{"id":38376,"date":"2019-09-10T12:05:47","date_gmt":"2019-09-10T16:05:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=38376"},"modified":"2019-09-10T12:09:19","modified_gmt":"2019-09-10T16:09:19","slug":"loftus-atheist-error-9-bible-espouses-mythical-animals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/09\/loftus-atheist-error-9-bible-espouses-mythical-animals.html","title":{"rendered":"Loftus Atheist Error #9: Bible Espouses Mythical Animals?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/p>\n

I continue my critiques of<\/span>\u00a0Why I Became an Atheist<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0by John W. Loftus<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

I first ran across former Christian minister <\/span>Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the<\/span> problem of evil<\/a>, and<\/span> whether God was in time<\/a>. During that period I also<\/span>\u00a0replied to an online version of his deconversion<\/a>: which (like my arguments about<\/span> God and time<\/a>) he didn\u2019t care for at all<\/a>. I\u2019ve<\/span> critiqued many<\/em> atheist deconversion stories<\/a>, and maintain a<\/span> very extensive web page about atheism<\/a>.\u00a0In 2007\u00a0I critiqued his \u201cOutsider Test of Faith\u201d series<\/a>: to which he gave no response.\u00a0Loftus\u2019 biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a<\/span> \u201cbrief testimony.\u201d<\/span> He wrote in December 2006 (his words in<\/span> blue<\/span> henceforth):<\/span><\/p>\n

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . .\u00a0I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . .\u00a0Do you accept my challenge?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:<\/span><\/p>\n

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I\u2019d be more than happy to critique it. I won\u2019t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . .\u00a0<\/span>You railed against that, saying that it was a<\/span> \u201chandout.\u201d<\/span> I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus\u2019 website, Debunking Christianity<\/em>,<\/span> no less than 35 times<\/a>. As of this writing, they remain<\/span> completely unanswered<\/a>. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison\u2019s, till Loftus decided I couldn\u2019t do that (after having<\/span> claimed that I \u201chate\u201d atheists<\/a> and indeed, everyone<\/em> I disagree with).<\/span> I replied at length<\/a> regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus\u2019 explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this:<\/span> \u201cWe know we can respond. It\u2019s just that we don\u2019t have the time to do so. Plus, it\u2019s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.\u201d <\/span>Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:<\/span><\/p>\n

When the history of Christianity\u2019s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This was<\/span> underneath an article<\/a> where Loftus claimed:<\/span> \u201cI\u2019ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.\u201d<\/span> I hadn\u2019t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly<\/span> ten days later<\/a>: \u201cI cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

These last three cited statements put me \u201cover the edge\u201d and I decided to buy a used copy of his book,<\/span>\u00a0Why I Became an Atheist<\/em> <\/a>(revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover<\/span>, on 8-27-07<\/a> he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book:<\/span> \u201cI challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that\u2019s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.\u201d<\/span> His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret<\/em> it), and this will be my primary project (as a<\/span> professional apologist<\/a>) in the coming weeks. <\/span><\/p>\n

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully\u00a0expect<\/em>\u00a0him to ignore my critiques: just like Madison and \u201cBible Basher\u201d Bob Seidensticker, who also<\/em> has ignored 35 of my critiques<\/a> (that he<\/em> requested I do). If Loftus decides to defend his views, I\u2019m here; always have been. And I won\u2019t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.<\/span><\/p>\n

The words of John Loftus <\/span>will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

Loftus notes that the King James Version<\/span> \u201cused the word unicorn<\/em> to refer to a beast in the Bible\u201d (p. 263). Perhaps realizing how weak this argument is, he qualified:<\/span> \u201cat the very minimum, the King James translators were themselves believers in mythical beasts\u201d (p. 263).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s irrelevant what some translators in 1611 thought. That error would be on them<\/em>, not the Bible, if in fact, there is no linguistic basis for the translation. The latter is in fact the case. Bert Thompson, in his article for Apologetics Press,<\/span> \u201cUnicorns, Satyrs, and the Bible\u201d<\/a> observed:<\/p>\n

[T]he Bible never \u201cpanders to pagan mythology\u201d by incorrectly referring to non-existent, mythological animals as if they were real, living creatures. It is true that the word \u201cunicorn\u201d appears in the King James Version (nine times: Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). . . . The editors of the\u00a0Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/i>\u00a0[wrote]:<\/span><\/p>\n

