"...but try the spirits whether they are of God..." (1 Jno. 4:1)
|Volume Five, Number One||Spring 1997|
This is the final article in this exchange. It has been a pleasure for me to engage in this exchange for two reasons:  Because I am always happy to stand up and defend God's word when people like Mr. McKinsey attempt to tear it down. The more I debate these people the more faith I have in the word of God. I see them throw their best at me, and their best always falls short of proof.  I am also pleased because with the last printed issue (Winter 94) Challenge went on the Internet with which will give this exchange an even greater circulation. My reason for being grateful for the wide circulation is because I have tried now to get Dennis to debate me, publicly and he has refused. He wanted to get me in front of an audience and ask me questions and me give answers; and every time I would begin to give an answer he would cut in like he did Gaston Cogdill. However, he has refused to have an actual debate with me; a debate where each of us would have a specified amount of time to speak and rebut each others arguments. When I began this discussion I had no idea that in a few years it would have the wide circulation capability that it now has. We are in the process of getting all past issues of Challenge (which will include all past exchanges in this discussion) on the Internet. We hope to have it done in the next couple of months. So, I am well pleased!
I believe that people will see that atheists have no real argument. I have spent the last 6 years debating atheists and one thing is painfully evident: none of them have any rational, decent argument. I believe that McKinsey's defenses show this to be true. I am sure that there are many who will continue to laud McKinsey as being right and taking control in this exchange, however, there are people on his side of the issue who were able to see McKinsey's weaknesses. One such person wrote Mr. McKinsey a letter which was published in the July '93 issue of Biblical Errancy. This letter said:
Dear Dennis. I am a loyal subscriber to B.E., but let me say at the outset that I am not a 'Biblicist', 'Religionist', literalist, or fundamentalist, though I do believe in God....
I wrote this letter in reference to B.E. #120, p.5 second column, about the 'stalls' and 'baths'. I see no reason why copyists' errors may not have been involved in the former case....
I have far more serious problems with the 'baths.' You say: 'Nothing is said about a container.' I almost fell out of my chair when I read that....
It appears that you have no idea what a 'bath,' in the context, is. Well...a 'bath' was an old Hebrew unit of volume equal to approximately 10 U.S. gallons. This leads to a very serious problem which I will get to in a moment. But first, did you seriously interpret 'baths,' as 'bathtubs.' I find this positively mindblowing if you did" (Biblical Errancy, Issue 127, pp.5,6).
Apparently this person was not the only person to write to Dennis about his "blunder" on the "baths" of 1 Kgs 7:23 because in response Dennis wrote: "You are by no means the only reader who wrote a letter to us to express disagreement with what I said in regards to the baths" (Ibid, p.6).
Dennis went on and apologized for the error and said that he should have read that section more carefully. However, he closed with this statement: "I have never claimed perfection but I'm lightyears ahead of my competition." Well, if blunders like that one puts him lightyears ahead of us, then I guess he is way ahead of us, because his articles in this exchange were literally filled with blunders some even worse than that one. Reader, remember these blunders:
1. Remember in the second exchange McKinsey said: "Jerry is going to systematically refute our pamphlet when he can't even get the title correct..." (Challenge, Autumn 1992, p.4) because I misprinted the title of his tract on my booklet? Remember my response: "If I had been you, I would have never made the statement: 'Jerry is going to systematically refute our pamphlet when he can't even get the title correct.' I mean, after all, you got my name wrong in the July 1991 issue of Biblical Errancy: 'Letter #440 from Jerry MacDonald, Editor of CHALLENGE in Sullivan, Missouri (Part a) Fundamentalist Christian Apologist Jerry MacDonald inserted the following in his Spring 1991 Issue of CHALLENGE....'" The name is "McDonald." I pointed out that neither his mistake nor mine would affect the ability of either writer to refute the other's argument. However, McKinsey made a mountain out of a mole hill, only to find out that he made a mistake just as bad.
