|
Continued Mishaps from the Creator of EBE |
In order to complete our survey of EBE it will be necessary to take one extended journey through yet another morass -- that of back issues of the newsletter Biblical Errancy, from which our subject apparently derived most of the material in EBE.
There were 192 issues of BE before it finally folded like the origami fish that it is, and we will be looking specifically at "answers" to answers we have provided to original objections, as well as for anything new (in terms of anything not already covered by answers to similar objections -- for example, even if there is a "new" cite from Proverbs, there is no need to address it directly, since our general answers about proverbial literature cover that type of objection). Again, we will simply refrain from comment where there is either an objection we have already encountered, and there is no new argument, or where subjects are covered that are beyond our purview, for example creationism and the Flood. However, where some new dimension is added to a previously-covered objection, we will make a notation or addition in the response essay where the original objection was covered.
We get all the way to the middle of issue number 4 before we find anything new:
Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24). 2 Kings says: "While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo. Josiah's servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah and anointed him and made him king in place of his father." 2 Chron says: "So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the other chariot he had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried in the tombs of his fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him." The common solution to this one -- which we do not support, as some foolish readers looking for points apparently missed -- is that the Kings passage can be read to say that Josiah was merely dying, not dead. A letter-writer suggested this in issue #40 of the newsletter, and it was noted that several Hebrew scholars (including Gesenius of the Hebrew grammar fame) support this interpretation. In response our subject merely played the Farrell Till game of "compare the English translations uncritically" and dismissed the answer as a "rationalization". Naturally this accusation is groundless, for it makes no effort to addres why translators chose the word they did, and whether indeed they would know of and agree with what is offered by Gesenius, etc.; but for those interested, I have discovered another interesting solution that takes into accounts the genre of Chronicles -- and recognizes the contradiction as quite intentional. Anyone who wishes to dispute this will need to do a serious study of Greek historiographical practice, not merely call these things "naked assertions" or the like.
At the time Chronicles was written, Greek historiography (exemplified by Herodotus) was not always strictly concerned with reportage, but was also didactic in nature. As such, reports were often purposely given with alterations to actual history -- in order to make a point. Josiah's death here bears a haunting resemblance to the death of another king of the Bible -- Ahab (1 Kings 22). By the conventions of Greek historiography of the period, then, the writer of Chronicles is purposely contradicting the already-known, earlier account for the purpose of making a polemical and didactic point against Jehu. And if that is the case, the contradiction is intentional -- and therefore poses no problem for inerrancy, because it is like saying that a van Gogh painting "contradicts" a Picasso -- what is being done is a form of narrative art. (Those who dispute that such is possible, based on selected ravings, need to see here where the heroic measures they cite are nicely disembowled.)
Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days. It is no wonder our subject does not quote verses here -- Luke clearly says that it was about eight days -- he is estimating. We may speculate that he is including parts of days whereas Matthew and Mark are only counting whole days.
...Luke 4:5-9 says the devil took Jesus up to an (sic) high mountain and then to the pinnacle of the temple, while Matt. 4:5-8 says he took him to the pinnacle first and then to the mountain.
Our subject notes Gleason's Archer's classical solution to the problem, that "Matthew uses 'then' (Matt. 4:5), which shows a logical sequence of events, while Luke uses 'and' (Luke 4:9) between the two events, which obscures the sequence of events". There is actually more to it than that: Matthew also uses, in addition to "then" (tote), the word "again" (palin), indicating a repetition. Luke does indeed use only "and" (kai).
In response, our subject does the following:
Our subject also complains that there is chronological contradiction between recountings of "whether Jesus overthrew the tables of the money-changers (Matt. 21:12) and subsequently cursed the fig tree (Matt. 21:19), or cursed the fig tree (Mark 11:14) and then threw out the money-changers (Mark 11:15)." The solution offered by Archer, which recognizes the ancient historiographical practice of arranging material topically for didactic purposes, rather than following a strict chronology, is dismissed as a resolution that "borders on the pathetic." I submit that what is truly "pathetic" here is our subject's complete ignorance of ancient literary practices.
Hereafter we must move to issue #10 to find anything new:
"In John 14:13-14 Jesus stated: 'And whatsoever ye ask in my name I do, that the Father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it.' In reality, millions of people have made millions of requests in Jesus' name and failed to receive satisfaction. This promise or prophecy has failed completely." This is like many similar objections, for example, against the verse about faith that moves mountains. Aside from being typical rabbinic hyperbole emphasizing Jesus' commitment to his followers, one must view such promises in the light of the Jewish background view of God's full sovereignty. It would be assumed by any Jew hearing this that only that which God permitted would take place.
