our purview and will not be addressed. The tone is set by our subject in describing the Bible as "a veritable miasma of poor science, bad math, and inaccurate geography, all with a heavy overlay of mythology and folklore." [209] The introduction also repeats some previous arguments about the use of imprecise numbers.

Mathematics

1. 1 Chron. 3:22

2. 1 Chron. 25:3

3. Josh. 15:33ff

4. 1 Kings 7:23

5. 1 Chron. 13:19-20

6. Josh. 15:21ff.

7. 2 Chron. 21:20, 22:1-2

8. Repeat of prior objection.

9. Josh. 19:2ff.

10. Ez. 2:3-64

11. Num. 3:17-39.

1. Lev. 11:19

2. Lev. 11:20-1

3. Lev. 11:23

4. Lev. 11:6

5. Deut. 14:7

6. Gen. 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Dismissed, like all miracles, as unscientific and therefore impossible. Let it only be noted that the topic of the miraculoush has been discussed by intelligent philosphers over thousands of years, and cannot be dealt with so cavilierly.

7. Gen. 30:37-9

8. 2 Pet. 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Simple denigration of the miraculous; answer same as #6 above.

9. 1 Sam. 2:8, etc.

10. Josh. 10:13//Hab. 3:11

11. Gen. 11:6-9. The Tower of Babel incident; again mere denigration of the miraculous.

12. John 12:24

13. Is. 11:12, etc

14. Mark 16:18

15. Matt. 13:31-2

16. Deut. 32:11

17. Lev. 13:9-13

18. Luke 1:44

19. 2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

The usual litany against miracles is offered; the answer is the same as above.

20. Lev. 11:21

21. Gen. 3:16. Usual litany against miracles, and original sin, which we refer to in another chapter.

Geography

1. Matt. 2:1-2

2. Matthew 4:8

3. Matt. 19:1

4. Repeat of prior objection.

5. Mark 5:1

6. Matt. 4:12-13

7. Matt. 4:13-15

8. Gen. 2:10-14. An objection to the accuracy of pre-Flood geography, which is rather odd, since if the Flood is true, obviously geography would have been markedly different prior to it.

9. Repeat.

10. Acts 22:8

11. Mark 7:31

12. Ex. 14:9

13. 1 Kings 17:3

14. 1 Kings 9:26

15. Josh. 1:3-4

#16-19.

Sources for Chapter 11

• Alb.Mt -- Albright, W. and C. S. Mann. Matthew. Doubleday, 1971.
• Brow.GJ -- Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John I-XII. Doubleday: 1966.
• Cars.GAJ -- Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Eerdmans: 1991.
• Lind.GJ -- Lindards, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. Eerdmans, 1972.
• Tig.DS -- Tigay, Jeffrey. Deuteronomy. JPS, 1996.

Chapter 12 (Mike Shelton)

Most of McKinsey's arguments in this chapter involve taking proverbial literature literally.

This Chapter of EBE perhaps goes to the heart of the Christian Faith. Although Belief is an extremely important tenet of Christianity (we walk by faith, not by sight), one thing is very true about Christianity – it is historical in nature. It’s a believable Faith, a rational Faith, with solid touchy-feely connectors. Using common rules of evidence that any competent historian and lawyer would utilize, one could come to a reasonable conclusion that Ronald Reagan was one of the past Presidents of the United States; that Winston Churchill was once the Prime Minister of England; that John Paul Jones is entombed below the main chapel of the United States Naval Academy; that Vikings used to conduct regular raids against Ireland. The recent historical items are easy, because they are still relatively fresh in historical parlance. However, as one goes further back in time, one sees apathy and skepticism increase toward things historical, even though the same rules of evidence are applied. Additionally, one encounters embellished accounts of historical figures that are the stuff of legend. We must acknowledge that, truly indeed, the serious historian must work harder to sift through the wheat and chaff to arrive at the more or less correct conclusion.

However, with all that aside, some very able historians have been able to assemble credible accounts of the Vikings, the rich Irish history of early Christianity, travels of Martin Luther, the unfortunate slave trade of black Africans, and so forth. Finally, we arrive about 2000 years ago – indeed, was this man called Jesus a real historical person in time and space? With the application of the writings of Josephus and the immensely accurate archaeological work of Sir William Ramsay, one can establish physical evidence congruently with the Biblical writings of men who continually describe the works of a Spirit Being – a Being Who claims to work outside of time and space, Who has always been, a transcendent Being Who has revealed Himself as the Creator God – present as One God manifested in Three Persons. If one can believe that water can co-exist in three physical states at once, then one gets the idea of the Triune God. It still requires Faith, of which God is the Author, but this Faith is verifiable, which I can fully attest to by miracles, a subject covered in this review.

Background

I have had the distinct pleasure to know JP Holding for about 18 months or so, first meeting online, then later with the incredible fortune of timing to meet him personally in January 1998, while we were both in the same area at the same time. My forte is not journalism, and I am extremely, extremely late with this response for a variety of reasons (read: excuses), few of them worth anything. My primary apologetics Bible study interests are in Genesis, Creationism / Creation Science, refuting evolutionism / Darwinism, and simply defending the Faith (Jude 3). It boils down to knowing the Essentials for Believers, the Fundamentals. As any football or soccer or baseball coach or automobile or motorcycle race team manager will tell you, it’s the "fundamentals" that ultimately produce victory in the long run. It allows one to quickly (if not instantly) recognize a counterfeit when one sees it. Secret Service agents and other Treasury Department specialists are not taught the countless versions of counterfeit dollar-bills. Instead, they study the Real Thing so well that they can spot a phony right away…….

Which leads us to the review of this ignominious chapter. As a complete work, EBE can be best described as a sustained imbroglio of ideas and world views, jumbled together in non-congruent "answers" to Biblical "problems," as I will illustrate shortly. You can get an idea of how ludicrous McKinsey’s work is by reviewing the light-hearted work by JP Holding located under the Rogue’s Gallery.

Some issues here include, but are not limited to:

1. Must one read the Bible literally at all times? If so, how does one interpret "Let the dead bury the dead?" [Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60]. Or, how about the snail that "melts away" [Psalm 58:8], a favorite example for one ViperPiper (a.k.a. SnakePiper, an old pal of mine and JP's, and whom some of you may have unfortunately encountered in the forums of AOL).
2. The teachings that apparently conflict with today’s "values," such as beating the child with "the rod," which McKinsey describes as child abuse.

When one takes Scripture woodenly, it is easy to misunderstand. Unfortunately, the unbeliever / God-hater does not possess the correct tool(s) to understand God’s Word. Just as one who abhors airplanes does not understand how they fly or why anyone would wish to ride in one, so does the person who rejects God not understand His revelation to us. Christians must understand that our ability to understand the Bible comes not from ourselves, but as we are led by the Holy Spirit [I Corinthians 2:14; I John 5:7; I John 4:13; II Peter 1:21; Hebrews 4:12].

