The Book of Daniel Defended

  

The Book of Daniel Defended 
[ARTICLE by J.P. Holding and Tekton apologetics]
https://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.php 

 

Video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLapIcULLvvecJB9nFAHRBb6o3SgPAyPWE 

 

Is the Prophecy of Deut. 18:15 of a Prophet Like Unto Moses Fulfilled in Joshua?

 

Here's a short chat I had with Facebook's Meta AI

AP (me): We Christians claim Deut. 18:15 is a prophecy about Jesus. While Jews often claim that it's not Jesus, but [that it is fulfilled in] Joshua. How can a Christian refute that claim? Or respond in a way that shows it couldn't be fulfilled in Joshua?

META AI: *Understanding the Debate:*

The interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:15 is a topic of debate between Christians and Jews. Christians often understand this verse as a prophecy about Jesus Christ, while Jews interpret it as referring to a prophet like Joshua or another figure from the Old Testament.

*The Verse:*

Deuteronomy 18:15 says, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—"

*Arguments for Jesus:*

Here are some points that Christians might make to argue that Deuteronomy 18:15 refers to Jesus:

1. *The Prophet Like Moses:* The verse speaks of a prophet like Moses, who will be raised up by God. Jesus is often seen as a prophet like Moses, as both figures were mediators between God and humanity. Jesus' role as a prophet, priest, and king makes him a suitable candidate for this prophecy.

2. *The Context of the Passage:* Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is part of a larger passage that discusses the role of prophets in Israel. The passage emphasizes the importance of listening to the prophet who will be raised up by God. Jesus is seen as the ultimate prophet who speaks on behalf of God, and his message is one that requires attention and obedience.

3. *The Scope of the Prophecy:* The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15 has a broader scope than just the immediate context of Joshua's time. The verse speaks of a prophet who will be raised up in the future, and Jesus' coming fulfills this prophecy in a way that Joshua's role did not.

*Refuting the Claim that it's Joshua:*

To respond to the claim that Deuteronomy 18:15 refers to Joshua, Christians might point out the following:

1. *Joshua's Limited Role:* While Joshua was a significant figure in Israel's history, his role was limited to leading the people into the Promised Land. Jesus, on the other hand, has a much broader impact, as his message and ministry extend beyond the Jewish people to all nations.

2. *The Lack of Fulfillment:* Joshua did not fulfill the prophecy in a way that would make it impossible for Jesus to be the fulfillment. The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 speaks of a prophet who will be raised up by God, and Jesus' resurrection and exaltation make him a more suitable candidate for this prophecy.

3. *The Typological Connection:* Christians might argue that there is a typological connection between Moses and Jesus, with Jesus being the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy. This connection is based on the similarities between Moses' and Jesus' roles as mediators and prophets.

*Engaging in a Respectful Dialogue:*

When discussing Deuteronomy 18:15 with Jewish friends or scholars, it's essential to approach the conversation with respect and an open mind. By listening to their perspectives and sharing your own understanding, you can engage in a fruitful dialogue that explores the complexities of biblical interpretation.

Ultimately, the debate surrounding Deuteronomy 18:15 highlights the importance of understanding the biblical context, the role of prophets in Israel, and the nature of prophecy itself. By examining the passage in its historical and literary context, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of biblical interpretation and the various perspectives that exist within the Jewish and Christian traditions.

AP: Wouldn't Deut. 34:10-12 be a good refutation that Deut. 18:15 is fulfilled in Moses given that Deut. 34:10-12 is said after verse 9. Had Joshua been the fulfillment in v. 9, then vv. 10-12 wouldn't have been said.

META AI: *Deuteronomy 34:10-12:*

Deuteronomy 34:10-12 says, "And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great deeds of terror that Moses did in the sight of all Israel."

*The Significance of Deuteronomy 34:10-12:*

You're right that Deuteronomy 34:10-12 provides a strong argument against the idea that Deuteronomy 18:15 is fulfilled in Joshua or any other prophet like him. The passage explicitly states that there has not been a prophet like Moses since his time, which suggests that Moses' role and ministry are unique.

