Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Link above removed until Skeptic X shows respect by removing my real name from his articles. Deadline to change this, July 1 2003.

Friends, are you bored? Do you need cheap entertainment? Is World Championship Wrestling just too dry for your tastes? Then maybe you should consider watching Skeptic X as he tries to wiggle his way out of another botched job of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as well as trying to avoid dealing with the real hard issues that make his head spin in more revolutions than in The Exorcist. I saw this diversion into the "men with David" issue as Skeptic X buying time to keep from engaging the debate over the Olivet Discourse. It was, indeed, such a diversion, but we shamed Skeptic X into getting his act together, albeit still not as fast as he promised. "When [Holding] posted this," Skeptic X groused, "he knew that I had asked for his permission to reprint his 'Olivet Discourse' in the September/October 2002 issue of [his newsletter] with my simultaneous reply. He knew too that I had promised to have my reply ready for press the first week of August, at which time I would submit it to my associate Rob Miles for posting on this site." Yeah, I knew that. And what time is it? As of this typing it's September 7. And still no posting of this on Skeptic X's managed site. What's the holdup, bubbalou? No straw man here; it's just the usual debate game by Skeptic X, and apparently he is even willing to promise a false posting date (or not do anything to make sure his servants get things together in a timely fashion) to get out of a jam and buy himself the time he needs to "hack and cough" a response together on a subject that sets his undershirt spinning, like preterism; just like he bought himself 6 months against Everette Hatcher by whining and complaining against a straw man for two issues of his newsletter. Thankfully, it's not too hard to shame Skeptic X into getting off his McDuff and doing something. There are plenty of spots on that enormous ego to stick a pin into.

And there are plenty of the usual games in this latest reply. "As I will show later, my original article on this subject ('What Men with David?') was written to set bait for any inerrantist who would attempt to resolve the problem I identified in the article, and [Holding] has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker," Skeptic X assures the gullible fans. Why sure. It's another one of those "I was holding back for the last umpteen years" routines. Skeptic X is left with nothing on the board but a king and a pawn; we have every piece remaining, and he wants us to believe that he had a secret plan to win that involved dropping all of his pieces. As it turns out, the plan to "win" involves tipping the table over and running away screaming. We'll get to that in a bit, but didn't Nixon try this already? Impeach Skeptic X!

A few housekeeping issues to begin and throughout, since Skeptic X does play his usual "ten paragraphs of distraction" games along with others, though we will mostly touch on matters not already addressed in other venues which Skeptic X will encounter in due course if he does not "hack and cough" his way into submission. "[Holding] may not have agreed to debate this subject, but he was the one who brought up the matter by replying to my original article. Apparently, he thinks that I should just sit still and let his simplistic rebuttal attempts go unanswered so that readers of his website will think that he is the new king of biblical apologetics." No, I don't think you should sit still, X; though qualitatively you might fare better if you did. The point of the sentence which you cut off in midstream (per your usual ride and fall through Double Asterisk Pass) is that since we didn't agree to formal debate on this particular, "we will not follow Skeptic X's obsessive stricture that we quote EVERYTHING he writes, though we will provide a link to his material (above) just for the amusement of our readers." It does not say, "Since we didn't agree to debate this one, Skeptic X should just sit down and shut up about it." Notice that this is just more of Skeptic X's manipulative debating tactics: He stops quoting us in mid-sentence, then fills in the intent of the rest of the sentence on his own.

Skeptic X goes on to bark out a promotional blurb for his response on Olivet, which he tells us (as of 9/7/02, still) is "now being readied" (over 4 weeks late) for posting on the TSR site. It already looks like he's ready to play the same old debate game of "all he did was cite an authority," which is his usual dodge when he has no actual answers to post and doesn't have the goods to do actual research. He also hints at "plagiarized ideas" -- we can hardly wait for that one, since I cited all my sources. Um, what about actually responding to those ideas, X? Oh. I guess we'll wait and see.

"Over a period of years," Skeptic X snorts, "[Holding] obviously targeted me for 'replies' directed to his choir in a closed forum, in which he gave his readers no links to my articles that would let them conveniently see the full extent of my arguments..." Why "convenience" was necessary to see Skeptic X's arguments is one of those great mysteries that we'll find out about when we also find out that Stonehenge was originally a bus station. Actually, according to my server stats which have just recently been activated, the number of "choir members" who even care about Skeptic X is dismally low to begin with. If I allotted time out according to what deserved attention based on reader response, I would spend maybe 10 minutes out of every 2 weeks addressing Skeptic Xisms. In fact, it may shock Skeptic X into a comatose state to hear that responses to him are, as a whole, among the least read items on this site. Heck, I have Encyclopedia pages (like this one) that have had more visits than things about him. The most popular item on this site is the one on the Christ-myth, here. From August 1 through 31 it got 863 views. The first "Skeptic X-related" item is ranked 15th, with 411 views -- and it isn't even an article about Skeptic X; it's the debate index page here which probably was returned to by the same people numerous times as they clicked through the articles. After that a Skeptic X-related item doesn't even rate until 70th place, with 180 views, and that was our most recent addition on Abiathar. Next after that in 98th place, with 145 views, is the item where I correct Skeptic X's errors about me personally in his newsletter. Beyond that the grand bulk of items on Skeptic X are clustered down at the bottom, ranked between 800th and 948th (last) place, with 27 views and less, as few as a mere 14 views (942nd place) for here, a recent item on Skeptic X's view of free will! Even the Encyclo page for the letter Q got 17 visits in the same period! Only 1 more person than that cared to read this one on places where I react to Skeptic X fussing about my typing errors. Based on this I could just ignore Skeptic X for the rest of my days and no one would care, least of all any "choir members" he thinks he's influencing, and trying to influence by writing pages of boring complaints about typographical or concentration errors. The vast majority of the choir doesn't care to hear his song. (And no, there was no tendency for newer articles to be on top and older ones on the bottom, so Skeptic X can put that one back in his pipe without blowing it.)

But let's remember that this comes from a man who didn't have the sense given an aardvark to search out an item on the Net, even given the full title of the article. As we told him in correspondence, and to which he had no answer, this is not a "computer" issue but a common sense issue. If you want The Sum of All Fears, and you know you want it, by title, you don't look in the subject card catalog under "military thrillers." What it works down to is that X the Techno-Victim arrogantly thinks that you are all as technically challenged as he is, and it worries him because that means his massive ego won't get any massasging. Simple fact: we didn't link to works by Mormon or JW opponents, either, and they didn't care. Not a word of complaint from those camps, even in their replies. My chief Mormon adversary of the past, with whom I at first exchanged more unpleasantries than Skeptic X could come up with in 30 years if he thought hard, when told of this obsession by Skeptic X, could only shake his head and ask what Skeptic X's problem was. One wonders why the Skeppies have these little paranoia problems that makes them think we should give them "affirmative action" when it comes to links. From the look of the stats it wouldn't matter much. Though, yes, Skeptic X, we'll keep them up regardless of your paranoia. The added comedy relief -- not of linking to your articles so they can be read per se, but so that you will continue to reply and provide us with more subjects for amusement that could have just as easily been found with a search engine -- is great to see.

We'll pass by all the usual nonsense Skeptic X repeats 567,837 times or more and which we have already addressed in previous replies, such as his attempt to weasel out of the EVERYTHING stricture (see the point in the Land Promise debate); the same old charge of selective quotation (which we have beaten dead into the ground in every case so far, showing that Skeptic X either can't recognize when his argument has been refuted even so, or else where we actually have no beef with Skeptic X's arguments); the same old gargle about typos (hey, X, was that "pay for 90% of the website" bit an example of your being a "responsible editor"? the descriptor actually is, "responsible for all the errors he makes"), and his inability to grasp application of the Chicken Challenge; and his repeated, repeated assurances that he lured us into a "trap" which end up, we will see shortly, being a case of Skeptic X falling into the pond headfirst while trying to snare an illusory goldfish. It's all pop-diversion to settle the Skeptical stomach and get them to think something was actually accomplished before the excess really hits the fan.

Skeptic X gives us the first sign that he thinks he has a trap to spring with the usual foray through Double Asterisk Pass. See how we are quoted to start:

Giving positive evidence for the presence of the men amounts to citing Jesus**, citing David's own words, noting that it was unusual for an ancient travel alone -- and one other point which we will present in the latter portion of this essay, which Skeptic X misses though he quotes the relevant portion.

Skeptic X does go on to quote the rest, but only after stopping at the Double Asterisk Bar and gulping this gallon of whiskey:

Oh, I'm so glad that [Holding] said this. I didn't expect him to be quite so cooperative in taking the bait that I had put out for him, but now that he has said that "positive evidence" for the presence of men with David "amounts to citing Jesus," so much the better. In effect, [Holding] was saying here that if Jesus said that men were with David, then we can know that men were with David. In other words, whatever Jesus said has to be true.

Hum. Excuse me, X? Do you see anywhere in that a statement that "whatever Jesus said has to be true"? Really? You do? Who writes your prescription for reading glasses? This says zip about "what Jesus said has to be true." Of course I would argue, if it came to that, that as a matter of the paradigm Jesus was divine and could not be in error; but if one wished to develop such an argument one would have to range into issues of Jesus' divinity and so forth. But we did not develop the argument and did not develop the point at all. All we said was that this is one piece of positive evidence that can be appealed to -- what value it has is another matter, one we make no judgment on here at all, and which we never discuss at all beyond this simple statement. If the same statement had been made by Josephus or Philo, or by one of the later rabbis, it would get the same sort of notation as a piece of positive evidence -- and nothing more. So what is it? It's X the Racehorse jumping the gun as usual and ending up flat on his face with his nostrils full of racetrack dirt. That's one half of Skeptic X's "trap" and he has already ended up cutting himself on the spring.

The phrase about David's own words are dealt with by Skeptic X later in his response. Our next note is that "it was unusual for an ancient to travel alone." "This is a good example of how [Holding] thinks that he can say just anything that pops into his head and it should be accepted as gospel truth," Skeptic X burps. Just popped into my head, did it? No, it popped out of Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, one of those sources Skeptic X doesn't like because it doesn't come with crayons and pictures he can color. Let's remind the good folks exactly where Skeptic X stands when it comes to dealing with people who know their business, like Malina and Rohrbaugh:

Skeptic X of course knows as much about ancient Mediterranean social psychology and anthropology as he does about quark physics, so naturally when confronted with Malina and Rohrbaugh -- both respected authors who have written multiple volumes and great numbers of articles on this subject, and are members of what is called the Context Group, a collection of scholars specializing in this narrow field of interest -- he is reduced to barking like a chihuahua: "Oh, my God, did Malina and Rohrbaugh say this? Then it must be right." Darned straight it is, and Skeptic X hasn't got the wherewithal to say anything in opposition, which is why all he can do is belch from his easy chair as he spills his Pringles all over his undershirt. "Did anyone else besides me notice that Malina and Rohrbaugh offered no kind of argumentation at all to support their claim--at least not in the part [Holding] quoted--so it is nothing but a bald assertion." You want support? Malina and Rohrbaugh, and their fellow members of the Context Group, have reams of study behind their assertions, tons of documentation in their works, and years of know-how they collected while Skeptic X was eking it out at a community college teaching English and trying to decide whether he would conjugate verbs or diagram sentences. If it's so bald an assertion, why doesn't Skeptic X get his rear end out and find some contrary data rather than posturing in ignorance? Why? Because he hasn't got the ability is why. Skeptic X is an English expert; if there was a question about grammar, and he answered it based on his internal knowledge and experience, how impressed should he be by some nimnul who replies that he "offered no kind of argumentation at all" to support his claim?

We'll see later that Skeptic X prostitutes another expert on this subject and as usual (and in another venue, prostitutes Rohrbaugh as well), only ends up proving our points if anything at all. Now what of this issue itself? This is yet another of those "peripherals" Skeptic X likes to bring up, and which he will complain about us spending time on even though he brought it up, but we will spend time on because it shows just how uneducated Skeptic X is in the contexts of the Bible that are important to interpreting it. To travel in the ancient Mediterranean was no simple business. The dangers of bandits and wild animals were real; to travel alone was to risk your very life. Moreover, to travel away from designated roads especially, and into the wilderness, was to symbolically step outside one's kinship network. Thus travel "was considered a deviant activity in the ancient Mediterranean, especially when done alone." A man on the run or alone was a man up to no good. That meant you got travel companions if you could; otherwise, and barring very unusual circumstances, you stayed home and watched reruns.

Skeptic X thinks it some kind of answer to point in reply to places in the Bible where people traveled alone, or rather, where he assumes they traveled alone because no one else is mentioned with the main characters. He says later, he just sticks to what the Bible says. Well, sorry, Skeptic X, that's just you playing the same old "silence" game, the same one your alma mater at the Church of Christ play when it says that we can't use musical instruments in worship because they are not mentioned in the Bible as part of worship. What's your take on that issue, Skeptic X? (Not, "what do you think of CoC's stance" but, "what do you think of their exegetical work on this subject"? Don't try to weasel into getting more time by answering the wrong question.) Whatever it is, silence in one text is not the determining factor. Social context overrules and trumps silence in text. And that context said, When you wanted to travel, you did so with others. If you wanted to get from Jerusalem to Dan, and you were a party of one, you didn't just start walking; you waited or asked around for other travelers who were going to same way; just like the modern hitchhiker, you attached yourself to any group that presented you with an opportunity. The various social factors to which Skeptic X is oblivious while he is busy "sticking to what the Bible says" render his next set of questions (which he asks more than once in the essay for Skeptic-dazzling effect) little more than profoundly silly nanny nanny boo boos in context. "Who was with Jacob when he left Canaan and went to Paddanaram (Gen. 28:5)?" Skeptic X barks. Who was with him? As the grandson of a wealthy tribal chieftain like Abraham, you can bet there were a bevy of servants with him. Same with Joseph and Judah, the great-grands. "Who was with Moses when he fled from Egypt to Midian (Ex. 2:15)?" In that case, very likely no one -- because Moses was on the run from possible charges of murder and had no friends to speak of, unlike David, who still had allies. This only proves our point that traveling alone was a sign of deviancy, as would the case of Elijah, who was a "deviant" with reference to the establishment. "Who was with Jephthah when he fled from his brothers and dwelt in the land of Tob (Judges 11:3)?" As a social outcast -- unlike David, again, who still had allies -- maybe no one, under the same rubric as Moses; but as Jephthah was in no apparent hurry, more likely other outcasts or travellers. So the social data tells us. "Who was with the Levite who left Bethlehem-judah and traveled to the hill country of Ephraim (Judges 17:8)?" Anyone else he could find going that way, according to the context of the times; same with the Judges 19 Levite, Samuel, the man of God in 1 Kings 13 (who, being killed by a lion, once again only proves out point about the dangers of travel in the ancient world, especially alone!). Skeptic X can cite examples out the kazoo for all we care, and it's nothing more than the usual Simple Simon approach to exegesis which ignores all of the relevant contextual realities in favor of a "just read the text and shut up" approach that pretends the accounts were written in a social, literary, and historical vacuum. And as it happens, the same "Simple Simon" approach also is all that amounts to Skeptic X's "trap" which he now hopes to spring on us, unaware that he has already slapped a bear trap down on his behind.

So let's get to that velveteen trap, shall we? Here's how Skeptic X fumbles with the bear bait before he gets eaten. He quotes again the relevant passage (KJV? NASV? HGTV? who cares?):

Mark 2:26 But He [Jesus] said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?"

"Notice," Skeptic X burbles, "that this text does not say that Jesus simply said to the accusers that David had gone into the house of God, eaten the showbread, and had given some of it to those who were with him. He asked the accusers if they had never read these things." Yeah, and, what, Skeptic X? "The question shows that, as this tale was told, Jesus thought that it was possible for the accusers of his disciples to have read that these things had happened." Uh, yeah, and? "[Holding], however, has just admitted that the Old Testament account of the incident at Nob does not specifically say that men were with David, and so the presence of the men can be determined only by inference." Oh, boy, now we'll get to the end of the drum roll where Skeptic X has dazzled the gullible Skeptics to sleep, here:

Jesus, however, did not say to the accusers of his disciples, "Have you never determined by inference in your reading of the scriptures that David ate the showbread that was lawful for only priests to eat and also gave some of it to those who were with him?" He asked if they had never read that these things had happened. The question shows that whoever wrote this passage thought that the story as written in the scriptures told of David's eating the showbread and giving some of it to men who were with him.

Well. Wasn't that just worth blowing bubbles over. We were promised an A-bomb, and instead a gnat burped.

A trap? If this is a trap, I'll jump in as many as I can. This is the "trap" X planned for ages past? Jesus had to say "determined by inference"? In other words, Skeptic X wants this?

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and have ye never inferred from this that he did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and inferred also that he gave also to them which were with him?

This is so absurd to ask for that I'll even give Skeptic X another nitpick: where does the text say that David hungered? So we can't infer that he was hungry? Check your rearview mirror, X; the Church of Christ is catching up to you again. I know it's a shock to you, but the ultra-literalist "hermannootic" CoC used wasn't invented until this century. The actual matter is that it's once again a case of Skeptic X being more uneducated than educated in those "baffling bits of BS" that aren't in the text and therefore do not exist in his mind, and which clobber him out of mind when he gets confronted by them, and a matter of him reading a "high context" text with his low context mind. Before we get to that, though, here is part of Skeptic X's problem as well, and it's the same as before: his strawman of an imagination. He goes on to "tie all this in" with the statement he thinks I made, "which amounted to claiming that if Jesus said something, it had to be true..." Whoops, there's that Skeptic-Baked Fudge again. "Which amounted to." Oh. Not that I said it. Not that I evaluated the worth of the evidence and declared it infallibly proven, or proven at all. X just read it and drew his own conclusions about what I was saying, as though I had argued it all the way through and banged on the table with my shoe while doing so. And isn't that just the usual plate of hummus from the pen of Skeptic X. I'll play a game on Skeptic X and see if he "gets" it: How does he know that the Pharisees would not have replied, "Hey, that's not in the text!" and Jesus would not have shot back, "I know! Trick question!"?

The bottom line here, however, is that it is patently ridiculous to think that Jesus or anyone would have, would have wanted to, or would have needed to, differentiate between what was directly stated in the text and what was inferred (or taken as inferred) in the text in such absurdly nitpicky fashion; indeed, the high-context nature of their communication just as well means that, as far as they were concerned, it was perfectly appropriate to say that one could "read" of things in the text that were not explicitly stated, but were a necessary part of the background. In line with this, Jewish exegesis did not see a need to differentiate between what was read and what was inferred in its presentation, so there is no grounds at all to say that such differentiation should or would have been made. In fact, we can actually give examples of such "inference" in action without specification, one from a parallel to this account in Matthew, and one from a rabbinical analysis of this passage in Samuel. Here's the Matthew parallel:

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Dennis McKinsey once raised a hackle about this one, claiming there was no such passage in the OT. I don't know where Skeptic X would rest on this one (though I am sure he will tell us, and take several paragraphs to tell us), but Numbers 28:9-10 is generally regarded as what is being alluded to:

And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof: This is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.

Now do you see anything about "profaning" in that passage, or about priests being blameless? Can you "read" that here? No, you can't. It is an interpretive inference, a conclusion drawn from reading the text. Thus it is being spoken of as something you could read. Now isn't that a shocker. "Well then," Skeptic X may grouse, "then that is an error, too!" That's the lengths we suspect he'll go to in order to save the bacon, but before you light the fire under the fry pan and take a seat on the skillet, Skeptic X, here's another example from outside the Bible of no distinction being made between what could be read in the text and what could be inferred from the text (Yalqut Shim'oni II.130):

'I have no ordinary bread here. There is only the sacred bread. If the young men have kept themselves from women'. He said to him, 'Do you not know that a man who touches a woman is not allowed to eat holy things?' David said to him, 'For three days, we have had nothing to do with women,' as it is written, 'We have been restrained from women for the last three days and the things of the young men are holy.' Now it was the sabbath, and David saw that they were baking the Bread of the Presence on the sabbath, as Doeg had taught them. He said to them, ' What are you doing? Baking it does not override the sabbath, but only arranging it, as it is written, on the sabbath day he shall arrange it.' Since he found there only the Bread of the Presence, David said to him, 'Give it to me so that we may not die of hunger, for danger to life overrides the sabbath."

This commentary quotes from 1 Sam. 21:5 and 6, and refers to verse 6 as that which "is written." It then goes on to tell a more expanded account, with no explanation or delimitation saying that this was "inferred" or exegeted from the passage as opposed to being what was "written" in the text. A person reading this for the first time in Skeptic X's fundaliteralist company would assume that if they turned to 1 Samuel 21, they would find a story of David doing exactly what this says he was doing: discussing about women, then making a point about the Sabbath and danger to life. The matter here is yet another case of Skeptic X reading a "high context" text with "low context" glasses (and we'll see his little attempt to play the scholar on this shortly). Jesus and this rabbinical commentator did not need to say, "this is an inference," because everyone knew the text and knew what it said; but they also knew what was in the background. You didn't need to offer a nitpicky exclusionary comment to make it clear you were inferring or drawing a conclusion rather than quoting or referring to a text. It's no more than typical Jewish and rabbinic exegetical procedure, very much like the Targumic expansions; indeed it would be a reasonable but unprovable hypothesis that Jesus is referring not even to, or just, 1 Samuel, but to a Targumic expansion of it. And here is another NT example:

And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.(Matt. 22:31-2)

Exodus 3:6 does not say that the patriarchs are "living"; this is an inference that was drawn by those who read the text based on inferences from other texts like Ex. 33:1. In other words, Jesus used information from outside the Biblical text he was quoting to interpret and explain that which was inside, and spoke as though that interpretive information was "latent" in the text he was explaining -- and in so doing was doing no more and no less than what was contextually acceptable for the (high-context!) Judaism of his day.

We expect of course, based on the John 4 response below, that Skeptic X will bark out some anachronistic argument that "the Holy Spirit should have anticipated" his reading of the text, blase squase, que sera sera. Well, let's close with a facetious example to demonstrate the absurdity of Skeptic X's arguments. Here's a simple passage:

Joe the Eskimo walked across the ice and hunted a seal.

Simple enough for even a Skeptic X fan to read! (Is "Joe" a racist name, by the way? Is it racist to say that Eskimos harpoon seals? Never mind...) Now what if I related the following?

Have you never read how Joe the Eskimo, walking across the ice in his parka and carrying a harpoon, went to an opening in the ice and hunted a seal to feed his hungry family?

The original text mentions no parka, no harpoon, no hole in the ice, no hungry family. Yet why on earth would I need to say, just to satisfy a grumbling gasbag like Skeptic X, "Have you never read how Joe the Eskimo, walking across the ice in what we assume was his parka, and, we infer, carrying a harpoon, went to what we are pretty sure was an opening in the ice, and as we read, hunted a seal, we think for the purpose of feeding his family?" How do we know Joe was not stark naked, carrying a javelin, walking on Pismo Beach, and looking for a trophy for his den? Because the context tells us otherwise, and the context is carried by the words we read. So likewise the context tells us all we need to know in Mark 2:25-26, and we get back to the real argument which Skeptic X is trying to layer over like crazy and bury with this inane distraction, which is whether the contextual elements are plausible enough to be regarded as substantiated by the text. Three elements are inferred by Jesus from the text: 1) David's hunger; 2) the presence of the men; 3) that David and the men ate the bread. Skeptic X can hardly grouse that 1 is an implausible inference; he as much as admits that 1 is an option farther down. 3 is a no-brainer for David, and for the men as well if the plausibility of 2 is established, and that is the very issue we are discussing now. People look for food when they are hungry (especially in a limited good society where your can never predict where your next meal is coming from, and storage and freshness options are limited); they tend to get food for the purpose of eating it! Howl at this one? Yes, Skeptic X, I howled in laughter. If you planned this one, don't ever become a travel agent or all of your clients will end up vacationing in Tierra del Fuego rather than Hawaii.

Apparently seeing a need to encourage the masses after this embarrassing diversion of desperation, Skeptic X barks out this bit of polemia, about the "situation" that "biblical inerrantists find themselves in":

If they prove that alleged discrepancy A is not really a discrepancy, they have not made their case, because it is still possible that alleged discrepancy B, C, D, E, F... Z are real discrepancies. With literally millions of bits of information in the whole Bible text, the inerrantist finds himself on an impossible mission when he sets out to establish inerrancy in the Bible.

Millions of bits, is it? Not even C. Dennis McKinsey was foolish enough to say that in his Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, and he had to repeat some cites 3 or more times over several chapters. Millions? Maybe if you divide out each letter, and maybe not even then, and count each one as a "bit" of information. As far as actual number of issues, not hyperbolically described "bits," McKinsey at best came up with a few hundred, and we know Skeptic X washes his hands of some of those. And as for an "impossible mission" -- we have a comprehensive encyclopedia on board here, Skeptic X. We've already "been there, done that" with all of your cites. Mission complete. As for you, here's a reminder we once gave which you never got around to:

I would like to remind the reader that whatever Skeptic X may accomplish in his little corner of the world, there are still tens of thousands of books out there written by people who either are not believers in inerrancy or are indifferent to it for the purposes of their text even if they do believe in it, but that nevertheless support the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that the Bible is an overall reliable historical record of the dealings of God with the people of Israel, and more so as we approach the New Testament. Therefore, all that Skeptic X would have accomplished is to show that the Bible is not inerrant, but he would still have to confront the problem of overall reliability. What are the odds, I ask, that Skeptic X or anyone else could successfully refute the hundreds of other writers and their tens of thousands of books, articles, and speeches that have supported the general reliability the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ? What would Skeptic X do, we wonder, to refute the works of the likes of John P. Meier, Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright, or James D. G. Dunn - disbelievers in any sort of inerrancy who nevertheless affirm that the data gives positive proof that Jesus Christ is Lord? It's not too hard to guess that Skeptic X taking on these giants would be much the same as Moe, Larry and Curly taking on Stephen Hawking! My point, then, is that even if Skeptic X should win on any point, or any number of points, he would not have disproven Christianity. In fact he will not have even joined the battle to do so.

Put that in your hookah and smoke it, Skeptic X.

Several paragraphs of repetitive pep-rallying and bombast follow, which add nothing new to the matter and are no more than showboating by Skeptic X to keep his dazzled 150 or so net-connected fans in giggles. We now get to where I set the example of John 4 as using social context data in interpretation. Not surprisingly, Skeptic X the Great Unwashed has questions, not answers, and it even amazes me that he stoops as low as this one. "How...does [Holding] know that the fact that the woman had come to the well at noon meant that she was a social outcast?" Yo, X, we said it right there: "...for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women." Add to that her bad behavior, and the equation suggests, in big red letters, "outcast". That's not too hard to grasp or read, but incredibly, or maybe not so incredibly, Skeptic X opts for the hayseed method of rebuttal: "How would he know that some special kind of circumstance on that particular day had not brought the woman to the well at noon? How does he know that she didn't come earlier for water but that some need had arisen for her to go back for more?" Hokey smokes! Did I guess right or what?!? I know Skeptic X like he knows the back of my hand. I said elsewhere when I used this example:

Obviously some "hichbes" are not as valid as others. As we suggested, we can posit many reasons why the woman at the well in John 4 was there at noon:

• She was a social outcast who could not come at the ordinary time for getting water.
• She spilled her water supply that morning and was thirsty.
• She didn't want to miss The Bold and the Beautiful at 1:00.

Every one of these is a "hichb" scenario, because none of them are specifically stated. So how do we decide? We draw on converging lines of evidence. #3 is obviously out, because The Bold and the Beautiful came on at 2:00 in Palestine. Skeptic X, if he had some reason to argue and our case was supported by #1, would probably choose #2 and fume onward and upward about how we are "reading minds" or "speculating" to arrive at #1. Of course #2 isn't something that is impossible by any means. But #1 is supported by the social data offered in John 4, namely, the woman's many relationships with men that would cause her to suffer social ostracism from the other women of the community. Skeptic X may then spit more stuff about "reading minds" and "you're only assuming that happened," blase squase, etc etc. Well, at that point, he's already roadkill. When the resort is to endless and pointless questions, that's where the terminus is and Skeptic X is running his gator in a darkened room where the party ended 6 hours ago.

"[Holding] is always long on conjecture but short on evidence," Skeptic X grouses. On the contrary. Skeptic X is always long on wriggling and short on actual response. I predicted that if confronted he would take the #2 option, and he did! I ought to take Skeptic X to the racetrack for good luck. (And by the way, Skeptic X, we have no suspicions about you watching The Bold and the Beautiful. We know you prefer to watch Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

But give X one point off a gold star; he does try a more detailed hayseed counter to try and derail our own point. He yelps back with John 4:28-9, "Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, 'Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?'" "So," Skeptic X burps as the Pringles fall on the floor, "the woman wasn't so much of an 'outcast' that she wasn't on speaking terms with the people in the town." Well, X, you're still in the land of One Dimensionia no matter what, for even the worst social outcast can go to the center of town and start speaking, and John 4:28-9 doesn't say any of these people socialized with the woman in a familiar way! Blazes, man, think! If she was sleeping with men then obviously she's not outcast to the point of full silence and ignorance from everyone! Does being "outcast" mean no one listens to you when you say there is a storm coming, or the barn is on fire, or when a celebrity walks into the village, or when news comes of a hostile army being routed? And let's not forget that I said that she was outcast with the village women. That leaves her half of the human race locally to interact with, which she obviously did! Good show, Skeptic X, just three more feet to grow and you'll have a complete set to fill that big mouth of yours that seems to be a far bigger trap than anything you'll ever set! How does this explain anything? It's another example, like Mark 2:25-6, of why your Hayseed Approach to Exegesis needs the barn door closed on it. In other words, another exposure of your incompetent methodology and inability to think critically.

The hayseed keeps falling, in fact, after we relate the details about the difference between a high-context society like the NT era's and a low-context society like ours. We'll see more of how Skeptic X tries to prostitute an expert to his side shortly, but for now he has this hiccup: "The fallacy in [Holding]'s argument," Skeptic X whimpers, "is that he reduces the biblical text to a communication that was intended only for the people of a particular period of time when in reality biblicists believe that it was intended for all mankind for as long as the world stands..." Excuse me, Skeptic X, but maybe "biblicists" in the old Church of Christ landfill have problems understanding this, but grown-up people, who read and study the Bible in terms of those who wrote it, don't. There are certain "timeless truths" in the text that are intended for all mankind, but it would hardly be possible to express the application of those timeless truths in a way that is understandable to all persons, at all times, in all ways. To use one of our favorite examples, if the Bible teaches the timeless truth that one should love one's neighbor, then one of course one aspect of that is that one loves a neighbor by looking out for their well-being. The Bible has a rule in the OT about building rims around the edge of your roof. Why? Skeptics even more uneducated than Skeptic X, like his good friend McKinsey, say this is a stupid rule and ask why we don't do it today; the answer is that in the time of the Bible (and in many cultures still today) people used the roof as we use a front porch, and having guards up was a way of showing love for your neighbor (and family) by being sure he would be safe and not fall from your roof. In America we almost never use our roof this way; but we live out the principle with other safety measures, like railings on balconies. So then, Skeptic X, why can't we say that by pointing out this cultural variance, we are "reducing the biblical text to a communication that was intended only for the people of a particular period of time" or culture, that is, people who used their roof as we use a front porch? Despite the difference in scale, the principle is exactly the same. Skeptic X is blaming the text for his own ignorance and laziness.

To make matters worse for himself, Skeptic X actually shoots himself with his very next sentence and does the very thing he earlier bopped Dennis McKinsey for doing. Watch closely:

...so [Holding]'s argument makes the Holy Spirit a bungling idiot who was unable to "inspire" linguistic clarity in the writers whom he chose to record "God's word" for all time. Presumably, if the world stands for a billion more years and becomes so technologically advanced that our society, comparatively speaking, would appear primitive, the church (as if it will survive nearly that long) would need thousands of [Holding]s to specialize in "Ancient Near Eastern" languages and "concepts" so that they could explain to the unspecialized what was meant in "God's word," which an omniscient, omnipotent "inspirer" was unable to guide the writers to express in language clear enough to be understood.

Interesting concept, Skeptic X. Now let's apply that another way. McKinsey's argument was that Ezion-geber was not on the Red Sea, right? Hmm.

...so Skeptic X's argument makes the Holy Spirit a bungling idiot who was unable to "inspire" geographic clarity in the writers whom he chose to record "God's word" for all time. Presumably, if the world stands for a billion more years and more changes occur in natural features like the Red Sea, the church (as if it will survive nearly that long) would need thousands of Skeptic Xs to specialize in Ancient Near Eastern geography and topography so that they could explain to the unspecialized what was meant in "God's word," which an omniscient, omnipotent "inspirer" was unable to guide the writers to express in language clear enough to be understood.

Quite frankly, Skeptic X's argument is so lame that if it were a horse it would need to be shot twice or more to be put out of its misery, even if it were killed with the first shot. Excuse me again, Skeptic X, but maybe you can tell us: Is there any way to make all things so simple that anyone can understand them and so that it is always correct no matter what happens? I mean, anyone, everywhere, at all times, in all countries and cultures? Is that actually logically possible? No, it is not, unless you are a provincialist who thinks everyone thinks and acts just as you do, or unless you want a Bible that needs to be carried around in a fleet of moving vans. Note well that the above by Skeptic X would sound just as comfortable in the mouth of a KJV Onlyist. We say again that Skeptic X is the real fundamentalist here, who has never broken out of the kindergarten exegetical mold he learned at Bam Bam Bible College (where if you said "Palestinian Targum," they would have thought you meant that the Wrigley's corporation was producing a disgusting new flavor from ingredients in the Middle East), and moreover, Dennis McKinsey is the one who is actually far more consistent in his application of the principles of biblical errancy. Skeptic X should write McKinsey a letter of deep apology for being so crudely inconsistent. Think not? Compare what Skeptic X says above with what McKinsey said in reply to a certain point about Leviticus calling a bat a bird. In response to a writer who noted that the scientific classifications for "bird" did not exist at the time, so that the text could not be meaning all of the natural traits of a bird were also those of a bat, McKinsey said:

I don't have to prove the Bible was in error with the classifications of that day. If those classifications were wrong, and they were, then the Bible is in error. Moreover, just because man's classifications are in error does not allow God's to be. We are supposed to be dealing with a perfect book that is beyond time and space. It can't be erroneous. The Bible must be perfect at all times and under all conditions.

So then. How can Skeptic X fault McKinsey for demanding that the Bible be "right" about Ezion-geber, as he sees it? Looks like Skeptic X fell into OUR little trap on that one.

Skeptic X skips responding to our point about comparing land ownership to the USA, though he may answer it later. He does spend several paragraphs over the course of this reply using a certain psych-manipulation in which he demands an "answer" from us and leaves a blank space for us to fill in. The psychological effect, of course, is to implant in his followers' minds the idea that our responses, as such, will amount to no more than a blank space, and to do so as often as possible. In the meantime, while we have answered the question, and he has done nothing worth a hill of beans to counter it, he decides to grow another foot for his mouth on John 4. Against the idea of the woman as an outcast he notes all the way to John 4:39-42, where "the woman's testimony had a huge impact on the people of her village." Yes, indeed, Skeptic X, and like we said, she still had the attention of the men of the village, whose attention she did indeed have -- especially five or more of them in particular, which is why the women didn't like her. Try again.

Skeptic X loves these peripherals, and he always gets gigged on them, which is why he then goes on to complain when we answer them. Skeptic X made a fuss over my use of the KJV rather than the NASV as he used and delivered an accusation of misquoting. I asked why Skeptic X felt a need to make a point of this, and he comes up with a non-explanation to keep the Skeptical masses dazzled. I had written on in my original article, "From the last 1999 issue of TSR we have an item on Mark 2:25-28..." and quoted the KJV. Now get this. According to Skeptic X the Area 51 Resident, "'we' did not have this item in the last 1999 issue of TSR, because my article in TSR had quoted from the NRSV and not the KJV." Excuse me?!? Who does Skeptic X think is being spoken to, here? What does he think is being referred to? Come to the point of it, what the bleck is the problem to begin with? "I was simply pointing out the way that [Holding] takes liberties with whatever he is replying to," Skeptic X mumbles. Gah??? It is a "liberty" to quote a version you don't, with no difference in content that affects any argument therein, and never saying we are quoting YOUR version used? If I had dug out something like the Living Bible that tends to add interpretive glosses to the text, and this particular text, and then used that gloss in an argument without critical analysis, Skeptic X would maybe have the beginnings of a case. As it is he is now making up reasons to be a fussbudget, knowing that he has been caught blathering about trivialities. Read it right, X: Who said I was quoting YOU as opposed to the KJV? No one. "We had the item" does not mean "we are quoting its version of Scripture". And while I have not heard of anyone being sued for quoting a Bible version, I'm not going to test the waters by being first to risk it just to make a little fish like you happy, who has nothing better to do than carp over nothing. Not at the rate the stats are showing interest about you is.

Shocker of shockers, Skeptic X skips over the next several pages, including what we gave from Glenn Miller on Uzzah. He promises to come back to it later, and no doubt he will after we have shamed him enough. Well, then, X, how about we now turn back some of those comments made back in the Land Promise debate where we pointed out how you love to make topical diversions to score points? What about that yellow chicken suit, are you going to wear it instead? See how easy it is to play this game, folks? In the meantime, X, we'll even warn you of this trap: One day soon we will randomly pick a diversion of yours, and use the same excuse you did here to skip over Miller's stuff, and make the same promise to deal with it later. Better not forget and ask if we're chicken, because if you do, and if you start raining hail Larrys down on us for not engaging, we'll be on you like white on rice. Expect it.

Anyways, after a little plop about grammar from Mr. Typography to keep his ego inflated, and re-re-re-repeating the same old argument, we get to where I nailed Skeptic X for a typing gaffe. It's not as serious as my "king of Achish" mistake, he whimpers, and besides, you did yours twice! So what? You still did it just after nailing me for such a miscue, and that deepens the irony, because you made a concentration mistake while correcting one of MY concentration mistakes. Moreover, we got plenty more concentration errors from the brain of Skeptic X: Hey, how about that one where you thought I wanted you to pay for 90% of my website, X? What about that one long ago where you tried to identify Mara bar-Serapion's "wise king" with the Essence "Teacher of Righteousness"? Boy, that would set the entire DSS scholarly community into fits of laughter. And by your own story you read all these things carefully and with great concern before puffing them out. Tell you what, X: We'll stop picking on that one and all the others (like the "priests expected a resurrection" bit) when you do. Until then the pusher gets all of his own drug that he can handle.

On it goes, and we get to where we commented on Skeptic X's arguments about loaves of bread. Keep in mind that Skeptic X's original argument was the five loaves David asks for would not have fed a contingent "of any size." ANY size, mind you. I'll stop for a moment to note that after further reflection, it is obvious that Skeptic X is full of bread on this one from the very beginning. If we assume that the loaves were of an average size (keep in mind that though David asked for five, it's not clear that he was actually given that many; but we'll work with the assumption that he wanted five loaves of an average size, and if Skeptic X has a complaint, he can work it out himself), just how much bread does Skeptic X think a person would eat for every meal, and how many meals would they need? He never extracts any data to support this point, so let's do that now. If David was alone and ate three meals a day (and we'll add, didn't supplement that bread with nuts, berries, or game that were catch as catch could), how much of that is he going to eat each meal? A whole loaf? Does Skeptic X sit down and eat the equal of a whole loaf of bread every meal? That pic of him must have been taken when he was still thin, then, or else they did a remarkable touch-up job.

Beyond this Skeptic X provided no figures for the distance from Nob to Gath, or how long he expected the journey to take. From the looks of my atlas the distance was some 30 miles or so from Nob to Gath, as the crow flies and not accounting for rough terrain that would eat up more personal energy. Skeptic X doesn't tell us how far and in how long he thinks a person could have traveled on foot in this time and place and on this particular journey, but we know that disciplined Roman troops could cover 45 miles in 28 hours, with 3 hours rest and a full load of baggage (Gallic Wars, 7.40-1), while in adverse conditions 27 miles could be covered by such troops in one night (Plutach, Marc Anthony 47.2). Of course Roman troops had no need to watch out for people being after them as David did, were not as free to run, and had no need to hide if it came to that, but let's meet the matter halfway and say that David could have made it to Gath, only 30 miles or so, in only a day with time to rest or sleep. So that means 3 meals, and we've already asked whether Skeptic X thinks David say down and ate a whole loaf of bread for every meal! Was David anorexic? Skeptic X may reply that, well, maybe David was getting extra in case he was turned down at Gath, or maybe the loaves were very small, but at that point Skeptic X is "hichbing" for his own purposes and has as much as lost the argument that there is formal contradiction between these passages, which is what we have been arguing against all along: He can only make this contradiction appear out of thin air by adding elements to the text.

It would be our contention that David would eat no more than a third of a loaf of bread for each meal, barring again any other supplemental nourishment he would have found along the way. Bread was the ancient staple, so he would get it if he could; it was where the ancients got the majority of their calories. That would mean he asked for 5 times the amount needed to get to Gath if he were by himself. And that would mean that a contingent of only 2 or perhaps 3 men, which we settled upon as the likeliest number, if again we also assume there was no stop available between Nob and Gath for them to fuel up -- which is extremely unlikely.

With that in mind, we get to where I noted that the bread described "would have lasted a contingent of five to ten men a full day, enough to get them to their next destination for food (David, a popular hero, would have had many allies)..." and Skeptic X rejected this as a "how it could have been scenario." We are as usual stopped in midquote before getting to where I noted: "...no inferential reasoning is allowed, even inferential reasoning that uses facts (David's popularity) and reasonable gestures (that people who were allies lived along the path he took) along with social paradigms (the ancient law of hospitality to travellers)." To this Skeptic X provides as yet no actual answer, but does insert a bit of mulluguthering to keep the Skeppies' shiny smiling faces on him: "How many others have noticed that [Holding] wants the liberty to see all kinds of 'inferences' when he has no textual evidence on his side, but if I make a reasonable inference, he howls, 'Where does the Bible say that?'" What we've noticed, Skeptic X, is that your "inferences" are nothing but a bunch of uninformed malarkey that completely ignore or attempt to circumvent with excuses any extra-textual data, and that "David felt guilty" example (which we pasted you on even further here and now you even graciously pasted yourself on here) was a classic example of the typical hayseed approach you take when confronted by data provided by scholars who turn your sordid explanations into Cream of Wheat. We don't care if you infer -- as long as you do it reasonably and based on relevant data, which you have yet to do in any instance, and in fact have played the hayseed game over and over again with that last guffaw over John 4; or as long as you admit when applicable that you must "infer" yourself to create formal contradiction. And you can't even read to begin with: "However," Skeptic X barfs, "when he reaches into thin air and declares that the five loaves that David received from Abiathar would have lasted a contingent of 10 men until they could get more help from David's many allies, he calls this a reasonable inference." Thin air, nothing: I based it on a multiple of the number of loaves requested, and now our 2-3 total is based on a more detailed analysis Skeptic X didn't bother performing before he ran his gator. Darned straight it is reasonable, and pre-empting the reasons why is just a shell game to cover your embarrassment at having been caught being so one-dimensionally against a pinning board. Once again, Skeptic X's game of pretending the text itself is the only relevant and usable source is a sham. Merely quoting back the text isn't an argument, and re-inserting your arguments as though they were not addressed will only dazzle the gullible in your readership. So likewise trying to convince them that you didn't really say what you did, and trying to forge a difference out of no difference. Case in point. I summed up X's position thusly: "No, X says, unless the text says David stopped somewhere, he obviously did not." Skeptic X supposes I am either not reading his work or else "intentionally lying" and refers his gullible readers to what he "actually said" -- and quotes an entirely different part of his response than that which we were referring to! Wake up, X! The referral is to where you willied about there being no "textual evidence" --- NOT to the section where you willie over stopping at Nob being a risk. Don't say you weren't arguing thereby that "unless the text says" so, we can't say David stopped anywhere. If that's so then blabbing about the lack of "textual evidence" on and on and on and on is an irrelevancy, and you never should have made a point of it to begin with or else asked for any relevant evidence or any reasonable explanation rather than just textual evidence, and forget all that bragging about how you just use the text as it is. We address that paragraph of yours in our NEXT paragraph following. If anyone is misreading, it's X "I want you to pay for 90% of my website" Skeptic X, who apparently has problems keeping track of what is being argued and where. Little wonder this guy can't use a search engine to find something by title.

Skeptic X of course did reverse himself and offer a concession -- since he knew it would embarrass himself to do otherwise -- quite contrary to his complaints for textual evidence. What this actually is, though, is Skeptic X's usual game of covering all his bases by arguing out of both sides of his mouth. Of course, maybe we are being too generous here giving Skeptic X enough credit for being cognizant enough to realize that that is what he is doing. For as long as he has been pulling the dirty debate tricks, he may not even know whether he is coming or going, from minute to minute.

A brief interlude, while Skeptic X brags on himself a bit. To counter what I said about his study of "hermannootics" at Bam Bam Bible College, Skeptic X blusters back that he learned that "the language of a text should be interpreted literally unless there are compelling reasons to assign figurative meaning." What this has to do with literal and figurative is another of those Scooby Doo mysteries; what this has to do with is reading a "high context" text with a "low context" eye is another. I can guarantee that Skeptic X's instructor in Banging on the Pulpit 101 never told him anything about high or low contexts, which is why Skeptic X's only reply to such issues is to spill his Pringles and to prostitute scholars whose observations either do not relate to or else support our own. "I later completed 90+ hours of postgraduate work, mostly in my professional field of English, so I took many courses that included the study of principles of literary interpretation," Skeptic X barks further. Oh? Principles of Ancient Near Eastern literary interprtation? Coupled with principles of social and anthropological matters? I see. If so, then either Skeptic X deserves refunds or the schools he went to need closing down, because they apparently didn't teach him anything on that subject.

And we get at last to where I noted three inferential points: one relying on a known fact (David's popularity), one relying on a reasonable gestures (that people who were allies lived along the path he took) and one relying on a broad and verified social paradigm (the ancient law of hospitality to travelers). We may note again that these three are not even necessary if David's contingent was only 2-3 men, but for the purpose of exposing Skeptic X's incompetence further, let's engage anyway. One of these three is drawn from the text; the second is simply a matter of sense (how likely is it that David had NO allies on the way, or would not take a route where he had no allies, or even hospitable persons, on the way?); the third is a social fact of the Ancient Near East. The only way to actually refute these points would be to a) show that David really was not popular with anyone, or with enough people to make a difference; b) show that he did not, or could not possibly have had, any allies along the way; c) refute the existence of the ancient law of hospitality to travelers. Does Skeptic X counter any of this in this way? Not a bit of it. He does no more than play the same hayseed song: "inferences must be drawn from what the text says" (otherwise, as you said before, Skeptic X, it isn't possible -- go ahead and deny saying it again!). No, we can't use the social data if it comes from outside the text and from serious scholars who have done their homework. No, we can't use paradigms of common interest. If the text doesn't say it, then it couldn't have happened. That's what Skeptic X is arguing here, and this time he needs to make sure he keeps track of what's being addressed.

Naturally all Skeptic X can do is play his usual shifting the goalposts game, as he asks now why David would go to a place of high visibility. We actually address that later; so keep in mind what Skeptic X is up to, as we have shown elsewhere:

• Opponent argues step A in his argument.
• Interrupt, as often as possible, to point out that this does not answer for problems posed to some or all of steps B, C, D, E, and F, and strongly emphasize that these problems haven't been solved yet. Also throw in any side comments you can on different topics.
• Throw up brief answer to what opponent says on step A.
• Opponent argues step B in his argument.
• Interrupt, as often as possible, to point out that this does not answer for problems posed to some or all of steps A, C, D, E, and F, and strongly emphasize that these problems haven't been solved yet. Also throw in any side comments you can on different topics.
• Throw up brief answer for what opponent says on step B.
• Repeat for steps C through F.

After re-re-re-re-re-re-repeating his velveteen trap argument for the 78,398,238th time, and after giving his concession which is inconsistent with his bleat for "textual evidence", we get to where indeed X changed the subject from that of David's stopping on his supply line to that of the supply line actually existing (and yes, X, it IS a change of subject, and your "boo game" of trying to collapse it to one subject won't float on this lake), and where Skeptic X thinks he can undermine our argument about the supply line with more of his usual non-informational argumentation. "If David had so many friends and 'allies' along the way," Skeptic X grunts, "why did he go to the tabernacle, a place of high visibility, to ask for help when he could have just dropped in secretly in one of the many private homes along the way to ask for food without incurring much risk of being seen?" We'll tell more of why Nob was stop A-1 in a bit; but for now: Hey X, we're talking about a supply line between Nob and Gath, for when the bread from Nob (which you said would not last a contingent of "any size") ran out. Ever take a journey in the wilderness, X? Probably not; you'd be afraid of being eaten by frogs. We'll also address that matter of Nob being a place of "high visibility" in a moment; but here's the scoop. We do know -- and this one is in the text, so X cannot argue it off -- that David had many allies. We do not know:

1. All of their locations, in relation to Nob, Gath, or Bethlehem;
2. The locations of any supporters of Saul;
3. Exactly what time David set out, what route he had to take around what obstacles, what conditions he was dealing with;
4. What condition he and any with him were personally in (hungry? thirsty? -- Skeptic X even admits as much by suggesting that "intense hunger" could have been a factor in stopping at Nob!);
5. What disguise or cover David may have used or had;
6. What level of expectation he had that he would find his allies, and be able to safely get to them, and at what point in his journey, as well as doing what he could to not endanger weaker or more vulnerable allies.

It is at this point that we add a surd for Skeptic X to graze over: We would add here that actually, stopping by the priests' place was the wisest choice in terms of who would be at least risk for helping David if it was found out, for if there was any group Saul would be least likely to attack (as shown indeed by the later hesitation of his servants, other than Doeg, a foreigner!), it would be the priesthood which served the public interest and served God (and keep in mind what Skeptic X said elsewhere about superstitious people who were terrified to cross Yahweh on even the littlest things; would these same people attack priests so readily? - or does Skeptic X want to qualify that little bonehead statement now?). Saul, however, showed the depths of his depravity/insanity later on and killed the priests even so, thinking in his paranoia that Ahmy had knowingly helped David as a fugitive, and committed an act which assuredly undermined what little favor he had left with the people. Saul the ancient Saddam Hussein!

In other words, once again Skeptic X is asking pointless questions and making pointless arguments based on non-information. Why go to the tabernacle first? If that was the best option based on one or more of the factors above, David has good reasons to go to the tabernacle first. But there's also another little factor that Skeptic X forgets: David wasn't only out for food, but something else he could only get at Nob --

1 Samuel 22:9-10 Then answered Doeg the Edomite, which was set over the servants of Saul, and said, I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. And he inquired of the LORD for him, and gave him victuals, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine.

We can speak more of this shortly, but for now let's wrap up on the supply line. By comparison I can argue generally that David had allies along the way, based on the texts recounting David's popularity; but it would be foolish to argue that he had an ally in any particular place other than perhaps Bethlehem, or any villages closer to Philistine territory whose bacon he had saved thanks to his heroic efforts against Goliath. In reverse, that is what Skeptic X's questions amount to, and that is why he is still chewing on his socks. How remarkably simple-minded is this question he uses as a comparison! "If a person who has escaped from jail reaches the point where he needs food, and he has many friends living on the path of his flight whose homes he can stop at to ask for food without much risk of being seen, would he be likely to pass them by and go into a cathedral where daily activities are taking place?" Whether the tabernacle was comparable to a "cathedral" is a point that remains to be proven; beyond that, Skeptic X needs to get out of his one-dimensional lather. A man who escapes from Century C.I., a rural institution in the Florida panhandle, but lives in Miami, has one set of options; a man who escapes from Century and lives in rural Okaloosa County nearby has another, simpler set. A man who escapes from my old place of employ, Lake C. I., has different options again: the place is next door to a tourist trap, and is in a semi-urban area next to a major thoroughfare lined with retail warehouse stores, 7-11s, and RV sales lots. Sometimes one's best option is to hit the woods; at other times, to try to blend into a crowd, and a "best" option is not always a good option in the first place. To bark out a simplified scenario and assumes that it's just a matter of 1-2-3 which any and every party could adhere to in exactitude is ludicrous, and a perfect example of Skeptic X's inability to think critically.

I might suggest that Skeptic X design escape plans for inmates. The Department of Corrections would thank him for helping them get captured.

So what of making the Nob tabernacle into Grand Central Station? As noted, even if it were, this does not mean it was not David's best option to begin with (especially if he was after more than just food) -- the data stream is barely trickling enough on this as it is -- but Skeptic X insists his is a "reasonable inference." The tabernacle was there, he says. Fine, no problem with that at all, Skeptic X. Keep moving. "If [Holding] has ever read much in the book of Leviticus, he should know that the tabernacle was the center of Hebrew worship, where daily sacrifices took place." Um, yeah, and so what? "Numbers 4:16 referred to the 'daily' meal-offering, and the writer of Hebrew also referred to the daily ritual offerings in the tabernacle." This is all very informative, but excuse me, X -- how does this make Nob a "visible" place David should have no-noed? Did they sell stadium seats for people to watch those sacrifices from? Did gobs and gobs of people gather from all over to watch these sacrifices? Did they stay overnight in hotels and visit all the bars in Nob? The streets were filled with tourists, yes? Get a grip, Skeptic X: People, and specific people, not events, was what David needed to avoid. And even then you need to show us that David arrived at the same time as the events so as to cause a potential problem; those daily sacrifices weren't 24 hours a day like some kind of Walgreens' pharmacy. Indeed if the day David arrived was on or just before a sabbath (as Jewish exegetes agreed) then all but a few people were behind closed doors and having a snooze, and it's no different than walking into the Superdome on a Wednesday morning at 3 AM. So what about those 85 priests in Nob? "Bustling with activity"? More like "bustling with baloney" on Skeptic X's part. High-level events do not automatically equate with "visibility" and especially personal visibility for any particular person, especially one not participating; come to think of it, if you had a choice of places to hide, what would be wrong with heading to a small town with a population of 85 to, let's say, 130 (assuming all those tabernacle workers, etc actually lived in Nob and were there at the time)? How many people does that have to go down before it's safe, Skeptic X? 110? 80? 50? 30? Were there WANTED posters out for David and an NCIC database? Was someone in Nob (or wherever) going to call 911 so that Saul could come and pick David up? Did Saul have roving camels and men with "GIBEAH POLICE" patches who ate donuts? Why and how does any particular activity of theirs draw attention to a person passing through? Keep thinking about it, maybe you'll get somewhere. And while you're thinking, I have one more surd to throw in your eye. Whose side do you suppose the priesthood was on after this stuff happened?

1 Samiuel 15:26 And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.

1 Sam. 19:24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

Skeptic X is quite clearly trying as usual to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, for I noted that he had to assume that "Saul's forces would have considered Nob a likely choice for David to stop at..." "Just where did I assume that? I never even implied that I thought this," Skeptic X grouses. If you never thought it, Skeptic X, you never thought through your case. That Nob may or may not have been a place of "high visibility" only matters if it was "visible" that way in the eyes of the people David was trying to get away from, in terms of any supposition that he would go there, and then, only if being visible there in any way would have caused David to be caught, which doesn't hold any water either. Otherwise you have no cause at all to bark about David's choice of filling station, and what evidence we do have suggests that David was heading into a pack of allies. As it is you're only shooting yourself in the foot, yet again.

We added that the further assumption was required that Nob "was the one place nearby David had allies for Saul to choose from..." Skeptic X the reader is confused by this one, even though it said nothing about paying for a website, so let's see if he can figure it out in simpler language: Skeptic X's "visibility" argument only works if a) Saul thought Nob was a likely place for David to go to begin with; b) it was indeed the only place nearby where David had allies, hence giving Saul an "easy" choice as to where to go looking, and let's add c) if there was any chance that one of Saul's friends at Nob could have seen David without David knowing he had been seen, and gotten his hiney out and back to Gibeah and to Saul fast enough to catch David before he went out on the lam again, so that what really matters is whether Saul knew soon enough of David's "betrayal" and location to send out people to fetch him. And if that would be a problem, David is stuck no matter who he goes to see. But Skeptic X is caught on his "high visibility" argument and thinks it has merit from the presence of Doeg at the tabernacle, so this makes out David to have had no other allies to choose from nearby. Sorry, Skeptic X, no wash. You're still using a "Simple Simon" approach in assuming that it was David's only choice as opposed to the best one, based on non-information; and you're assuming that David had any reason to suspect Doeg or any supporter of Saul in particular should have been there. But why was Doeg there anyway? It says he was "detained before the Lord" (21:7) -- now why should David have been able to anticipate that any particular ally of Saul would happen to be "detained before the Lord" that day? Was there also a daily "detained before the Lord" service? Were there crowds of "detainees" for David to worry about, with Daily Specials for servants of Saul? A little later Skeptic X admits he "can't imagine" what this would mean Doeg was there for, but to bolster his case, tries to make it out that he was there to offer sacrifcies anyway! Nice try, X, but you're still shooting blanks with that peripheral popgun. If Doeg was there for any reason, it was because he was under observation for leprosy or some other unusual reason, and Dave could hardly have anticipated an appearance by any of Saul's henchmen on such grounds. We realize you're looking for any loophole you can hop, skip, or jump through to save your reputation as the self-crowned Baloney King of Errancy, but we'll be here each time to keep your arguments on the mat. If you have no idea what "detained" meant then what gives you the right and ability to fill it with a meaning you find convenient, especially when the Bible uses the specific language of sacrifice elsewhere? Where is this "detained" language ever used of someone sacrificing? And even if Doeg WAS there offering a sacrifice, why should David have had any inkling that any man out of Saul's service should have been there that one day and one time as opposed to any one of thousands and thousands of other people who were either on his side or else may not have known or remembered him by sight from Sam the Vacuum Salesman? The fact is that any one of Saul's lackeys could have been anywhere at any time within range of Gibeah, and David didn't have the option of levitating or turning invisible until he got out of Gibeah's periphery. He was traveling, and David needed his supplies in post and in haste; he also needed to inquire of Yahweh, which made Nob the best one-stop-for-all until Wal-Mart opened in Jerusalem 3065 years later. Who are you to second-guess the man, Skeptic X? If he went to a private home nearby, he got no inquiry of Yahweh, and also could have run into a Saul lackey on the street. Hindsight is 100%, especially for armchair quarterbacks like Skeptic X who presume to tell us what David "oughta" have done even as he hasn't got a fig's leaf worth of knowledge about the various lays of the land. Besides all of which, even if he could be proven right, he assumes that David was thinking with perfect clarity at that exact time, which given Skeptic X's own track record for clear thinking is an assumption he shouldn't be making.

We noted that Bethlehem, David's hometown in the "opposite" direction, would have been the most likely place for him to go in danger. Skeptic X barks, "And [Holding]'s point is what? He seems not to understand that David was fleeing from Gibeah toward Nob." Skeptic X supposes I had Jerusalem in mind, and I'll say I did -- and if Skeptic X wants to make an issue of it, we're still waiting for an explanation on his "pay for 90% of the website" gaffe which sticks out like a sorer thumb than I'll ever have. Unlike Skeptic X, I don't manufacture ridiculous and convoluted excuses for my mistakes, or duck and dodge away from them until I am shamed into doing otherwise. I had Jerusalem in the back of my mind, and so it was. Nevertheless the matter at issue remains untouched. Bethlehem was David's "place to be." It was the most obvious place to look for him. Nob was not, even if we assume he was standing still there. And Skeptic X needs to check his own common sense at the door: "Nob was located near Gibeah, so if [Holding] thinks that 'this place' [Gibeah] would have been 'chock full of people who would favor Saul,' then he should reasonably 'infer' that nearby Nob would also have had many people who favored Saul." Excuse me, Skeptic X, but that's not the case if Nob was a "city of the priests" (22:19), for we have already shown that it is quite unlikely that Saul would have had any friends among the population there after being dissed by Samuel the prophet and making a fool of himself by prophesying in the altogether. It's not as though "Saulites" radiated out from Gibeah in a concentric circle. Get it straight and full: Even if Nob was a place of high risk for David particularly -- which we have shown it is not, and if anything, was a place he would normally have avoided any enemies he had, perhaps even being the closest place to Ezel he could have avoided enemies as well as gotten what he needed -- it is still an argument based on non-information until one evaluates the "risk potential" of all other possible locales, as well as weighs it against the benefits. An inquiry of Yahweh if nothing else would tell Dave the safest way to get out of Dodge without being noticed. Since Skeptic X has no information to work with, and can only offer the failing supposition of Nob as a place of activity (with no ability to show that such activity was in any sense an attraction risk for David), he's still making leather products out of pigskin to save his personal bacon. "Does [Holding] think I have been saying that Saul would have thought that the tabernacle was the most likely place that David would go, and so David took a big risk by going there?" That's what your argument amounts to, Skeptic X, and that's where you have to go to make it go anywhere. Merely appealing to general "visibility" isn't enough. It has to be "visible" to the people David is specifically running from. Don't forget that, Skeptic X. I'd rather make a gaffe like this now and then than make continual common sense and reading errors of the sort you've been producing like popcorn.

We next noted that Skeptic X needed to show that Nob was "more likely than other destinations (especially Bethlehem) for Saul to begin searching." Skeptic X blatters back that he said nothing of that (yet it is a necessary inference for his case to hold water, for "high visibility" isn't enough; it must be high and specific visibility that causes a problem) and notes that "Saul didn't even look for David until after he had reached the cave of Adullam..." There's Skeptic X in the clouds again, for I noted that Saul had no idea where to start looking, and Skeptic X actually agrees! "That's right, so the point of all of [Holding]'s references to places where Saul would have expected to find David is what?" It is the death of this peripheral for you, Skeptic X, because you have just given away the store in spades. Nob then becomes no more or less special than any other place. David could stop there out of desperation, or he could stop there merely for the sake of convenience, and it makes no difference unless Nob was known to David to be a place of high AND specific visibility with specific reference to the people he was running from, and unless seeing him there (or anywhere) increased his chances of being caught. As it is, you have a risk evaluation in your lap which you haven't got enough data to support, and now have just admitted that Saul would not have ever had Nob in mind to begin with. On this point, you're busted.

We noted that David was not to blame for what happened at Nob. Skeptic X thinks it suffices as a reply to note David's response that he "caused the death of all the persons of your father's house" (1 Sam. 22:22). Sorry, that's not a key into any relevant lock. A rock can "cause" a person to be crushed but it does not deserve any "blame" for it. A pedestrian can "cause" a driver to swerve off a highway and be killed, but the pedestrian does not share any blame for the accident if they were acting legally, while still saying quite rightly that they were the "cause" of the accident. "Blame" means to hold responsible. "Cause" means to be the reason for, with no sense of responsibility. That's just the English; perhaps Skeptic X would like to play the expert in Hebrew and say that it "implies" responsibility. As we have repeatedly shown, what data is available shows that David's Nob stop was nothing that would have suggested any greater risk than any other step that could have been taken, and was of any possible stop the least likely to cause the residents trouble. There is not enough data to argue otherwise. Skeptic X is arguing on thin air and producing nothing but hot air.

And now another fun round of "I Wuz Robbed!" from Skeptic X. This is the place where Skeptic X burps up his usual charges of us making omissions in quoting that garbled his case. The first was where he played the "guilt by association" card, saying if David clearly lied in one place, he likely lied in another. I noted that if Skeptic X's reasons for believing David to be alone are fallacious, there is no call to include an argument that David was lying based on another lie. We first get to the Skeptic X trying to back up the whole "guilt by proximity" rule:

Apparently, [Holding] has never heard of the rule of evidence that says falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. This literally means false in one thing, false in everything. Of course, if someone says A, B, C, and D, and it can be shown that A and D are lies, that doesn't mean that B and C are also lies, but it does mean that the person's credibility has been severely damaged. If a witness in a trial is caught in a lie, jurors aren't likely to give much credence to anything else he says.

That's very nice, Skeptic X, but David was NOT under oath and was NOT on trial here. Moreover, I wonder if falsus in uno would obtain in court where the falsus was done to save a life or to prevent trouble. Skeptic X never reasons out why he thinks David lied to any extent (to get bread, obviously; but he never works out why David chose the particular lie he did as opposed to any other which may have sufficed, or even the truth, for that matter!), but I will put forward my thesis and dare Skeptic X to offer his, so we can get a horse laugh out of it: I have already stated that the priests were the persons Saul would be least likely to take vengeance on for helping David. David added a further buffer with his story of a secret mission so that if and when Saul queried them, the priests could come out looking clean, not as though they helped a traitor (from Saul's view) on the lam -- though that is indeed what the paranoid Saul concluded, in spite of Ahmy's protestations. Indeed, Skeptic X should appreciate this one, since he takes Ahmy's speech to be so upright and outstanding; v. 14 ("goeth at thy bidding") would even seem to allude to David's explanation of being on a secret mission for the "king".

Beyond that, if Skeptic X wants to quote old Latin aphorisms rather than actual courtroom procedural documents or rules (let him find this in the official publication of Rules of Evidence and maybe we'll give him a hearing), he'll need to do it with the context in mind that lying for honorable reasons was not only permitted in the ancient world, but regarded positively! He'll need to show that David's reasons for lying were dishonorable before he can even throw a Latin maxim about people on trial into the ring; otherwise the principle behind falsus in uno -- that people lie to save their own bacon -- goes completely out the window as an application.

I'll add here some comments from a reader who is a student in law:

[Skeptic X] pretty accurately states the general rule. When a witness lies, the jury may, but is not required to, disregard any or all of their testimony. The jury is to make that determination based upon the totality of the circumstances. Here are excerpts from jury instructions that we've used in the past.

"You are not required to believe the testimony of any witness simply because it was given under oath. You may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony of any witness. It is your province to determine what testimony is worthy of belief and what testimony is not worthy of belief." [Ohio Jury Instructions section 5.30]

"If you conclude that a witness has willfully lied in testifying as to a material fact, you may distrust all of that witness' testimony, and you would then have the right to reject all of that witness' testimony, unless, from all of the evidence, you believe that the probability of truth favors the witness' testimony in other particulars." [I don't have a cite for this one, but we've used it in every jury trial we've had since I've been here, and we haven't gotten reversed on appeal.]

Applying the totality of the circumstances analysis, a jury could reasonably conclude that a person who lied to save his own life and to avoid retribution against a good Samaritan is still essentially a trustworthy person. Certainly no one would question the credibility of people who hid Jews from the Nazis and lied about their whereabouts.

So while Skeptic X is partially right, the fact that David lied under extraordinary conditions mitigates any damage done to his credibility.

"...[M]y point," Skeptic X guffs, was that a "sensible interpretation of 1 Samuel 21:1-5 will show to any reasonable person that David's conversation with Ahimelech was one lie after the other." That's the very matter at issue, whether indeed all he said was "one lie after the other" and we're still waiting for Skeptic X to get his act together. He won't quote scholars, he says, that isn't "my style" (even as he deigns to quote one within the next few paragraphs), delivers the usual accusation of argument-skipping (which now he apparently thinks a link won't even help; he supposes even if you have the link, you may not remember what he said -- well, bleck, X, if their memories are that bad, what difference does a link make?!? -- see how stupid he thinks you are? -- and are you expecting people to go clicking back and forth comparing arguments?), we get to where I offer a point that David may have meant "King Yahweh" since he does call Yahweh a "king" elsewhere. Skeptic X calls this "desperation" but the best he can do is blatter back that "if David meant that he was on a secret mission for King Yahweh, what is there in the text that even implies this?" In other words, he can't dispute the seminal fact that David ever called Yahweh a king, so he's left with the old "where is that in the text" complaint that we get from his usual low-context, fundamentalist self. Excuse me, X, if someone in the text says, "So and so told me this," does that mean we have to have the actual text of so and so saying this to them? It does? No, it doesn't. In fact, we have an example that shows this is not so in this very story. Ahmy and Doeg both say David did a collect call to Yahweh from Ahmy's ephod. But all we read of is Dave getting bread and a sword. No inquiry. Yet does Skeptic X want to argue it never happened? (Actually, he probably will, especially since it backs him into another corner!) All that's really happening is that Skeptic X is starting with the same supposition of lying and using it to tar the rest of what David says as a lie, and applying the same old fundaliteralist "herrmanooootic". The texts where David calls Yahweh his king (many places in Psalms), or where Yahweh is called a king, tells us that it remains an open option, and if you don't like it, then that's too bad. Skeptic X's inability to approve of any inferences other than his own is his own problem.

At any rate, after a bit of guffing over his own inability to see this "King Yahweh" item as an option I offered, rather than as something I think I proved absolutely -- that's your own confusion, and tendency to put words in others' mouths, Skeptic X -- we get to where I noted that if we use Skeptic X's "guilt by proximity" argument as blindly as he does, then he is also forced to admit that David must have lied in his very next statement about not bringing weapons. All at once Skeptic X becomes Skeptic X the Meek: "Well, there are strong textual reasons to think that David was being truthful when he said that he had no weapon, because my analysis of 1 Samuel 20, which [Holding] has so far evaded like the plague, showed that David had hidden in a field for at least a day and a night to wait for word from Jonathan about Saul's disposition." There's that old "textual" bark again; if it isn't in the text, spelled out to Skeptic X's personal level of satisfaction, there is no way it could have been there, no matter how clear the social data is. "Plague" is actually a good description for Skeptic X's work, but nothing was avoided that hurt his case, and he still hasn't shown an example of that in any venue. But when it comes down to it, Skeptic X is avoiding the issue at hand, which is that textual evidence or no, he has just blown his "guilt by proximity" argument sky high, even if the reason David gave was itself partially fabricated. In short, once again, we don't determine who tells the truth about what by proximity to other things they say; that is only one very small and very insignificant reason to suspect fabrication, and the least relevant reason of all, so this entire "guilt by proximity" argument is a waste of time. No doubt Skeptic X knows this, which is why he got in such a polite mood momentarily.

He'll lose the rest of his wardrobe if he tries to get around the "honorable lying" problem.

From the, "Why Didn't God Kiss My Hiney Department" we have this complaint from X the Disgruntled Fundy: "By the way, that was rather inconsiderate of the omniscient king Yahweh, wasn't it? Why did king Yahweh, knowing all things, wait until David had no time to prepare himself properly before he sent David on this secret mission?" No, sorry, it wasn't, no more "inconsiderate" than it would be for God to not personally shine our shoes just because He has the power to do so, or to stop an accident, or to divert a storm. X the Former Fundy apparently thinks that God needs to be some kind of all-purpose Wal-Mart. One of Skeptic X's biggest faults is that he never grew up out of his Church of Christ conceptions, and what follows is another example.

Haste makes waste? By the rules Skeptic X has set out, David should be pinned for lying that the "king's business required haste" and we should believe the text itself which only says he "arose and departed" with no reference to haste at all. Skeptic X plays his usual game of the excessive strawman and supposes I think David "was telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to Ahimelech..." To help you avoid confusion, Skeptic X, let me set out what I really believe about what David said in terms of true/false claims, based on the evidence at hand, not just from the text, but from all relevant data:

• "The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me..." Probably true, if Yahweh is the king; definitely false if the king is Saul.
• "Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy..." Probably true.
• "I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me..." True.
• "...because the king's business required haste." Possibly true, if Yahweh is the king; definitely false if the king is Saul.
• "There is none like that..." Subjective opinion. Want to complain?

And that was the whole of David's words to Ahmy that involved matters of "fact". We have one statement all agree is true; we have two that may or may not be, depending on who is referenced; and we have one that we are trying to decide on. Plus one opinion, and let's hasten to add before Skeptic X catches us "impying" it that even if the "possibly true" ones were true, we are not expecting that Ahimelech would have seen them as such. Since Skeptic X is so fond of maxims, here's one from Britain: "More haste, less speed." Haste does not imply speed by itself; it implies urgency, which sometimes results in speed, but also may mean taking the same pace but not going someplace we planned to or would like to (like an armory). So that says zip about how fast Dave may have been moving when he "arose and departed"; it also says zip about any other errands David may have made on the way for which he forsook gathering weapons. In fact, one might suggest that gathering companions (only 2 or 3, Skeptic X, not 5 or 10) was a greater priority than getting a weapon for just David himself, and that is the reason for David's "haste" to begin with. Nice try again, Skeptic X, but it's that same one-dimensional, low-context hole you can't seem to dig yourself out of.

In the next few sections Skeptic X uses his usual re-re-re-re-repeat and goalpost-shifting game a few times; as usual we'll nip that manipulation tactic in the bud and just deal with what's not been addressed. I noted the absurdity of hypothesizing a journey of any decent distance with no stopping points at all; though we're also able to see a journey where no stopping points were needed for David and no more than 2-3 men, it remains that it is absurd to complain of a simple reference to a journey of any decent distance and argue as though we MUST see these stops in a text to suppose they happened. Skeptic X tries to blow a bubble from his gum on this one: "Such hypothesizing requires the 'inference' that (1) stops for food were made, but the food was never mentioned, (2) stops for weapons were made, but the weapons were never mentioned, and (3) stops to muster men were made, but the men were never mentioned. All of these stops were made, but the benefits that David would have obtained from the stops weren't mentioned." Well, good grief, man, what the blazes are you out for here??? (1) You want an account of how David licked his chops over a Big Mac that they picked up on the way? Why on earth does the text need to talk about the food at all any more than it would need to talk about the stops? Do we need texts telling us that David went to the bathroom along the way? Get a grip, Skeptic X: people NEED food to survive; especially when they are under physical pressures like a hike through the wilderness. Either the bread at Nob was enough for the 25-30 mile jaunt to Nob, for 2-3 men as noted above, or else they had to stop on way with someone (whether allies, or for that matter, any non-enemy who would give them the benefit of hospitality), or else they went hunting game, catching fish, and picking blueberries, which could have been done by any number of men from 1 to 100 and your whole "enough bread" argument is pointless to begin with. (2) Why would the weapons need mentioning again unless they used them? Moreover, if any men were picked up, they likely had more leisure than David to get weapons and were much more likely to have their own weapons on hand or close by. (3) This is the very point at issue, and we continue to say that there was zero reason to go yapping about the men further, and we show that Skeptic X's "400" parallel is a no-match. Skeptic X tries to pull up another example showing that "it was also the writer's style then to mention 'specifically' men who were with David, but the example he gives of 1 Samuel 18:25-7 is a no-match either. In that passage Dave and Co. went out to collect 200 Philistine foreskins, which is a task clearly requiring some significant action on their part, and also serves to "brag" on David's might, leadership and prowess compared to Saul who was slowly being given the Wimpy treatment in the text. Unless Dave had some fights on the way, there's no contextual reason to demand explicit credit to 2-3 men who did nothing more than carry the bags and watch the back. Heck, if the text of 18:25-7 didn't mention the men, we might have McKinsey (or even Skeptic X) complaining that there's no way David could have done that all himself. It's nothing but the same contextual McCrash by Skeptic X, who can't ever seem to get those critical thinking processes going even on the best mornings.

In a rare moment of grace, Skeptic X okays my "skipping" of his arguments over Jonathan bringing men because I do not endorse the idea. Thanks, old bean, for the civility. But he just can't resist asking why I "bothered" to say something anyway. "It certainly seemed like an attempt to rebut my objection to the quibble," Skeptic X bewonders. I already noted why I answered; other than that, we are not responsible for Skeptic X's paranoid perceptions.

We get to where I talked about the language of agency. Bear in mind that this is a composite of the point that just because it says "David fled" does not mean he didn't stop for any reason along the way, and there is no requirement of this in the text, for what David did, he as "agent" of the group caused anyone with him to do as well, at whatever point they joined him. Skeptic X has no real answer for this, and insists that yes, the men MUST be mentioned to be there, and then -- this is great -- shoots himself in the foot in terms of another debate we are having. Here is what he said:

The nature of the acts attributed to a man or a king are sufficient to determine when agency was implied in the text, but there is absolutely nothing in the narrative of David's flight to give anyone reason to think that when the writer said that David "arose and departed," he meant that David arose and departed in the sense of agency and that he actually had a contingent of men with him or that when the writer said that "David arose and fled that day for fear of Saul and went to Achish the king of Gath," he meant that this had happened in the sense of agency and that a contingent of men who were with David also arose and fled.

Hmm, okay, Skeptic X, I'll buy that. Now then:

The nature of the acts attributed to a man or a king are sufficient to determine when agency was implied in the text, but there is absolutely nothing in 2 Samuel 15:29 to give anyone reason to think that when the writer said that Abiathar and Zadok "carried the Ark of God" he meant that Abiathar and Zadok carried it in the sense of agency and that they actually had a contingent of men with them.

This was my very argument, that the nature of the act was sufficient to determine that there is no reason to see "agency" in these texts about the Ark. So which is it, Skeptic X? Take your time deciding. And by the way, keep in mind that even without agency, you still don't have anything that would require us to mean that when David fled, his men were with him at every point in time he was fleeing. The language does not prohibit stops for whatever reason. Either way, you're gigged again.

Time for another Skeptic X McFunny:

But the issue at this point is whether anyone else was with David. By [Holding]'s own admission, the OT account doesn't "specifically say" that men were with him, so to find men, [Holding] must use what he calls "referential reasoning" but which in reality is merely crass speculation. Jesus said that the accusers of his disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him. If they could have read this, then there would be no need for "referential reasoning," so just where in the OT text could they have "read" that David gave showbread to those with him?

We answered the arguments indicated already, but -- goldurn, Skeptic X, "referntial reasoning"? And you did it twice? To quote your Bam Bam instructor in Sweating Profusely While Speaking 101, "Gaaaawwwwww-leee!" Now there's a "king of Achish" comparable bungle for sure. So much for that record of spotless and tingling perfection. Now can we say that obviously Skeptic X doesn't read my replies carefully?

Skeptic X wants to know, "what is the compelling reason to assign a figurative meaning of agency to expressions like 'David arose and departed' or 'David arose and fled' in the narrative of his flight from Saul?" We have already given our reasons, and Skeptic X hasn't found an answer yet. I noted that, "If Dave had men with him at all, it's fairly a given that they weren't fleeing to Paducah when he went to Gath," and all Skeptic X the Grouch sees is humour. It's a point: with or without agency, we don't need any explicit language to know that any men with David would go with him, wherever he picked them up; and if and when they picked him up, he becomes their agent-representative. It doesn't need to be spelled out, and Skeptic X knows it, because when I said, "It doesn't need to say, 'David left, and on the way he picked the guys up who were waiting, who went the same way,'" all Skeptic X can do is turn around and show us the velveteen trap clamped on his tuckus.

Now we get for another major McFunny which shows us another example of the kind of slop research Skeptic X does when he's confronted with arguments he can't understand. This one is quite nearly as much a howler as identifying Mara bar-Serapion's "wise king" with the Essence Teacher of Righteousness, and it has to do with my points about Skeptic X being a low-context reader reading a high-context text. Apparently I made enough references to shame Skeptic X into providing some substantive answer on this, so he sent out one of his disciples (being that he hasn't the sense to do even a simple title search himself, I doubt if he did it!) to look up the terms on the Net and find something to disparage the argument. The disciple apparently looked around until they could find something that said anything that threw even the minutest cloud (as they saw it) over the idea of high and low contexts, so that Skeptic X could say that this was "obviously a cultural theory that [Holding] knows little about" and pretend that he had completely refuted anything I had to say on the subject for the duration. As it turns out, all the disciple found was something that confirms and if anything elucidates my points. Let's see how Skeptic X McBungles his way through things.

"In the first place," Skeptic X pontificates, "this is a relatively new theory, which was just beginning to find its way into textbooks before I retired." Hmm, first off, Skeptic X made a big McFuss when he thought we were arguing "new is good, old is bad" on the Olivet Discourse, so now is he wanting us to think that "new is bad, old is good"? I know he is "implying" this just as surely as he knows I have been "implying" all the arguments he's been laying at my door. Think on that one.

Then Skeptic X McBungles, "The theory applies primarily to oral communication rather than written communication, so 'high-context' cultures depend on body language, gestures, voice inflection, and other nonverbal types of communication than do 'low-context' cultures. If [Holding] would just think a moment about the terms low context and high context, he would know that they refer primarily to oral communication, because if the terms referred only to written language, a technological society like ours would be more accurately described with 'high context.'" If Skeptic X didn't have his head in a bucket of Pine-Sol he would know that oral cultures, by their very nature lacking in development of sophisticated writing skills, would in what writing they had as a whole reflect the oral presentation of their "high context" speaking. Moreover, he would also know that in the ancient world that which was written was meant to be read aloud to those being addressed, and that even the literate read aloud, so that one writer of the 3rd-4th century church expressed amazement at his teacher's ability to read a text without reciting it aloud. And nowhere, Skeptic X, do I say that it applies only to written language. A low-context reader, and a poor low-context reader at that. This is Skeptic X's usual effort to stick arguments in our mouth to refute when he can't refute the ones actually presented, and/or needs a con game to inspire the gullible Skeppies, and that is what his citation of an expert just below is, and nothing more. And here's another example: "[Holding] seems to think that ancient or primitive culture = high context and modern culture = low context, but that isn't at all what the theory supposes." Get that? It's what I seem to think, folks. Not that Skeptic X found me saying anything about what equals what and where in all circumstances. Not that I said, "Ancient or primitive culture = high context and modern culture = low context." (If there is any such equation, it is "collectivist or oral society = high context, individualist or literate society = low context".) No, all I talked about was the specific culture of the Bible, the ancient Mediterranean culture, which was high-context on the scale of cultures, and which Skeptic X doesn't show to be otherwise with anything he says or anything the expert he prostitutes says. The expert would want to scrub with soap after hearing that Skeptic X used him for anything. "Language itself, however, is neither low nor high context; it is the way it is used that makes the determination," Skeptic X lectures. No garbonzos, X; really? Whe