It seems that the only heaven skeptics ever want to enter is Sound Bite Heaven.

While surfing around looking for sites that addressed views stated here on Tekton (but hadn't the courage to speak to us about it), I found a cute little site called "Ebon Musings" owned by one Adam Marczyk. You won't find that name conspicuously posted on the site (I found out by other means), and he doesn't seem to be trying to conceal his identity, but we'll refer to him as Ebon for the duration since that seems to be his preference.

Much of the site is devoted to creation/evolution issues; much else is devoted to issues covered sufficiently here and in sites we link to: the problem of evil, the Ten Commandments, pagan Christs (with an especially embarrassing endorsement of the idea that Mithra was crucified and of Apollonius of Tyana as a candidate!), James vs. Paul and the relation of faith and works, endorsement of Earl Doherty's mythicist thesis, and the usual screed about the Trinity being inexplicable and incomprehendable. Just the usual list of issues, in other words, dealt with cavilierly and with the assurance of freethinking know-how.

A couple of things make this site particularly amusing. For one thing, Ebon seems in a rush to endorse as many disrespectable positions as he can in as little space as possible. Most essays relevant to our subject area are less than 5 printed pages in length. Ebon also plays the role of the temporal provincialist, having learned well at the feet of the masters like Ingersoll and Paine. Here is a telling assessment:

But not all of them can be explained this way, and for the rest the explanation is simple - the Bible just isn't well written. Many of its authors were uneducated, illiterate desert nomads with a poor grasp of basic literary principles such as plot, theme and characterization, and to make it worse, many of them were more intent on making what they wrote fit their own outlook rather than making it consistent with what was already written. The work of literature they collectively turned out, while contradicting itself in numerous places and lacking in logic and coherence, is the best that could be expected under such circumstances.

Considering that scholars of ancient literature consider the Bible a masterful work, one wonders where Ebon gets the nerve to come up with such an evaluation. As we will see the answer is, "The Ken Smith School of Biblical Exegesis and Plumbing Sciences." You won't find a clue anywhere that Ebon is doing anything but following the McKinsey dictum to "read the Bible like a newspaper" (other than maybe using a concordance now and then). This leads to our second cause for amusement. Ebon clearly is aware of this site, for as we will see, in a primary article on Bible contradictions, Ebon cites a couple of my answers as examples to reply to. Yet he apparently didn't feel compelled to write responses we have offered (directly or by links) to a number of other issues. Although numerous alleged contradictions are examined, almost all of which I address on the site, my own responses are referred to less than half a dozen times. Apparently Ebon thinks he can get away with something by only picking the defenses he wants to deal with. Well, no dice. We're now to going to have a run over these answers of his.

The first cite has to do with the alleged contradictory creation accounts. This is a matter we have dealt with in some detail here, but rather than deal with the evidence of dual creation accounts in other ANE cultures, linguistic and grammatical data, chiasms, and dischronologized narratives, Ebon selects an answer offered by the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry which, while ultimately correct in summary, does not explore the matter to the same level of detail that our article does. Not that Ebon's answer to CARM is worth the effort; it only amounts to "Yes, it is a contradiction! Read it for yourself!"

And then we come to the first mention of this site. It has to do with our response to the alleged conflict on graven images. Aside from maturated "why didn't God just snap His fingers and do away with the images" commentary, we have this:

Numerous apologetics sources, for example this one, have made the claim that the commandment in Exodus 20:4 is only intended to prevent the worship of idols, and that images not made for worship are acceptable. Maybe that was the intent, but it does not say that. It doesn't say it's OK to make graven images or likenesses as long as you don't worship them - it says no images, no likenesses. Period. What part of "Thou shalt not" do apologists like J.P. Holding find so difficult to understand?

My reply is, "What part of the definition of 'image' does Ebon not understand?" As I quite clearly stated (and explored in detail in The Mormon Defenders), "an 'image' in ancient thought is not merely something that has an appearance, like a statue or a picture, but something that serves as a focal point for the presence and power of a deity." This isn't answered at all; Ebon merely restates the original skeptical argument using the assumed definition of "image" as "anything like a statue or picture." This is the sort of accident that happens when skeptics try to deal with Ancient Near Eastern culture as though it were the same as the one they find down at the Cumberland Farms store. At any rate, Ebon clearly does not have the resources or the ability to provide a coherent reply, which is probably why he returns to the old objection form.

On it goes, with Ebon dismissing someone else's less complex answer to the "Can God repent?" question (and offering the pass-off, "Why wouldn't [God] just pick a better course of action from the start?" -- as if Ebon had the omniscience to know that any other course of action would have been better beyond the myopically-glimpsed presumptive short-term), CARM's less complex (yet nevertheless correct) answer to the issue of sins of the fathers, the usual objections about human sacrifice (answered by us here and by Glenn Miller here, but don't expect Ebon to touch either of these), the usual comments about Jeremiah 7:22 and Ps. 51:16-17 that show no knowledge of ancient negation idioms and excessive language typical of the Ancient Near East; the usual inability to grasp the nature of Ecclesiates as an Ancient Near Eastern dialogue format and proverbial literature (Eccl. 7:3-4 and 8:15 are cited as contradictory "within the same book"); the usual about David killing Goliath (don't even talk to Ebon about units or oral tradition and chiasms, he has apparently never heard of them); David's sin, and God's anger in Jeremiah. For the last of these Ebon doesn't even pick a solution from an apologetic site to respond to. That's it for the OT.

