Cold Case Christianity: Bible contradictions and how not to deal with them

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot:
“The Bible is full of contradictions”Posted: 28 Jan 2019 01:10 AM PST

Our “Quick Shot” series offers brief answers to common objections to the Christian worldview.

Leaving us to wonder what you'd think of atheist bible criticisms that were equally brief.

Each response is limited to one paragraph. These responses are designed to (1) answer the objection as concisely as possible, (2) challenge the objector to think more deeply about his or her claim, and (3) facilitate a “gospel” conversation. In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, Quick Shot: “The Bible is full of contradictions.”

Response #1:
“I hear that a lot, can you show me what you’re talking about?

 Sure:

King David had several wives and servants and a fireplace to keep him warm while he reigned as king.  So any story about him curing his chills by sleeping next to the scantily clad body of the prettiest virgin in town, you know perfectly well that story contradicts reality and is nothing but a cover-up for a king who couldn't keep his pants zipped.  Now read 1st Kings 1:1-4 and thank the Holy Spirit for moving through an atheist like me to make you see the light.

Does God love the workers of iniquity (John 3:16) or hate them (Psalm 5:5)?
(Psalm 5:5 doesn't say God hates the works of sin, it says he hates the "workers").

Do good works have something to do with the basis of salvation (Matthew 5:17-20 ff, Luke 1:6), or do good works have nothing to do with the basis of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 11:6)?  Dispensationalism would hardly have come into existence if the harmony between Jesus and Paul's doctrines were anywhere near "obvious".

Is God love (1st John 4:16) or does God threaten women with rape (Isaiah 13:15-17)?  Gee, because threatening a women with rape is not the logical opposite of "love" why doesn't YOUR "love" ever threaten women with rape?  Are you ungodly?

I could not get to the rest of Wallace's article if I degraded the discussion into a back-and-forth with every trifling asshole inerrantist in creation who thinks they can "harmonize" these contradictions.  Feel free to reply.

Wallace continues:

How familiar are you with the Bible to begin with?

 Very, I'm writing the book that lays modern Christian apologetics to rest, permanently.  It will probably run about 700 pages.    Therein I accuse the bible-god of approving of rape and pedophilia, I show that the differences between the Synoptics are best accounted for under a theory of progressive fiction, and that there are so many real problems with the biblical testimony to Jesus' resurrection, that we can be reasonable to view the doctrine to be false on the merits, no need to invoke a Humean smart-bomb against miracles.  My book includes my rebuttals to arguments made by Mike Licona, William Lane Craig, Steve Hays, J. Warner Wallace, Frank Turek, and other "apologists".

Have you examined all the alleged ‘contradictions’?

 Yes, and I have detailed scholarly arguments for why the harmonization scenarios given by Archer and other inerrantists are wrong or less likely to be true than the contradiction-theory.

I’m happy to look at something with you, and if I don’t have an answer for you, I’ll do some research and get back to you.

One wonders whether Christians think the "I'll get back to you" attempt at objectivity would be objective if employed by an atheist bible critic. Wouldn't you, the Christian, merely insist the atheist giving such response is merely intent on employing the clever tricks of the devil to get away from the truth?

But, there’s a difference between a contradiction and a variation. Just because two people report something differently, it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a true contradiction.

 It doesn't have to "necessarily" be a contradiction.  The alleged contradictions arise from ancient historical testimony.  If it is reasonable to believe two such statement are contradictory, that complies with the standard canons of historiography.  If you think you escape the contradiction merely because harmonization scenarios of some sort or other will always be logically possible harmonization scenarios, then you are prioritizing apologetics over proper historical method.  I've been challenging Christian apologists for years to hit me with the biggest authentic contradictions they can possibly find in Mormon scriptures and Mormon history.  Under Christian standards, such contradictions aren't necessarily real because of how easy it is to conjure up logically possible harmonization scenarios. 