Certain poetical passages of the biblical Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called\u00a0re\u2019em.<\/i>\u00a0This word was translated \u201cunicorn\u201d or \u201crhinoceros\u201d in many versions of the Bible, but many modern translations prefer \u201cwild ox\u201d (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew\u00a0re\u2019em<\/i>\u00a0(1997, 12:129).<\/span><\/p>\n

In volume one of his two-volume set,\u00a0Asimov\u2019s Guide to the Bible<\/i>, the late infidel, Isaac Asimov (who was serving as the president of the American Humanist Association when he died in 1992), dealt with the topic of the unicorn as it is found in the King James Version when he wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Hebrew word represented in the King James Version by \u201cunicorn\u201d is\u00a0re\u2019em<\/i>, which undoubtedly refers to the wild ox (urus<\/i>\u00a0or aurochs) ancestral to the domesticated cattle of today. The\u00a0re\u2019em<\/i>\u00a0still flourished in early historical times and a few existed into modern times, although it is now extinct. It was a dangerous creature of great strength and was similar in form and temperament to the Asian buffaloes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Revised Standard Version translates\u00a0re\u2019em<\/i>\u00a0as \u201cwild ox.\u201d The verse in Numbers is translated as \u201cthey have as it were the horns of the wild ox,\u201d while the one in Job is translated \u201cIs the wild ox willing to serve you?\u201d The\u00a0Anchor Bible<\/i>\u00a0translates the verse in Job as \u201cWill the buffalo deign to serve you?\u201d . . . <\/span><\/p>\n

When the first Greek translation of the Bible was prepared about 250\u00a0B.C., the animal was already rare in the long-settled areas of the Near East and the Greeks, who had no direct experience with it, had no word for it. They used a translation of \u201cone-horn\u201d instead and it became\u00a0monokeros<\/i>. In Latin and in English it became the Latin word for \u201cone-horn\u201d; that is, \u201cunicorn.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The Biblical writers could scarcely have had the intention of implying that the wild ox literally had one horn. There is one Biblical quotation, in fact, that clearly contradicts that notion. In the Book of Deuteronomy [33:17\u2014BT], when Moses is giving his final blessing to each tribe, he speaks of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) as follows: \u201cHis glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns\u2026.\u201d . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Dr. Asimov was correct on all counts. The word\u00a0re\u2019em<\/i>\u00a0does refer to the wild ox, and is translated as such in almost all later versions of the Bible. The translators of the Septuagint rendered\u00a0re\u2019em<\/i>\u00a0by the Greek\u00a0monokeros<\/i>\u00a0(one horn) on the basis of the relief representations of the \u201cwild ox\u201d in strict profile that they found in Babylonian and Egyptian art (cf. Pfeiffer, et al., 1975, p. 83). The charge that the Bible \u201cpanders to pagan mythology\u201d cannot be sustained, once all the relevant facts are known.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Loftus pokes fun of the supposed literal biblical belief in<\/span> \u201cSatyrs \u2014 creatures that were half man and half goat or horse (Isaiah 13:31)\u201d<\/span> (p. 263). The same article above disposes of this charge:<\/span><\/p>\n

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word\u00a0sa\u2018ir<\/i>\u00a0occurs some fifty-two times. It is related to the term\u00a0se\u2018ar<\/i>\u00a0(hair), and generally means \u201ca hairy one.\u201d It is used, for example, to speak of the male goat that was employed as the Israelites\u2019 solemn, collective sin offering on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).<\/span><\/p>\n

In two cases, however, the King James Version renders\u00a0sa\u2018ir<\/i>\u00a0as \u201csatyr\u201d (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14). But the specific context of both passages makes it quite clear that the term is being used to refer to the wild goats that frequently inhabited the ruins of both ancient Babylon and Edom. On two different occasions in the\u00a0KJV, the word is translated \u201cdemon\u201d (Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15), where it denotes a pagan god in goat form (cf. the New International Version). In regard to 2 Chronicles 11:15, respected Old Testament scholar J. Barton Payne wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n

Far from being mythological \u201csatyrs,\u201d as claimed by \u201cliberal\u201d criticism, the\u00a0sirim<\/i>\u00a0appear to have been simply goat idols, used in conjunction with the golden calves (1969, p. 400).<\/span><\/p>\n