*The Implication for Deuteronomy 18:15:*

Given the statement in Deuteronomy 34:10-12, it's reasonable to conclude that Deuteronomy 18:15 is not referring to a prophet like Joshua, but rather to a prophet like Moses who will be raised up in the future. The fact that Deuteronomy 34:10-12 emphasizes Moses' uniqueness and the lack of a similar prophet since his time suggests that the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15 is looking forward to a future figure who will be like Moses in some way.

*The Case for Jesus:*

In light of Deuteronomy 34:10-12, the case for Jesus being the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15 becomes stronger. Jesus is often seen as a prophet like Moses, and his ministry and message are similar to Moses' in many ways. The New Testament writers, such as Stephen in Acts 7 and the author of Hebrews, also draw parallels between Moses and Jesus, highlighting Jesus' role as a mediator and prophet.

*A Strong Argument:*

Your observation about Deuteronomy 34:10-12 provides a strong argument for understanding Deuteronomy 18:15 as a prophecy that looks forward to a future figure like Jesus, rather than being fulfilled in Joshua or another prophet like him. This argument is based on the biblical text itself and highlights the importance of considering the broader context when interpreting specific passages.

A Continuation of a Discussion on Whether Numbers 31:18 Authorizes the Rape of Prepubescent Girls

 

This blogpost continues a discussion that was started in the comments section in my blogpost Here:
https://bibledifficultiesanswered.blogspot.com/2016/09/my-other-blogs.html?showComment=1747241319326#c3486146842969015873

 The following is my continued response.

  Frankly, I'm now bored with our conversation because you're not willing to argue for the likely probability of your interpretation. Because of that, it poses little threat to Christianity. So, I've lost much of my motivation to continue this conversation. If it posed a serious threat to Christianity, then out of my love for God and zeal to defend His glory, I would have retained much of my motivation to continue the discussion. The only thing left motivating me is mercy on you, who, from my perspective, is on his way to hell for his rebellion against God and His revelation in the Bible. But even then, it's ultimately not my job to convert anyone. That's the work of the Holy Spirit. It would probably do more good for me to just privately pray for you. I have other obligations to God, others and myself in my Biblical hierarchy of loves and duties [what Christians have called the ordo amoris]. Whereas, it seems pitiful to me that you, as [presumably] an atheist, are willing to waste the remainder of your limited time on Earth arguing for something you yourself don't think is probably true. Or if you think/suspect it's true, you aren't willing to argue for it. This is partly why I linked to Craig's lecture. Here it is again for you or anyone else who may read this blogpost:

The Absurdity of Life Without God by William Lane Craig:
https://youtu.be/XmHQPOB_TNY

You seem to to equivocate  on the term "reasonable." Sometimes you seem to use it to refer to something that's a live possibility but not probable, other times [for all practical purposes] as a bare logical possibility. For example in your statement:

//Once again, seeing in Numbers 31:18 a divine authorization for sex within adult-child marriages, does not "contradict" anything in the context (i.e., anything which Mosaic Law instilled into the Hebrews to whom Moses was specifically speaking in that verse).//

With the latter approach of bare logical possibility, then it's "reasonable" Moses could have had a third and fourth nipple. This would be why he had something like a speech impediment [if it wasn't an accent]. His embarrassing upbringing as a "quad-nipper" prevented him from psychologically maturing normally. Which affected his development of speech. And (to paraphrase you) nothing in the Biblical text or context contradicts this hypothesis and interpretation of Moses' impediment. In fact, we know that extra nipples, while rare, occur in nature from time to time. Positing something without evidence or without some justification [say, worldview or consistency considerations, &c.], is useless and arbitrary. When I myself (rarely) do it, I have [at least] worldview considerations for doing so.

One could argue that just as some Semitic cultures raped prepubescent girls [with or without divine authorization], so why couldn't the Israelites have done so? Why couldn't the Israelite God authorize it as other pagan deities authorized it? Why couldn't the Israelites have fabricated a divine command authorizing it, just as pagans did in their religions? And those things could be posited without a shred of evidence that the Israelites' pagan neighbors did rape girls. At least someone who argued in that fashion ought to provide some evidence suggesting their neighbors did and present a reasonable case that the Israelites were similar enough to them [say, due to causal connection, or cross-pollination of cultures, etc.] that it's likely the Israelites also raped girls. But you haven't even attempted that as far as I can recall. Though, you may have asserted it earlier without evidence. If you don't offer evidences and arguments that argue for and make your position(s) likely, then they are useless for all intents and purposes.