Allow me to use an illustration using the airplane example: I am a retired Naval Aviator. At an airshow in Idaho Falls in 1981, I had the interesting and futile experience of explaining to a little old lady why the F-14 Tomcat that I was displaying could land aboard an aircraft carrier. First, she refused to believe that I was in the Navy. She insisted that I was an Air Force pilot flying a Navy airplane. Second, she insisted that I was trying to mislead an "old lady" (her very words) by lying to her. In 1981, this lady was about 70 years old, spry, witty and very talkative. She was not feeble at all. If she were indeed about 70, that would have put her in her thirties during WWII. One wonders where she was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor using aircraft carrier-based aircraft. One wonders why she was not paying attention to the tremendous battles of Midway and the famous Marianas Turkey Shoot, all involving carrier aircraft.

Again, one returns to the reality of historicity, the ability to use very common tools to check things out. Such is the credibility of aircraft carriers and the historical Jesus Christ.

Response:

1. False Teachings

In the preamble of this Chapter, McKinsey states, "…the Bible makes statements that are either so patently false and misleading as to be reprehensible or …" One would have to search very, very deeply into the philosophy of materialism to ascertain exactly how one who leaves God out of the affairs of men could make the judgment that the Bible teachings are "reprehensible." If we, as materialists insist, are the mere product of chance, then Bible teachings of "ethics" are no different than, say, competitive water skiing, or deer killed by Komodo Dragons, or any speech by the late Isaac Asimov (former atheist, but one would now surmise a deeply convinced Creationist). But I digress – this is a matter for another area of Christian apologetics. I will leave it to the reader to guess the tenor of the rest of McKinsey’s preamble. In this section, McKinsey addresses about 40 or so specific scripture passages, primarily the proverbial teachings and sayings of the Old Testament (all but save one, from I Timothy), mostly from the books of Psalms and Proverbs.

We will address just a few of them – all Scripture passages are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless otherwise noted (McKinsey seems to favor the RSV and KJV):