Now, on to issue #17, which includes a comment on Matthew 23:9, "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." Our subject writes that he sees no reason to not apply this to calling our biological fathers "father". A letter writer in the 20th issue pointed out:
In reading the Bible we have to understand what is behind the words, otherwise what we read is subject to misinterpretation. The verse you cite is part of a passage in which Jesus is rebuking the Jewish religious establishment,.... He condemns their use of three titles: rabbi (master), abba (father) and morah (teacher), implying that they are not worthy of these titles. He also doesn't mean that you shouldn't call your dad your father, or refer to a teacher in school as teacher.
Our subject correctly points out that pater, not abba, is the word at issue. But other than that, the explanation is correct. What does our subject say in reply? He says that the explanation relies on "unwarranted assumptions" and that the writer "inserted something that isn't there." In other words, the writer's knowledge and experience with Jewish custom and tradition means nothing, and we are warranted in rejecting it because our subject, ever the hayseed, says we should: "...I will have to assume the Book says what it means and means what it says." Which is to say, it "means" whatever our subject "says", and to blazes with the context! And that is demonstrated even further by this note from the 24th issue:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy" (Matt. 5:43). This statement does not exist in the OT either. In fact, Prov. 24:17 says, "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth..."
No, it doesn't exist in the OT. But those familiar with 1st century rabbinic Judaism know what this is: A reference to saying that was taught by certain rabbis! Our subject remains completely oblivious to Jewish teaching techniques, such as the exaggeration in Luke 16:16 -- "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." He complains:" Certainly every man is not pressing to enter the kingdom of God." No, but the point is that a large number were trying to press in!
Issue #26 contains a few good laughs in response to a letter. On the report that Jesus' arrangements for the upper room were made in advance, our subject once again disdains critical analysis of the text and says, "If you are going to assume Jesus had been invited, although there is nothing stated to this effect, then I am going to assume he stole the silverware as he left. If you are going to make gratuitous assumptions to enhance his image, then I'm going to assume the opposite." There is not a thing that is "gratuitous" about a pre-arranged scenario; if it was not pre-arranged, how did Jesus manage to get the room? By brute force? By sheer charisma? In reply to the implication that the room was ready to go, as indicated in the story, our subject says, "my grandmother always had the guest room ready whether someone was coming or not." Really? Did your grandmother have the room ready for a dozen or more people? What an absurd comparison!
Here is a laugher from issue #27. Commenting on Luke 11:47-8 --
"Woe to you! for you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and consent to the deeds of your fathers; for they killed them, and you built their tombs"
Our subject says, "Logic and scientific precision were not among Jesus' strong points. Building a tomb for someone whom my ancestors killed certainly does not mean I approve of the killing." "Logic" and "scientific precision" are not at issue; irony is. The charge made by Jesus in this pericope is that the Pharisees are self-righteous hypocrites. He was therefore using the building of monuments as an ironic sign of their true motives. This ridiculous comment by our subject does not appear in the book version of EBE, and little wonder!
We now move to this comment from issue #35 --
"Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy graves in peace" (2 Kings 22:20). The prophetess, Huldah, predicted that Josiah would die in peace. Yet, 2 Kings 23:29-30 ("In his days Pharaoah-nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates; and King Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him. And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him....And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father's stead") shows this didn't occur.
What our subject fails to report is that 22:20 continues, "Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place." In other words, the "peace" Josiah was to have involved not being around when disaster struck his nation -- and his death took place just prior to events which set Judah into a tailspin that was never recovered from.
In issue #39, the KJV version of Is. 9:20 is quoted, "And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm". Our subject simply asks when men ever ate their arms -- apparently being unaware of the desperate lengths ancient people did indeed go to during times of war and famine. But then again, I have noted that this is described as a difficult verse to translate, so it may be that this one didn't make EBE for that reason.
In issue #40, John 14:26 is quoted ("But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.") and it is asked why, if this is true, there were conflicts in the early church. Needless to say, it is obvious that whatever the Holy Spirit might or might not have brought to remembrance, it was up to the people who heard the Spirit to listen to and obey what the Spirit said.
Issue #41 began a most interesting debate that emerged between our subject and one letter-writer named "JW" -- who is quite obviously James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries. This debate reveals a great deal not only about our subject's incompetence, but his general tactics and inability/unwillingness to do real research into the Biblical text. To begin, our subject cited KJV versions of Matthew 19:18 and Rom. 13:9 --
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder...