2. What about in the third exchange where Dennis argued that Romans 5:18 taught that all men are condemned because Adam sinned? I pointed out that Dennis stopped reading too soon. I pointed out that if Dennis' position was true then the rest of that verse: "even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" taught that all men are saved because of what Christ did. I showed that Dennis just didn't read far enough and overlooked that part of the verse. Isn't that exactly what he did with 1 Kgs. 7:23? He just didn't read far enough?
3. In the third exchange Dennis argued that if a thing was ever perfect, it could not choose to be imperfect. He was showing that if Adam was ever perfect he could not choose to do wrong, thus attempting to show that Adam would have had no choice to make, if he was perfect. He also condemned the Bible because he thought that it teaches that babies are born in sin and he disagreed with that theory (2nd exchange). He went on to show that the Bible lied because it said that Noah was perfect and if one is perfect he could never choose to be imperfect. Remember my response? I pointed out that even he believed that babies were sinless (perfect according to his definition of perfect), but some of them will grow up to be sinful (imperfect according to his definition of imperfect). I then pointed out that if sinless babies could grow up and choose to sin (which they do), then according to McKinsey's theory, they were never perfect to begin with. This would do one of two things: [A] It would relegate his arguments on the Bible being wrong for saying that babies were born in sin (according to his belief of what the Bible teaches on the subject), to the trash bin, or [B] he would have to deny his own argument about if a thing was ever perfect it could not possibly choose to become imperfect. That was a good one, wasn't it?
4. Remember his foolishness about the figure of speech "anthropopathea" being created by my forerunners who, "created a wordanthropopatheaout of nothing concrete, managed to have it put in the dictionary...." I pointed out that "anthropopathea" is a valid figure of speech that we use every day. Example: "the long arm of the law." The law doesn't have an arm, it doesn't have a body, but it is said that it does have an arm, and does so by a valid figure of speech called "anthropopathea" ( Challenge Spring 1993, p.6).
5. Remember in the same exchange where he asked: "Where are you getting this coreign nonsense anyway? Show me one verse that even implies such a statement, let alone states as much...since you created this coreign nonsense out of nothing, can you provide one instance of a coreign in the entire Bible? In fact, can you provide one other instance of a coreign in all of ancient history, be it biblical or otherwise?" (Ibid). My response was that I was not the one who created the coreign argument. I pointed out that had he not deleted 232 words from that section of my booklet, he would have seen that John Gill, who lived in the 1800's, argued for that on that very alleged discrepancy, and that Kimchi and Abarbinel (12th century scholars) also argued for a coreign on that very alleged discrepancy. I pointed out that I could not just name one instance of a coreign, but several that were undisputed by anyone.
Example #1: "And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all the first born in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne...". This could only be a coreign, because it said that the firstborn son of the Pharaoh, who sat on the Pharaoh's throne, was killed. The only way that such could happen would have been for a coreign to exist.
Example #2: Solomon coreigned with David for a time, and even Farrell Till admitted such.
Example #3: Gleason Archer gave 6 examples of coreigns in the Bible.  Asa died in 896 BC, but his son Jehosaphat became coregent in 872 making three or four years of coregency.  Jehosaphat died in 848, but his son Jehoram became coregent in 853.  Amazia died in 767, but his son Azariah became coregent in 790 (twenty three years of coregency, and I was only arguing for 20 with Jehoram and Ahaziah).  Jotham died in 736 or 735, but Ahaz became coregent in 743.  Ahaz died in 725, but his son Hezekiah became coregent in 738.
6. Then in the fifth exchange there was his blunder on the "baths" of 1 Kings 7:23.
7. Also in the fifth exchange he ridiculed me for going to the Greek version of the Old Testament to see how a Hebrew word was used, and asked: "What kind of scholarship is that?" My response was that atheist author, Dr. Robert Countess, used that very method (looking at the Greek version of the O.T. to trace the meaning of a Hebrew word) in a recent issue of The Skeptical Review (Challenge, pp, 1,10).