1. Ecclesiastes 1:9 "That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun." and 3:15 "That which is has been already, and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by." McKinsey comments, "So we are told there’s nothing new under the sun. Yet how many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945 and how many people walked on the moon before 1969?"
1. A repetitive theme used by McKinsey is his painfully obvious lack of context. The "Preacher," as King Solomon refers to himself seven times in this book (the term Teacher is used in the same manner in other translations), is describing the cycles of nature that reveal nothing new. Clearly, when these two passages are read with attention to the Hebrew, Solomon is summarizing a long life (he’s been king of Israel about 30-40 years at this point) of observations about the Creation. He’s commenting that the same seasons, the same storms, the same snows, the same budding of the trees at springtime, the same seasons of newborn-animals, continue to repeat themselves. He is specifically talking about the nature of the Universe and the nature of man.
2. Although progress in technology certainly reveals new things, progress itself is nothing new. Man continues to be innovative and inventive, but his selfish and sinful nature also remain unchanged. This is what Solomon means here.
2. Job 31:3 "Is it not calamity to the unjust, And disaster to those who work iniquity?" McKinsey comments, "As a matter of fact, in far too many cases they are plagued by the least amount of adversity. Many experience little or no calamity throughout their lives."
1. It’s assumed that McKinsey arrived at his conclusions through rigorous scientific polling. Absurdities aside, it is true that Asaph remarked in Psalm 73: "3 For I was envious of the arrogant, As I saw the prosperity of the wicked. 4 For there are no pains in their death; And their body is fat." and "9 They have set their mouth against the heavens, And their tongue parades through the earth. 10 Therefore his people return to this place; And waters of abundance are drunk by them. 11 And they say, "How does God know? And is there knowledge with the Most High?" 12 Behold, these are the wicked; And always at ease, they have increased in wealth. 13 Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure, And washed my hands in innocence; 14 For I have been stricken all day long, And chastened every morning."
2. However, if one were to look at all the references to the word "wicked" in Psalms, one consistently notices that they have an extremely unpleasant final ending in store for them. Referring to Job again, let’s look at a truly prophetic verse in Chapter 19 of Job, verses 25-27, "And as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth. Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God; Whom I myself shall behold, And whom my eyes shall see and not another. My heart faints within me." Job recorded / penned these words probably only a few decades or a couple of centuries after the Flood, and long before Abraham came along to be given the Promise. I believe that the proper interpretation of Job 31:3 is the final fate of the unbeliever, the one who dies and goes into eternity without salvation and who will experience eternal separation from God.
3. One notices throughout the OT that when God’s people are in obedience to His commands, when they follow his instruction and walk in His ways, then His children are untouchable. He protects mightily against their foes. But when the people slipped into idolatry and immorality, God allowed their ways to progress to the inevitable consequences. Even the righteous suffer alongside the wicked when God is pushed onto the back burner of our priorities.
3. Proverbs 10:27, "The fear of the LORD prolongs life, But the years of the wicked will be shortened." McKinsey comments, "In reality, the years of the wicked often go on interminably and the lives of Lord-fearing people end abruptly."
1. Quick, someone diagram this sentence before it goes away! One notices right away that McKinsey acknowledges that there are wicked people. He even appears to acknowledge the SAME wicked people that King Solomon is discussing here. How does one know there are wicked people unless there is an objective standard to measure them? But then McKinsey makes a blanket generalization that simply has little or no basis. He claims that "Lord-fearing people" die suddenly. I believe I follow his mad method, but the fact is both wicked and righteous people die all varieties of death – from slow, agonizing cancer to the quick death of a pulverizing plane crash.
2. If one were to wade into a very economically depressed area (say, some of the hollers of east Tennessee or eastern Kentucky, or the boroughs of east LA), and take an honest poll of who is a Christian (with honest answers), one would likely find that roughly 25-35 percent of those polled would describe a genuine relationship with Christ as savior. The rest of the respondents would, of course, be unsaved. Depending on the area, some percentage of those unbelievers would be truly wicked, involved from everything to prostitution to car theft rings to drug trafficking. We see in the news everyday the high frequency of violent deaths of gang members and others involved in crime.
3. Yes, innocent bystanders do die violent deaths. True Christians experience heart attacks and plane crashes at early ages. But when all things are weighed, one would see that people who live a righteous life in the fear and admonition of God are predominant in the long-lived category as opposed to the wicked. Besides all this, all people will die anyway because of the Curse. Hebrews 9:27 (NIV), "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,"
4. Next, McKinsey partially quotes from the KJV, I Timothy 4:8, "…bodily exercise profiteth little…" and comments, "Of course, this flies in the face of just about every physical conditioning program in the world and every medical opinion bearing on physical fitness."
1. Here’s the entire KJV passage: "For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." Let’s look at it from two other translations:
1. (NRSV) "for, while physical training is of some value, godliness is valuable in every way, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come."
2. (NIV) "For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come."
2. Mike Shelton would say this, "Eat well, train well, have a good running program, go to the gym, pump up, run the Boston Marathon, watch your cholesterol – and die anyway. It is clear that Paul is saying that this life will one day come to an end, regardless of how one treats one’s body. Live for 123 years or just 23 months, we all will die a physical death. Paul is stressing to Timothy that eternal life with the Lord Jesus is the end game.
3. Our context-challenged subject is either very unintelligent in his assessment of this verse, or he is deliberately misleading. Although his book is hardly worthy of the gas to drive to a public library to even browse it in one of the reading rooms, it at least shows the work of a fairly bright person. Thus, it is unlikely he’s simply a dimwit, but in reality is railing against God here in complete blind hatred of His Word [II Peter 3:5 "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water."] In other words, McKinsey is being "willfully ignorant" (KJV) of God’s special revelation.
5. OK, one more from this section – McKinsey quotes from the NIV here, and so will I – Jeremiah 13:23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil." McKinsey comments, "There goes any need for rehabilitation programs. If this verse were true, and facts clearly show the opposite, the government would have wasted millions of dollars in programs to turn people around. Although high, the recidivism rate has never attained 100 percent. Although admittedly far less in number that than one would like, there are many successes, which this verse chooses to ignore."
1. The weeping prophet Jeremiah, incredibly, had Bill Clinton in mind here.
2. Again – context, context, context. (a) Jeremiah is using hyperbole to express the utter descent in moral behavior the nation of Israel has sank to. (b) If McKinsey had actually read the book of Jeremiah, he would have noticed the intense passages prior to verse 23, following verse 23, yea, the entire theme of the book, showing the immense sinfulness of the corporate body of the people of Israel. God was proclaiming through the weeping prophet that nothing short of exile and total conquest by a foreign nation was going to get the people’s attention. They were set in their ways.
3. As for McKinsey’s unpaid political announcement about the U.S. contemporary use of programs to rehab recalcitrant people, one must look at what he says against the above passage from Jeremiah. The weeping prophet mentions that the people are "accustomed to doing evil." Thus, using McKinsey’s verbiage, he must be addressing convicts and the U.S penal system. It is difficult to follow his logic here, claiming that "although high, the recidivism rate has never attained 100 percent." He’s saying that the fallback, the "backsliding" rate for criminals, remains high, but there are "many successes," for which he produces not one iota of data.
4. The fact of the matter is, the U.S. Government has indeed wasted untold gazillions of taxpayer funds on rehabilitation programs that are purely secular in nature (remember, the official Government policy on religion is complete separation – the Feds cannot administer religion-based programs – prayer and the 10 Suggestions were banned long ago. Funny, shortly thereafter, the prison population began to swell, hmmmm). Self-esteem programs and I’m OK-You’re OK seminars don’t get to the root of the problem – Sin.
5. On the other hand, there is overwhelmingly abundant evidence of real success when Christian-based prison ministries are allowed to interact with the incarcerated to help them see the error of their ways. One of the biggest advantages of being locked up is to get the person’s attention – often only when one reaches rock bottom will a person be forced (by God) to take a new look at his life. But if no one is there to show him that Jesus Christ loves them and has a wonderful plan for his life, then the chances of true rehab are very slim. The most prominent leader in this field is Prison Fellowship led by Chuck Colson. He should know as one of the Watergate-related convictions from the Nixon White House. Other notable prison ministries include the Philadelphians, New Life Prison Ministry, Brother’s Keeper Ministries, Bill Glass Ministries, and Kairos Prison Ministry, not to mention the numerous local prison ministries conducted by local church congregations and other committed Christians. The Christian Motorcyclists Association also has a significant contingent of workers who can identify with the biker population behind bars.
6. Now, contrast all this with some excerpts from The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles,
1. "We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems."
2. "We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
3. I just love this one…… "We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity."
4. Another winner…… "We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence…."
5. "We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings."
7. Here’s a real tasty sound bite treat from the American Humanist Association (AHA) web site home page (www.humanist.net):
1. "Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. -- The International Humanist and Ethical Union
8. Based on the above statements and excerpts from standing and well-known secular humanist sources, one wonders why they have not fixed the world? After all, they’ve had millions of years to get it right, no? The AHA has been around since 1941 - Isaac Isamov is a past president - the Association also has tax-exempt status from the IRS under 503 (c) of the Tax Code. If the Humanists are so concerned about their fellow humans and actually "transcend…religion," then they should be working with Christians in the relief of crowded prisons and the unsearchable suffering of the poor Christian women and children in Chad and Sudan who are being attacked, raped and sold into slavery this very day. (As a brief aside, the reader should remember, the Red Cross, Alcoholics Anonymous and others like them are Christian-based programs – how many Humanist / Atheist-based organizations rushed in to provide disaster relief following Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Hugo, the last big LA earthquake, huh?)
2. Perfection

This section of McKinsey’s Chapter 12 has six paragraphs – the first paragraph is merely an opening statement, with such terms as "duplicitous teachings" and "some of the most incredible biblical statements" setting the tone.

Again, McKinsey appears to make extensive use of the RSV (or the KJV) translations, which is OK – they are good translations and we shall use them when needed. I will still use the NASB as my primary translation, with cross references to others. As the reader will soon see, close attention to the Greek is critical here to properly understand the meanings in these passages, and to cut through the abundant misinformation that McKinsey spews in this section:

1. McKinsey selects I John 3:6 (KJV) here for his sharp pen, "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hast (sic) not seen him, neither known him." The KJV actually uses "hath" rather than the word "hast" that McKinsey uses. The NASB says, "No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him." McKinsey’s comments in part, "If whoever abides in him does not sin, then nobody abides in him, because all continue to sin."
1. At face value, McKinsey has a very good point. But I’m not ready to concede. Key terms here are "abides" (Greek: me,nw"meno" {men’-o}, which can mean abide, dwell, tarry, or most importantly, endure), and "sins" (Greek: a`marta,nw"hamartano" {ham-ar-tan’-o} , which can mean sin, trespass, offend, for your faults, to be without a share in, to miss the mark, to err, be mistaken , to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honor, to do or go wrong, to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin). John was speaking to a Jewish audience, so they were quite aware of what it meant to break or keep the Law. John here is describing, quite literally, the legal position of the Believer, a positional relationship with Jesus the Christ.
1. John could probably remember the words of Christ, which he also wrote in the Gospel of John 5:24, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" and John 6:40, 47, ""For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day ….. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life." Notice that Jesus was speaking in present tense – in the vernacular of "you believe in Me, you trust in Me? It’s a done deal! You have (not will have) eternal life."
2. John was not the only one who faithfully recorded the innumerable teachings of Jesus. Peter backs him up with II Peter 1:16, "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."
2. McKinsey continues, "If whoever sins has not seen or known him, then no one has seen or know him, because, most assuredly, all Christians continue to sin." McKinsey goes on to conclude that apologists must "…admit that no Christians abide in Christ."
1. Christ goes through a serious dissertation in John 15 – "abide in Me and I will abide in you." Here, Jesus describes the working / living relationship that will be naturally associated with trust in Him as Savior.
2. This fits nicely with James 2:17, "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." Also let’s look at Ephesians 2:10, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
3. Thus, we see that a genuine Christian will act like a Christian, although not without mistakes (refer to Romans 7:7-25). In the true, forensic sense of the word, sin means simply "missing the mark, to fall short" of God’s standard. Since our own works are not going to get us to God anyway, Jesus has taken the only step sufficient to make us right with Him. Jesus never preached a funeral – He raised the dead, and He has never and will never lose a court case. Positionally, He has defeated the Adversary the Devil by choosing those men to be His (John 15:16,19). The "sinless" state is one of positional relationship established by Christ Himself, "not as a result of works, that no one should boast." (Ephesians 2:9)
2. Addressing paragraphs three and four will also address the rest of this section, for McKinsey simply continues his skepticism in paragraphs five and six. Here I will quote most of paragraph three so the reader will get the full context of McKinsey’s protest, then I’ll provide my answer. He sloppily quotes Scripture from the KJV, mixing verses and omitting a word ("for," a minor point): "The same problem [that no Christians abide in Christ – MSS] accompanies I John 5:18 and I John 3:9, which say, ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; (for) his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.’ If this statement is true, then no one is born of God, because all continue to sin. Several years ago I was told by a fundamentalist preacher, who was fully cognizant of this verse, that he abides in God because he no longer sinned after accepting Christ. That is almost too ridiculous to discuss because, in effect, he is claiming perfection, which the Bible clearly precludes by such verses as Romans 3:10 ("There is none righteous, no, not one"), Rom.3:12 ("There is none that doeth good, no, not one"), Eccles. 7:20 ("There is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not")." McKinsey later continues, "On page 158 in The Bible Has the Answer Morris and Clark seek to address the problem presented by I John 3:8-9 by saying, ‘At first glance, this seems to teach sinless perfection for all true believers. Strict attention to the Greek text, however, reveals that John is speaking of repeated or habitual sin. Consequently, this passage could be rendered, ‘No one who is born of sin practices sin.’’" (See here for further confirmation.) McKinsey continues further into paragraph four, "Two fatal flaws accompany this rationalization. First, nothing is said in the verse about habitual anything. It does not say, he cannot habitually sin. It says, ‘he cannot sin,’ period. Second, even if the test referred to habitual sinning, Morris and Clark’s defense would be useless because all Christians continue to sin after accepting Jesus and they do so continually." McKinsey seeks to reinforce his hypothesis / premise on a page from John Rice’s book, Dr. Rice, Here is My Question, ‘Too many people who believe in eternal security put all their confidence in the fact that a born-again Christian [redundant - there’s only one kind of Christian, be that as it may - MSS] will hold out to do right. Actually (sic) born again Christians often fall into very serious sins and continue in many sins.’"
1. Broad generalities and broad paintbrushing aside concerning the "often fall into very serious sins" (McKinsey cites no statistics on the huge numbers of Believers who are so allegedly messed up), admtittedly, this is a very tough area for laymen (including, formerly, this writer), and even some seminary-trained ministers to grasp. McKinsey cites a "fundamentalist preacher" who apparently was unable to effectively communicate this passage to McKinsey. Yes, this is a difficult doctrine / truth to grasp. Before I attempt to explain, allow me to quote some excerpts from the fine book Hard Sayings of Paul by Manfred T. Brauch. Some of the Apostle Paul’s works are renown for being hard to interpret and understand at times. In his introduction, Mr. Brauch says:

"...from the very early years of Christians’ use of Paul’s letters, the possibility of either understanding or misunderstanding, of either proper or improper use, have been ever-present realities. For us twentieth-century Christians, this fact ought to give both humility and hope. There may be times when, after careful and thorough study of a text, we should in all humility acknowledge that we simply cannot grasp the meaning or know definitely what the writer intends the reader to grasp. But there is always the hope that careful study-always under the guidance of the Spirit-will lead us to a hearing of the "hard sayings" in such a way that God’s Word can do its work in our lives."

He further states,

"The reading and study of any writing, if it is to be faithful to the author’s purpose, must take seriously at least three things: (1) the nature of the writing itself, (2) the purpose for which it was written and (3) the situation or context out of which it was written. Failure to observe these matters is more likely than not to lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation."

2. Perhaps McKinsey was hopscotching through various apologetic resources, performing scholarship by shotgun. If he had seriously read the entire section (Chapter 11 - "Controversial Doctrines") of The Bible Has the Answer by Morris and Clark, he would have seen copious examples of cross-referencing and examples of Godly men who had dismal failures in their personal and spiritual lives. One of the fundamental rules in Biblical interpretation is that no one verse or singular passage can anchor a doctrine. Scripture interprets Scripture. There is ample amplification in the Bible to show that in I John 3:8-9 John was speaking of a habitual character in a person who "sins" repeatedly. Morris and Clark are correct. Doctors "practice," they "commit" medicine - they habitually and continually execute the actions of their profession. Truck drivers and airline pilots continually "practice" the work of their trades. The root Greek word here is poie,w "poieo" {poy-eh’-o}, which can mean to do, to execute, or to continue. The KJV renders this word as "committeth," whereas the NASB says "practices," the NIV says "does what is," and Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) says "who is doing." The NASB and the NIV, using the context of the full Greek, lean on a primitive Greek root word pra,ssw "prasso" {pras’-so}, which connotes to continue, practice or repeatedly do. In other words, the subject of the Greek here is a person who is in an ongoing, continual status of "missing the mark - falling short" of God’s standard. This person may have made a peripheral or superficial "acceptance" of Christ (through head knowledge or with an attitude of a works gospel) and thus will never attain the positional perfection that only Christ can ordain. In fact, this is likely the very kind of person identified by the writer of Hebrews Chapter 6, "4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned." Conversely, the true Christian, the one whom Christ has accepted, has chosen, is the one that Jesus continually intercedes for that the Bible speaks of when we read that "He is on / at the right hand of God" on our behalf:

Acts 5:31, "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." and,

Romans 8:34b, "Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us."

