                  truths.  The atheists, of course."
    So why do we do it?  Why are we so evangelical about our skepticism? The answer is simple. There are 
many people trapped in the throes of Bible fundamentalism who with help can find their way out of it, as this 
young woman has done.  As long as this is so, we will continue to put our philosophical views into the free 
market of ideas and let the shoppers decide if they want to buy them.  Our contention is that we have a better 
product than the shoddy commodity being peddled by Bible fundamentalists.  From personal experience and 
the testimony of others, we know that a message in this young woman's letter is true: If you abandon supersti-
tion and face reality, you will be a happier person.  So what is so wrong about helping people be happy?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

                      DEBATE ON BIBLE MORALITY 

    In the next issue of The Skeptical Review, editor Farrell Till and Lindell Mitchell, a Church-of-Christ 
preacher from Livingston, Texas, will begin a written debate.  Till will affirm that the Israelite destruction of the 
Amalekite nation (as recorded in the Bible) constituted moral atrocity; Mitchell will deny that it was a moral 
atrocity.  
    As indicated in Clarence Lavender's article "Was It Morally Right for God to Order the Killing of the 
Canaanites?" (TSR, Winter 1993, pp. 6-7), biblical inerrantists argue that the massacre of civilian populations, 
including even children and babies, in time of war was morally right, if God so decreed it.  They must take this 
position, because the Bible clearly attributes such actions to the Hebrew god Yahweh, who inerrantists believe 
was the omniscient, omnipotent deity who inspired the writing of the Bible.  To say that Yahweh erred morally 
would be the death knell for the inerrancy doctrine, so inerrantists must defend baby killing while usually 
condemning abortion.
    Lindell Mitchell refused to defend the massacre of the Amalekites, but he did agree to deny that it was an 
atrocity.  The debate will continue through the Spring 1994 issue.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

                       STUDY AIDS

    In addition to The Skeptical Review, Skepticism, Inc., publishes other materials that might be useful to 
those wishing to hone their skills on the subject of Bible inerrancy.  The following booklets are available at $2.50 
each, postage paid.
    The Laws-Till Debate, a 56-page unfinished debate with James Laws, Jr., a professor of apologetics at 
Tennessee Bible College.  Although Laws challenged, he quit after only three manuscript exchanges and has 
since refused to accept mail from Till.  Correspondence is reproduced in the booklet.
    Jackson-Till Debate, a 64-page debate on the issue of Bible inerrancy with a Church-of-Christ preacher.
    Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled, an in-depth examination of the most commonly claimed examples of 
prophecy fulfillment.  Recently revised to expand its scope.
    BACK ISSUES of The Skeptical Review from winter 1990 to the current edition (16 in all) are available at 
$1 per copy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

               SAUL & THE WITCH OF ENDOR

    The myth of Bible inerrancy can be easily exposed by two or more writers.  Quite often, the telling of the 
same story a second or third time resulted in noticeable discrepancies.  An example of glaring inconsistency can 
be found in the two accounts of the death of Saul, the first king of Israel, as told by the writers of 2 Samuel and 
1 Chronicles. Both writers claimed that Yahweh engineered Saul's death because of his disobedience, but the 
two versions of his disobedience differ significantly.  This is how the Chronicle writer summarized Saul's igno-
minious death:
     So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against Yahweh, because he did not keep the word of Yahweh, and 
  also because he consulted a medium for guidance.  But he did not inquire of Yahweh; therefore He killed him, and turned the king-
  dom over to David the son of Jesse (1 Chron. 10:13-15).
The statement is too direct to be misunderstood.  Saul consulted a medium for guidance but did not inquire of 
Yahweh; therefore, Yahweh killed him.
    The Chronicle writer did not record Saul's experience with the medium who is commonly called "the Witch 
of Endor," but the event was recorded in 1 Samuel 28 in a way that clearly contradicts the statement in 1 
Chronicles:
     Then the Philistines gathered together and came and encamped at Shunem.  So Saul gathered all Israel together, and 
  they encamped at Gilboa.  When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly.  And 
  when Saul inquired of Yahweh, Yahweh did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by the prophets.
     Then Saul said to his servants, "Find me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her."  And his 
  servants said to him, "In fact, there is a woman who is a medium at En Dor" (vv:4-7).
The rest of the chapter records the actual seance in which the witch at Endor conjured up the spirit of Samuel 
the prophet, who told Saul that the next day his army would be defeated by the Philistines and that he and his 
sons would be killed.
    The significant thing to notice in this story is not the absurdity of the writer's apparent belief that a 
medium actually conducted a seance in which she conjured up the spirit of a dead man but his obvious dis-
agreement with the Chronicle writer's version of Saul's death.  The latter said that Saul consulted a medium but 
did not inquire of Yahweh, and so Yahweh killed him. The writer of 1 Samuel, however, said that Saul did not 
consult the medium until after he had inquired of Yahweh and had received no answer.  Both versions of this 
story cannot both be right.  The discrepancy is obvious, yet in the face of such glaring inconsistency as this, 
inerrantists will stubbornly argue that the Bible is a perfectly harmonious book from cover to cover.
    Go figure.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

                   ARTICLES SOLICITED

    With the change in  our format, we will be publishing more materials.  If you have an idea for an article, 
we would be interested in reading it.  All articles should address specific points of inconsistency, discrepancy, 




contradiction, or logical absurdity that illustrate fallacies in the Bible inerrancy doctrine.  Our style is thorough-
ness, so we will expect in-depth discussion of major points.  Unsupported assertions and generalizations that 
characterize most fundamentalist papers should be avoided. 
    We will also consider pro-inerrancy articles with the understanding that if we accept them, they will be 
published simultaneously with our rebuttals.













































