By the way, Wallace, juries in courtrooms are tasked with deciding whether somebody's harmonization scenario to account for an inconsistency, is truthful or just a clever ruse. So since you always apply court room standards to biblical issues, then you are required to admit that the jury deciding your claims, a jury that includes atheists, are not intellectually, legally or morally bound to automatically trash any claimed contradiction merely because you showed the contradiction wasn't absolutely proven.

If the apologist says "so it depends on whose theory on the alleged statements are more likely to be true, not merely whether harmonization is logically possible", that's an apologist who is starting to see the light.

When you and I return home and tell our family members about this conversation, I bet we’ll highlight different aspects of what was said.

 And sometimes people highlight certain parts of their previous discussions because they are dishonestly biased and wish to give the hearer a misleading impression of what actually happened.  Funny how you don't highlight the obvious fact that people can also be dishonest.

Those differences might appear to be contradictory, but they’re actually the kinds of variations we would expect when two people have varying interests and perspectives.

 And since two different eyewitnesses have never contradicted each other in the entire history of earth, it should be obvious that bible inerrancy is safe harbor by logical necessity.

Have you considered the fact that the Bible writers were real people who had personal interests and perspectives that may have shaped how they reported their observations?”

 Have you considered the fact that the Bible writers were real people who had personal interests and perspectives that may have motivated them to spin the historical facts in ways that give the reader a false impression of what happened?

Response #2:
“I’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect the Bible authors (like those who wrote the New Testament gospels), to report things in precisely the same way.

 Then let me clear up your confusion:  If you merely said the bible was written by people, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  But since you claim the bible writers were inspired by God and never contradicted each other despite it's many authors speaking on common subjects of history and theology, you are insisting on a state of affairs for the bible that you admit is not true about any other book in the world, thus putting yourself under the burden to make a prima facie case for the inerrancy of the bible before anybody is placed under any intellectual compulsion to think the biblical authors were any different in objectivity than the Egyptians or the Hittites.

Why wouldn’t there appear to be contradictions?

 If God himself were speaking to you, should you expect to see apparent contradictions?

This is the nature of all reliable eyewitness testimony. Witnesses to a crime (or other significant event) never seem to agree on details. That’s why detectives start by separating eyewitnesses as early as they can. They don’t want the witnesses to line up their stories and report the same thing.

Some biblical authors did try to line up their stories and report the same thing, and they failed miserably with a showing of many inconsistencies best explained under a theory of progressive fiction.  It's called the Synoptic Problem.

Detectives understand that there will appear to be differences in the witness accounts, but they know it’s their job to investigate the claims to understand why these differences exists – even when all the witnesses are accurately reporting the events. Have you ever thought about approaching the Bible authors in a similar way?”

 No.  The biblical authors are not alive, cannot be interviewed to explain why they phrased things in the words they chose, and now we are stuck forever with reading their words through our imperfect eyes and trying to decide which explanatory theory to account for the words is most likely to be true.



Whatever your "quick shot" is, it doesn't appear to be sniper fire, and doesn't appear to be a tiny glass full of hard liquor.  I won't be losing any sleep about perfectly consistent bibles anytime soon.  Cheers.

Cold Case Christianity: J. Warner Wallace didn't know that God honors non-forensic faith

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

The Danger of Belief “In” Without Belief “That”

Posted: 09 May 2018 04:36 AM PDT

279I’ve been writing lately about the difference between belief “that” and belief “in,” following a recent radio interview with John Stonestreet for the BreakPoint Radio program. As I’ve described in previous posts, I came to belief that the gospels were a reliable record of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus on the basis of the most reasonable inference from the evidence.

That's not biblical. The bible says the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit (1st Cor. 2:14).  While it might be true that you found the NT to be historically reliable in all that it says before you came to actual faith, your experience runs contrary to the biblical explanation.

But at that early point in my investigation, I still didn’t understand the Gospel message of Salvation. As a result, I hadn’t yet placed my trust in Jesus as my Savior.

Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me:  there was a time when you believed the NT was a reliable record of the resurrection of Jesus...in which you also didn't yet have faith?  