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill...
Our subject complained that Jesus and Paul did not agree on the wording of the sixth commandment -- one said "murder" and the other said "kill". A letter from White appeared in issue #44 concerning this and other citations (which we will look at in their appropriate places). Concerning this one, White pointed out that in both verses, the underlying Greek is the same -- ou phoneueseis. In response our subject first presented the usual Till-tactic of pointing to the English versions that disagree to prove his point; asking if White thought himself more qualified than the Greek scholars who translated the versions (And blaming the differences on "political expediency" -- spoken like a true hayseed conspiracy-theorist!) -- in short, mirroring the very tactics used by Till which we have addressed elsewhere.
White wrote again in the 46th issue, noting that our subject did not answer the argument at all with his conspiracy-shenanigans, and advised him to ask the translators why the differentiation was made if he is unable to understand the matter. Our subject then went on to stick his foot in his mouth quite badly. He began with an irrelevant diatribe on the subject of manuscript reliability, then wrote:
The translators with whom you disagree might have any one of several reasons for rejecting your interpretation and used "murder" in one instance and "kill" in another. The following are only a few available: (a) "You picked inaccurate manuscripts among the thousands available. Some translators might have good reasons for using manuscripts with something other than "ou phoneueseis". For example, 100 manuscripts might have "ou phoneuesis" and 50 something else; yet the 50 are preferable because they are far older and closer to the source. (b) "You chose accurate manuscripts but don't realize that identical words can have different meanings...One "ou phoneuesis" might mean something quite different from another..." (c) ...the imprecision of the Greek language. If "ou phoneuesis" can mean both "kill" and "murder" as your Greek-English lexicon of the NT says, then the verse means nothing and might just as well be stricken from the Bible.
Note what has happened here. The original claim of contradiction was (based on English versions) that Jesus and Paul disagreed on the wording. Our subject begins by implying (without a bit of proof) that there might be manuscripts that read differently, and that is the cause of the contradiction. He then switches to suggesting that there are differing meanings of the same word, which was not the issue at all -- much less is it proven in the contexts of the verses at issue! White caught our subject trying this shell game, and smacked him down for it in a letter that appeared in issue #52. Our subject replied by outrightly denying that he offered the first argument, and again playing the switch: "...I (did not) say there was a textual variant between Matthew 19:18 KJ ("Thou shalt not murder") and Rom. 13:9 KJ ("Thou shalt not kill")." KJ of course is not at issue, and even if it were not, that our subject presented this as a possible argument amounts to an endorsement of it! If he failed to back up the implication and offered it without supporting data -- simply "throwing it in the air" -- he is no less culpable for the presentation. This is a double bait-and-switch intended to cover our subject's tracks over a very embarrassing mistake -- and little wonder this one never made EBE in spite of the energy invested in it!
On the other two arguments, White asked for "lexicographical support" -- to which our subject only (once again!) pulled the "English versions" card, and also tries to fudge away his use of the argument by implying that he derived it from an apologist! I think more than anything else so far, the way our subject thinks is demonstrated by his response when White suggested that he consult the works of textual criticism specialists like the Alands, Metzger, and Bruce:
You mean I'm supposed to research their data? That's your responsibility, not mine. Since the burden of proof lies on he who alleges, you, not I, are obligated to provide the findings.
Of course, since it is our subject who made the first "allegation" (that of contradiction) it is actually, by this logic, up to him to prove that it exists -- and not just from his own surface reading, but taking into consideration every relevant factor -- linguistics, literary and social context, textual criticism, modern translation methods (and the fact that translating of different books is done by different people who do not collaborate -- the most likely reason for "contradiction" between these verses in the English versions), and so on. His response to White amounts to no more than a profession of laziness and an unwillingness to dig too deeply into the subject matter. The bottom line is that this "burden of proof" claim is simply a shallow attempt to get out of defending an extraordinary bad argument.
A section in issue #42 tried to find disagreement between verses like this one, Matthew 18:3-6 (see also Mark 10:14-5, Matt. 19:14) --
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
...and verses like 1 Cor. 13:11 (see also 1 Cor. 14:20, Eph. 4:14) --
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Of course, our subject fails to note that while the first set indicates that one must become as a child to come to salvation, the latter verses are addressed to those now saved, who are told not to remain as children. In other words, they need to grow up after being born again!
The same issue also tried to contrive contradiction between Matthew 21:38 and Acts 13:27/1 Cor. 2:8, in saying that the former indicated recognition of Jesus while the latter did not. Our subject perhaps realized that it is not possible to press the analogy too far where parables are concerned, and so did not put this in EBE.
