Batter Up

Taking a Swing at Biblical Contradictions

Another Answering the Music Man contributor steps up to the plate to take a swing at Dan Barker’s list of biblical contradictions and discrepancies. Will he hit a home run or strike out? We shall see.

As I have noted in previous blogs, one would think that the easiest way to discredit an atheist is to prove the existence of God. But that’s not what any of them do. Ferrer didn’t like Barker’s definition of atheism. Keltz didn’t like Barker’s definition of faith. Lewis defended and justified biblical slavery and genocide.

So far, the score is Barker 3, theists zero.

Now it’s Thomas Baker’s turn to step up to the plate. Baker is taking on the tough issue of Barker’s claim that the bible is full of contradictions. Like most (if not all) of the contributors of Answering the Music Man, Baker has an MA and a PhD from Southern Evangelical Seminary and teaches Theology and Apologetics at Veritas International University. (Notice the obvious lack of any schooling that is not affiliated to evangelicalism. We’ll talk more about that later.)

Dan Barker writes,

“Everyone knows that the bible contains accounts of miracles, and that is reason enough to conclude that there may be better uses of one’s time than studying Scripture.”

When addressing biblical contradictions with theists, “We get these tortured point-by-point defenses of the ‘inerrant word of God’ from fundamentalist preachers and other Christians who think the discrepancies can be explained. What they lack in logic they make up for in length.”

And so, it is with Baker. What he lacks in logic he makes up for in length. The ironic part of Baker’s response is that in his attempt to discredit Barker, he inadvertently does the opposite and proves Barker’s point. He spends the majority of his 9,166 words trying desperately to show that Barker’s lists of biblical discrepancies can be explained by simply using context. In the final paragraph of Baker’s lengthy diatribe he writes, “Finally, my hope is that this brief (?) treatment will give you pause before considering any apparent contradiction.” First off, he wasn’t successful being brief and we’ll have to see if his arguments actually succeed in convincing anyone other than fellow evangelicals that biblical discrepancies can be explained away.

Before we begin with Baker’s defense of the inerrancy of the bible, let’s take a look at what he personally believes. His bio says that he is an Associate Professor at Veritas International University. If we take a look at Veritas’s mission statement we can get a good idea of what Baker most likely believes. (Imagine what fun atheist Dan Barker would have with this!)

Baker believes:

• The six-day creation story is factual and historical.
• The literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people, the literal fall in the Garden of Eden and resultant divine curse on creation.
• The worldwide cataclysmic deluge (flood), and the origin of the nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
• Those who are saved by Jesus Christ will spend eternity in a state of bliss.
• Those who do not personally receive Christ by faith will spend eternity in a state of torment.
• There is a real personal devil.
• Sexual relationships outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage are both unbiblical and immoral.
• God’s established order functionally places man as the head of woman.
• The Bible is the Word of God, and is verbally inerrant in the original text, and remains infallible. Therefore, it is the supreme, final, and authoritative standard for faith, theology, and moral decisions.

The problem I have with evangelicals like Baker is that the above statements are “truths” for them, from which they cannot be swayed. It seems pretty clear that whenever someone starts with a truth (even if it’s not really true) and rejects any evidence that doesn’t support their form of the truth, it assuredly leads to a sense of self-disillusionment.

It seems silly to me, but I’m okay with it, if he chooses to believe these myths for himself. He has a right under the constitution to do so. But I reject him telling me that I must believe these fables as well. I am thankful for Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation for protecting my constitutional right to not believe in Baker’s religion. But that’s a topic for another blog.

Let’s get back to Baker.

I was tempted to stop my critique of this theist simply based on what he most likely believes. Nevertheless, I have decided to give him a chance and explore what he has to say. I will give him three strikes. Whenever he makes an error in reasoning or is simply dishonest, we’ll call it a strike. Three strikes and he’s out.

Batter up!

Looking over the list of what Baker most likely believes has caused me to question the validity of anything he has to say. Reading what he most likely believes makes it difficult to take him seriously. Plus, the fact that Baker has a PhD is even more concerning.

It still never ceases to amaze me that a person can earn an MA and a PhD and never have their supernatural belief system challenged along the way. The whole point of education is to expand your mind and widen your world view. Education is not meant to keep you boxed into a belief system based on the supernatural. It’s inconceivable that a person can hold on to such a narrow world view, in light of all the knowledge that is available to us.

It’s my opinion that if someone (like Baker) receives an M.A. and a PhD and still holds on to supernatural beliefs like we see in the Veritas’s mission statement they have wasted their education. Baker might have graduate with his supernatural faith intact, but at what cost? He certainly has not achieved “a renewed mind” or an accurate world view.” That’s the whole point of getting an education, isn’t it?

