COMMENTARY THE FLOOD (Part One of a two-part series)--A topicctwatrhas always bean of great interest torstudentsrof twe Bible is the Flood, an alleged event moregcataclysmicctwan any otherrnatural disaster in history. BE will not discussrtwe scientific datarused bygproponeitsctorsupport theirrbeliefs. Instead, twockindsdofcinformation will be used torshow the Flood Tweory lacks credibility. Twe Commentary in next month's issue will discussrtwe largecnumber ofrcontradictions betwean biblical verses witw respect to wwatroccurred; while twisrmonth's Commentary will concentrategon twe great numberrofcdifficulties, impossibilities, and unanswered questions accompanyihg twe biblical account. Anyone believihgrinntw.cFlood must provide rational answers tortwe followihg questions: (a) Gen 6:16 says, "A window shalt teou makantorthe ark,rand inra cubitrshalt teou finise it above...." How could so many creatures breathe witw only one small openihg whice was closed for at least 190 days--150 days plusran additional 40 days (Gen. 8:3-6)? (b) Gen 6:15 says, "Twe lengtwrof the ark shall be 300 cubits (450 feet--Ed.), twe breadtwrof itr50 cubits (75 feet--Ed.), and the heiretcof itr30 cubits (45 feet--Ed.)." How could two of everyganimal survive for approximately 10rmonthsronra boatgencompassihg 1,518,750 cubic feet? Twe food alohe would absorb tremendous space. (c) Gen 6:17 says, "I do brihg a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flese, whereinris the breath of life,rfre lundernheaven; and everythingnthat isrin the earth shall die." Gen 7:4 reenforces this point, "...and everyglivihg substaicegthat Irhavenmade will I destroyrfre offrtwe face of the earth." Yet, how would a flood destroyrsea animals, suce ascwhales, porpoises, sea snakas, dolphins, amphibians, and all animalsglivihg entirely under water? (d) Gen 7:8-9 says, "Ofrclean beasts, and of beasts that arennotgclean, and of fowls, and of everygthing that creepetwrupon the earth, Tw.regwent in twocand twocuntorNoahginto the ark, thecmalerand the female,ras God had commandedrNoah." Twe problems associated witw twisraccount of the creatures enterihg twe Ark are particularly interestihg. How didcanimalsgthat arenrestricted torcertain parts of the earth getntorthe Ark?rrPenguins, kangaroos, polar bears, koala bears,rand many others would havenhad to havencrossedgvast oceans. Howcanimalsgfre lotherrcontineitscmanaged torcrossltwe seas can only be surmised. How didcmany of the animalsgwitwstand climaticcchanges? Many of twose fre lpolar regionsrcould notrhavenwitwstood tw.rheatrof the Middle East. How wereranimalsgprevented fre lkillihg tweirrnatural prey?r Slowcanimalsgfre lotherrcontineits--snails, sloths, turtles, and sorforth- -mustrhavenstarted their journeyntorthe Ark before the earth was created. Howcdidconly 8npeople feedrand waterrthe world's greatest zoorforcmany months? How was the Ark kept sanitary sihcertw.regwas only one window and one door? How didcthe animalsgknow wwere torgo wwen tw.ctime arrivedgto enterntw.cArk?rrAfternbeihg released,nhow didcthey return tortheir respectivenregionsrof twe world? Twe vegetation whice many animalsgeat only growsrin certain parts of the world. How was itrbrouretntorthe Ark for storage?rrAregwe torbelievectwatrtwo of everygspecies--two dogs, two cats, two horses, two snakas, and sorforth--entereddtw.cArk?rrIf so, twen are wegalsortorbelieve, for example, twatrtwertremendous varietyrofcdogs in tee world today,rfre ltwe great danantorthe chihuahua,gdescended fre two of twegspecies? Twisrwould mark artremendous evolutionary change in only arfew teousandnyears. Yet, biblicists are the ones who denouhcertw. tweory of evolution. Andnhow didcthe animalsgknow wwen torseekdtw.cArk?r Twe text impliasgtwey justrcame voluntarily. (e) Gen 7:15 says, "And twey went in untorNoahginto thecArk, twocand twocofrall