I had belief that, but not belief in. There’s a big difference between rational assent and reasonable trust. Years later, I now appreciate the difference between these two states of mind and the important relationship they have to one another. In fact, I’ve come to realize belief in, without belief that, can be quite dangerous.

But "belief in" without "belief that" is still biblical. In the bible, the hope which saves, is the hope that is blind by definition:

 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. (Rom. 8:24-25 NAU)

As a skeptical investigator, my journey toward reasonable trust in Jesus was inseparably linked to a rational examination of the evidence.

 All Mormon apologists claim the same thing.

As I was becoming interested in the claims of the New Testament, my Mormon sister introduced me to the Book of Mormon. I decided to work through this second text, even as I was investigating the New Testament gospels. I was equally skeptical of both books, and I examined them critically with the template I typically use to evaluate witnesses. While the Bible held up under this scrutiny, the Book of Mormon did not. Based on the evidence, there was no reason to believe that the Book of Mormon was true, and for this reason, I could never trust in it for anything it may say about God or salvation.

 then apparently you forgot:  hope that is seen, is not hope.

But this was not the case for my Mormon family. As I’ve talked with them over the years, I’ve discovered that none of them came to trust in the claims of Mormonism after first examining them evidentially to make sure that they were true. Instead, they came to trust the Book of Mormon after reading it, praying about it, and experiencing some form of “spiritual” confirmation.

It's your own god's fault if a person goes to him in prayer about the Book of Mormon and comes away think the still small voice is telling them the Book of Mormon is true.  Nowhere does the bible express or imply that prayer is an irrational method of truth-seeking on the question of which alleged "holy books" are actually from god.  And since most bible scholars see bits of polytheism expressed by the biblical authors, you cannot even argue that Mormonism's denial of monotheism pre-empts any need to "pray" about it:  the average unbeliever doesn't have the time to wade through countless writings of OT scholars to decide whether the ancient Israelite religion was first polytheistic.  Under your logic, kids should never ask their parents for anything, since if they just do an analysis of the evidence, they will figure out what mom and dad's most likely response will be, hence negating any need to ask.

These personal experiences varied from one member of my family to another; each had a personal testimony they would have been happy to share. But if you asked them for some evidence to support their belief in the reliability of the Mormon scripture, none of them could have provided a response beyond their own subjective experience.

How did you answer them when they referred you to Mormon apologists?

Mormons aren’t the only believers who embrace this subjective “epistemology” (approach to assessing and accepting a truth claim).

But some Mormons are "apologists" and have been answering your Protestant criticisms for decades.

As I’ve travelled across the country making the case for the reliability of the gospels,

Thus indicating your desire to draw attention to yourself and make money by selling Jesus, since you are surely smart enough to recognize that the county or city in which you live has plenty of its own problems rejecting the gospel. You don't need to go galloping around the world, and original Christianity did not express or imply that all of it's members take on the responsibility of apostles, teachers or evangelists.  There is every possibility and probability that you only chose the more "hey-everybody-look-at-me" style of Christianity because you simply wish to get fame and fortune selling Jesus.  Maybe I should nickname you as "apostle Paul".  The original 12 disciples had no intent to preach to anybody except Jews (Galatians 2:9), a biblical rebuttal to post-ascension legends saying they went their separate ways and evangelized far away countries.

I’ve discovered this to be the approach of most committed Christians as well.

 Thank you for a great rebuttal to the so-called "Impossible Faith" theory that says Christianity could never have taken hold in the first century unless real provable miracles had really taken place.  We all know how stupid and gullible religious people can be, don't we.

Many of the people in my audiences have never previously considered the evidence I’m presenting. In fact, most tell me they’ve never even thought about the role evidence might play in their faith.

Sounds like the bible they've been reading for decades doesn't exactly support Paul Little's "Know why you believe what you believe!" bullshit.

Few have ever read an “apologetics” book.

yet they somehow maintained a faith in Christ nonetheless.  Apparently, those who push apologetics drugs are highly expendable with little to no effect on Christianity as a whole.