I assume inerrancy in most of my arguments for a number of reasons. For example, to make it harder for myself. If I can show that an inerrantist approach is consistent with all the facts, then that's a positive for Christianity. Also, how much more then would Christianity be plausibly true if inerrancy were false, and yet it was able to stand up to and withstand criticisms against an inerrantist position. It's a more difficult position to defend. I'm willing to lay my cards down and risk something. Using "reasonableness" [especially as a cloak for bare logical possibility] to protect my beliefs [or unbelief if I were a non-Christian] when I'm not committed to a worldview seems cowardly. When I use "reasonableness" its with a commitment to Christianity and its worldview. When you, or someone like you, uses it, he can take refuge in many different non-Christian positions and/or worldviews and shift from one to the other as it suits him/her.

For example, in a given situation such an atheist or non-Christian [be she, agnostic, theist, polytheist, Muslim, Mormon, etc.] will grant that a historical Jesus existed if it supports her agenda of undermining Christianity, but then in another situation find refuge in saying there is no good argument for a historical Jesus [or Moses, or an Israelite occupation of Palestine in the 13th century BCE, or what have you]. Or maybe space aliens explains X, Y, and Z pieces of data. Or maybe Zeus did it, rather than Yahweh. At times you've granted for the sake of argument a piece of Biblical data as if it's true, but then in another context, when it suits you and your position, point out that you don't believe in inerrancy. If you can pick and choose, why can't I?

If I were to approach the text as a Christian errantist [sic], it would be so much easier and boring. I could easily dismiss and hand wave away ALL ostensible problematic passages like Num. 31:18 by saying the passage is an error of one sort or another. I too could pick and choose which to view as generally reliable and which are cases of errors in the text. I could literally chalk up every difficulty in that way to preserve/protect my errantist Christian beliefs. Just as you can wave off anything you dislike in the text, or in my arguments, by appealing to errancy. Such apologetical "defenses" on my part resorting to errancy would be mostly trivial and worthless.

You complain that I approach the text as an inerrantist, yet don't realize that if I were to approach it as an errantist, that then, the result would be that your criticisms would become moot and pointless. So, then why are your arguing with me? It's an absurd waste of time. Why would I bother offering useless, unimportant and uninteresting defenses like that? Most people want to know about what's likely and/or probable. So I recommend you stop complaining about my assuming inerrancy in my arguments. I'm trying to be consistent, but as the skeptic I understand [though I don't approve of it] IF you want to keep the freedom to be as inconsistent as is useful to you.

//Second, it doesn't matter how Paul uses "Law" elsewhere, I'm only interested in the nuance he intended in Romans 7:7. By directly quoting one of the 10 commandments in the verse, there is a contextual argument that he meant he would not have known coveting was a sin unless there was an EXPLICIT command in the physical Torah directly prohibiting it. That's not rendered unreasonable merely because Paul used "Law" in different senses in different contexts. How he meant "law" in specifically Romans 7:7 is all that matters. I reject biblical inerrancy, so I don't really care whether he stated otherwise elsewhere.//

That's not reading Paul charitably. Also, nowhere does Paul say in Rom. 7:7 that the ONLY place in the Old Testament he could have known or learned that coveting was a sin was from the 10th Commandment or other explicit OT commandments. You're eisegetically reading that INTO the text. The word "law" is mentioned 3 times in Rom. 7:7 and only the 3rd times is it necessary to interpret it as referring to the 10th Commandment. In fact, it's almost certain that the first time "law" is used in 7:7 it refers to more than merely the 10th Commandment. The second occurrence of "law" in 7:7 is also IMO likely not [at least, definitely not necessarily] limited to the 10th Commandment. Then the 3rd use of "law" does refer to the 10th Commandment. It's just as reasonable [to use your term] that Paul cites the 10th Commandment to give just one example [of many] of how one can derive from the entire Law [whether the Torah, or all of the Tanakh], and from even none explicit commands, why coveting is a sin. The burden of proof is on you to show that Paul is saying ONLY from the 10th Commandment could Paul have learned that coveting is a sin, since he only cites the 10th Commandment. With your approach of wooden interpretation, it's not just an example, but the only possible example and source for learning that precept. Then you also have to prove to me which version of the 10th Commandment Paul was referring to, whether it's the version in Exo. 20 or the one in Deut. 5.

