Do the COGs Defame Bible Scholars? Copyright © 2011 by Gun Lap
Bible Blinders				Good Scholarship

Introduction

In this article, as usual, I use the term COGs to refer to the Sabbath-keeping Churches of God. Since there are literally hundreds of these churches, most of them tiny, and since many of them seem to be in a constant process of revising doctrines, it's impossible to keep up with all of them, so I sometimes make generalizations based on my experience with several of these churches and their leaders as well as the literature they continue to produce.

Article

Sitting there at church services I would hear ministers make statements like "scholars cannot refute the Bible" or "try as they might, this prophecy has never been refuted [blah, blah, blah]".

Really?

In The Proof of the Bible, Herbert W. Armstrong wrote:

Most highly educated people, and men of science, assume that the Bible is not the infallible revelation of a Supernatural God, and they assume this WITHOUT THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF that they demand on material questions. (The Proof of the Bible, Herbert W. Armstrong, 1958, original emphasis).

Is it really true that scholars just assume the Bible is fallible without scientific proof? Did Herbert Armstrong really think that scholars don't examine the Bible? Are these men of science so hypocritical and hostile towards the Bible that they demand proof of everything except the Bible?

Note that Armstrong speaks as if he thinks people should use a "scientific" approach. We'll get back to that shortly.

Later he says,

Yes, prophecy is the proof of God, the proof of the divine revelation of the Bible. Prophecy is a taunting challenge that the skeptic dares not accept! (Herbert W. Armstrong, ibid.)

Was Armstrong really so ignorant that he thought skeptics don't dare to examine prophecy? Thomas Paine was a famous skeptic who examined prophecy and rejected it long before Herbert Armstrong was even born. Some of Paine's writings on prophecy can be found on this site.

Did Armstrong actually read what skeptics said, or was he the one making assumptions? Did he really know what skeptics think? Did Armstrong fool himself, or was he just trying to fool the reader? Or was it some of each?

Suppose, as the critics and skeptics try to argue, that the Book of Ezekiel was written after Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Old Tyre. (Herbert W. Armstrong, ibid.)

So on the one hand we are told that skeptics don't even dare to examine prophecy, yet these same skeptics question the dates when prophecies were supposedly written. How could skeptics question these dates if they weren't examining prophecy or looking for scientific proof, like evidence for the dates? Which is it? Do they look for evidence or don't they?

And how did Armstrong know what skeptics said unless he read what skeptics said?

Actually, he plagiarized The Proof of the Bible from a Seventh Day Adventist writer. For proof, see the Armstrong Plagiarism Research site.

Again, Armstrong says:

Skeptics don't want to have anything to do with prophecy. The skeptics run away from prophecy because they can't answer it. And the only way to answer it is to sneer at it and to ridicule it. (Herbert W. Armstrong, ibid.)

Again, Armstrong is passing himself off as someone who really knows what skeptics think. He speaks in a highly authoratative tone throughout the booklet, including his views on what skeptics say and think, so the reader is led to believe that Armstrong is some kind of expert on the matter of prophecy and on what skeptics say (or don't say) about prophecy. However, one has to wonder if Armstrong even read what the skeptics had said, given that he plagiarized the booklet, and given how easy it is to disprove the inerrancy of the Bible once we actually read the skeptics. Perhaps he just assumed the person who he plagiarized it from, Earle Albert Rowell, had done the proper research on the skeptics.

Either Armstrong knew what the skeptics say and lied about them, or he assumed that Rowell knew what the skeptics said and took Rowell's word for it. In either case, it appears that he was not being honest. Either he knowingly misrepresented what the skeptics said or he pretened he knew what they said when he had not researched it himself.

Of course, there are scoffers and skeptics on both sides of any argument who don't have a clue what they are talking about. But to say that skeptics can't answer prophecy is nonsense. I don't see how any honest person can read what serious skeptics like Tom Paine (for example) wrote and still claim that skeptics run away from prophecy. Since Armstrong was the leader of a church, the reader has a right to expect that he is discussing the subject in a responsible manner, addressing serious skeptics, not some ignorant skeptics one might meet on the street. If we actually take the trouble to read the works of serious skeptics we find that they can refute prophecy.