In issues 55 through 62, we find a few unique items related to the writings of Paul.
1 Cor. 14:22-25 -- Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
In a rather peculiar twist, the first verse is pitted against the last three: "Paul's logic leaves a lot to be desired. Speaking with tongues is for the unbeliever, but if you speak with tongues the believer is unconvinced. Prophesying is not for the unbeliever, but if you prophesy the unbeliever is convinced." But our subject diabolically leaves out a portion of verse 25 in the newsletter, in bold above. This addition makes a difference which allows us to follow Paul's argument. Prior to this passage, Paul had cited Is. 28:11-12 -- "Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, 'This is the resting place, let the weary rest'; and, 'This is the place of repose'-- but they would not listen." He sees this verse typologically fulfilled in tongues; but note that it continues by saying that those who hear will not listen. It is a sign from God, specifically for the doubter, but they will not give it regard! Likewise can Paul say that tongues are a sign for the doubting, but one they disregard.
As for prophecy, it is for believers -- what is prophecy? It is the speaking of what God has to say. Unbelievers do not have this ability, nor is there any indication that it is intended as a sign. But this gift, among other things, enables the believer to translate what is said in tongues. Hence it causes the reaction that Paul describes!
1 Thes. 2:4 -- On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.
Eph. 6:6 -- Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. (KJV: Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart...)
Gal. 1:10 -- Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
versus
1 Cor. 10:33 -- ...even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
Rom. 15:2 -- Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.
Our subject sees the word "please" repeated in various forms and jumps on them at once, but he misses the boat and falls into the water on this one. Consider the Greek variations behind Eph. 6:6 -- "manpleasers" = anthropareskos, man-courting, i.e., fawning:--men-pleaser. This is a pejorative term; it is also alluded to in the other two verses paired therewith, where pleasing of "men" (in the KJV, this word is inserted in the text; it is not in the Greek) is indicated, as well as indicated as pejorative by the parallel phrases (not speaking approved by God; trying to win their approval; with eyeservice). This makes the three above of a different category than the last two verses.
In issue #76, a letter-writer delivered this old chestnut:
Jonah 3:3 ("...Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three day's journey") asserts that the city of Nineveh {the old Assyrian capital} is a very great city which takes 3 days to cross!
The letter went on to point out that ancient Nineveh was only 2 miles in circumference, hardly 3 days' journey across. Now of course it is usual to point out that Jonah's journey was not simply straight across, but roundabout, with stops for preaching; to this the writer said that this would be " a very improbable (and unreliable) way to describe the size of a city, (and) the ruse is clearly shot down in many of the better translations." Well, since none of the translations are cited, we can't comment, but let's look at the Hebrew word for "journey" -- mahalak. It is used only four times in the OT, twice here in Jonah 3:3-4, and here:
Neh. 2:6 And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.
The context of the inquiry indicates that the mahalak consisted of more than simply trekking directly to Jerusalem: It also involved all of the time away from the palace -- so that it also could refer to a three-day "inside" tour-around of Nineveh. The only other use in the OT is Ezek. 42:4, where it refers to a mahalak of ten cubits -- referring thus to a specific distance, and therefore of no application here. The Jonah selections say nothing at all about distance; the writer merely assumes that the reference is for the sake of indicating distance to cross.
Issue #81 features an attempt to set 1 Peter 3:18 ("For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:") against Deut. 24:16; our answer linked here explains why this cite is not viable. Also in this issue, the KJV versions of Num. 22:5, which refer to Balaam as son of Beor, and 2 Peter 2:15, which says "son of Bosor". I have seen no explanation given for this one, other than a suggestion that it represents a spelling variation of Peter's native Aramaic. My own thought is that it may be a sort of insulting pun (like the variation on the name of Nebuchadnezzar actually being a play on words), using the word bosko which means to tend or feed -- is this perhaps a way of referring to Balaam as the son of the donkey he rode?
Issue #83 contains four items not seen previously. Luke 24:17 ("And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?") is indicated as "deceit" under the rubric of Jesus' supposed omiscience as God; this does involve a fundamental misunderstanding of Trinitarian roles, but more simply, it fails to recognize that in this societal context questions of this sort were often asked rhetorically and for the sake of eliciting answers. Luke 5:22//Matt. 9:4 ("But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?") are criticized as false science because people don't think in their hearts: Our subject adds, "Perhaps it's allegorical, but not necessarily." Actually, it isn't allegorical: According to the ancient methods of division, the "heart" (kardia) designated both the physical heart and the intangible will. Luke 9:56 ("For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.") is pitted against Rev. 19:11-16 ("And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war...") without comment; presumably it is meant to express that the latter action contradicts the mission statement of the former. The former, however, refers in context to Jesus' earthly mission, unlike the latter, as our subject apparently realized.