8. Remember his blunder in the sixth exchange where he tried to make an analogy of my listing all of the things that one has to do to be saved (when all are completed one's sins are washed away, but each one by themselves won't save a person), to saying that "a ford is a car, a honda is a car, and a pontiac is a car, but none of them are cars unless they are all cars. Each is independent of the other and is to be judged on its own merits" was nothing more than the fallacy of false analogy (comparing apples to oranges). A Ford can be a car whether the Honda, or Pontiac are cars. The Ford is not dependent upon the Honda or the Pontiac. However, one cannot become a Christian simply by hearing, or simply by believing, or simply be repenting, or simply by confessing, or even simply by being baptized. I pointed out that each one relied upon the others. That when one did all those things, he could be forgiven from his past sins. Remember that blunder? (Challenge, Autumn, 1993, pp. 79).
9. Remember the seventh exchange where he misunderstood what I said when I wrote: "There are other flying creatures (such as the Pteranodon, and whether Mr. MCKINSEY likes it or not, the Bible does speak of dinosaurs (Job 40:1517). He then attacked what I said with this remark: "what on earth does Job 40:1517 have to do with dinosaurs, and where does it say anything about fourlegged animals?" (Challenge, Winter 1993 p.7). I was not saying that Job 40:1517 spoke of four legged flying animals, I used that to show that dinosaurs did exist, and the Pteranodon was a dinosaur. I used the Pteranodon to show that it was a four legged flying animal. But in MCKINSEY's rush for something to say, he blundered on what I had said.
10. Remember the eighth exchange where he said: "What difference does the kind of war make? It was a war wasn't it? And I don't remember saying or even implying that it was fought with tanks and guns. I said Revelation 12:7 alleges there was war in heaven. I fail to see what part of the statement is false..." (Challenge Summer 1994, p.13). I pointed out that I had not said that his statement on Revelation 12:7 was false, I said that McKinsey shouldn't complain about war in heaven because he loves a good fight. I stated: "When one reads this publication (BE, jdm) one can easily see that Mr. McKinsey's statement is not only false, but it is false to the point that he goes around waging [spiritual] war upon those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible." The statement that I said was false was: "Why would I want to go to a place (heaven jdm) in which war can occur? That's exactly what I am trying to escape aren't' you?" That statement was false. However, Dennis, again, didn't read my statement very well, and blundered big time.
11. Remember the blunder he made with this statement: "if Scripture is the 'perfect' as you allege and it has not come, then how could the 'in part' have existed?" (Challenge, Autumn 1994, p.13). I pointed out that the perfect was the completed written revelation, and the inpart was the partial knowledge, etc (1 Cor. 13:810). For him to say that "in part" could not have existed because the "perfect" was not complete would be analogous to saying that part of a house could not exist unless it all existed. That was just one of the blunders he made in that issue, there were at least three.
12. Remember in the 10th exchange where he tried to say, in his tract, that the Bible was not a fit moral guide because of socalled pornographic statements, which by implication made the Bible pornographic. However, when I pointed this out in my booklet, he stated: "Where have I ever said the Bible is pornographic?" (Challenge, Winter 1994, p.2). If the Bible is not a fit moral guide because of pornographic statements, then it is pornographic. How many pornographic statements would it take to make the Bible pornographic? How
many pornographic scenes would it take to make a movie a pornographic movie?