But you'll object that it doesn't matter, we can pick either one. But your who argument hinges on a woodenly literal reading of Paul in 7:7 whereby his exact words should be interpreted in a way that sets aside ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. You're excluding the rest of the Law from Paul's example, and other non-explicit commands for moral instruction. So, to be consistent, you should narrow down which version of the 10th Commandment he's referring to so that you can exclude the one he's not referring to. So, until you can definitely tell me which version he meant, then your argument hangs in the air and doesn't land. Ridiculous, right? Well, that's where your uncharitable approach lands you. And all that Contrary to the UNIVERSAL Second Temple Jewish approach ALL Jews in his day used (and for many generations prior to the 1st century Jews used) in interpreting their own Scriptures whereby one can learn moral instruction from more than just the explicitly prescriptive and proscriptive commandments of the Law [cf. the two Talmuds; some of the contents preseving traditions ante-dating the 1st century]. AS WELL AS Contrary to Paul's own teaching elsewhere in the same book and in the rest of the 7 undisputed Pauline epistles. And Contrary to all my arguments about Natural Law, General Revelation, and teleology, et cetera. And finally, Contrary to all the other places in the OT that teaches coveting is wrong either explicitly or implicitly, didactic, or narrative, or parabolic, etc. [plausible examples include: Micah 2:2;  Eccl. 4:4; Exo. 18:21; Pro. 15:27; Ps. 10:3; Ps. 73; Joshua 7; 1 Kings 21]. It stretches credulity beyond all limits that Paul is being an outlier in 7:7 compared to all Jews past and contemporaneous, as well as an outlier to himself [!].

Therefore, your following claim fails when it asserts:
//He wouldn't know coveting was a sin unless the Law expressly forbade it. He would not have known adultery was a sin unless the Law explicitly forbade it. Thus, he would not have known that sex within adult-child marriages was a sin, except the Law had expressly forbade it.//

That's an overly simplistic, naive and fundamentalistic [sic] way to interpret the Bible outside of its historical context. Ironic, huh? ;-)  Especially given your usual targets.

//Jesus never expressed or implied that his followers must aspire to biblical inerrancy, and yet by using bible inerrancy to guide your interpretations, you are acting as if bible inerrancy is literally the key to proper theological knowledge.//

I would disagree that Jesus never expressed or implied that His followers must aspire to Biblical Inerrancy [e.g. John 10:35b; John 17:17; Matt. 22:29-32; passim]. But that's a different topic not germane to the subject at hand. William Lane Craig himself doesn't think inerrancy is a necesary doctrine to believe to be saved. Yet, he argues in his books for Biblical Inerrancy. For example, his book on the historical Adam required him to deal [even struggle] with Jesus' teaching and views on the reliability of Scripture and how to comport that with the scientific evidence.

//Fourth, you laughably complain that the sex act with a prepuescent girl would cause injury and pain, thus we know the act is wrong. But a) it is your god that created the hymen, and thus must have wanted the vast majority of women to experience pain during first intercourse;//

Pain is not by itself evil or to be avoided at all times and at all cost. I was clearly referring to life long needless suffering from an unnatural condition that could have been prevented. Gosh, Numbers 22 implies it's wrong to needlessly abuse your animal as Balaam did his donkey [cf. Prov. 12:10; Deut. 25:4]. This is even BEFORE the events of Num. 31:18 [i.e. ten chapters earlier]. Don't you think that if it's wrong to abuse your donkey, then maybe it's also wrong to abuse little girls? Do you think it's too far a leap for the Jews of that time to come to similar moral conclusions? I'm obviously not against all infliction of or enduring of pain, because I believe the Bible's teaching about the propriety of spanking children, about fasting, and delayed gratification, etc.

// b) if Copan and Flannagan are correct, Moses and Joshua did not wholesale slaughter the Canaanites, but mostly only "dispossessed" them, or shooed them out of the desired territory, when in fact the outskirts of the promised land was barren territory (Ex. 15:22).//

I don't know what your point is here.