Issue #84 also contains a few unique items not included in EBE proper. Luke 14:8-10 ("When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him...") is taken as Jesus "teaching classism more than humility." Obviously this passage recognizes that classism (of a sort) exists, but that hardly constitutes endorsement of it. Does our subject expect Jesus to teach that one should hijack the seat of the distinguished guest and tell them to buzz off when they arrive? If he goes to a dinner and is told he is sitting in the seat reserved for Bill Gates and needs to move, is he going to tell the waiter, "The heck with that, this is classism"? I rather doubt it. John 4:24 ("God is a Spirit") is pitted against places in the OT where God appears in a physical form; our subject perhaps realized that God's inherent nature as spirit does not prevent a physical manifestation. Matt. 11:27 ("All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.") is used to ask how OT prophets could have known about God if they lived before Jesus; this fails to account for the personal sense of "know" (epiginosko -- to know upon some mark, i.e. recognise; by impl. to become fully acquainted with, to acknowledge, perceive) which has nothing to do with revelation or communication alone. John 8:7 ("He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.") is criticized on the grounds that it would bring justice to a halt and cause us to have to empty out prisons; but this is far from a general rule: It is rather a "counter-trap" designed to foil the trap laid for Jesus by his adversaries. (See here for details.) Finally, Micah 7:18 ("Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.") is pitted against verses indicating eternal punishment, but none of the verses indicate that God's anger will last forever, just His judgment.
In issue #85, we have these unique cites: A naive and simplistic accusation that Jesus misused Daniel 7:13 (see here for more); Matt. 6:5-6 ("But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...") is pitted against 1 Kings 8 and Solomon's public prayer (So how is Solomon going to know to obey Jesus' directive, even if it is applicable? As corporate leader of Israel, Sol wasn't praying as a hypocrite, but as the representative of the people.); and there are the usual complaints about verses like Matt. 24:27-34 which are easily solved within the preterist paradigm.
Issue #86 includes a condemnation of Jesus for fostering belief in the supernatural, including demons; an amusing complaint against Matt. 12:11 ("And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?") saying that "All people know that Jews are not permitted to raise any animals on the Sabbath, from a pit or otherwise" ("all people" presumably including the authors of the period, and scholars of Judaism today, that indicate that such emergency efforts were indeed permitted -- and let us keep in mind the didactic, rather than absolute, nature of ancient law codes); a criticism of Jesus in Luke 9:59-62 for not allowing a decent burial or bidding parents farewell, and giving his work primacy (which begs the question of whether it deserves primacy as the saving gospel).
In issues #115-119 we have several items of accusation against God that didn't make the cut into EBE. Ex. 3:18 ("And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.") is cited as an instance of God telling Moses to lie, since the intent was escape, but there is no indication at all of this intent in the verses following. Josh. 7:1 ("But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing") is said to be a lie by God, since only Achan, not all of "Israel", sinned; this is actually no more than an expression of corporate responsibility. 2 Sam. 7:13, 16 ("He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever...") is said to be a lie/false prophecy, for David's kingdom did end; this fails to comprehend, as usual, the nature of prophecy as more exhortational than absolute.
1 Sam. 23:12 ("Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.") is cited as a false prophecy, because Saul was delivered into David's hands twice later on, but this is not what was asked: David asked whether the men of the particular city would hand David over, which is why David left! Num. 31:40 is cited with no implications other than that it is somehow wrong for God to set aside people for his own service. Deut. 21:10-13 ("When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife...") is cited as degrading to women, when in fact in social context these were quite merciful actions, which the captured women would not object to at all! Gen. 4:13-15 (the preservation of Cain) is cited as God protecting a murderer and promising him protection; in actuality it represents an attempt to stop vengeance killing before it gets out of hand and destroys the entire human race at this key stage of history. God is blamed for aiding rather than punishing a swindler when He helps Jacob, which leads us to ask whether our subject thinks anyone is perfect enough for God to help out. Finally, the rhetorical question of Gen. 17:18 is naively regarded as indecisiveness; as noted previously, such "questions" are equivalent to statements made to elicit response in this social context.