In the NT, we find a series of the usual canards: on Jesus judging (here CARM's answer, once again essentially correct, is looked at, but not our more detailed answer) is the first. Next up is the issue of for or against Jesus, and our answer is given consideration (namely, there is no middle ground), but waved away because:

This is a non-answer that does absolutely nothing to clear up this contradiction. What about the people in Jesus' own time who never heard of him, such as the Chinese or Native Americans? What about modern-day agnostics? Are they for or against him? To claim, as J.P. Holding would no doubt do, that anyone who does not explicitly worship Jesus is against him, makes Jesus' statements in Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50 meaningless - it would mean he is essentially saying, "Those who support us support us." For those verses to have any meaning at all, Jesus must be saying that anyone who has not explicitly declared opposition to him is for him. And yet the exact opposite holds true in the first two verses. The contradiction stands.

In short, if you have no actual answer, change the subject by raising a non-issue in context. What about those who never heard? See here. As for allegedly neutral agnostics, I say that they hide behind the premise of not having declared explicit opposition -- and their choice not to investigate itself is a choice "against" because it amounts to saying that the matter is too insignifcant to make time to look into.

And on it goes. What nationality was the Canaanite woman? (Please don't bother Ebon with the socio-political complexities of the ancient world; he is busy thinking we will solve this by claiming that there were two different events and two different women.) When did Jesus wither the fig tree and why? (No, don't bother him with the ancient literary principle of topical, dischronologized narrative, or the designs of oral memorization, either.) Should we obey the law? makes an apperance, and once again CARM's simpler (but still correct) answer is waved away with a sniffle ("It makes no such exception"). And the usual about calling men "master" (psst -- it's a different Greek word, but Ebon forgot to check the one in Matthew).

Ebon did come with one that I have never even seen Dennis McKinsey use, but they may be wiser than he is:

What will happen to the Jews? They will go to Hell: Matthew 8:12 "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." They will go to Heaven: Romans 11:26 "All Israel shall be saved."

Skeptics would do well to avoid this kind of commentary, as chapters like Romans 11 involve certain complexities of covenental theology beyond the scope of those into the works of people like Thomas Paine and Earl Doherty (and he needs to readthe link for his complaints about Paul not knowing of a human Jesus). Paul's argument runs for several chapters, the key of which in this case is Rom. 9:6b, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Paul is creating an argument for a new Israel based on salvation through faith (using Abraham as a primary example). His "Israel" isn't the Jews in flesh anymore.

And then we have one (and one later, with an example like that used by Dan Barker, viz. Mother Teresa) displaying alleged inter-Gospel contradictions relative to the trial of Jesus and the exact words said. Never mind the principles laid down this series on ancient composition and differences among accounts; just read it like a newspaper. The old bit about the disciples knowing of the Resurrection in advance. The old bit about divorce in Matt and Mark (with 1 Corinthians 7:13-15 added in the mix, which does not even mention divorce or remarriage by the Christian partner left by the non-believer -- as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, and we hardly expect the non-believer to follow Jesus' command). The usual about good deeds being shown (and I am sorry, but the specific verb in Matt. 6:1 means that we are not to give alms in order to be closely looked at, not a matter of being passive like a city on the hill).

And then another offered in answer to our work, on giving of signs. Our answer is described as "truly droll" and our point about this indicating a blatant self-contradiction in Mark is taken as further evidence of contradiction! The point that "the Pharisees ask for a sign from heaven (the words "from heaven" were often a circumlocution for "from God"; but this could just as well mean "from the sky" -- Keener, 420) -- not just any old sign" is dismissed as "fumbl[ing] about" and "a distinction which the text fails to make." (No, the text does not allude to the known circumlocution used by Jews to refer to God, i.e., "from Heaven," it must mean something else.)

Another cite is offered misinterpreting the judgment of Jesus; see link above. Then we get to alleged contradiction between Old and New Testaments, and nothing new. Does God tempt? (Here our man claims that the Hebrew and Greek words in question "are exactly the same," which I am sure the lexicons would appreciate being corrected upon. The same may be said for attempts to find conflict between OT and NT uses of the word "respect" only there our critic grudgingly admits that shades of meaning are possible; beyond that see here.) The usual about Job and others being called righteous. Another misuse of proverbial literature as though it were stating an absolute (Prov. 16:7 vs. 2 Tim. 3:12, etc. on persecution).

And once again, an attempt to hammer our peg, this time on Kings vs. John on ascending to heaven. Our response detailing the difference in usage between Hebrew and Greek words is described as "laughable" because Ebon did a "simple lookup" (the best kind!) that proves that "Heaven" is "a valid translation" of the Hebrew word, but "the OT simply did not have the well-developed view of the afterlife that the NT does, and so this is the closest equivalent it has for that concept." If this is the case, then how can one say that the OT offers a conflict with the NT on this point? Ebon is right about one thing: By NT times the concept was very developed -- and by acknowledging this he shoots his own objection in the foot. By the NT era "Heaven" (reported as well with capital H) was a specific locale regarded as the abode of the righteous. In the OT it was not a specific locale, just "up there" from just above the ground all the way to unknown. The term evolved in use, as can be seen by anyone familiar with contemporary literature, and asking non-questions like "where else did Elijah go, then?" (Hint: the universe is a big place!) and making snide comments about suffocating in the upper atmosphere (as if a God who resurrected the dead would not remember to provide breathable air for the trip!) are not an answer.

And on it goes. Job vs. the resurrection. What was in the Ark of the Covenant. And in closing a snide comment that God is indeed the author of confusion, because of Babel (though it actually represented the imposition of a new order determined by God, not a dismantling of order).

And so, we add another skeptic to our list who stays in the corner and avoids the toughest answers, preferring instead to lay sound bites as traps and research matters no further than a "quick lookup" in a concordance. I'll take one without coconut, please?

The process continues here...

Ebon does his duty on faith, here.