//Your god has exactly ZERO moral objections to inflicting slow sustained misery upon children. //

Where do you get that?

// There are contextual indicators that he is talking about actual Torah...//

If they [the gentiles] have Torah, then how can they be "without law"? That's contradictory.

//(2:12, "without the law" cannot mean "without a conscience", but only without the physical Torah. Same in 2:14. The Jews rely on the "law", v. 17. They are not relying on a generalized moral conscience, but on actual Torah. //

I must not be understanding what you mean here, or the point you're getting at, because from what I can tell, I agree with it. From my perspective, the Jews had a publicly available and referrable revelation in the Torah and/or all the Tanakh. The gentiles didn't. Yet, despite not having access to the Tanakh, they displayed a knowledge of moral law precisely because there is a God given conscience which informs them [imperfectly, and imperfectly interpreted in their sinfulness] about the basics of morality. Hence, when it's time for God to judge them in the afterlife, they will be judged by their conscience which they did (inescapably) have, and not judged by the written Tanakh which they didn't have.

//Paul then mentions stealing, adultery and idolatry in vv. 21-22). Thus, 2:15 is not a catch-all that prohibits other possible acts that the "Law" doesn't get around to actually prohibiting.//

You're begging the question, and assuming the very thing you have yet to prove. That Paul was saying in 7:7 you  can only learn moral instruction from explicit prescriptions and proscriptions in the Torah and/or the whole Tanakh. That I can learn to drive stick shift from my father doesn't necessitate that I can ONLY learn to drive stick shift from my father, or that I can't learn it from my older brother or uncle. That's logically fallacious.
 
If you don't have anything better to demonstrate that Num. 31:18 probably and likely authorizes prepubescent rape, then I don't see why there's a need to continue our conversation. You're content that it's "reasonable" from your perspective to think so, and I'm content to think that it's pointless to cite it if it doesn't pose a serious threat to Christianity. I'm also content in believing that most [or all] of your arguments failed to prove your points. You believe the interpretive option you presented is reasonable, while not rising to the level of probability to the point that you should risk arguing for it. On that basis, one might as well worry as much about whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons. It's "reasonable" either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did God Command Or Did the People Initiate?

 

Numbers chapter 13 says God commanded Moses to send spies to spy out the land of Canaan. While Deuteronomy 1:22 says the Israelites asked Moses to  commission sending spies to spy out the Promised Land. How can one resolve the apparent contradiction? I asked Facebook's Meta AI about the issue and it independently came to the same conclusion I did. 

It wrote:

This apparent contradiction has been debated by scholars and theologians for centuries. However, it's not necessarily a contradiction, but rather a difference in perspective or emphasis between the two accounts.

In Deuteronomy 1:22, Moses recounts the events leading up to the spies being sent, and he says that the people came to him and asked him to send spies to scout out the land. This account focuses on the people's initiative and their request to Moses.

In Numbers 13, the account focuses on God's instruction to Moses. According to this account, God tells Moses to send spies to explore the land, and Moses obeys God's command.

One way to resolve this apparent contradiction is to consider that both accounts are true, but they're describing the same event from different perspectives. It's possible that the people did come to Moses and request that he send spies, and that God then confirmed this plan through His instruction to Moses.

Another way to look at it is that Deuteronomy 1:22 is providing a more nuanced understanding of the events leading up to the spies being sent. Moses may be highlighting the people's role in initiating the request, while Numbers 13 focuses on God's sovereignty and instruction.

Ultimately, the apparent contradiction can be resolved by recognizing that both accounts are complementary, rather than contradictory. They provide a more complete understanding of the events surrounding the sending of the spies, and they highlight the complex interplay between human initiative and divine guidance.

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

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 ESV

The 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 ESV

There 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:

Did The Patriarchs Know Yahweh?
https://youtu.be/sPZnKzJqt_U

 

 

 

 

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.

Genesis 5: 900 Year Old Man?
https://youtu.be/uoPbZnRN8xQ

Who Killed Goliath? A Question of Source Criticism

The following is my response to a common set of objections about the story of David that I repeatedly notice in Facebook groups. In purple is the set of objections. My response is below in black.