3. Thus, we have a more clear picture of a Savior Who had to come down to rescue us "for while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the us" (Romans 5:8) and referring back to one of the passages in this very discussion, "…The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil." (I John 3:8b). Jesus long ago agreed to one day enter into our space-time continuum to pay the price for our sins. He took the initiative, not us. Furthermore, He continues to keep Christians saved through His own intentional work of the Holy Spirit to sanctify us and prepare us for eternity with Him (glorification of the redeemed). The "perfection" that the Bible speaks of is really one of spiritual maturity, not one of perfectly sinless behavior.
4. One final thought on McKinsey’s lack of rigorous scholarship here. He claims in his rebuttal that "…nothing is said in the verse about habitual anything. It does not say, he cannot habitually sin." He does not supply the slightest piece of evidence that refutes Morris and Clark’s reference to the original Greek and the proper context the passage is written in. Although it is true that very few Christians ever receive ancient language training for Bible study, there are nevertheless numerous resources on the market that will assist the layman in looking at the true exposition of the original languages (examples: "Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary," "Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon," various parallel Greek-English New Testaments, and the plethora of quality Bible software). And, let us remember the many institutions like Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc. that were originally established to rigorously train future pastors in the original languages. Thus, the new preacher would arrive at his new church with the ability to reach into the Greek or Hebrew to further study the difficult passages, those "hard sayings" of the Bible writers.

1. Prayer

This significant section of McKinsey’s Chapter 12 covers almost five pages. He sets the tone (and it goes downhill from there) with this opening line, "Another stupefying aspect of biblical teaching circulates around the whole area of prayer and the efficacy of supplications to a higher being." McKinsey really gets spun up in this section – in fact, this section is hard to distinguish from the next two ("Testing The Bible" and "Miracles") in his application of vitriol and running illogic. After reading these three sequential sections thoroughly, one can only conclude that McKinsey hangs around a bunch of losers and has interviewed a bunch of losers. It is like a Russian immigrant who comes to America, walks around the gutters of New York City or Washington, DC, interviews a bunch of homeless and winos, and concludes that there is no hope in the New World. Furthermore, he makes numerous broad, sweeping statements that could only be validated, if true (and they’re not), through a scientifically rigorous, third-party survey of Christians concerning their prayer life and the answers to their prayers. Don’t hold your breath – not only is such a survey unlikely forthcoming, but my own experience and the experience of many Christians who take the time to read this would be able to testify to the power of prayer and the extremely absurd positions taken by McKinsey.

McKinsey has three main themes in this section: (1) People are absurdly promised anything in prayer with few if any strings attached, (2) Prayers don’t work anyway because those ridiculously empty promises won’t be kept, and (3) Even if they do work, one has to pray too hard, and they work for only a select few.

1. I will not address the themes one by one, but will cover the entire section as one commentary. McKinsey remarks, "One should carefully note that no strings are attached; accordingly this statement has little relevance to reality."
1. McKinsey here is quoting from the KJV Matthew 7:7-8, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." Other translations render the same thing with just different English. McKinsey goes on to cite five other passages about Christ’s prayer promises (Matthew 21:21-22; Mark 11:23-24; John 14:13-14; John 16:23-24; and I John 3:22). McKinsey then sums it up with "Time after time Christians are told that the world is their oyster as long as they pray, ask with faith, request in Jesus’ name, or keep the commanMcKinseyents. Although obligations are attached to most promises, that is by no means true of all."
2. McKinsey goes on to make the capacious statement that "In virtually every instance prayers go unanswered." In other words, he is stating a negative. In the "Miracles" section, McKinsey states, "…the burden of proof lies on him who alleges." So, McKinsey makes an allegation here that he cannot prove, nor does he, although he references two reasons in a small section of the book "Hard Questions" by "apologist" Frank Colquhoun (page 112): "…First, because we really don’t ask in faith…Secondly, all too often, as we’ve already seen, we only ask for things to please ourselves…."
2. Next, McKinsey again quotes a section from The Bible Has The Answer by Morris and Clark about unfulfilled prayer, "There are, however, certain conditions to be met before we can rightly expect God to answer our prayers. The first is that there be no unconfessed sin in our lives. If we are deliberately living in disobedience to God’s Word, then obviously we cannot expect Him to grant our requests." (response in Chapter 14, Question 5) Immediately, McKinsey asks the baldface question, "Where on earth are they getting this nonsense? What conditions?…Nothing is said about ‘unconfessed sin,’ although it would no doubt be desirable from an apologetic perspective…"
1. Obviously, McKinsey is guilty of selective blindness. The very next words of Morris and Clark following the above quote are citations from Psalm 66:18 ("If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened;" (NIV)) and I Peter 3:12 ("…his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." (NIV)) which clearly indicate that unconfessed sin is a barrier to dialogue with God. I may also add I John 3:20-21 and James 4:3 ("When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (NIV)) In fact, this entire section and other parts of Morris and Clark’s book are thoroughly replete with cross-referenced explanations of their opinions and conclusions. McKinsey simply disagrees, with little explanation other than scholarship via random neuron firings and rage. His illogic is incredible.
2. It is true that Jesus and others made the statements about prayer. But one must keep in mind that God does not exist to hand Believers all they want on a platter. It has been said that prayer does not work because we use God like an ATM machine – attempting to make a withdrawal at our convenience. Or, we pray to God like he’s the 911 Operator – calling upon Him only when we have an emergency. Or, we think God’s Kingdom is like a salad bar – we pick and choose what we want, rather than allowing him to serve our plate with the spiritual nutrients He knows is best for us. The Bible is replete with answered prayer – Hannah’s prayer for a child (I Samuel 1:13,15,19,20), Solomon’s prayer for wisdom to lead his nation (I Kings 3:5-15) and (II Chronicles 6:14 – 7:2), Elijah calling down fire from heaven (the contest with the 850 prophets of Baal and Asherah, I Kings 18). We also know that God refused to answer prayer in the affirmative – David praying for his sick son born from an illegal and lustful relationship to Bathsheba (II Samuel 11:27; II Samuel 12:13-23), Paul’s requesting that the thorn from his side be removed (II Corinthians 12:7-10).
3. Before I conclude my final wrap up on "Prayer" in paragraph D. below, I beg the reader to allow me to revisit McKinsey’s problem with the passage from Matthew 7:7-8 (from the NASB), "Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened." This passage of Jesus is part of the long dissertation known as the Sermon on the Mount, which begins in Chapter 5 and runs through Chapter 7. The same or a very similar Sermon is found in a condensed manner in Luke 6:20-49. By some traditional accounts, the Sermon on the Mount was held on the wide rising hillside above the town of Tiberias on the west coast of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus had attracted a large crowd "He saw the multitudes…" In verses 5:1-2, we read these words, "And when He saw the multitudes, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. And opening His mouth He began to teach them, saying,"
1. So, who is Jesus talking to? His Disciples, whose number at this time may have been around 50+. This dissertation was specifically directed at His disciples; however, the people pressed around and listened also, similar to reporters crowding around a sideline huddle. Thus, Jesus was specifically focusing His remarks to His followers in an intensive teaching manner. He was not addressing the crowd in general, although it appears they were free to listen and ponder in their own hearts what Christ said. I can just imagine the rumblings and general hum of the crowd as those closest to Jesus passed His words back into the throng. Now, let’s see some key passages that Jesus spoke prior to McKinsey’s problem passage of 7:7-8 (all passages from NASB):
1. Verse 5:4 – "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." This clearly connotes that there are and will be sad people. Thus, Jesus recognizes this as a part of human existence.
2. Verse 5:10 – "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Jesus seems to insinuate that people who do the right thing, who stand for right principle, who dare to state objective right-and-wrong principles, will be persecuted, and are to be blessed because of the same. So, we can thank people like McKinsey for helping God to bless apologists who refute him.
3. Verses 5:11-12 – "Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Ditto from the above, with emphasis on the evil with which McKinsey speaks. Thus, Jesus is clearly inferring that He will not necessarily provide special protection of His followers from those who would attack them (verbally and physically). Let us not forget that later the Jewish religious leaders will clamor to the Romans to kill Jesus.
4. Verses 6:19,21,25,30 – 19 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." 21 "for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." 25 "For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing?" and, 30 "But if God so arrays the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more do so for you, O men of little faith?" OK, so what is being said here? Jesus is laying the foundation of requirements to trust Him and to receive His blessings as He sees fit, not us.
5. Verse 6:33 – "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you." This is the clincher – we are to first and foremost seek His way, His righteousness, His kingdom. Then, and only then, will Christ bless us with an enriched and fulfilling life. (I Timothy 4:8, "for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come." and Philippians 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,") He does not promise worldly riches or fame, because one day we will die anyway. Our home as His Believers is in Heaven (Philippians 3:20-21, "20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.").
6. Thus, it should be abundantly clear from a plain reading of the text that Jesus has made it known that before the promises of Matthew 7:7-8 can be trusted, they must be taken in the light of the verses prior to that. McKinsey is so far out in left field that the lights have been turned out, the locker room is closed, the fans have left and the parking lot empty, and McKinsey is still in the top of the 3^rd inning.
4. About 10 years ago, my church was already at full capacity and going to two Sunday morning services to accommodate its members. The congregation, located away from the center of town out in the country, owned only the few acres that the physical plant and the parsonage across the street occupied. There was no land around the church available (the people who owned the various surrounding properties had no interest in selling). So, our church entered a long period of prayer to ask that God make property anywhere available so that the congregation could expand. Not long thereafter, some of the adjacent residents decided to sell their properties. Long story short – my church stepped out in Faith, prayed, God answered with willing property owners, and then providentially made the finances available to purchase 25 additional acres of land. Our church is now about to embark on another huge expansion which will require Faith and Prayer. Our desire is that it will be in God’s will.