13. Finally in this issue, I stated in my booklet: "The reason that Mr. McKinsey sees a problem here is because he does not understand the nature of sin and of God. There is also a limit to what man can do because he is finite. If he was infinite I have a feeling that the punishment for crimes would be greater than what they are." McKinsey's response: "Even more important, how could the punishment be any greater, when it's already infinite.... How could man becoming infinite extend the punishment any further when one's residency in hell is already eternal?" My my! We are confused aren't we. I didn't say that punishment as far as God is concerned would be greater if man was infinite, I was saying that punishment as far as man is concerned would be greater if we were infinite. If we were infinite, we would be infinite in every attribute, including justice. Because we are finite, we look at punishment in terms of degrees, rather than looking at it as God does; sin is sin and all sin must be punished. We are not like God, so we allow some crimes to slide by while we prosecute others very heavily. If we were infinite and like God we would be inflicting greater punishment upon evildoers, than what we do being finite. That is all that I meant by that statement. However, McKinsey gets his hackles up and misunderstands what I said. However, this is characteristic of the way he has done throughout this exchange.
In each and every exchange, there was at least one place where McKinsey made mistakes of such gravity as to bring embarrassment upon the atheistic community. If he is lightyears ahead of us, we must be the worlds biggest idiots, because this man can't even write an article without misinterpreting something that someone said, or failing to read all of what someone said, or simply not knowing what the Bible says.
Now to respond to his eleventh defense of his tract: The Bible Is God's Word ?. If God created everything, then he must have created evil. Therefore, he should be held responsible. As I previously said, God created everything, but he did not create it for evil. He created the tobacco plant, but he didn't intend for man to use it for evil. He created elements that are used in the chemicals that we make medicines out of, but he never intended them to be used for social or party drugs. We should use them for medications to help us when we are sick or injured. Man uses the things that God made for good, to do evil. Thus God should not be blamed for man's sins.
Mr. Mckinsey says: "Scripture says in Col 1:16 and Eph. 3:9 that God created everything and you also stated, 'God created everything.' That settles the matter. In groping for an answer you say God created everything but he didn't create evil. That's a contradiction."  I said, "God made everything, but he did not make it (everything) evil."  God did create everything that is good, everything that is useful to man. God did not create disease, that came about as a result of sin. God did not create death, that came about as a result of sin. God did not create sin, that came about as a result of Satan's rebellion to God.  There are verses which state that God created evil. As the creator he is charged with creating everything including evil. I quoted some of those places and McKinsey deemed them unnecessary so he left them out. Notice how "Dot" faithfully quoted my booklet:
"This gets back to objection # 3 God made everything, but he did not make it evil. Satan rebelled against God, and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world through their disobedience. Man uses things that God gave for good, to make evil things. This is hardly God's fault, and it is unfair to blame God with it.
...There are places in the Bible, however, that seem to indicate that God does do evil.... How can these things be reconciled with the fact that God does not do evil? Simply by realizing that whatever God allows is attributed to him. God is the ultimate source of power and authority. This being the case, we need to realize that even evil must be allowed by God, or else it would not exist. Thus in that sense God creates evil. When one looks at the overall context of the Bible, there is no problem at all. The figure of speech used here is 'anthropopathea' or the ascribing of human attributes to God...."
Now notice what I wrote in my booklet:
"This gets back to objection # 3 God made everything, but he did not make it evil. Satan rebelled against God, and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world through their disobedience. Man uses things that God gave for good, to make evil things. This is hardly God's fault, and it is unfair to blame God with it.
However, Isaiah 45:7 says: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do these things.' which seems to contradict Lamentations 3:38: 'Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good.' When one looks at the overall context of the Bible, it is consistently taught that God cannot do evil.. There are places in the Bible, however, that seem to indicate that God does do evil In 1 Kings chapter 22 we have the case of thee lying spirit being sent by God into the mouths of Ahab's prophets. 2 Samuel 24:1 tells us that God provoaked David to number the people, while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan provoaked David to do this. In 2 Thessalonians 2:10,11 tells us that God sends strong delusions to those who refuse to follow him so that they may believe a lie. How can these things be reconciled with the fact that God does not do evil? (Habakkuk 1:13) Simply by realizing that whatever God allows is attributed to him. God is the ultimate source of power and authority. This being the case, we need to realize that even evil must be allowed by God, or else it would not exist. Thus in that sense God creates evil. When one looks at the overall context of the Bible, there is no problem at all. The figure of speech used here is 'anthropopathea' or the ascribing of human attributes to God. There are many different aspects of this figure of speech, and this is but one of them."
