Who is this Dan Barker, anyway? And what authorizes him, particularly, to be a critic of the Bible?

As it turns out, almost nothing. As we have noted in our essay on Barker's autobiography cum Bible-bashing party, Losing Faith in Faith, Dan Barker's level of scholarship is fairly low. Hereafter, in any event, we present 21 alleged contradictions that remained from our previous engagement with Jim Meritt that did not find twins in Barker's work at this location, and also appear in his book. One of his objections we will not address, however: the one that has to do with slavery in the Bible, an issue addressed by Glenn Miller. As for the rest - here we go!

Barker #1 - A Real Killjoy

See here.

Now answered here.

Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians." is pitted against Exodus 12:35-36, "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians." How exactly is this stealing? Ex. 12:35-36 says that the Israelites asked the Egyptians for stuff, and the Egyptians gave it to them. (Though of course, Barker leaves that part out...) But if you still object, consider this: It is inarguable that the United States owed African-Americans restitution after slavery; so certainly the Egyptians owed the Israelites some tribute!

Now answered here.

Now answered here.

Now answered here.

Now answered here. Barker clearly missed out on the class at seminary that taught the Semitic Totality Concept.

Now answered here.

Now answered here.

Answered here.

Now answered here.

Answered here

Now answered here.

Now answered here. Barker says that a "True Fundamentalist "(where he gets the right to define what that is, I don't know) must believe in the inerrancy of transmission. For a reply to this, see my essay on Inerrancy and Human Ignorance. For more on copyist errors, see the essay on that topic.

Now answered here.

Now answered here.

Barker #17 - Laws Have Mercy!

Now answered here.

I'm not sure what the problem is here, since Barker refuses to explain it. So, no answer.

Now answered here, Judges 1:19.

Now answered here.

Barker #21 - Sacrificial Sensibilities

Now answered here.

Barker: Parting Shots

We close with a few comments from the end of Barker's presentation:

If it wasn't meant to "proselytize" (get people to change their minds about something) then why bother publishing it in the first place, I wonder? Was it published strictly for the purpose of wasting trees and leaving thousands of small furry animals homeless?

Convincing to who, we may ask? Well, this writer does homework, and constantly does it - and as we have shown, Mr. Barker is certainly no scholar in the arena of Biblical studies. (And by the way, a direct quote from Eusie would have been appreciated here.)

This charge is answered in my essay on Harmonization.

Not too carefully, if the answers in some cases are so readily apparent or involve obfuscations and selective quoting! Let's be blunt here: Barker's case for each of these contradictions is pretty thin - and you can bet that any sufficient response to them ends up the same place that those "Easter Challenge" responses end up - ignored or in the wastebasket. Dan Barker represents no threat whatsoever to the faith of those who are informed.

I do not assert the inerrancy of the KJV, and the tale of the preacher, while amusing and possibly true, never seems to have the preacher's name attached to it. It is most likely an urban myth promoted by skeptics, or else it was stated by some backwoods preacher that believed in snake-handling. I can produce plenty of embarrassing quotes by skeptics (including a few by Barker himself), so this is no area for argument or proving who is better-educated.

Don't waste your money on the publication unless you're in the top tax bracket and can spare it. The quality of "errors" cited is pretty low, and I have confirmed this by borrowing Glenn Miller's copy and writing a profile on McKinsey's work, showing that McKinsey is even less informed than Barker is, and now by taking the work itself to task on this page.