When I ask them about their own journey of faith, they sound much like my Mormon siblings. Some were raised in the Church, some have had personal experiences they’ve interpreted as confirmation, and some were convinced by the loving nature of the Christian community. Most have come to trust in Jesus without ever examining the evidence beyond their own personal experience.

 I see no reason why it should be otherwise with Christianity's first 300 years.

Of course these brothers and sisters in the Lord are saved; their trust in Christ as Savior has secured their salvation.

You mean God was willing to "save" the type of person who doesn't give two shits about apologetics?

But if they had been exposed to Mormonism prior to being exposed to Christianity, it’s they may have been Mormons today (if they had approached and examined Mormonism as they eventually approached and examined Christianity).

And if they had been exposed to the fallacies of Christian thought by informed skeptics who are capable of demonstrating the stupidity necessarily inherent in Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", they might have become atheists.

This is the danger of belief in without belief that. While rational assent is insufficient, an unreasonable trust is deficient and dangerous.

 then you must think apostle Paul was guilty of unreasonable trust, since he insists he took a real trip to heaven, and yet 14 years after the fact, still cannot tell whether this was a physical or spiritual event:

 1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.
 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
 3 And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--
 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. (2 Cor. 12:1-4 NAU)

Would you advise Paul that his belief "in" this experience is dangerous since he confesses to not knowing "that" or "how" it happened?  In light of your previous condemnation of subjective experiences, your answer would presumably be "yes".

An unexamined faith can be misplaced and, if nothing else, difficult to defend when challenged by others.

Only if you assume that the god of the bible gives two shits about his people "defending" their faith.  The fact that he doesn't may be inferred from the biblical requirement to excommunicate any morally or theologically errant brother/sister after a second warning (Titus 3:9-11), and the prohibition on wrangling words (2nd Timothy 2:14), since that amounts to prohibiting 99% of everything ever stated in conservative bible commentaries and apologetics books.

I want people to eventually place their trust in Jesus as Lord, but I want them to arrive at this saving trust by first examining the evidence.

Five Point Calvinists believe all the "essential" doctrine you do, but say the precise way somebody came into a saving faith is the way God infallibly predestined them to.  The more you slam subjective faith, the more you slam God's infallible decree.  Or maybe telling your audience about this in-house Christian debate wouldn't contribute toward successfully advertising your wares?

As they move through belief that to belief in, they’ll have confidence they’ve placed their trust in the true God of the Universe.

By your own admissions, supra, they achieved that level of confidence without the help of any "apologetics", and you also admit that such subjective faith had resulted in genuine salvation.  Like the Holy Spirit, "apologetics" appears to be nothing more significant to God than a gratuitous afterthought.  How many Christians between 200 a.d. and 1900 a.d. were genuinely saved despite their obvious inability to research bbilical bullshit as deeply as we can today?  How did they manage to enter into and nurture a spiritually progressive genuinely saving faith without being able to google "how to answer bible contradictions", and without being able to read "Cold-Case Christianity"?

You'll excuse me if I find that your desire to become famous by selling Jesus isn't too different in principle from the like of Benny Hinn and other obvious con artists.

my post to Dr. Long on Acts 11:18 and Gentile Salvation

Over at the blog of NT scholar Dr. Phillip J. Long, I posted the following questions and concerns about why the followers of the apostles indicate in Acts 11:18 that Gentile salvation is some new shocking unexpected theological development :

Dr. Long, 

I have argued for years on the basis of Acts 11:18 that God granting to Gentiles the repentance that brings salvation, must have been some new unexpected shocking thing to the Christians listening to Peter give that speech. 

What exactly is Peter's audience discovering? 

That Gentiles can be saved? 

Or the more nuanced discovery that the Gentile salvation they already knew to be available, doesn't require two steps, but only one? 

The wording in 11:18 is, IMO, too simple to justify the latter more nuanced interpretation, so IMO this church is startled to learn that Gentiles can be saved period.
This of course is a serious problem given that these Christians are the results of the labors of the 12 apostles, who surely must have known that Jesus had a major mission to the gentiles (Mark 1:45, Matthew 4:15, 12:21, Luke 2:32). 