The words in italics are the words that "Dot Dot Dot" McKinsey omitted from my booklet as being unimportant to what I was saying: all 153 of them. Do you realize just how many words that makes that Dennis has simply deleted from my booklet during the course of this discussion? I added them all up and came up with 1712 words. 1712 words were deemed unnecessary by McKinsey so he simply deleted them with an elipsis. In every case of his doing this he deleted explanations of the point I was making. Is that honorable debating?
Since I put that booklet into print, I have had the opportunity to go back and do some further study on Isa. 45:7: "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil...". The word evil has several meanings as I pointed out in my correspondence with Roy Smith, which was printed in the Winter '94 issue of Challenge. I pointed out that the word "evil" comes from the word "rah" and can mean: "affliction, bad, calamity, displease, distress, evil...grief, harm, heavy, hurt...sorrow, trouble, wickedness..." (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, HEBREW AND CHALDEE LEXICON, p. 109). Also, Davidson said that the word means to be: evil, bad, worthless.II. evil, wicked. III. noxious hurtful.... IV. illfavored.... V. ill calamitous. VI. sad, sorrowful. VII. subst. (a) evil, wickedness; (b) evil, harm, injury, calamity" (The Analytical Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon, p.688). From these quotations we can see that the word carries with it, several meanings. In one place it can mean wickedness, while another it will only mean hurt, harm, destruction, or calamity, while in yet another it will mean grief, heavy, hurt... sorrow. One just cannot pick one definition of a word and place that definition on that word every time it is used. The context must determine how the word is used.
In Isa. 45:7 God said, "I make peace and create evil...". In the passage peace is the opposite of evil. That is why I believe that the proper meaning for evil would be trouble, calamity, distress, or even affliction. God makes peace, but he also afflicts, or causes distress, or trouble. For those who worship God, he will make peace for them. However, those who do not, he will create trouble for them.
Now, this does not distract from the argument that I was making because it is true that whatever God allows, he is said to be the source of it. God allowed a lying spirit to go into the mouths of Ahab's prophets, but he is said to have sent that lying spirit (1 Kgs. 22). God is said to have provoaked David to number the people (2 Sam. 24:1), but Satan is also said to have provoaked David to do this (1 Chron. 21:1). All this says is that whatever God allows, he is said to have done. However, Isa. 45:7 is not in that category because the word evil there is opposite of peace, which would make it mean trouble, distress, affliction, etc.
McKinsey says: "Biblical readers are not ascribing attributes to God; the Bible is, and it is doing so in no uncertain terms." Thank you, Dennis! For once we are in agreement. The Bible ascribes human attributes to God by using the figure of speech "anthropopathea." This does not mean that God actually does those things, but they are being attributed to him because he allows them. I have never said that "Biblical readers are ascribing attributes to God." I have always said that the Bible does this, and it uses the figure of speech known as "anthropopathea" to do it. Maybe Dennis is beginning to see the light after all.
What about God coming down to see the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:5)? I pointed out that the Bible uses the figure of speech "anthropopathea" to help man understand what took place. God cannot literally come down because he is already there, but in order to condescend to man's level of intelligence the Holy Spirit employed the figure of speech "anthropopathea" (the ascribing of human attributes to God) so that man could understand.
Dennis became upset because I pointed out why God came down when he wanted to know how God came down. He says: "Who care why he came down or if he needs to come down at all. That doesn't address the basic problem. How can he come down if he is already there? That's the issue! Don't try to change the focus." God cannot literally come down because he is everywhere. However, so that man can understand, the figure of speech anthropopathea is used which ascribes human attributes to that which is not humannamely God. So the why is important because it is part of the whole scene.