It is evident once again that the Bible does not lower itself to superstitious mythology. \u201cSatyr\u201d is merely a translation error, not a case of \u201cmistaken identity\u201d wherein a mythological creature was thought by the inspired writers to be a living, breathing animal.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Loftus brings up<\/span> \u201cLeviathan\u201d<\/span> (p. 262) and \u201cBehemoth\u201d<\/span> (p. 263) and taunts on the next page:<\/span> \u201chow can God defeat mythical beasts that do not exist?\u201d According to New Bible Dictionary<\/em>, Leviathan in Psalms 104:26 is \u201cgenerally thought to be the whale.\u201d In Job 41:1-34, \u201cmost scholars\u201d think it is a crocodile. In other instances, the use is clearly symbolic. Smith\u2019s Bible Dictionary<\/em><\/a> essentially concurs:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In the Hebrew Bible the word\u00a0livyathan<\/i>\u00a0, which is, with the foregoing exception, always left untranslated in the Authorized Version, is found only in the following passages: (\u00a0<\/span>Job 3:8<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a041:1<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Psalms 74:14<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0104:26<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Isaiah 27:1<\/a>\u00a0) In the margin of<\/span> (\u00a0Job 3:8<\/a>\u00a0) and text of<\/span> (\u00a0Job 41:1<\/a>\u00a0) the crocodile is most clearly the animal denoted by the Hebrew word. (\u00a0<\/span>Psalms 74:14<\/a>\u00a0) also clearly points to this same saurian. The context of (\u00a0<\/span>Psalms 104:26<\/a>\u00a0) seems to show that in this passage the name represents some animal of the whale tribe, which is common in the Mediterranean; but it is somewhat uncertain what animal is denoted in (\u00a0<\/span>Isaiah 27:1<\/a>\u00a0) As the term\u00a0leviathan<\/i>\u00a0is evidently used in no limited sense, it is not improbable that the \u201cleviathan the piercing serpent,\u201d or \u201cleviathan the crooked serpent,\u201d may denote some species of the great rock-snakes which are common in south and west Africa.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

New Bible Dictionary<\/em> on \u201cBehemoth\u201d states that the word occurs nine times in the Old Testament, \u201cand in all but one of these occurrences \u2018beasts\u2019, \u2018animals\u2019, or \u2018cattle\u2019 is apparently the intended meaning.\u201d In Job 40:15, \u201cthe hippopotamus . . . seems to fit the description best.\u201d The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> <\/span>(\u201cAnimals in the Bible\u201d<\/a>) agrees:<\/span><\/p>\n

. . . generally translated by \u201cgreat beasts\u201d; in its wider signification it includes all mammals living on earth, but in the stricter sense is applied to domesticated quadrupeds at large. However in\u00a0Job 40:10, where it is left untranslated and considered as a proper name, it indicates a particular animal. The description of this animal has long puzzled the commentators. Many of them now admit that it represents the hippopotamus, so well known to the ancient Egyptians; it might possibly correspond as well to the rhinoceros.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No necessary interpretation of mythical animals here . . . Loftus notes that the Bible references \u201cdragons\u201d<\/span> (p. 263).\u00a0Smith\u2019s Bible Dictionary<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/em>states concerning this:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The translators of the Authorized Version, apparently following the Vulgate, have rendered by the same word \u201cdragon\u201d the two Hebrew words\u00a0tan\u00a0and\u00a0tannin\u00a0, which appear to be quite distinct in meaning.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    The former is used, always in the plural, in (\u00a0Job 30:29<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Psalms 44:19<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Isaiah 34:13<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a043:20<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Jeremiah 9:11<\/a>\u00a0) It is always applied to some creatures inhabiting the desert, and we should conclude from this that it refers rather to some wild beast than to a serpent. The syriac renders it by a word which, according to Pococke, means a \u201cjackal.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    The word\u00a0tannin\u00a0seems to refer to any great monster, whether of the land or the sea, being indeed more usually applied to some kind of serpent or reptile, but not exclusively restricted to that sense. (\u00a0Exodus 7:9<\/a>\u00a0Exodus 7:10<\/a>\u00a0Exodus 7:12<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a032:33<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Psalms 91:13<\/a>\u00a0)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em><\/span> (\u201cAnimals in the Bible\u201d<\/a>) has an excellent treatment of \u201cdragon\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n

    It stands indeed for several\u00a0Hebrew names:<\/span><\/p>\n