Indeed, the risen Christ insisted that his teachings were the basis of all future Gentile salvation/discipleship in the Great Commission, Matthew 28:20. 

So why was Gentile salvation so controversial to these followers of the apostles?
Did the apostles, after being "amazingly transformed" by seeing a resurrected Jesus ordering them to preach salvation to the Gentiles (Matthew 28:20), and after being miraculously filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), end up neglecting the Gentile aspect of the gospel to the point that their immediate followers find Gentile salvation to be this unexpected shocking theological development, as they apparently conclude in Acts 11:18? 

Can we really fix these problems with a quick "the apostles just didn't get it" ? 

If Jesus physically appeared to me and I ran around on the earth with him for three years, then saw him risen from the dead and ordering me to do certain things, it doesn't make sense that I'd be slow to obey or understand what had been drilled into my head for those prior three years.
So it would appear that the anti-Gentile sentiment was not just some questionable misunderstanding by the followers of the apostles, but went back to the apostles themselves (Galatians 2:9, limiting their evangelism to just the Jews, in contradiction to the risen Christ's direct command that they, that is, the 11 original apostles, do the work of the Gentile ministry).

Demolishing Triablogue: No, Steve, there are no ghosts, and no monsters under your bed

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

Are there ghosts?

Question: "What does the Bible say about ghosts / hauntings?"

It provides contradictory and ambiguous information that has caused Christian scholars to consistently disagrees about it for centuries.  See, Charles R. Smith, "The New Testament Doctrine of Demons", Grace Journal, V10 #2:26–42—Spr 69—26

Perhaps this confusion exists in the church because Steve's Calvinistic God predestined many Christians by his secret will to disobey his revealed will that they teach doctrine correctly, and then predestined them to incorrectly feel solely personally responsible when they discovered their error.  Now isn't it obvious that the Calvinist god isn't the author of confusion (1st Cor 14:33)?

Answer: Is there such a thing as ghosts? The answer to this question depends on what precisely is meant by the term “ghosts.” If the term means “spirit beings,” the answer is a qualified “yes.”

Let's see your best case for establishing the existence of "spirit beings".

If the term means “spirits of people who have died,” the answer is “no.” The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and “haunt” the living.
 Hebrews 9:27 declares, “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” That is what happens to a person’s soul-spirit after death—judgment. The result of this judgment is heaven for the believer (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23) and hell for the unbeliever (Matthew 25:46; Luke 16:22-24). There is no in-between.

Lydia McGrew thinks there's a second chance after death for atheists who die somewhere between the apologetics lecture and the local library they are headed for in the effort to "check out" Christian claims.

There is no possibility of remaining on earth in spirit form as a “ghost.” If there are such things as ghosts, according to the Bible, they absolutely cannot be the disembodied spirits of deceased human beings.

not "absolutely". 1st Samuel 28, the witch of Endor brings up Samuel's ghost, and this ghost does not speak as a person opposed to the will of god, so the biblical author likely felt the apparition was Samuel's ghost.

The Bible teaches very clearly that there are indeed spirit beings who can connect with and appear in our physical world.

The trouble being that you couldn't prove such being exist to save your life.

The Bible identifies these beings as angels and demons. Angels are spirit beings who are faithful in serving God. Angels are righteous, good, and holy. Demons are fallen angels, angels who rebelled against God. Demons are evil, deceptive, and destructive. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, demons masquerade as “angels of light” and as “servants of righteousness.” Appearing as a “ghost” and impersonating a deceased human being definitely seem to be within the power and abilities that demons possess. https://www.gotquestions.org/ghosts-hauntings.html