Figures of speech are used throughout the Bible to help man have a clearer understanding of what is taking place. One cannot read the Bible without seeing the figures of speech used. For example Isaiah 59:1 says: "The Lord's hand is not shortened that it cannot save, neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear...." God cannot hear because he does not have a physical body, but anthropopathea is used here so that God could condescend to man's level so man could understand God. This was written so that God could condescend to man's level of intelligence so that man would be able to understand him. Its a valid figure of speech which is even recognized by our dictionaries.
Mr. McKinsey ridicules us for bringing up figures of speech, but I dare say that Mr. McKinsey could not even hold an intelligent conversation without using at least one figure of speech some where in the conversation. Remember in his second defense he said: "My advice to any Biblicist who sees this problem coming down the road is to flee to the hills in terror. Run for your life and don't look back, unless you don't mind being eaten alive"? (Challenge, Vol. 2, No. 3, p.4). Dennis, did you mean that in a literal sense? Did you mean that you atheists are a bunch of cannibals who go around eating their enemies? No, he was using the figure of speech called exaggeration, and all who read it understood that.
In his third defense he wrote: "And finally, your attempt to draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishment" is stillborn because they are two sides of the same coin" (Challenge, Vol. 2, No. 4, p.7). Here he uses the figure of speech "anthropopathea" in which he ascribed a human attribute (being stillborn) to that which is not human (the distinction between 'consequences' and punishment')".
In his fourth defense he wrote: "Believe me my friend, you'll never get an award for reading the Bible with a critical eye" (Challenge, Vol. 3, No. 1, p.6). Here he uses a figure of speech called a "metaphor." People don't actually read with eyes that are critical, but ready objectively and think critically, so they are said to read with a critical eye. Also in the very next sentence he says: "You are so obsessed with defending the book at all costs that you don't hesitate to throw caution to the wind" Do I literally throw caution to the wind, no that is an exaggeration which is nothing more than a figure of speech. "You shot yourself in the foot right off the bat..." Again, he exaggerates. He knows full well that I have not shot myself in the foot, but he uses exaggeration for the sake of effect. I could go on and on, but I trust my point is made. He should not condemn us or the Bible for using figures of speech when he can't even write one article without using figurative language, some of which he has even condemned.
Satan can't literally leave the presence of God, but because "anthropopathea" is used to describe God, Satan is said to leave his presence. Remember God does not have a physical body, he is not confined to time and space, but so we may understand him, this figure is used.
We don't condemn liberals for using figures of speech, we condemn them because they say that everything is figurative when there are some things to be taken literally. The Book of Revelation uses figurative language and one would be wrong to take everything literally. By the same token, even though there are some figures used in the Book of Genesis, one is wrong for assuming that everything in that book is figurative. He says that the term "anthropopathea" is nothing more than a subterfuge to escape an imasse, but he uses that same figure of speech. Surely, the legs of the lame are not equal.
McKinsey does not understand the nature of sin or of God. He complains because God does not see things as man sees them. To man, there are degrees of sin, but to God all sin is the same. The sin of lying is the same as the sin of adultery (Rev. 21:8). The sin of hatred is the same as the sin of murder (Gal. 5:1921). The sin of being disobedient to parents is the same as the sin of homosexuality (Rom. 2:30,31). In man's eyes lying, hatred, and being disobedient to parents are small infractions which do not deserve stiff punishment, but in God's eyes all sin is sin and any sin will keep one out of heaven.
He says that he takes great exception to my remark that, "Mr. McKinsey does not think that sin is very bad." You mean, he does! Does McKinsey think that sin is a terrible thing? What about euthanasia, is that a terrible thing (1 Jno. 3:15). What about suicide or self-murder (Dr. Death)? Isn't that euthanasia? (Mt. 27:3-5). What about abortion, is that a terrible thing (Ex. 21:22,23)? Mr. McKinsey says that he has never looked upon felonious acts such as murder or rape, "as 'nothing more than a child's disregard for parental rule.'" He wanted to know where I get this what he calls poison? The Humanist Manifesto II, upholds abortion and suicide (euthanasia). Since it is the atheists bible, I figured that McKinsey, being the faithful atheist that he is, would go along with it. Maybe he doesn't. If not, then I apologize, but I have a feeling that he does. I have yet to meet an atheist who doesn't go along with this document. After all, it was signed by scores of atheists around the country. That's where I am getting it from Dennis.
His inability to understand the punishment involved by not accepting the gift by God only shows his ignorance of the Bible. He is supposed to be one who is highly educated concerning the Bible; after all, he is the one who goes around teaching a sort of "Sunday School in Reverse." Surely he understands the that the only way that one can have his sins washed away is by accepting this gift. If one refuses to accept this gift, then his sins will not be washed away, and it is that fact alone which will keep one from going to heaven. If one does not go to heaven, then he will go to hell. There will only be two places; heaven and hell. The world won't be here because it will be destroyed (2 Pet. 2:10,11), so man will not be able to continue to live on it. So, he will either go to heaven, or he will go to hell. If one does not accept God's gracious gift and have his sins washed away, then he will not be able to go to heaven. Rather he will go to hell.
There will be no degrees of punishment in hell any more than there will be degrees of reward in heaven. All those in hell will suffer the same amount of punishment (those who held eternal life in their hands and threw it away will have more to regret realizing what they threw away, but their punishment will be no greater than the person who never heard the gospel) and all those in heaven will receive the same amount of reward. This is something that seems to give Dennis a problem. Well, his inability to understand these things surely don't nullify the inspiration of the Bible.
Then he says, concerning my response to point 24 in his tract: "After all these months, JM, you've finally made a point that has some degree of credibility." Let me point out that it didn't take "all these months" for me to make that point. I made the point in my booklet, sent Dennis a copy of it, and it took him "all these months" to get to this point. Yet, he makes it sound as if I labored hard for "all these months" and finally made a point that has some degree of credibility.
Also I want to point out that this is almost exactly the point that I made in response to his point # 14. I said: "Mr. McKinsey thinks that if something Jeremiah spoke is not written in the Book of Jeremiah, that he did not say it." I pointed out that the passage is found in the Book of Zechariah but somewhere along the line Jeremiah spoke it. Mr. McKinsey objected to that argument. Now he says that this same kind of argument has some degree of credibility. Does that mean that my response to # 14 has some degree of credibility as well?
He says that he might be willing to concede that " Paul might be correct" if I am willing to promise never to quote this passage again without telling my hearers that this statement by Christ is nowhere recorded in the Bible. I'll make no such promise. If I was to make that statement every time I quoted that passage of scripture, the members here at Sullivan, would eventually run me out of town for being so shallow minded. I have yet to meet a Christian who has ever thought that this passage is written anywhere else in the Bible. Everyone that I know understands that this statement by Christ was not written down anywhere else. The only people I have ever met who think that this was a quotation from another place in the Bible, are atheists. Now, if Dennis (or one of his cronies) comes in to the assembly and if I know about that person's presence, I will make that statement for his/her sake, because they don't seem to understand even the most simplistic things about the Bible; so I would feel the obligation to get it down to where even they can get it. However, I won't do that for the members where I preach. They would think I was an idiot. Dennis thinks because he and other atheists don't understand simple things about the Bible that no one does. He is wrong about that.
No, I am not drowning in my boots. The only thing in this discussion that has been "anemic, deceptive, and erroneous" is McKinseys defense of his tract. Again, I ask: "Where are the ironclad arguments that destroy the credibility of the Bible?" As the title of my tract states, the Bible is, "Still A Perfect Work Of Harmony."
Let us see if Mr. McKinsey has anything further to write on the matter. I hope he does, this was such fun.
CHALLENGE is published quarterly by Challenge Publications.
Jerry D. McDonald, Editor; Michael P. Hughes, Associate Editor.