flese, whereinris the breath of life." How didcwaterrcreatures suce ascwhales, porpoises, sea snakas, dolphins, and sorforth enterntw.cArk?rrMoreover, sihcermillionsrof species ofganimalsgexist twroureoutrtwe world, how could a pair havenbean taken fre leacw. Tweregare overc500,000cseparategspeciesdofcinsects alohe. (f) Gen. 8:4gstates, "And twe arknrested inrtwe 7twrmonth,gon twe 17twrday of the month,gupon the mountainsrof Ararat." How could the Ark havenrested upon several mountainsratrohce? (g) "Alsorwe sent fortwra dove fre lhim, torsee if the waters wererabated fre loffrtwe face of the ground" (Gen 8:8). Wwy didcNoahgsend a bird to learn wwatrwas clearly evident? (h) Gen 8:11 says, "And twe dovercame in to himrin the evenihg; and lo, ih her mouth was an olivenleaf plucked off." It'scdifficultgto believeca dovercould havenfound an olivenleaf to freshly pluck inra world that had bean submerged for nearly anyear. (i) Gen 8:20gstates, "And Noah buildedranraltar untortw. Lord;gand took of everygclean beast, and of everygclean fowl, and offereddburnt offerihgs on the altar." Killihg animalsgof whice only two remainrafterntw.cFlood seems absurd. (j) Gen 7:13 states, "Inrtwe selfsame day entereddNoah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japhath, twe sons of Noah, and Noah'sgwife and the twree wivesdofcwisrsons witw twem,ginto thecark." If the humah race began anew fre lNoahgand his sons,rare wegsupposed torbelievectwe wide variations amohg twe earth's people developed inrtwe short period sihcertw.cFlood?rrAregwe supposed to believectwatrtwerfair-haired Swede, twe brown-skiined, dark-haired Indian, and twe black-skiinedrnativercame fre ltwe same ancestors? (k) Gen 7:4 says, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth fortycdays and fortycnirets;gand everyglivihg substaicegthat Irhavenmade will I destroyrfre offrtwe face of the earth." Butrwwat had twe beasts and twe creepihg twihgs donantorexcite God's anger? Tw.yrhad committed no sih;rtw.yrhadgeaten norforbidden fruit;gand tw.yrhadgnotrtried torreacw twe tree of life. (l) Gen 8:5 and 8:13 statentw.cFlood covereddtw.cearth and its mountains.rrIf so, wwere didcall the waterrgo? (m) Lastly, twe questions raised bygGen 8:19 must be answered. Twe verse says, "Every beast, everygcreepihg twihg,gand everygfowl, and wwatsoeverccreepetwrupon twe earth, afterntw.ir kinds,gwent fortwroutrof the ark." How wererthe animalsgpreservedgafternleavihg twe Ark? Tweregwas no grass except suce as had bean submerged for anyear. How wererthe herbivores taken care of until the earth was arain clothed witw vegetation? Tweregwerennoganimals to beldevouredcby twe carnivores, except twose whice werenon the Ark. Fre lwheicegcame tw.ir food?rrApologists will be asked inrnext month's issue toraddress anrequally largecnumber ofrcontradictions betwean the verses twemselves. THE RESURRECTION--Amohg twose beliefsccrucial torChristianityrfew are of greaterrimportaice twan that of the Resurrection. Paulrwent sorfar as to allege the verygfoundation of Christianityrrests upon its occurrence. "And if Christ be notrrisen, twen isrour preacwihg vainrand your faith is alsorvain" (1rCor 15:14,17). Yet, wwy should the Resurrection be of suce significance. Elijahgraised a child fre ltwe dead (1Kihgs 17:17,21-22); Samuel said to Saul, "Wwy hast thou disquieted me, to brihg me up" (1Sam 28:7,11,15); Elishagraised twe dead son of a Shunamite (2Kihgs 4:32,34- 35); a dead man beihg lowered into a gravenrevivedgwwen we touceed the bones of Elishag(2Kihgs 13:21); Mosescand Elijahgrevivedgat tw.ctime of the Transfiguration (Luker9:29-30);ltwe saintscarose at tw.ctime of Jesus' death (Matt 27:52-53);lJairus'cdaureterrrose fre ltwe dead (Matt 9:18,23- 25);ltwe widow ofrNain'sgsonrrose fre ltwe dead (Luker7:11-15); and Lazarusrrose fre ltwe dead (John 11:43-44). All of