But 2nd Peter 2:4 says the angels who sinned are confined in pits of darkness to be reserved for the day of Judgment, contradicting the notion that they also, somehow, are free to run around on earth possessing people.  Since you don't describe demons as any other than "fallen angels", then you leave yourself no wiggle room to speculate that maybe some of the fallen angels were spared confinement.  No such exception is expressed or implied in 2nd Peter 2:4 and the reader would never have reason to suspect an exception exists.  Peter doesn't describe them further than as angels "who sinned".  So it is reasonable to assume Peter implied no exceptions for some sinful angels...leaving you with the theological bullshit of fallen angels who are confined under the earth and reserved for judgment, but who nevertheless freely run around on earth regardless (Matthew 12:43).  Peter's reference to Tartarus, a throwback to the literal underworld where Greeks believed bad gods were imprisoned, further prohibits inerrantists from trifling that these imprisoned fallen angels might be imprisoned in a way that still allows them to run around on earth.  Early Greek theogonic stories said the Titans and Cyclops imprisoned there couldn't get out.  Snip.

i) Elijah (1 Kgs 17) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4) raise the dead. But presumably, the children they restored to life were not immortal. So they died a second time. There's also the somewhat enigmatic statement about the revived corpse in 2 Kgs 13. But that might be another case of someone who's temporally revived, only to die a second time.
 In addition, Jesus raised the dead, viz. Lazarus (Jn 11), the daughter of Jairus (Lk 8), and the widow's son (Lk 7). Likewise, Peter raised the dead (Acts 9). More ambiguous is the case of Eutychus (Acts 20).
 Presumably, although these people were revived, they were still mortal. So they died a second time.

Then your presumption is wrong.  Jesus allegedly said his raising Lazarus from the dead was to demonstrate "resurrection".

 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, (Jn. 11:25 NAU)

It is clear that Jesus is talking about a later resurrection, i.e., the type of resurrection that grants immortality.

So when he says he himself IS the resurrection, its pretty clear that he is saying he is the giver of immorality, and therefore, if he raised Lazarus to illustrate the teaching, then Lazarus' resurrection must be like the future resurrection of those who believed and died in faith, i.e., raised to immortal life, not raised to extended temporal life.

The only reason you resist saying Lazarus was resurrected in the sense the bible describes resurrected people with, is because an immortal Lazarus poses problems and inconvenience for biblical inerrancy.  But your theological convenience doesn't dictate what Jesus meant.  Snip.

v) Put another way, Heb 9:27 is not an absolute claim, but a statement about what happens to humans, all other things being equal. Yet it makes allowance for exceptions, all things considered. Like many unqualified statements in Scripture, it has an implicit ceteris paribus clause. If other conditions hold constant, if other factors remain unchanged, then that's what will happen. But in some cases, a different outcome is possible if there's a countervailing factor.

But such exceptions are not allowed by the context:

 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. (Heb. 9:24-28 NAU)

v. 28 is describing things that only happen once, absolutely; Christ's death and his 2nd coming, and describes them as an "also", linking their sense back to v. 27, thus, v. 27 is likely asserting in similarly absolute fashion that it is appointed unto man once to die, and under such absolute sense, contradicts other biblical accounts of those who managed to die twice.  Nobody said the biblical authors cared as much about bible inerrancy as you do.

13. What about the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Lk 16)?
 i) That's tricky because it's a fictional illustration, so the question is how much it is meant to illustrate. For instance, if you press the details, this would mean the damned can contact the saints. But do Christians who deny the existence of ghosts think that's generally the case? Can the denizens of hell initiate contact with the denizens of heaven whenever they feel like it? Is that realistic? Or is this an imaginary conversation between someone in "heaven" (Abraham) and someone in "hell" (the rich man) to illustrate whatever lesson(s) the parable is meant to teach?

So one of fundie Christianity's favorite eternal conscious torment passages is "tricky".  Let's just say the possibility of being tortured in hell forever is smartly dismissed as a clever way to scare gullible people into religion.  Not much more convincing than the empty threats at the end of Revelation for anybody who textually corrupts the book.   Just because you can convince a child the bogey man will "get them", doesn't mean that man exists.  It means not much more than your ability to use empty threats to frighten those who don't know better.