Strike One

One of the contradictions that Dan Barker addresses in his book godless, is the issue that certain verses in the Bible forbid killing such as “Thou shall not kill.” Yet in other verses Yahweh commands the Israelites to commit mass killings and genocide such as we find in this verse, “Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.” Baker, however, doesn’t think those passages contradict each other. Here is his reasoning.

First, and perhaps the most obvious, God is not human and is not subject to human morality. It is absurd to think God is a subject to be ruled. God is the creator and lawgiver, not the creature. God can take life because he was the one who gave life.

There you have it. God, who is not subject to morality, can kill whoever he wants, but people can’t. Unless of course, God commands his people to kill and then they must follow his commands, or they will be killed. But which command should they follow, the one saying “do not kill” or the one saying “kill everybody”? That sounds like a contradiction to me. But Baker doesn’t see it that way.

Baker spends 722 words of his 9,100 arguing why he thinks God can kill whoever he wants, whenever he wants, but we can’t. The following 137-word argument is a prime example of somebody who spent way too much time studying philosophy and not enough time studying logic. Baker (in a convoluted sort of way) thinks he’s saying something valid, when he actually isn’t. Read for yourself.

“There is a difference between an efficient and instrumental cause. The primary efficient cause is that by which the effect is produced. Whereas, the secondary or instrumental efficient cause is that through which the effect is produced. When a man and a woman have a child, the parents are not the ones who gave life. God is the one who gave life through the parents. The parents are only the instrumental cause of the child. This is proven by the fact that when the efficient cause is removed, then the effect does not follow. Without an efficient cause, there can be no effect. If the efficient cause of the child’s life were the parents, then when the parents died, the cause would be removed, and the child’s life would end also, but this is not what happens.”

What they lack in logic…

Strike two

CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!

Baker writes,

“The proper way to treat interpretative issues is to first look at the context. However, we know that some atheists like Barker want to draw attention away from the actual context… in order to sway those who will not look deeper into the issue. Of course, this only works for those who do not honestly want to understand the Bible verses in question. Context is at the heart of meaning.”

In Baker’s (brief?) 9,100-word chapter he uses the word “context or contextual” 50 times. Yet, when he finishes his eloquent but empty 137-word argument as seen above, he does exactly what he says shouldn’t be done. He quotes a single verse (completely out of context) from Daniel.

Daniel said it very eloquently in Daniel 5:23b: “the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified.”

He doesn’t even offer a hint of contextual background that might give us some indication of why Daniel wrote this. How about the verses before or after? How about the entire chapter or the entire book of Daniel. He uses the above verse to defend his belief that God is the one who gives life and therefore can take it away. This is not what this verse is about. He has taken it totally out of context to support his beliefs, and even according to him, that’s bad form. So, let’s hold Baker up to his own standards. He writes,

“The proper way to treat interpretative issues is to first look at the context. Of course, this only works for those who honestly want to understand the Bible verses in question.”

So, let’s see how honestly Baker wants to understand Daniel 5:23. First off, he doesn’t even quote the entire verse. He neglects to quote over three quarters of the verse. (How’s that for taking something out of context?) It would appear that Baker himself is doing what he accuses Barker of doing. He quotes only a portion of a verse hoping to “sway those who will not look deeper into the issue.”

So, let’s look deeper into the issue.

Perhaps, it would help us from being swayed if we looked at the entire verse and not just the portion Baker quoted. Plus, let’s look at verse 22 as well to see if that adds to our contextual understanding of the passage. We’re doing this because, as Baker says, we “honestly want to understand the verse in question.” Perhaps we’ll see just how honest Baker is being. Or not! Underlined is what Baker quoted.

22 “Yet “you, his ‘son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, even though you knew all this, 23 but you have “exalted yourself against the “Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines have been drinking wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which do not see, hear or understand. But the God in whose hand are your life-breath and your “ways, you have not glorified.”

Oops. How embarrassing! The verse he quotes was actually written to one specific person for a specific reason. To take the verse or just a fraction of the verse out of context and use it to support his personal beliefs is not only downright dishonest and hypocritical, it also invalidates his entire 9,100-word argument.

Steeeerike three. You’re out! Back to the dugout!

That was quicker than I thought. Baker still had 7,600 words left in his convoluted argument. If I could give Baker advice for any future attempts to discredit atheist Dan Barker, it would be this. Next time, focus more on logic and less on length. Oh, and for god’s sake, try to be honest.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum