Thursday, December 31, 2065
Sunday, August 20, 2023
A Quick Rebuttal to Rabbi Tovia Singer's Objections to the Translation of Ps. 40:6 in Heb. 10:5
The following blogpost responds to a video by rabbi Tovia Singer here: https://youtu.be/QsjWC555geI
Like most of rabbi Tovia Singer's videos, there's nothing really new or shocking about his video. He talks about things which he himself admits [including in this video itself] Christian scholars already know about.
I don't have time to do an exhaustive rebuttal. Also, I'm only an amateur apologist. Nevertheless, here are some hastily written comments on the video.
- Singer is wrong in claiming that Sola Scriptura doesn't get us to the concept that Jesus retroactively atoned for the sins of David. Hebrews 10:1-10 clearly teaches the Old Testament sacrificial system did not ACTUALLY take away sin. Yet, the OT teaches atonement is necessary. The obvious inference is that Jesus' death was the real and final atonement for sins (the anti-type of the types in the OT). Compare Rom. 3:24-26.
- Or maybe by "Sola Scriptura" Singer is referring only to evidence limited to the Tanakh. Well, there are plenty of passages that predict a future New Covenant (Jer. 31-33; Ezek. 11:19ff.; 36:26ff.) that the LORD would one day provide the ultimate sacrifice (Gen. 22:14). That the Messiah would provide such atonement by His death (Isa. 53). That the Messiah would be both divine and human can be seen by the Danielic Son of Man being described in Dan. 7:13ff. as both "one like a son of man" (i.e. human or human-like) and yet rides the clouds like a deity. That the final future sacrifice would be of a divine and human figure can be seen when the Angel of Yahweh (the pre-incarnate Christ in a divine Christophany in human form) went up with the flame of a sacrifice in Judges 13:20ff.
Judg. 13:20 And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.
21 The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.
22 And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."
23 But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these."
There are many more evidences Christian can present from the Hebrew of the Tanakh. Of course, there are Jewish objections and Christians have answers and responses. The above was just a sampling and quick survey of the evidences. Back to responding to the video.
- Singer says it's un-Jewish to think that the death of the righteous could atone for sins. Yet, there's a long history of such speculation, even assertion, among Jews. Both past and present. See this article by Tony Costa.
"The Concept of Atoning Death in the New Testament: Pagan or Jewish?" by Tony Costa
https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/CostaT03.pdf
OR
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rxHgpGWc8ObRJJNVZpv59nyVZQFo1Bkk/view?usp=sharing
Regarding the difference between Ps. 40:6 and Heb. 10:5 see the following freely online commentaries HERE:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/10-5.htm
I'll make a few observations. First off, some of the apparent "abuses" of the NT's use of the OT can be explained through the Jewish hermeneutical approach called Pardes/PaRDeS. Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains and applies Pardes in the 3rd lecture (of 21 lectures) of his MASTERFUL series linked below:
The Jewish Life of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum [21 lectures in mp3]
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ
See also Fruchtenbaum's article here:
How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum
http://arielb.org/archives/794
Here's an excerpt:
//Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat
The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.//
//Literal Plus Typical: Remez
The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.//
//Literal Plus Application: Drash
The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.//
//Summation: Sod
The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.//
Pardes (Jewish exegesis) [wikipedia article]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)
- Singer claims Christians changed Ps.40:6 when quoted in Heb. 10:5. Actually, the writer of Hebrews is merely following the Jewish translated Septuagint (also known as the LXX). So, if anyone "changed it" it was Jews who did it first. The Jewish translators were translating the sense of the passage. There's nothing wrong with that. The Aramaic Targums did the same thing too, and they were EVEN MORE PARAPHRASTIC. They paraphrased the Hebrew much more than the LXX does. Yet, the Targums were accepted by Jews both before and after the birth of Jesus. Singer should first charge the translators of the Targumim and the LXX for changing the Bible before he charges Christians.
Notice what some of the commentaries in the BibleHub.com LINK I gave above have to say:
Benson Commentary states:
//...The words, a body hast thou prepared me, are the translation of the LXX.; but in the Hebrew it is, Mine ears hast thou opened, or bored; an expression which signifies, I have devoted myself to thy perpetual service, and thou hast accepted of me as thy servant, and signified so much by the boring of mine ears. So that, though the words of the translation of the LXX., here used by the apostle, are not the same with those signified by the original Hebrew, the sense is the same; for the ears suppose a body to which they belong, and the preparing of a body implies the preparing of the ears, and the obligation of the person for whom a body was prepared, to serve him who prepared it; which the boring of the ear signified... //
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:
//...a body hast thou prepared me—Greek, "Thou didst fit for Me a body." "In Thy counsels Thou didst determine to make for Me a body, to be given up to death as a sacrificial victim" [Wahl]. In the Hebrew, Ps 40:6, it is "mine ears hast thou opened," or "dug." Perhaps this alludes to the custom of boring the ear of a slave who volunteers to remain under his master when he might be free. Christ's assuming a human body, in obedience to the Father's will, in order to die the death of a slave (Heb 2:14), was virtually the same act of voluntary submission to service as that of a slave suffering his ear to be bored by his master. His willing obedience to the Father's will is what is dwelt on as giving especial virtue to His sacrifice (Heb 10:7, 9, 10). The preparing, or fitting of a body for Him, is not with a view to His mere incarnation, but to His expiatory sacrifice (Heb 10:10), as the contrast to "sacrifice and offering" requires; compare also Ro 7:4; Eph 2:16; Col 1:22. More probably "opened mine ears" means opened mine inward ear, so as to be attentively obedient to what God wills me to do, namely, to assume the body He has prepared for me for my sacrifice, so Job 33:16, Margin; Job 36:10 (doubtless the boring of a slave's "ear" was the symbol of such willing obedience); Isa 50:5, "The Lord God hath opened mine ear," that is, made me obediently attentive as a slave to his master. Others somewhat similarly explain, "Mine ears hast thou digged," or "fashioned," not with allusion to Ex 21:6, but to the true office of the ear—a willing, submissive attention to the voice of God (Isa 50:4, 5). The forming of the ear implies the preparation of the body, that is, the incarnation; this secondary idea, really in the Hebrew, though less prominent, is the one which Paul uses for his argument. In either explanation the idea of Christ taking on Him the form, and becoming obedient as a servant, is implied. As He assumed a body in which to make His self-sacrifice, so ought we present our bodies a living sacrifice (Ro 12:1).//
John Gill Commentary states:
//...But a body hast thou prepared me; or "fitted for me"; a real natural body, which stands for the whole human nature; and is carefully expressed, to show that the human nature is not a person. This was prepared, in the book of God's purposes and decrees, and in the council and covenant of grace; and was curiously formed by the Holy Ghost in time, for the second Person, the Son of God, to clothe himself with, as the Syriac version renders it, "thou hast clothed me with a body"; and that he might dwell in, and in it do the will of God, and perform the work of man's redemption: in Psalm 40:6 it is, "mine ears thou hast opened"; digged or bored, the ear being put for the whole body; for if he had not had a body prepared, he could not have had ears opened: besides; the phrase is expressive of Christ's assuming the form of a servant, which was done by his being found in fashion as a man, Philippians 2:7 and of his being a voluntary servant, and of his cheerful obedience as such, the opening, or boring of the ear, was a sign, Exodus 21:5. And thus by having a true body prepared for him, and a willing mind to offer it up, he became fit for sacrifice. //
- Singer claims it's illegitimate for Christians to appeal to the LXX because we're supposed to prove our doctrines from the Hebrew Bible alone. In actuality there are various degrees or levels of strength in our apologetical arsenal. Some arguments are more and better grounded and therefore stronger than others. But that DOESN'T mean that we may not use the less strong arguments as well. Arguments using the Hebrew Bible will be our strongest arguments. Arguments outside the Hebrew Bible will be less strong. But that doesn't mean we may never use them. Since God has been providentially working in the Jewish community even during the intertestamental period nudging things here and there so that certain speculations or accretions (yes, I dare say it, even errors) now and then hit upon a truth or a type that would be fulfilled in the anti-type of Jesus and in the New Testament.
Also, this charge by Singer doesn't allow for the Christian use of Pardes, when he should allow for Pardes among Christians just as among interestamental Jews and later Jews. Singer is a rabbinic Jew not a Karaite Jew, and rabbinic Judaism often uses Pardes (or at least Pardes-like) exegesis, or commentary or application. Karaite Jews reject the Oral Law and find the Word of God only in the written Scriptures. It might be ironic that Singer, a rabbinic Jew, is requiring Christians to basically take a Karaite approach to Scriptural interpretation.
If the author of Hebrews was debating a Jew who wanted to limit the argumentation to the original Hebrew Bible, I'm sure he could have built a case from the Hebrew Bible alone. But the book of Hebrews is not written to convince only Jews who never believed in Jesus. Admittedly, it's addressed to doubting Jewish converts who were tempted to go back to non-Yeshua-following Judaism, but the book is also addressed to believing Christians. So, the author wasn't required to limit his argumentation to the Hebrew of the Bible.
Moreover, many scholars recognize that the book was probably originally a sermon (or series of sermons) that was transcribed then later improved upon, polished, and then sent out in epistolary form. So, it wasn't the intention of the author to make a precise case for Christianity using the most indisputable airtight evidences and arguments. Because he's trying to encourage faint-hearted Christians he's not trying to be purely logical and evidential. He's using rhetoric to lift up the spirits and strengthen the courage of Christians. Some of the rhetorical flair that accompanies impromptu sermonizing was left in the letter for various purposes including aesthetic reasons. Therefore, the author(s) didn't limited himself to the types of arguments that one might use for Jews who only want evidences from the Hebrew Bible. In which case, he was free to use less than strict evidences. Including the LXX translation of Ps. 40:6. Especially since his audience already accepted the LXX as a generally reliable (though not perfect) translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek.
Given the evidence and arguments that scholars provide, one can easily imagine that transcribed sermons originally orally preached to believing Christians were the basis for the book/letter of Hebrews. In which case, that could easily explain why rhetorically impassioned and less than strict arguments used for Christians (who weren't especially doubting) could make it into a book whose target audience were both doubting Jewish converts, and believing (though struggling) Christians.
- Singer seems to claim the Ketuvim and the Nevi'im of the LXX was translated by Christians. I'm not sure if that's what he's claiming. But if he is, WHAT'S the evidence for that? As far as I know, the overwhelming evidence is that they were translated by Jews. Singer is right that some books in the LXX were probably originally written in Greek.
- Singer claims Origen edited the LXX. I grant that some passages in SOME MANUSCRIPTS of the LXX might have Christian influence, even sometimes interpolation due to the copying process in the early Christian centuries. But that doesn't mean all of them did. Or that the influence is widespread. Admittedly, some of the surviving LXX manuscripts may have been copied by only Jews and some [at some time eventually] by Christians. Moreover, it would have been impossible for Origen to edit all the manuscripts of the LXX in a way that doesn't leave any evidence of tampering. It would have taken all the money and all the armies of the world to hunt down every copy of the LXX and alter them exactly the way he wanted. That's a logistical impossibility even if the Emperor were on his side. If that was Origen's plan, he failed miserably because the various LXX manuscripts are different. Sometimes having major discrepancies and differences. Which leads us to the next point.
Also, and more importantly, there is no "ONE" LXX. The evidence shows there were many translations of the Jewish books which were translated by different Jews at different times that we now (for simplicity's sake) collectively call the "Septuagint". That's why Christian apologist Peter J. Williams has an EXCELLENT lecture titled (tongue-in-cheek), "Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint."
Here's the video:
Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint
https://youtu.be/RmpnJ1cgh58
Monday, September 12, 2022
Monday, June 20, 2022
Did Or Didn't God Reveal His Name to the Patriarchs of Israel?
Exodus 6:3 has been used by critics of the Bible to demonstrate a contradiction in the Bible.
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.- Exo. 6:3 ESVThe alleged contradiction is that in this passage Yahweh says He didn't reveal His name "Yahweh" to the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yet, there are passages in the book of Genesis where the patriarchs are said to have called on Yahweh. Seemingly knowing the tetragrammaton or tetragram [meaning the four letter word of God's covenant name]. For example:
To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD. - Gen. 4:26 ESV
From there he [i.e. Abram] moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD.- Gen. 12:8 ESV
to the place where he had made an altar at the first. And there Abram called upon the name of the LORD.- Gen. 13:4 ESVThere are multiple ways that this can be addressed. One way is to point out that Exo. 6:3 can be translated differently. As Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser has pointed out numerous times:
With respect to the former, I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this blog (in footnotes, granted) that the consensus translation (” I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them”) is only one syntactical possibility. Another much less familiar option was pointed out by Francis Andersen years ago in his book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. On syntactical grounds, Andersen argues for a translation that is basically opposite in its meaning to the accepted view: “I am the Lord (YHWH). I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai. And my name is the Lord (YHWH); did I not make myself known to them?” The verse in this translation expresses a rhetorical question. At the very least, Andersen’s seminal work on sentence structure and its implications for this crucial text should be part of the conversation. [source]Heiser cites Francis I. Andersen's book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. If this alternative translation is taken, then the apparent contradiction disappears. It's a perfectly legitimate translation grammatically speaking.
Another way to address this issue is to point out the fact that the concept of "name" in Semitic cultures wasn't limited to the literal pronunciation of a word. But it often also included the concept of a being's character, nature, attributes, personality, wonted behavior, authority, sanction, permission (etc.). Sometimes without a literal reference to the exact word and it's pronunciation. This is why the naming of places and people was very important and informative in Semitic cultures. The Bible is literally FULL of instances where names that have great significance. A famous example is how Isaac is named. He was named Isaac because his mother laughed when she heard that she would bear a son in her old age. The name "Isaac" means "laughter." Or how Abram's name was changed to Abraham because God promised him that he would become the father of many nations. Or how Jesus changed Simon's name to "Peter" because it means "rock." Examples could be multiplied.
There are many instances where "the name" of God refers to God's character and personality as mentioned above. For example:
The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.- Prov. 18:10 ESV
And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.- Ps. 9:10 ESV
In these (and many other) passages in the Old Testament, the writer is not saying that knowledge of and proper pronunciation of God's name (Yahweh) can be used like a talisman by which one can cast spells for protection and provision (etc.). Rather, these passages are saying that God's character is such that those who pledge allegiance to Yahweh and put their trust in His faithful mercy will be protected and provided for.
If we interpret Exo. 6:3 with that concept of "name" [in the sense of character and nature] then the contradiction also vanishes. That's even if we assume the traditional translation is correct whereby the fathers/patriarchs DIDN'T know God's name. Because what it could be saying is that the patriarchs didn't know by experience the fullness of all of God's wonderful attributes. That the patriarchs may have had foretastes of it, but NOW [at the time of Exo. 6:3 and henceforth] the people of God would more fully know and experience God's gracious mercy with such fullness that by comparison it would be as if the patriarchs didn't know it. This is compatible with the patriarchs knowing the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, but not experiencing the fullness of God's nature.
Another possible way to resolve the apparent contradiction is to say that some or all of the patriarchs LITERALLY didn't know the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton and that in all places (or in many places) in Genesis where people are said to call upon the name of Yahweh, it's referring to the character of the one true most high God, rather than the literal pronunciation of Yahweh.
It should be taken into consideration that the name of Yahweh may have been lost and recovered on and off during the times of the patriarchs. So, it's not like the tetragrammaton and its pronunciation needed to be faithfully passed on from generation to generation in the holy genealogical line. It may have been lost and recovered from other peoples who may have preserved it outside of holy line. Remember for example that Melchizedek was a worshipper of the true God, El Elyon [the Most High God]. Melchizedek or some other persons may have passed on the tetragrammaton to some of the patriarchs, without the patriarchs having necessarily passed it on to the next generation.
Here's an unlikely hypothetical situation which I'll use as an illustration. The unlikeness of it is to show that even in a worse case scenario the alleged contradiction doesn't necessarily follow. Say for example that Abraham's father didn't know the tetragram, but then Abraham did know it either because Yahweh revealed it to him, or Melchizedek or some other worshipper of the true God revealed it to him. Then [to continue with this hypothetical], Abraham failed to passed on the tetragram to his son Isaac. But then Isaac's son Jacob might have rediscovered it because another worshipper of Yahweh revealed it to him. Again, this is an extreme example, since it's likely that if Abraham knew the tetragram that he would have passed it on to Isaac, and then Isaac to Jacob [etc.]. But there are probably gaps in the list of the names of the patriarchs and the tetragram may have been lost repeatedly in the godly line from Adam to Abraham.
Personally, I suspect that some or all of the patriarchs who are said to have called on Yahweh didn't literally call on the character of the true God using the tetragrammaton/tetragram. Rather, the writer(s) of Genesis and/or the inspired redactors wrote and edited it the way we have it because it was understood that the true God was being referred to and that therefore it was alright and not deceptive to say that they called on God using the tetragram. It would be analogous to saying the native Americans who lived in New York 1000 years ago experienced bitterly cold winters. Would I be lying by calling them "Americans" when the country known as "America" didn't yet exist? Would I be lying by referring to the place as "New York" when the place wouldn't be called New York for many centuries? Obviously not. It's understood that I'm "retrofitting" (so to speak) the modern names for the sake of clarity and greater understanding. Something similar could be what is going on in some of the places in Genesis where some or all of the patriarchs are said to have "called on the name of Yahweh." Especially, if it could also mean "invoking the character (i.e. name) of the God [who would eventually be known as] Yahweh [as you now do know it who are reading this sacred text]."
Given the likely gaps in the genealogical lists of the patriarchs, many probably didn't speak Hebrew or even proto-Semitic languages. In which case, it would be unlikely that they would have know the tetragram. Since the tetragrammaton is derived from the meaning of later developing Hebrew and other related Semitic languages at and (relatively) immediately prior to the time of Moses. Unless Hebrew is some kind of divine language that was revealed to humanity from the very beginning [as some, I think, mistakenly insist], then Hebrew wasn't around during Seth's lifetime, or Noah's (etc.). In which case, it doesn't make much sense that Seth would have known and invoked The Deity using the tetragram.
Rather, during the time of the Exodus God may have AT THAT TIME chosen the word "Yahweh" to be His new divine covenantal name for His newly re-constituted people to use by which to have a relationship with Him. And God did that based on the then contemporary state of the development of the various Semitic languages at that time and place. Possibly even with the influence of pagans who may have used a similar name (or names) for their gods. Something which most grant was the case with the use of the titles "el" and "elohim." No one denies that those words were used by preexisting pagans and taken up by the Israelites. Why then couldn't the use of the name "Yahweh" have been influenced by pagan names in a similar or parallel way? I'm not saying that's what did happen. Only that I don't see a problem if it did happen that way. Unbelieving secular scholars DO believe it DID happen that way. But even if it did, that's not problematic. Nothing in the Tanakh precludes that possibility. Nowhere does the Tanakh say that the divine name used by the Israelites (i.e. Yahweh) had no precursors and that it was a brand spanking new term to refer to the Supreme Being.
More could be said as to why Exodus 6:3 does not present a contradiction in the Biblical text. But what I've already written is enough to demonstrate why the alleged contradiction is ultimately baseless.
UPDATE
Here's InspiringPhilosophy/Michael Jones' take on this question:
Thursday, April 28, 2022
Doublets and the Atomic Bomb
Jason Engwer posted a blog titled: "The Plausibility Of Alleged Doublets And Other Parallels In The Bible And Elsewhere." I posted some comments in the combox. The following is an edited version of my satirical comments:
[sarcasm] Here's a modern historical case of a doublet that proves how inaccurate modern history is. Allegedly in World War 2 an American B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on a Japanese city named Hiroshima. The explosion is said to have immediately killed an estimated 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. Then three days later another American B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Why would the Japanese not have surrendered immediately after the first bomb? That's irrational. If the instantaneous killing of 80,000 people wasn't enough to cause the Japanese to surrender, why would the later instantaneous death of 40,000 suffice to do it? That is, if they were able to immediately confirm it was the Americans who were responsible. But like I will allude to later, it would probably take some time to confirm the Americans were responsible using multiple avenues of inquiry. Scientific, diplomatic, political, via espionage, etc.These alleged "facts" make the story/ies historical implausible. Because it's psychologically unlikely. Just like how God feeding the Israelites with quail twice makes no sense because they didn't expect or know God to have done it previously. In a similar way the alleged atomic bombings is an obvious fictional historical doublet.
The first bomb is allegedly named "Little Boy" and the second bomb "Fat Man." How is this not an obvious case of legendary development, exaggeration and embellishment where the story grows as time passes and the story is passed on from generation to generation? It begins as "Little Boy" (smaller) and is embellished to "Fat Man" (larger). Another possibility is the later redactor(s) made up the two names so that the first name is anticipatory of the second name. That's just good story telling.
Yet, paradoxically fewer people are killed in the allegedly more powerful secondary bomb, hence proving a contradiction. How can more people be killed with a weaker bomb? That just doesn't make any rational sense. They didn't even get the names right. In one version of the story the city is supposed to be Hiroshima and in another version of the story it was Nagasaki. What obviously happened was that there were competing oral traditions with two different names for the cities and then when the time came to write down the stories for posterity both versions were written down as if the occurrence happened twice in two different cities. And ALL because they couldn't get their story straight.
Also, what are the chances that a B-29 bomber was used in both instances? That's another clue that the two stories stem from an original primitive story. Otherwise, two different types of planes would have been used. But according to the stories, two different planes of the same model with two different names were used [Enola Gay & Bockscar]. If the first plane survived the explosion, then they would have used it again in the second bombing. But if the first plane was destroyed, then they would have obviously used a different model for the second bombing because the first model was obviously not sufficient to survive another bombing [in terms of speed, altitude, hull integrity etc.]. The ostensible "fact" that the same model of plane was used both times but with a different name used for the second bombing strongly suggests competing oral histories.
The two bombings allegedly happened 3 days apart. The number three of course is a highly symbolic number in many cultures, supporting the non-historical nature of the stories. If it really happened, it would be some other number of days like 2 or 6 or something. But exactly 3 days? Like three leaf clovers? Or the three main Hindu Gods? Or the three natural states of water? Three days is hardly enough time for the Japanese to become convinced through investigation that the Americans were responsible. Moreover, the Americans would have been hesitant to bomb a second time so soon afterwards if they were concerned about casualties. They might have waited a week for a second atomic bombing. If they weren't concerned about casualties, then bombing a second time and a third time the same day, or the very next day, or every day afterwards till the Japanese surrendered would have happened. But exactly three days afterward is HIGHLY suspicious. Three days is perfectly symbolic.
I could say more, but I'll end with this. Isn't it way too coincidental that the U.S. President who allegedly authorized the atomic bombing was named "Harry S. Truman"? "Truman" as in "a true man" and "a man [of] truth." A man who is truly manly. With the secondary connotation of a truth telling man. A True-man who is honest and just/righteous. The first connotation also comports with his being given the first name, "Harry." Harry men universally connote greater masculinity. These details are obvious cases of Americans passing on their folklore orally in a way that paints their leader at the time in a positive light. A great warrior with a righteous cause. [/sarcasm]
New Directions in Pooh Studies
New Directions in Pooh Studies
https://www.uniontheology.org/resources/bible/biblical-theology/new-directions-in-pooh-studies
The Pooh Community by Richard Bauckham
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1icGkeiPrRYxljZYH_FpVpYOz430j8Ogu/view?usp=share_link
See also my blogpost: Responses to the Documentary Hypothesis
Friday, October 1, 2021
Are The Ages in Genesis Chapter 5 Literal?
In the video below, InspiringPhilosophy [i.e. Michael Jones] argues [successfully IMO] that the ages in Genesis 5 aren't literal but symbolic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)