When Moses led the nation of Israel out of Egypt and came up against the Red Sea, he had to step out in Faith into an impossibility. God was not interested in Moses’ ability, He was looking for Moses’ availability and willingness and trust. The only alternative to the very certain recapture, slaughter and re-enslavement by the Pharaoh was to go forward into the Red Sea (covered later in the section on "Miracles"). God provided the escape with the crossing of the Red Sea on dry land and the destruction of the Egyptian pursuers. I will close this section on "Prayer" with a direct quote from the final section on prayer in the Holman Bible Dictionary: "Answered Prayers--Unanswered Petitions: Not every petition is granted. Job's demand for answers from God was eclipsed by the awesome privilege of encountering Him (Job 38-41). Modern believers must also cherish communion with the Father more than their petitions. Jesus, with His soul sorrowful to the point of death, prayed three times that His cup of suffering might pass, but He was nevertheless submissive to God's will (Matt. 26:38-39,42,45). Both the boldness of the petition to alter God's will and the submission to this "hard" path of suffering are significant. Paul asked three times for deliverance from his "thorn in the flesh." God's answer to Paul directed him to find comfort in God's sufficient grace. Also God declared that His power is best seen in Paul's weakness (2 Cor. 12:8-9). God gave him the problem to hinder his pride. Ironically, Paul claimed that God gave the problem, and yet he called it a messenger of Satan. Paul learned that petitions are sometimes denied in light of an eventual greater good: God's power displayed in Paul's humility. Faith is a condition for answered petitions (Mark 11:24). Two extremes must be avoided concerning faith. (1) With Jesus' example in mind we must not think that faith will always cause our wishes to be granted. (2) Also we must not go through the motions of prayer without faith. Believers do not receive what they pray for because they pray from selfish motives (Jas. 4:2-3). Prayers are also hindered by corrupted character (Jas. 4:7) or injured relationships (Matt. 5:23-24). Theological Insights: Dialogue is what is essential to prayer. Prayer makes a difference in what happens (Jas. 4:2). Our understanding of prayer will correspond to our understanding of God. When God is seen as desiring to bless (Jas. 1:5) and sovereignly free to respond to persons (Jonah 3:9), then prayer will be seen as dialogue with God. God will respond when we faithfully pursue this dialogue. Prayer will lead to a greater communion with God and a greater understanding of His will." Commentary by Randy Hatchett

 

 

1. Testing the Bible

Under construction………

 

 

2. Miracles

This last section may be the easiest for me to comment on because of the personal miracles I have experienced. Some of these miracles in my life can be attested to by others, using ordinary rules of evidence in eyewitness account manner.

In this last section of the Chapter on "Belief," McKinsey really gets wound up. He writes with a passion, excitement and fervor that borders on, shall I dare mention the "f" word, that of a fanatic, a label that is often pasted on us Christian "fundamentalists." "Fundamentalist" is an extremely overused and quite erroneous term by the passionate infidel to describe any and all Christians (I am not one - I prefer the "Evangelical" moniker) who do not subscribe to the humanistic material view of the universe, evolution and the "proper" role of humans in society. I used to work for one of these types of atheist in the Navy, and he cared not one whit who came in the way of his anti-Christian blasts. Since secular humanism is officially on record as a religion, it boggles the mind why these poor fellows can pontificate as they do. Yet they call believers of Christ religious fanatics and fundamentalists if we wish to tell people that there is a God, that He created the Universe, and that He loved us so much after we fell into Sin that He sent His Son to die on the cross for us.