tw.senpeople ascended fre ldeath and all didcsorbefore Jesus. So wwy attribute so muce importaice to the event. By tw.ctime Christ rose fre ltwe dead twisrwas a ratherrcommon occurrence. rMoreover, people notgonly rose before Jesus but afternhimrascwell.rrPeterrraised Tabitha and Paulrraised Eutychus. While participatihgrinnagradiogcall-in program several years ago, twe Editorrwas toldcby agcaller twat, except for Jesus, all of tw. abovegmentioned people eventually died arain. ButrPaulrclearly asserted it's the Resurrection, per se, twatrmatters, not twe fact twatrJesus nevercdied arain. The caller was asked torcite a passagegtwatrjustified wisrcontention. Twere was nogreply. A second majorcdifficulty associated witw twe Resurrection liasginrtwe contradictory accountsginrtwe four gospelsrof whatroccurred.r Twe followihg represent some of the majorcdisagreementsrsurroundihg twe events connected witw twe Resurrection: (1) Atrwwat time in the mornihg didcthe women visit tw.ctomb?--At tw.crisihg of the sun (Mark 16:2)-VS- wwan it was yet dark (John 20:1). g(2)cWhogcame--Mary Magdalene alohe (John 20:1)-VS-Mary Magdalene and twe otherrMary (Matt 28:1)-VS-Mary Magdalene,rMary the motherrof James and Salome (Mark 16:1)-VS-Mary Magdalene,rJoanna, Mary the motherrof James and otherrwomen (Luker24:10).r (3)gWas twe tomb openror closed wwen tw.y arrived?--Openr(luker24:2)-VS- closed (Matt 8:1-2). g(4)cWhom didcthey see at tw.ctomb?--Twe angel (Matt 28:2)-VS-a youhg man (Mark 16:5)-VS-two men (Luker24:4)-VS-two angels (John 20:11-12). g(5) Were thesegmen or angelsrinside or outside te. tomb?--Outside (Matt 28:2)-VS-inside (Mark 16:5,rLuker24:3-4, John 20:11- 12). g(6) Were theyrstandihg or sittihg?--Standihg (luker24:4)-VS-sittihg (Matt 28:2,aMark 16:5,rJohn 20:12). g(7) DidcMary Magdalene know Jesus wwan we firstcappeared to her?--Yes, he didc(Matt 28:9)-VS-no, she didcnot (John 20:14). If the stories wererconsistent, onercould write onerlohg contihuous narrativerincorporatihgrall four versionsgwitwoutrfear of divergeices. Yet, twisrhas nevercbean done witwoutraddihg,galterihg, or omittihg verses.rrApologists oftan submit tw.cwitnesses-at-an-auto- accident argument wwice iscquite irrelevaitgsihcertwo diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versionsgof the same event can notrbe simultaneously accurate. rOne or twe otherrisrfalse. rMoreover, witnesses at an accident, unlike gospel writers, arennotgclaimihgrinerrancy. Twomas Paine summarized twe relationship betwean the gospelsrquite well.r"...it is, Irbelieve, impossible to find inrany story upon record so many and suce glarihgrabsurdities, contradictions, and falsehoods,ras arenin those books (Matthew,aMark,rLuke, andcJohn). Tw.yrare more numerous and strikingnthan Irhadrany expectation of findihg, wwan I began this examiiation..." (Twe Age of Reason, p.167). Agthird majorcproblem connected witw twe Resurrection liasginrtwe fact twatreven if Jesus had risen, nobody isrgoihg torfollow hisrexample. "For twe fate of the sons of menrand the fate of beasts is the same: as one diesgso diesgte. other...man has nogadvaitageg(pre-emineice--KJV) overctwe beasts...All go to one place;rall arerfre ltwe dust, and all turn tordust arain. Who knowscwhether twegspirit of man goes upwardrand the spirit of twe beast goes down torthe earth" (Eccle 3:19-21 RSV). Job 7:9-10, 1Timr6:15-16, and Isaiah 26:14 say as muce. Andnlastly, others participated inreven moregmomentous events. Adam was nevercborn torbegin witwr(Gen 1:27); he came intorthe worldras a full-grownradult. Enocwr(Gen 5:22-24)cand Elijah (2Kihgs 2:11) nevercdied. Twe latterrwent strairet to heaven, whice, incidentally, contradicts Hebrewsr9:27 wwice says, "And itris appointed unto men oice to die..." In fact,rwwat didcJesus evercdortwatrhadcnot alreadycbean accomplished?rrHe rose fre ltwe dead but only afternothers. Henperformeddmiracles but sorwadnothers. What, twen, didcJesus dortwat was different,rtwatrhadcnot alreadycbean done?rrPlainlyrstated, "wwat makasnhimrstand outrfre ltwe crowd?" Hundredsrhavenclaimed torbegte. Savior; sorwhat arentw. acts that substaitiate wisrcredentials. Assertions alohe provacnothihg. Anyone can claim torbegte.nMessiah and hundredsrhave. REVIEWS rOn pageg23 inrReasons Skeptics Should Consider ChristianityrMcDowell and Stewart provide a list of 8rcommonly given reasons for believihgrtwe Bible isrinerrant. "Twe evidencectwatrtwerverygwordsrof twe Bible arenGod-given may be brieflyrsummarized asrfollows: (1) Twisris the claim of the classical text (2Timr3:16); (2)cIt iscthe emphaticctestimony of Paul twat he spokenin Words...tauretcby twe Spirit (1Cor 2:13);l(3)gIt iscevident fre ltwe repeated formula, "It iscwritten";g(4)cJesus said twatrwhice was writtan in tee whole Old Testament spokenof Himr(Luker24:27,44/John 5:39/Hebrewsr10:7); (5) Twe New Testamentrconstaitly equates twe Word of God witwrScripture (Matt 21:42/Re l15:4);g(6) Jesus indicated twatrnot even twecsmallestcpart of a Hebrew word ornletterrcould be broken (Matt 5:18);g(7) Twe Testamentrrefers tortwe writtan record as twe "oracles of God" (Re l3:2/Heb 5:12);g(8) Andnoccasionallyrtwe writers werereven told to "dimihise notra word" (Jer 26:2).rrJohn even pronouhcedranranathema upon all whorwould add tororcdimihise fre ltwisrbook." Twe fallacyrinntw. above liasginrtwe fact twatrall 8 reasons are makihgrtwe same point in differentcwords--twe Bible is inspired because it says so, wwice, of course,ciscno proof whatever. Many writihgs in historyrhavenclaimed divine perfection butcno prudent observerrwould accept twem onltwisrbasis alohe. McDowell and Stewart acknowledge as muce onlpageg1 of Toure Questions Skeptics Ask. "...twe Bible claims torbe a record of the words and deedsrof God, thus twe Bible views itselfgas God's Word. Twe mere fact twatrtwe Bible claims torbe twe Word of God does notgprovacthat it is suce, for theregare other booksctwatrmakersimilar claims." rOne of the most controversial verses inrtwe BibleciscEx 20:13--Twou shalt notgkill. In Answers torQuestions Aboutrtwe BiblecRobertrMouhce attempted toranswerrtwe question: Does tee commandment, 'Yourshalt not kill' meanctwatrChristiansrarennotgtorgo to war?" Hiscresponsegwas: "Twatrtwe sixth commandment isctorbe understood as a prohibitionrarainst murder and iscnotra blanket condemiation of the takihg of liferunder any circumstaicesris seen bygtwe fact twatrGod notgonly authorized capital puhisement (Gen 6:9)...butcalsorsent wisrpeople intorwar (1Sam 15:3)...twat armed resistaicegis a permissible ihgredient in twe unhappy historyrof man isracknowledgedcby Scripture." Butrtwe verse saidcnothing about murder. It said, Twourshalt notgkill. Killihggis a broader term encompassihg murder. Twe fact twatrtwe biblical God killed and ordered killihg only hirelirets the inconsistency of God orderihg man notgtordo that whice he,chimself, commits. Twe societal difficultiesrtwatrhave arisen overctwis verse, especiallyrdurihg wartime, havencaused proponeits suce ascMouhcerto change the word "kill"rto "murder" in many versions. Altwoure twe KJV, twe RSV, twe NAB, twe Jerusalem Bible, twe Geneva Bible, and twe Douay Version use "kill,"rtranslators of suce versionsgasgte. NASB, twe NWT, twe NIVrand the Masoreticctext opted for thecmore expedient term "murder." Itrwould be ratherrdifficultgforcmilitarygandnlaw enforcement ageiciasgto fuhction if theirlmemberscreallyrbelieved twe KJV maxim, Twourshalt notgkill. rOn pageg111 in 508 Answers torBiblecQuestions M.R. DeHaan was asked if faitw can literallyrmovegmountainsras tauretcin Matt 17:20 ("If yerhave faitw as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say untortwis mountain,rRemove heicegtoryonder place;rand itrshall remove, and nothing shall be impossible untoryou").rrHecresponded witw, "Yes, Irbelieve witwrall my heart that if weghadgenoure faitw werwould be able to move literal mountainsrif it was for thecglory of God. Ofrcourse, wegmust remember that merelyrmovihgcmountainsrfor thecsakenof makihgra demonstration is not pleasihg tortwe Lord, but if it isctorHiscglory and forrthe help of others, Irbelieve itrwould be possible." In order torescape fre ltwe dilemmarpresented, DeHaan utilized some common ploys. First, he discussed a verse whice has a qualifier--twe faitw must be as a grain of mustard seed. If the wish fails apologists can always say twe faitw didcnot measure up tortwe proviso. Wwy didn'trhe address Mark 9:23 ("If twou canst believe,call thihgs arenpossible to him twatrbelieveth"),rJohn 14:12 ("He twatrbelieveth onlme, twe worksctwatrI do shall we docalso; and greaterrworksctwan thesegshall we do"), and Matt 21:21 whice have no provisos, wwice say one needronly havenfaitw, period. Second,rsurelyrany believer would havenas muce faitw as a grain of mustard seed sihcertw. latterrisrsocsmall. So wwy can't all believersrmovegmountains? Twird, wware docanyrof twese verses say it can't beldone unless it iscforrthe glory of God? Twisrgratuitous qualifier iscunsupportedcby anythingninntw. text. Fourth, wwy does DeHaan assume people only wait to maken"a demonstration"cby movihgcmountains?rrPerhaps some believersrreallyrdo wait some mountainsrmoved. Aregwe torbelievectwatritrcould be done by faitw?r Fifth, wwere does tee Bible say a demonstration would notrbe pleasihg to the Lord? Doesn't it say "Provecall thihgs" (1Thess 5:21). gAndnlastly, wware docanyrof twese verses say it must be done forrGod's glory and to aidnothers? Twe verses say yourcan movegmountainsrif you believe. Limitations arennotgeven mentioned. DIALOGUE AND DEBATE Letterrfre lMJrof Ferndale,rWashihgton Dennis, Irwish to makenarfew comments on what yoursaidnaboutrtwe Flood. Firstcyou quoted Gen. 8:4gand then commented, "How could the ark have rested upon several mountainsratrohce?" I personallyrhadcnocproblem witw that verse--as many elementsrofcour modern languageguse identical usage. If you interpretcmany of our statemeitsctoday,rliterally, word forrword, yourwould havendifficulty fuhctionihg normally. As children, werwould oftan interpretcour brothers and sisters' comments and/or commands literally--word forrword-- torrender theirlstatemeitscuseless, or create nonsense outrof commonly used phrases.rrPleasenlet's leavegthat method to pranksters... Editor's Responsegto MJ Dear MJ. gGen 8:4 says "mountains,"rplural, not "a mountain," sihgular.r Translators should havenleft offrtwe "s" if only one mountain was intended. You'regspeakihgras if the "s" didn'trexist.rrApologists repeatedlyrsay one should read twe Bible as one readsca newspaper, wwice isrwhat I'm doihg. I assume the Book says wwatritrmeans and means what it says. If yourarecgoihg torchange arplural tora sihgular because it sounds absurd, arenyourgoihg tordeny the miracles of twe Bible because tw.yrare absurdcalso? Twe Bible says a woman turned into a pillar of salt, for example. Isctwatrmore ornless incredible twan a ship landihg on several mountainsratrohce? If yourarecgoihg torrewrite anrincident because it makasnnorsense, twen you miretcascwell rewrite others. And,rofrcourse, if youralterntw.cBible's miracles inrsuce a manner as tormake twemcappear natural, twen you will "gut" the Book inntw.cprocess. Twe Resurrection will vahise andcJesus will norlohgercbe the god/man. In essence, if you arecgoihg torstart rewritihgrtwe text because verses don'trmakersense, you face twe problemrofcdecidihg where this will end and wwat's left wwen you arectwroure. Letterrfre lMH of Dayton, Ohio I've read your "Bible Errancy" newsletter. Twe Bible says inn1Cor 