Douglas Krueger just sent this to me, its excellent and I want to pass it
along.
I liked this one because of the utter simplicity of the example.
______________________________________________________________
TILL
We can't seem to get Bible believers to agree on what inspiration was or how
it was done. Some think that it was a verbal type of inspiration so that
the words that the writers used were the very words that god wanted them to
use, and so they were protected from all errors of any kind. Others believe
that the writers were "inspired" but not in a verbal sense, because god left
them free to "choose" how they wanted to write and even what they wanted to
say. Hence, John wrote in his gospel only about Mary Magdalene on
resurrection morning, because this was what he "chose" to tell, but Matthew
"chose" to tell about the activities of two women (Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary) and also "chose" to tell about these women in a very confusing
way, because Mary Magdalene left the resurrection scene immediately upon
seeing the tomb open (so many apologists claim), but Matthew didn't mention
her departure but did continue (by personal choice, no doubt) to tell about
"the women" at the tomb and what the angel said to "them." To think that
this is in any way a rational explanation of inconsistencies in John's and
Matthew's versions is a resort to utter absurdity, and if there really is a
god with the kind of temper attributed to him in the Bible, I think he would
be extremely angry at those who concoct apologetic scenarios, like John
Wenham's, that make him look like a buffoon.
There is a case in the apostle Paul's writing that clearly shows that if he
was in any sense "inspired," it did not protect him from writing erroneous
statements. Because of the divisions in the Corinthian church that had led
some to say they were "of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Cephas," Paul said,
"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest any
man should say that you were baptized in my name" (1 Cor. 1:14-15). Now is
it a true statement that Paul had baptized none of the Corinthians except
Crispus and Gaius? Apparently not, because he went on to say, "And I also
baptized the household of Stephanas; besides, I do not know whether I
baptized any other" (v:16).
Now let's juxtapose the two statements:
"I baptized none of you [Corinthians] except Crispus and Gaius."
"I also baptized the household of Stephanas."
If the first statement is true, then the second statement cannot be true; if
the second statement if true, then the first statement cannot be true. What
obviously happened here is the same thing that can happen to anyone who
relates events from his past. He/she makes a statement about the past,
continues the story, but remembers that something was said that makes an
earlier statement inexact or untrue, and so the narrator backs up and
corrects the mistake. If Paul had to do this in his writings, then what
advantage did "inspiration" bestow on him, and if he made this mistake and
backed up to correct it, how can we be assured that he didn't make other
mistakes in his writings that he didn't catch, and so allowed them to pass
unnoticed? Is that any way for an omniscient, omnipotent deity to "inspire"
his eternal "word"?
Let's notice also that Paul said, "Besides, I do not know whether I baptized
any other." Say what? Here is a man dispensing God's word for Christians
to read throughout the entire Christian era, and he couldn't even remember
whom he had baptized at Corinth! If we needed any evidence that the NT is
simply a collection of writings that presented the theological views of very
fallible humans, we have it in this statement from Paul. If he was in any
sense inspired when he wrote, then he could surely have remembered a simple
thing like whom he had baptized at Corinth, but if he couldn't even remember
that, we have to wonder how many really important things he couldn't
remember.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net