Who Killed Goliath? A Question of Source Criticism:

David and Goliath is a well-known story. The general storyline is simple. David is a "youth" who is untrained in warfare (v 33, 42). The giant Goliath comes out to challenge someone to fight him. David takes the challenge, hits Goliath square in the head with a stone, kills him, and then decapitates him.
However, as it often is with the Bible, things aren't that simple. It appears this story is a doublet: one of two stories about David's rise to be in Saul's court. The other is in 1 Samuel 16.

In 1 Samuel 16, David is brought in to play the harp for Saul. David is introduced to Saul and is described as "a man of valor, a man of war," (v. 17) and is later taken into Saul's service as his armor bearer. Saul "loved him greatly." (v. 21-22)
But then in 1 Samuel 17, David is a youth and not a warrior at all. Even more confusing, why is David not at war with Saul as his armor bearer? Worse yet, why would Saul ask "whose son is this youth," "Inquire whose son the boy is," and "whose son are you, young man?" (v. 55-58) Didn't he know David? Apparently not.
Perhaps one could argue this was in reverse, 1 Samuel 17 was actually a story from BEFORE 1 Samuel 16. But this wouldn't make sense either. David became Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom! (v. 25, 18:17-19)
These two stories are in complete conflict.
But complicating things further, there's another Biblical claimant to be Goliath's killer!
2 Samuel 21:19 "...Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam."
So who killed Goliath? Chronicles tried to cover this up by saying Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, but that's a clear textual interpolation from a text AFTER the Exile... At least 500 years after David.
This is a classic case of source criticism. Whoever was compiling the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) was working with multiple sources that were combined. They're even named in various parts. This causes minor or even major discrepancies like this, and it helps us better understand the composition of the Bible.

1. While I believe in Biblical Inerrancy, the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on Inerrancy. Christianity could still be true even if there were minor errors in the Bible.

2. Regarding 2 Sam. 21:19 the text is corrupted. Textual corruption is not inconsistent with the historical doctrine of Inerrancy. Notice the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 20:5. I'll post them next to each other. First Chron. 20:5 preserves the datum that Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, and not Goliath himself.   

And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.- 2 Sam. 21:19

And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.- 1 Chron. 20:5

Here's what some commentaries say:

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

//where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite; the word "brother" is rightly supplied from 1 Chronicles 20:5; where his name is said to be Lahmi, for not Goliath himself was slain, though some so interpret it, and take Elhanan to be David; so Jarchi, and with which agrees the Targum; but he was slain not at Gob, but in the valley of Elah, nor had David any such name as Elhanan; he was one of David's worthies, 2 Samuel 23:24; where he is called the son of Dodo, and in 1 Chronicles 20:5, the son of Jair; and Lahmi there may not be the name of Goliath's brother, but, as here, the country name of Elhanan; for the words (z) there may be rendered,"and Elhanan the son of Jair, the Lehemite (i.e. the Bethlehemite), slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite,''and so perfectly agrees, with this:

the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam; not of Goliath's brother, but of Goliath himself, 1 Samuel 17:7.//

Adam Clarke's Commentary states:

//Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim - slew - Goliath the Gittite - Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1 Chronicles 20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: "Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam." This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that ארגים oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that בית הלחמי beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from את לחמי eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc.//

3. //So who killed Goliath? Chronicles tried to cover this up by saying Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, but that's a clear textual interpolation from a text AFTER the Exile... At least 500 years after David.//

How do you know it's a "clear textual interpolation"? What's the evidence?

4. //David and Goliath is a well-known story. The general storyline is simple. David is a "youth" who is untrained in warfare (v 33, 42). //

It's not clear that 1 Sam. 17:33, 42 states that David is not a warrior. That's an unnecessary inference. The verses merely contrast David's youth with Goliath's status as a seasoned warrior. Moreover, if you take 1 Sam. 16:18 literally, then David was "a man of valor, a man of war" [i.e. a warrior]. Though, it's possible that 1 Sam. 16:18 was hyperbole on the part of Saul's servant who spoke and not literal (e.g. referring to David's courage/bravery).