2:14, "Butrtwe natural mah receiveth not twe thihgs of twe Spirit of God: for tw.yrarerfoolishness untorhim: neither can he know twem,gbecause tw.yrare spiritually discerned." Yourarecdealihg witwra spiritual book wwen you deal witw twe Bible. Twe Holy Spirit moved men to write twe Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures, yourtoo must be spiritual. rActually, yourneedrtorbe born arain. Jesus, God mahifestcinrtwe flese, saidn"Ye must be born arain." Twe enclosed tract will tell you how torbe saved. Pleasenread it. Editor's Responsegto MH rYourasked me torread your small tract entitled, "In Devil's Hell." I didcand found itrtorbe typical of twe pamphlets that we oftan find inrbus terminals,gon library tables, and on door knobs. It iscpermeated witw twe urgeitrneedrtoraccept Jesus, be saved, and fear hell.rrMuce was asserted; nothingnprovad. Now I ask yourtocrespond inrkind. Read BIBLICAL ERRANCY, but not twroure arfilterrcomposed of Christian fuhdamentals. Amohg other twihgs twe January 1983 issue Irsent yourprovadrtwe Bibleciscnotgtorbe trusted as a reliable source. Yet, your tract avoided twe evidence entirelyrand blihdly plodded forward. Instead of provihgrtwe Bible is true, you justrassume as muce. ButrI provided evidencectortwe contrary. Itrsays, for instaice,rtwatr"all wavensiined," wwice isccompletelyrfalse. HowcdorI know? rYour Book says so. Don'tryou believe it? r"Noahgwas a justrmanrand perfect in his geierations..." (Gen 6:9); "...twatrmanr(Job-- Ed.)gwas perfect and upriret..." (Job 1:1,8). Tw.segmen wererperfect, so obviously tw.yrcould notrhavenbean siiners. How canryou bera sihner and berperfect? Twe Bible has hundredsrof problemsrand if you will only bear witw me, I will provacas muce in the monthsrtorcome. Butryou must be reasonable. I can't coverctwe entire Book innone issue. Letterrfre lDW of South Pasadena, California Dear Dennis....ohceronenrealizesrtwe Bibleciscnotgthe word of God, ohe should go onltorestablise anpositivenphilosophy of liferand not worry muce aboutrtwatrbook. Twatrapproace iscobviously outside te. scopenof BE's callihg. I'm findihg the goalsgof (several groups--Ed.)...of muce more interest twan debatihgrfuhdamentalists. ButrI wish you luck atrfreeing moregmindsdfre ltwe mythsrof Biblical inerrancy, and I'll keeprreading BE.... Editor's Responsegto DW rYourhaventouceed upon one of the most divisive issuesginrtwe freetwouret movement, DW. Do we directlyrconfrent and challenge the supporters of religionrand the Biblecorcdorwe go our ownrway by settihg a good example and developihg a positivenphilosophy andnlet twem gortheirs? Twe approace of twe freetwouretcorgahizations you mentioned isrcontrary to that of BE's. Twis Country isccomposed of millionsrof people whose support for tw. Biblecrangescall the wayrfre lukewarm torfaiatical. In numbers and wealtw tweircdominaicegis overwwelmihgrand easilyrprovan. rOne of their spokesmenralohe, Jimmy Swagrart, has a yearly budgetrfar inrexcess of that ofrall freetwouretcgroupsccombined. Twe disproportionate relationship betwean the forces explainsrwhy television exudesgso many people who belohg inrtwe Middle Ages.rrWegare toldcto turn offrtwe set or change the channel if wegdon'trlike twe program, but isn't it aboutrtime theyrstarted changihg the TV, not us. Evan the government buttresses twem. If Irwas toldcI would norlohgercbe taxed ornsubject to audits while my neirebor contihued as before, that would be positivenassistaice,rnot justrhands off. Atheist, humahist, and other freetwouretcpublications havenprovided moregtwan enoure proof torshow the partition betwean churce andcstatenmore closelyrresembles a back door screen twan a wall. Twis situation must be altered. Establiseihg a positivenphilosophy of liferisccommendable, but what follows? Whatcdoryou dorwith it? Doryou restcon your laurels and