Issue #135 refers to discrepancies in Stephen's speech in Acts; see Glenn Miller's item on this.
In issue #137, our subject addresses an alleged problem in verses like Ex. 31:17 ("It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.") and others that refer to God being at "rest" or "refreshed". (See also Gen. 2:2-3, Ex. 20:11, Heb. 4:4.) Our subject notes Carl Johnson's reply that such verses are figurative in meaning, and should be taken to mean that God "ceased" His work and was "delighted" with it. Our subject replies with the usual skeptical game of "quote the English versions to prove your point" and dismisses Johnson as asserting that he knows Hebrew better than "a whole battery of experts" on Hebrew -- as if our subject were not inclined to such presumption of himself in the first place. That said, the Hebrew word for "rest" (shabath) is indeed used in the context of something ceasing or lacking, or in the sense of celebration (see Lev. 2:13; 23:32; the Greek in Heb. 4:4 has similar meaning); the word for "refreshed" (naphash) is only used three times in the OT and cannot support any conclusions either way.
In issue #139, contradiction is alleged in Mark 6:5 ("And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.") and Matt. 28:18 ("And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.") -- never mind that the latter is chronologically later than the former; but even so, the "could" here is clearly because the local folk refused to accept Jesus, not because of a lack of power. Also in this issue, Rom. 11:26 ("And so all Israel shall be saved") is set against Zech. 13:8-9 ("And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God."). Our subject quotes Johnson as noting that Zech's one-third is the "all Israel" that will be saved; our subject snidely cuts Johnson off in mid-explanation to pull the usual "all means all, not some" shebang. But it doesn't matter, because what Paul is describing here is a historical process to come. The previous verse say that the fulness of the Gentiles will come, and then as a result (the Greek here, houto, means "in this way") all Israel will be saved. The best that one can do to prove contradiction is show that the fullness of the Gentiles does not coordinate with the point where Zech's 2/3 are eliminated and the third are left.
In issue #140, an examination is made of Johnson's answer to contradiction alleged between Gal. 6:10 ("As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.") and 2 John 10-12 ("If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed..."). Johnson correctly notes that the latter is made in response to false teachers; our subject once again plays the "all means all" shebang, but then again, what he quotes from Johnson (nor from Arndt in the 188th issue) does not adequately resolve the issue anyway. It should be added that by welcoming false teachers, especially those who (as John indicates) have perverted the true message, one does more harm than good, so that it would be adequate to say that the only real "opportunity" to do good is to rebuff the false teachers, lest they harm others. (Note that Paul says, "As we have opportunity...", the word being kairos referring to an occasion, or a set and proper time. This situation would not offer an "opportunity" to do good unto all men precisely because it would do more harm than good. Beyond that, within the social context of 2 John, the reference is not to giving someone who is homeless a place to stay, but to giving an itinerant teacher a central headquarters from which to distribute his teaching. It is not as though they need someplace to stay and that one can do "good" by being charitable to them.)
In issue #144, answers given by Haley are taken into consideration; a new cite for us is the claim of clashing between Malachi 1:14 ("But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.") and 1 Sam. 16:2, as well as a verse in Jeremiah we have considered elsewhere, and Ezekiel 14:9. But our subject only quotes the first quarter of Mal. 1:14 and ignores the rest of it, which makes a big difference. Deception is not put off as an absolute sin, so that even if there is deception in any of these verses (and we do not necessarily agree that there is), if it served a greater good, there is no problem.
In the 162nd issue, we have this:
On page 293 Haley reads between the lines in order to blend Matt. 18:15 ("Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone....") with 1 Tim. 5:19-20 ( "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear"). In essence, are offenders to be reprimanded in public or in private? Haley says, "The first text refers to private, personal wrongs, the second, to open, public offenses against peace and good order."
Where he got this idea is anybody's guess, since there certainly isn't anything in the text that would substantiate a wholly arbitrary distinction of this nature. The second says nothing about "peace and good order." All it refers to is "Them that sin" which could refer to thousands of acts having nothing to do with "peace and good order." Haley continues by quoting the apologist Alford who says of the first text, "This direction is only in case of personal offence against ourselves, and then the injured person is to seek private explanation , and that by going to his injurer, not waiting till he comes to apologize." This doesn't resolve the problem because "Them that sin rebuke before all" in 1 Timothy would include those brothers who trespass against you personally and are to be rebuked privately. Moreover, there is nothing in the text that would substantiate Haley's assertion that the injured party is to seek out the injurer. Just more adding between the lines.