But I digress. Again, the tenor of McKinsey’s commentary is sappy and condescending to the reader, regardless of his background, unless the reader is a staunch infidel, then surely he is cheering McKinsey onward.

Before we go on, let’s define the word "miracle." The New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language (Lexicon Publications, Danbury, CT, revised 1992, page 637) says this,

"A supernatural event regarded as due to divine action, e.g., one of the acts worked by Christ which revealed his divinity; an extremely remarkable achievement or event, e.g., an unexpected piece of luck, it was a miracle he wasn’t hurt." (emphasis in the original)

Let’s look in the same dictionary to see how it defines "divine" and "divinity:"

Divine - "Of God, or a god; addressed to God; having the nature of a god……."

Divinity: "The quality of being divine; a god; the study…of the Bible and Church doctrine

Thus, it clearly is apparent that the ordinary, everyday inference of anything miraculous and divine appeal to the nature of a God / god that can and does work from outside our four dimensions of space and time. These are areas that the Bible routinely addresses.

What does the Bible say about miracles? The Old Testament and the New Testament use words that commonly are translated "signs" or "wonders" or "marks" and understood to be miracles in the ordinary sense of the word. Translations often use the same Hebrew and Greek words to say "miracle" according to context. In the Old Testament, the primary Hebrew word used for miracle is tp,Am "mowpheth" {mo-faith'} tpeAm "mopheth," which denoted something of great and awesome wonder, often a real supernatural event. The same word also meant wonder with similar connotation. There are primarily two words in the NT that indicate a sign / wonder or miracle, depending on the level of the awe invoked. The word most often used for the "lower" level of wonders was the Greek shmei/on"semeion" {say-mi'-on}, which could mean a sign, token, wonder, an unusual occurrence, a remarkable event. It could indicate signs portending remarkable events soon to happen or of miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by Him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God's. The higher "level" of wonder was the Greek "dunamis" {doo'-nam-is}, which had the connotation of power, mighty work, strength, miracle, virtue, inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or power for performing miracles.

In the NT, the word for wonder is the Greek qa,mboj "thambos" {tham'-bos}, meaning to dumbfound or be amazed, to be astonished or to render immovable. Finally, the Hebrew and the Greek words commonly translated into the word "sign" also commonly meant something out of the ordinary, an astonishing event or even a miracle. It is clear from even a moderate study of the ancient languages, using ordinary lexicon and expositional tools available to a layman like me, that the words miracle, sign, mark, and wonder routinely expressed the idea of things that did not commonly happen in nature, that were sheer coincidence in character, or were done because of God’s mighty power and ability to work within or from outside the realm of nature / the universe. From the nature of McKinsey’s work here, it seems doubtful that he has paid any significant attention to the Hebrew or Greek.

This section on "Miracles" covers six pages – my response will specifically address a few paragraphs on pages 244, 245, and 246. This will suffice to address the entire section, for McKinsey is repetitive in most of it in theme and vitriol in his continued imbroglio of thought. For the reader who has not seen this book (don’t bother buying it – it is not worth the price, even if one found it at a yard sale for 50 cents), first, I will quote the first two entire paragraphs of this section so the reader can get the correct flavor that I will respond to.

 

1. Page 244, McKinsey states, "The most preposterous biblical statements for those unacquainted with the intricacies of textual analysis lie in the category of miracles or supernatural events. For millions of people the whole idea of sticks turning into serpents (Exod. 7:10), a serpent and a donkey talking (Gen. 3:4-5 and Num. 22:28-30, respectively), iron floating (2 Kings 6:5-6), a women (sic) turning into a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26), the sun standing still (Josh. 10:13), and people rising from the dead (Matt. 27:52), for example, are as far from the realm of possibility as black is from white. Little do these people realize that their rejection of miracles and the supernatural in general is simultaneously a rejection of the validity of the Bible itself. If all miracles were excluded from the Bible, the book would be dealt a crushing blow, from which recovery would be impossible. As apologist William Arndt says on page 26 in Bible Difficulties, ‘If we take everything miraculous out of the Bible, how little will there be left.’"

"Without the miracle of the Resurrection, for example, Christianity would collapse. As Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:14 and 15:17 (RSV), ‘If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain…If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.’ Apologist Harold Lindsell was quite correct when he said on page 204 of The Battle for the Bible, ‘Once we discard miracles, we automatically open the door that leads a the denial of the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.’ Apologist Robert Mounce is equally on target when he says on page 15 of Answers to Questions About the Bible, ‘The Christian faith is openly supernaturalistic.’"

1. I must thank McKinsey here, for he comes to the very heart of miracles in the Bible, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (I’m impressed that he referred to the Resurrection in upper case). However, here and throughout the rest of this section, he conveniently fails to mention the more than 500 eyewitnesses to the Resurrected Christ that Paul mentions earlier in verses 5-8 of I Corinthians 15. Additionally, we have the personal witness of Peter in II Peter 1:16, "14 knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me (emphasis mine - MSS). [Note: Peter here refers to Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death in John 21:18 – MSS] 15 And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you may be able to call these things to mind. 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses (emphasis mine - MSS) of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance (emphasis mine – MSS) made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain." McKinsey continues the haranguing that clearly indicates he believes nothing in the Bible, regardless of eyewitness accounts, which he seems to deliberately ignore. But he is correct - without the Resurrection, Christians are members of nothing but a religious club, similar to the Mormons, Hindus, Free Masons, and the like. As Paul says in verse 32 of chapter 15 of I Corinthians, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Which leads us to consider that if there is no God, no deity in Jesus, then where is the infinite reference point of morals? Not only eat and drink, but hey, let’s party hearty and grab all the gusto we can, including good times with McKinsey’s wife, his daughters, and stealing our neighbor’s goods.
2. Page 245, McKinsey states, "Although some of the most incredible biblical statements lie within the category of the miraculous, apologists vigorously contend that scriptural accounts of supernatural events are unlike those that one can expect to encounter elsewhere….[quoting Paul Little from Know Why You Believe], ‘Biblical miracles, in contrast to miracle stories in pagan literature and those in other religions, were not capricious or fantastic.’"

