errors in it. And if the Bible is riddled with scientific errors, they should wonder too a

errors in it.  And if the Bible is riddled with scientific errors, they should 
wonder too about the truth of that often parroted claim that the Bible is 
inerrant in all details of history, geography, chronology, etc., as well as in 
matters of faith and practice.  It just ain't so!                 

                       ********************

ODDS....
contradictions and discrepancies.  Even at that, he did not deal with all that 
have been identified, but 2,100 is more than enough to make a point inerran-
cy believers should contemplate.  To explain away what they consider to be 
only "alleged" contradictions in the Bible, Archer and his inerrancy cohorts 
have resorted to all kinds of far-fetched, how-it-could-have-been scenarios of 
the sort we have analyzed in this and past issues.  For the inerrancy doc-
trine to be true, they must be right in all of their  far-fetched
explanations--every one of them.  If they are wrong in just one--only 
one--the foundation of the inerrancy doctrine collapses.

   What are the odds that they are right in everything--all 2,000+ "explana-
tions"?  If bibliolaters want to play the odds, as their high regard of Pascal's 
wager would indicate, they should think about this.     

                       ********************

JEHU....
Yahweh and done his will in massacring the house of Ahab at Jezreel. If that 
is so, why would Hosea, presumably another Yahwistically inspired writer, 
later pronounce judgment upon the house of Jehu for the Jezreel massacre? 
That is what McDonald did not and cannot explain.

   He had much to say about the "figurative" language in Hosea (Hosea's son 
represented this, his daughter represented that, etc.), but his interpreta-
tions were purely arbitrary. He gave no textual proof whatsoever to support 
them. Everything in some way referred to the evil old king Zechariah, yet 
Zechariah's name wasn't even mentioned in the entire book of Hosea. The 
truth is that not much of anything was said about Zechariah in the Bible. 
His entire reign lasted only six months and was described in just four verses 
(2 Kings 15:8-11).  McDonald spoke of "the innocent blood that was shed by 
the wicked king Zachariah" (p. 3), but the Bible says nothing about this. 
In fact, Zechariah's own blood was shed by a political assassin.

   So McDonald has no textual proof whatsoever to support his fanciful 
interpretation.  To get out of the hole he has dug himself into, he will have 
to beat that.            

                       ********************


     RECOMMENDED PUBLICATION

   Biblical Errancy is a monthly paper that also exposes the myth of Bible 
inerrancy. Although we don't agree with every-thing in it, we do recommend 
it for people interested in learning more about discrepancies in the Bible. 
Subscription cost is $9 per year.  Other inerrancy materials are also avail-
able.  The address is 3158 Sherwood Park Drive, Springfield, OH 45505.   

                       ********************


      INERRANCY DEBATES AVAILABLE 

   The unfinished Laws-Till Debate, which the fundamentalist James H. Laws 


                           1

withdrew from after three manuscript exchanges, is available at $2 ppd.  A 
complete debate between Bill Jackson, a Church-of-Christ preacher, and 
Farrell Till is now in print at $2.25 ppd.  Both can be ordered at the ad-
dress on page two.                      

                       ********************


           BACK ISSUES AVAILABLE 

   All four 1990 issues of The Skeptical Review are available at $1 per copy. 
Send orders to the address on page two.




















































                           2