Once again a little Greek study would help. The word "accusation" in 1 Tim. is kategoria, defined by Strong's as "a complaint, i.e. criminal charge:--accusation." Consider how the word is used elsewhere:
Luke 6:7 And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
John 18:29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
In the 174th issue a letter-writer pointed to Heb. 4:15 ("but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin") and received a partial endorsement from our subject, who noted that "There is no way Jesus could have been tempted in all things. As you say, he couldn't very well have been tempted to beat his wife when he had none." This presumes that "sin" is to be broken down into such narrow categories, as if "wife-beating" must be differentiated from beating some other person. Unless it can be proven that the writer of Hebrews, or other ancient writers, separated sins into such narrow categories, this is merely a strawman.
In the 182nd issue, our subject alleges the contradiction between Deut. 8:2 ("And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord, thy God, led thee these forty years in the wilderness to humble thee and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldst keep His commandments or not") and Acts 1:24 ("And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show which of these two Thou hast chosen"). In Deut. 8:2 the word "know" is the very broad word yada, which may means "know" not in the sense of lacking knowledge, but in the sense of perception and familiarity. The Acts 1:24 "knowest", however, involves a root word with a much narrower and different application of perception and understanding.
The 191st and 192nd issues (the last two) saw a spate of new, low-quality blood; we will examine those items which are not previously covered (specifically or topically) or do not come under the general rubric of proverbial literature and copyist errors.
It is noted: "Lot said to a crowd in 19:8, "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes...," even though 2 Peter 2:8 says Lot was a righteous man." Strong's indicates that the word "righteous" (dikais) can be used in both an absolute and a relative sense; if it is the latter, then there is no argument. Exodus 16:31 ("...and the taste of manna was like wafers made with honey") is held against Num. 11:8 ("...and the taste of it (manna) was as the taste of fresh oil"). This is a Goden Duh Award winner: Num. 11:8 first says that the people "ground it in mills, or beat it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it", which they did not do in Exodus. Cooking things often does tend to alter their flavor, as any chef knows! Exodus 22:21 ("Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt") is set against places where the Israelites do war, when both the context and the word "stranger" (ger) indicate a guest in a foreign land. Exodus 25:8 ("And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them") is set against Acts 7:48 ("Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands...."); the latter is a quote of Stephen who, in polemical and rhetorical context, is countering Jewish rejection of Christ by offering a midrashic statement in 7:49. Since it is a quote at any rate, there is no relevance for inerrancy.
Numbers 14:25 RSV ("Now, since the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwell in the valleys....") is pitted against 14:45 RSV ("Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who dwelt in that hill country came down..."), not being cognizant that these refer to two different places where these widespread tribes live -- it is not stating in either case that they live there exclusively. Numbers 18:23-24 ("But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.... Levites...among the children of Israel shall have no inheritance") is pitted against Joshua 21:3 ("And the children of Israel gave unto the Levites out of their inheritance, at the commandment of the Lord, these cities and their suburbs"), apparently thinking that the giving out of inheritance in Joshua equates with an "inheritance" of the sort referred to in Numbers, and naturally leaving out the part of verse 24 that describes the tithes that shall be given to the Levites. Numbers 26:11 (" Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not.") is pitted against earlier Numbers verses indicating that his kids did die; but "children" here has a wider sense of including all descendants, whihc would include grandchildren by marriage. Numbers 26:38 ("The sons of Benjamin according to their respective clans were: Bela, Ashbek, Ahiram, Shephupham and Hupham") is pitted against Gen. 46:21 ("And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard"), ignoring the 400+-year gap between the two times noted.
Deut. 6:16 ("Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God") is pitted against Isa. 7:10-12 ("Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 'Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God'....But Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.'), leading me only to ask: "Where is the problem?" The only problem is that Ahaz incorrectly perceived that accepting the offer of a sign was equal to tempting God; hence the rebuke he then received. There is no indication that it actually was so. Deut. 10:19 ("Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt") is held against Deut. 14:21("Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger...that he may eat of it") and 23:20 ("Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury"), with the seeming assumption that the latter two show some lack of "love". However, since the eating of carrion was actually common practice, and "usury" here is not the modern crime of usury but merely interest, there is no disregard for the stranger or lack of love at all. A Golden Manipulator Award goes to this one: 2 Kings 6:22 ("...wouldest thou smite those whom thou has taken captive with the sword...") is set against Judges 8:21 ("And Gideon arose and slew Zebah and Zalmunna" (who were two prisoners). What's the problem here? All that is being done is that two separate reports are given on how two different sets of prisoners were treated at two different times. This is like reporting a story of how a bank robber was shot and killed, and a story of how another was captured alive, and saying the two stories contradict one another!
