Questions bring solidified answers

To the Editor:
This article is written in response to David Forbes’s commentary entitled “Eric Not Speaking For All Christians.” Mr. Forbes has made some good points about a basic Christian belief that is most often questioned today, which is the inspiration of the Bible. However, this points back not only to the inspiration of the Bible, but to the supremacy of God. If God is a supreme being, then what prevents God from perfectly guiding the human hand and thought process in writing the Bible?
I encourage Mr. Forbes to continue, with the passion shown in his well thought out commentary, the search for the truth. Mr. Forbes poses some tough questions and I thank him for making me (and others) think about what we truly believe.
After reading Mr. Forbes column, I began to ask questions, and now I have solidified why I believe what I believe; why I believe that we are separated from God by sin and that the penalty has been paid by Jesus Christ, who was sinless and both fully God and man and who rose from the dead after being crucified.
I believe that accepting Jesus by faith is the only way to God, as laid out in the Bible, which is truth, completely inspired by God.
Brent Wright
Ww30614@appstate.edu
ASU Box 5124

Forbes’ point valid, but example invalid

To the Editor:
I enjoyed reading David Forbes’ Nov. column “Eric not speaking for all Christians” and I believe he has a valid point. However, Mr. Forbes makes a very large mistake in his attempt to prove that (supposedly Christian) translators have changed the texts to support “agendas of their own.”
Mr. Forbes makes use of a group of uncited “many scholars” to support this claim by pointing out that Exodus 22:18 in fact refers to “assassins” rather than the English meaning given in the King James Version “sorceress” or “witch.”
Mr. Forbes then reasons that the real reason the word “witch” was used in the KJV was to further the bigoted policies of King James of England against those of “differing religious belief.”
I do not claim to be an expert in British history, so I cannot comment on King James’ attitudes towards witches or sorcery, but I do have a knowledge of Hebrew, the language that Exodus was originally written in, and I can say that Mr. Forbes’ etymological claim is false.
The Hebrew word used in Exodus 22:18 (22:17 in the Hebrew Bible) is (transliterated) “mekeshepah” which is the feminine form of the word “sorcerer.”  This word is used in many other instances in the text of the Hebrew Bible to mean the same thing, such as in 2 Kings 9:22 and Nahum 3:4.
The word is believed to have a cognate in the Akkadian words “kispu” and “kassaputu” which also mean sorcery.  Sorcery was punishable by death under the so-called “righteous” (i.e. those that lived by the Torah or Law of Moses) kings of Israel and was also punishable by death in other parts of the Ancient Near East (see the Code of Hammurabi para. 2 and the Middle Assyrian Laws para. 47).  Again, I am no expert on King James, but if he did attempt to suppress witches, he probably thought he was following the examples of the “righteous” kings of Israel.
In conclusion, the use of Exodus 22:18 to attempt to prove conflation by Christian translators doesn’t stand up to investigation.  Instead, this verse adds fuel to another of Mr. Forbes’ points: the Bible contains many laws and prohibitions that even the most conservative believer (Christian or Jew) would have difficulty following in our modern world.
Regards,
Harry Tolley
Philosophy and Religion
Department
tolleyhw@appstate.edu