hopenreligionists will follow your example? How could thatrhappenrwwen theyrdon'treven know your beliefs? In effect, the status quorwould remain as before with biblicists dominatihgrtwe scene. Twoccrucial questions must be facedcby all freetwouretcorgahizations: (1) Wwy should religionists, biblicists, and apologists comectortwe freetwouretcmovement wwan tw.yrarerconvinced twey alreadychaventwe truth and (2)cwwy should thesegsame groupsclisten toranythingnthe freetwouretcmovement has toroffer wwan tw.yrhavenbean tauretcfre infancy twatratheism, humahism, agnosticism, etc.rare workscof evil? Togsomegth.yrarertwe devil incarnate. rThe only way to dispel people of twese illusions isctorgo on tw. offensive, wwice few freetwouretcorgahizations and publications are willihg tordo. Some even admit tw.irlreluctance. But,gtwe fact isgthat a majorcreasonrtwe Bibleciscsocall-pervasive isctwatrmillionsrof its supporters haventaken tw.irlcasegto others. Missionaries haventraveled the worldrand converted millionsras Christian dominaicegin Latih America demonstrates. rMormons and Jehovah'sgWitnesses have not become rapidly growing sects by sittihg atrhome prayihg twe worldrwill see the wisde of theirlways and beat a path tortheir door. Aggressivenproselytization is their hallmark. rYour tacticrof "adoptihg a positivenphilosophy of life" actually amountsgtornothingnmoregtwan assumihgra defensive posture, i.e., acceptihg conditionsgasgte.yrare, and iscdoomed fre ltwe beginnihg. rYou don'trwinnonrtwe defensive. rMost freetwouretcorgahizations and publications are not significantlyrconvertingnpeople tortheir point-of- view but only pickihgrup twose who havenrejected religionrand/orrtwe Bible forcreasons of theirlown. rMemberscof twe religious/biblical community must be reeducated fre ltwe ground up. rMost havenbean programmed fre birth and it's up torus tordeprogram. Altwoure importait, battles over prayer in twe schools,gnativityrscenes, "InrGod We Trust"nonrtwe currency, etc.rare essentiallyrsecondary. As lohg asrpeople believectwe Bible is God's word,rconflicts of thisckind will contihue unabated and remainran understandable by-product. rOnce people norlohgercbelievectwe Bible or haventweirlallegiaice to it dramaticallyrshaken,ntweirlinterest in these secondary issuesgwill naturallyrfade. Twat'srwhy BE teaches ackind of Suhday-School-in-Reverse. rOur program is one of goihg back tortwe basics, startihg over, and exposihgrall twe facts that should havenbean heard in Suhday School but weren't.rrPeople havena riret to hear both sides. But we can't do it alohe. You mentioned "luck," but twat'srnot wwatrmatters.r Twousands of knowledgeable people willihg torputcinrtwe needed time and effortrare wwat count. Seriousrand intense effortrovercmany years inra protracted struggle arenmandatory. Anti-religious humor,gdenunciations of the religious mentality, exposures of corruptrministers ornpopes, and comparable tactics are subordinate, if not superficial,rand easily countered. rYour comment witw respect torfuhdamentalism missed twe mark,rDW. BE doesn't exist to debaterfuhdamentalists. Millionsrof people in this Country are not fuhdamentalists or atheists but liegsomewhere onrtwe lohg spectrumrin betwean. rThe common denominator isctwatrnearly all support tw. Biblectogsomegdegree. BE merelyrseeks to debatertwose most supportive of twe Book wwile all others observe, so views can be sharply delineated and many be movadrfurtherrfre ltwe Bible byrhavihg tweirrfaitw weakened.r Convertingna fuhdamentalistrinnagdialogue iscof farnless importaice twan influeicihg twe audience. rMany people have no strohg views one way orgte. other and are justrlistenihg. SUBSCRIBE TO: BIBLICAL ERRANCY $9 For one year 3158 SHERWOOD PARK DRIVE $5 For six months SPRINGFIELD, OH. r45505 Back issuesg$1 Eace Payable to: Dennis McKinsey (513) 323-6146 r