1 Samuel 17:50 ("So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; there was no sword in the hand of David") is pitted against the very next verse, 17:51 ("Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with it"); apparently the reader is insensate both to ancient oral storytelling practices and the literal/figurative meaning available for the Hebrew word in question. 1 Samuel 15:35 RSV ("And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul...") is argued as saying that "Samuel and Saul did not meet until the day the latter died" and then pitted against 1 Samuel 19:24 ("And Saul stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel...."), which is said to show that "they did meet prior to Saul's death." But the first verse indicates that Samuel did not go to Saul; in the context of the prior verse ("Then Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah of Saul.") the meaning is clearly in terms of what we would call today a "state visit". The latter verse is a case of Saul seeking out Samuel, not vice versa. 2 Sam 18:18 ("Now Absalom said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance...") is put against 2 Sam. 14:27 ("And unto Absalom there were born three sons...")' it apparently does not occur to the writer that Absalom's sons predeceased him, as might be expected considering the events in between the verses in which Absalom revolted against David and his own sons would be prime targets. (There is also indication that 18:18 refers to a time before Absalom's sons were born: Though not reflected in the translation above, the building of the pillar is said to be "in his lifetime" -- the latter word , chay, having the connotation of youth.)
Further ignorance of ancient storytelling procedure is promulgated as 1 Kings 14:30 ("And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days") and 15:16 ("And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days") are pitted against verses indicating intermittent times of peace between these kings; these verses are written to underscore the general enmity between the kings, not state that they were constantly at war with each other 100% of the time, even while asleep. Is. 54:7 ("For a small moment have I
Ezekiel 5:7 ("...Because ye...have not walked in my statutes...neither have done according to the judgments of the nations that are round about you") is set against Ezekiel 11:12 ("...for ye have not walked in my statutes...but have done after the manners of the heathen that are round about you") for reasons fathomable only to the writer. What is the problem, exactly? Hosea 8:13 ("they [Ephraim] shall return to Egypt") is set against 11:5 ("He [Ephraim] shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king...."); apparently the writer is unaware that "Egypt" in the first verse is figuative for captivity. Matthew 5:45 ("...your Father who is in heaven: for he...sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust") is set against 2 Chron. 6:26 ("When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee"); one is constrained to ask why a contradiction is seen between the first, a proverbial non-absolute, and the second, a conditional potentiality. Matthew 7:21 ("Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven....") is pitted against Acts 2:21 ("And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved") and Rom 10:13 ("For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"); "name" (onoma) here, however, clearly means in the sense of authority -- not merely yelling Jesus' name. John 20:23 RSV ("If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained") is set against Mark 2:7 ("Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?"), ignoring the fact that the latter expresses the opinions of those present who would not recognize (much less know of -- since it was in the future!) Jesus' later authority to delegate forgiveness.
Acts 1:1-2 ("In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up....") is set against John 21:25 ("And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written"), as if when Luke says "all" he is not using a standard storytelling device, but actually indicating that he told "all" that Jesus did, including going to the bathroom and eating every meal in his life. Acts 27:10 RSV ("And Paul said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo...but also of our lives") is cited against the safe landing of all aboard Paul's ship, ignoring that Paul merely was expressing his opinion as a seasoned traveler. 1 Corinthians 3:11 RSV ("For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ") is set against Eph. 2:20 ("And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone"), ignoring that the latter is used as a figure for the body of Christ, while the former refers to missionary work. Colossians 2:9 ("For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily") is set against 1 Kings 8:27 ("But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded"); never mind that the latter is only Solomon's statement, not an accepted fact.
Philemon 12 RSV ("I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart") is held against Deut. 23:15 ("Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee"); never mind that the context of the latter indicates a slave that has escaped from a foreign nation to Israel, and that the former takes place under an entirely different social-religious contract and covenant-condition. Heb. 6:2 ("Of the doctrine of baptisms....") is set against Eph. 4:5 ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism..."), apparently in the belief that the former indicates several doctrines of baptism, as opposed to referring to the plurality of the event in the church. James 1:2 ("My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations") is set against Matt. 6:13 ("And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"); what is contradictory about asking not to be tested, but nevertheless being glad when you are? Finally, James 4:11 ("Speak not evil one of another....") is set against Phil. 3:2 ("Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers...."), naturally leaving out the last word in James 4:11, "brethren", which indicates an internal church command.