"Biblical miracles were not fantastic? Is Little serious? Sticks turning into snakes and people rising from the dead are not fantastic? If a woman turning into a pillar of salt is not fantastic, what is? If the sun standing still is not incredible, what is"

1. I did not notice Paul Little "vigorously" contending anything. He made a straightforward statement, whether one agrees with him or not. I happen to agree, because what Paul Little is surely inferring to here is that the times that God invoked Himself into man’s affairs was often witnessed by outsiders to the party. The plagues of the Egyptians were made on Israel’s behalf, but certainly witnessed and felt by those in the country who were not directly involved in the negotiations for the release of the Hebrew slaves. It all fits.
2. Furthermore, I see no language surrounding the account of Lot’s wife turning to a pillar of salt describing it as a miracle or fantastic. Keep in mind that Lot and his family were pretty late getting out of town. In fact, the angels that God sent to warn Lot had to physically grab him and his family and yank them out of there (Genesis 19:16-17). They were instructed to not look back, possibly to prevent them from pausing to gaze at their loss, or to keep them going to escape the frag zone of incoming flaming sulfur and other hot items. Perhaps she became mesmerized by the firestorm, perhaps even reversed course, and got enveloped in blowing dust and / or salt from the firestorm. She may also have taken a direct or almost direct hit and became a screaming Class Alpha Fire, quickly consumed, and pulverized into dust / ash. The Hebrew word here for pillar is "n@tsiyb" {nets-eeb'}, which means something like a garrison or post. Thus, she became a marker, something like a gate back to the past of the town in which they had just escaped, except for her. No miracle is invoked here, and completely naturalistic means can used here for explanation.
3. Page 246, McKinsey states, "The most common defense of biblical miracles, or miracles in general, is well stated on page 27 of A Defense of Biblical Infallibility by Clark Pinnock, who states, ‘Empirical science cannot contest the validity of a miracle for the simple reason the event cannot be repeated for experiment today. The evidence for a miracle, as for any historical event, is the testimony of those who witnessed it…Science which denies the possibility of miracles is both unbiblical and unhistorical.’"

McKinsey continues, "Pinnock fails to realize that the burden of proof lies on him who alleges. Those who deny the existence of miracles are under no obligation to prove anything, while those who affirm their existence must prove everything. That the burden of proof lies on him who alleges is axiomatic to all rational thought. But proof is something believers in miracles just can’t provide."

McKinsey continues by attempting to insinuate that any crackpot could prove an event simply because he says so, clearly inferring that Bible Believers are probably crackpots for believing in miracles, something that I take personal exception to. He continues, "Those who say Jesus rose from the grave must substantiate their belief,…"

1. Well folks, it’s show time. Let’s take a few of his arrogant statements one at a time: "…the burden of proof lies on him who alleges. Those who deny the existence of miracles are under no obligation to prove anything,…" This is one of the best tactics today’s infidel takes when debating Christians - they define the terms of the argument. One wonders why the Redeemed allow atheists / God-haters to define the terms and set the rules for most or all theological debates. Certainly, I don’t cede that notion. For someone who claims that he doesn’t have to prove a thing, he has gone to a tremendous amount of trouble to do just that! Additionally, those of us who don’t believe in evolution simply have to say, "Naw, didn’t happen it - prove it, and then sit back and watch "rational thought," or complete lack thereof, in action. The Darwinism and neo-Darwinism of modern-day secular humanists is about to collapse. The long-period gradualists have hit snag after snag in attempting to explain evolution over billions of years, and the punctuated equilibrium crowd are also panicking. They know they can’t prove evolution and life from granddaddy hydrogen atom. But they have been immensely successful in keeping Creationism out of public schools because it’s "religion" and metaphysics and therefore outside of science. It’s time for the Redeemed to call a spade a shovel and go on the attack. Remember, the Redeemed were given a wonderful promise in Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [Hell] will not overcome it." Ultimately, Hell will not be able to withstand the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and will one day be broken inward to reveal the Lamb of God who has now become the residents of Hell’s judge.
2. Let me tell you about my miracles:
1. My Dad became a Christian in the fall of 1967. He was saved at a revival, and had been the object of prayer for years. My Dad was not a very nice man - he was quite vile and used profanity prodigiously. He changed immediately! He was like a new person the next hour, the next day. Since my Dad’s conversion, I have yet to hear him say one curse word, and he’s one of the sweetest men one could ever hope to have the pleasure of knowing. That does not happen because of positive thinking or better self-esteem.
2. About 1972, while in the Navy, I was having car trouble. I needed new spark plug wires, distributor cap, and plugs, but as an enlisted man, I made very little money. I needed about $18 to effect the repairs, which I could do myself. After paying the bills, I was broke. One Wednesday night at church, one of the sweet ladies I knew walked up to me, handed me a 20 dollar bill, and said, "Someone told me you needed this." I had not spoken to a soul, except God. The amount and the timing were wondrous, absolutely amazing.
3. In early September 1996, while my son was driving our 1988 Pathfinder home from his job at Pizza Hut, he was involved in a horrendous crash with a tractor-trailer. Our vehicle had run up under the trailer, which pushed the left A-pillar of the forward door / windshield area in upon him. The Pathfinder was pulverized, and the driver’s cockpit area was badly crushed and mangled around him. The floor area was crushed around his feet, and he came to a stop pinned by the steering column and transmission hump. All the glass except the rear window was shattered. It occurred at night on the freeway, and he came to a stop facing oncoming traffic with no lights because one of the battery cables was knocked off. The state trooper who arrived at the scene immediately thought he had a fatal accident on his hands. The EMT personnel were already there with the jaws of life. They had to cut the entire top off the Pathfinder to get my son out. What they found was my 16-year old son in a conscious state, talking to everyone and in a lucid manner. His only injuries were some mild lacerations to his left forearm and hands, a very small, insignificant cut to his left upper eyelid, and a bruised right thigh. There were no broken bones and no stitches were required. We had him home that night in his own bed by 1:00 AM! Yes, God could have taken him, but when I looked at the amount of jagged steel that had penetrated the driver’s compartment and all that glass, all I could say is that God’s hand was in the dynamics.
4. Finally, my son is now at the US Naval Academy. His roommate is also a Christian. And, his roommate is the son of a former Marine C-130 pilot who was a close friend and squadron mate of…..the guy (and his wife) who first introduced me to my wife. Funny how those signs and wonders work out.
4. I will wrap up this section on "Miracles" and the Chapter by stating that McKinsey has not the slightest chance to combat the two most damning pieces of evidence against his case that the Bible is not true - and that is, The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law simply states that energy / matter cannot be created from nothing nor destroyed. One can convert one to another, but the total energy of a closed system remains the same. The Second Law states that everything is running down and tending toward more disorder. Clocks wind down, cars need to refuel, watch batteries go dead. Mr. McKinsey can bring on his mathematicians, his chaos theory, his fractals, and any other scientific discipline he wants. But the Second Law of Thermo is the silver bullet, the final stake in the infidel’s vampire heart. It’s his metaphysics and religion against mine - and mine is more logical and rational.