But how many of Armstrong's followers have seriously examined what the skeptics say? Well, their churches won't allow them to! So who is really running away from evidence, the skeptics or the Churches of God?

Armstrong speaks as if the skeptics have nothing to say. The reader is mislead into thinking the skeptic's side of the story is totally useless—not even worth looking into. This is a serious trap. Readers who fall for it tend to read only Church of God literature, which on the surface seems convincing. The more of it they read, the more convinced they become. They think their eyes are being opened when in fact much of what they read can be easily disproven, if we only let the skeptics point out things in the Bible that most people tend to just read over. Some things are obvious in 20-20 hindsight, while other things require a knowledge of history, Hebrew, Greek, etc, which most of us know nothing about but could verify once it is brought to our attention.

Most people know they are supposed to research both sides of an argument, yet they often neglect to do so. One of the commonest tricks used to deceive people is to discredit the opponent so badly that the reader will not even give the opponent a fair hearing. The Churches of God will never give both sides; they say it is their solemn duty to "protect the sheep" from error. I have never witnessed a Church of God voluntarily pointing out a potential Bible error or thorny question unless they were sure they had a rebuttal.

Herbert Armstrong's broadcasts and his literature contained statements similar in tone to those in The Proof of the Bible. He sounded logical, and spoke with an air of authority. This air of authority was deceptive, and it is common in the Churches of God. They claim this is the way they are supposed to preach because it's what Jesus did (Matt 7:29: "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."). However, according to the Bible, Jesus was God, and he knew what he was talking about!

In The Bible: Fact or Fiction? the Living Church of God also assumes an air of authority and shares Armstrong's disdain for "modern scholarship". The LCG's Douglas Winnail writes:

Many assume that modern scholarship has discredited the Bible, but the facts of history—and the discoveries of archaeology—confirm its contents to be true! ... Most of the world has been misled and misinformed about the Bible. (The Bible: Fact or Fiction?, Douglas Winnail, Living Church of God, 2006)

The Living Church of God makes it sound like it's just a careless assumption, contrary to facts, that the Bible contains errors. The truth however, is that the Bible has been discredited based on a lot of careful analysis.

The LCG makes it sound like scholars cause people to be "mislead and misinformed" and are not to be trusted. If their members would read some of the scholars with an open mind, they would soon find out who the real deceivers are.

Again, they repeat the same idea:

Today, many educated people assume that science and modern scholarship have thoroughly discredited the Bible. This assumption thrives because so many know so little about the Bible. (ibid.)

Once again the reader is told that lack of faith in the Bible results because people "assume" and that this "assumption" comes from ignorance. We are told the problem is that people, even educated people, "know so little" about the Bible. By making such claims an impression is created that Bible scholars who don't accept the Bible are either liars or ignorant bigots who refuse to do proper research on the Bible.

The more you learn about Scripture, the more you will realize that you can believe the Bible ... (ibid.)

Yep, if only people would know about scripture, more people would believe it. Actually, the real reason people believe it is beause they are only told one side of the story. I understand a lot more about the Bible now than I did when I was in the COGs and had my blinders on; so why did I stop believing it if learning more always increases faith?

Of course, the Churches of God can't very well tell people that some of those scholars who are skeptical of the Bible are honest, rational, thorough, logical, professional and reasonable. And they certainly don't want members or prospective members to read what the skeptical scholars say for themselves, so they have no choice but to discredit the scholars and forbid their members from reading them. They don't have as much control over prospective members, but they can still put the idea in people's minds that Bible critics are obstinate, blind, and have nothing to offer.

Readers can listen to critics who say the Bible is full of errors or they can listen to the COGs who say the Bible is the victim of unfair attacks. What side should the reader believe? Actually neither, because each reader must check out both sides for himself. But the difference between the critics and the COGs is that skeptics won't excommunicate those who examine both sides, which is the only way to resolve the question of Bible inerrancy. Truth does not fear investigation.

Excommunication, by the way, is not a minor punishment. It carries the penalty of isolation, and the threats of the great tribulation and eternal damnation.

Instead of letting the Churches of God convince us that the critics are not worth reading, it makes a lot more sense to read the critics for ourselves! One good place to start is Tom Paine's essay, Old Testament "Prophesies" of Jesus Proven False, which is available on this site. Open-minded readers who read it will be glad they did.