5. //and is later taken into Saul's service as his armor bearer. Saul "loved him greatly." (v. 21-22)//

//Worse yet, why would Saul ask "whose son is this youth," "Inquire whose son the boy is," and "whose son are you, young man?" (v. 55-58) Didn't he know David? Apparently not.//

21 And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer.22 And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight."- 1 Sam. 16:21-22

Saul as King would have had multiple servants, musicians and armor-bearers. You wouldn't expect a King [or a modern day president or prime minister] to know all his assistants/servants by name and intimately. When it says Saul loved David greatly, it might merely mean that he enjoyed David's music and service so much that he instructed one of his servants to notify Jesse that the King wanted to take David into his service for a while. None of that requires Saul to have known David personally and intimately.

An added fact that can help explain Saul's lack of recognition is that David was growing. A boy without a beard will look vastly different once he starts maturing and developing a masculine physique and facial hair. Even hair color can change with age.

6. //Even more confusing, why is David not at war with Saul as his armor bearer? //

David's service as one of Saul's armor-bearers may have been temporary.

7. //Perhaps one could argue this was in reverse, 1 Samuel 17 was actually a story from BEFORE 1 Samuel 16. But this wouldn't make sense either. David became Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom! (v. 25, 18:17-19)//

That the story in 1 Sam. 17 may have occurred before 1 Sam. 16 is a legitimate possibility. Not all of the Biblical stories are chronologically recorded. So, that would solve some of the difficulties that were brought up earlier. That the stories may be chronologically reversed was something I was going to bring up earlier, but I figured it would be easier to address the apparent contradictions directly as if chapter 16 & 17 were chronological. It's argued that they couldn't be reversed because David became Saul's son-in-law. But David didn't IMMEDIATELY become Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom. That must be assumed in order to maintain the apparent contradiction. Reading chapter 18 (the next chapter) shows that David didn't immediately rise to prominence to rival Saul. It was a relatively quick ascendancy, but it still took time.

How Many Israelites Left Egypt During the Exodus

One of the complaints skeptics make is that the Bible's description of the Exodus would entail that around two million Israelites left Egypt. That's supposed to be a number that's way too high for at least two reasons. One reason is in terms of feasibility. How could such a multitude travel a desert and still find enough food and water (etc.)? It would be a logistical nightmare. A second reason is that such a great multitude would leave evidence that archaeologists would certainly discover. Yet, such evidence supposedly hasn't been found. The following link provides one way in which to answer such questions. It's an excerpt from Exodus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) by Douglas Stuart (pp 297-304).:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/01/number-of-israelites.html

 or Here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QZw9KAJoukv7z2yLhgz9gGjfkucQC_1_

In summary, based on linguistic studies, the commentary argues that the number of Israelites would have been from approximately 28,800 to 36,000. Additionally, the commentary cites two other scholars whose study would (if applied) yield a number of 22,000-27,500. If we rounded up that number to 40,000, that's a significantly lower number than 2,000,000. Most stadiums can EASILY seat 40,000 people. Some can seat over 100,000 people.

On a related topic:

A Defense Of The Hyperbolic InterpretationOf Large Numbers In The Old Testament by David M. Fouts [or HERE]

Royal chronology

Steve Hays posted a blog titled "Royal chronology" in response to and to complement Jonathan McLatchie's blog "Investigating Alleged Contradictions in the Old Testament ". I recommend both of them.

Royal chronology by Steve Hays

Investigating Alleged Contradictions in the Old Testament by Jonathan McLatchie
[see also Steve's comments in the combox]

Did God Command Genocide In the Bible?

 

Some links that address this issue that's often brought up by skeptics.

 

Did God Command Genocide In the Bible?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FGv9aOCcyU

The "Slaughter" of the Canaanite Tribes Revisited

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZt1giKdDpA

 

A podcast by Craig on the topic:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-and-driving-out-the-canaanites

 

 

My blog Answering Moral Objections to the Bible has many links addressing moral objections to the Bible.

http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/09/answering-moral-objections-to-bible.html

Was the Stoning of a Rebellious Son Too Harsh?

18    "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them,
19    then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives,
20    and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.'
21    Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.- Deut. 21:18-21

The following is a more developed version of my comments HERE.

When it comes to this issue of the stoning of a rebellious son, the son is clearly not a prepubescent child. He's obviously at least as old as a teenager since he's committing sins like gluttony and drunkenness. Any younger and the parents would be strong enough to prevent such sins. They could just take away the food and alcohol and the weak child wouldn't be able to resist. Some might object by saying that the parents are strong enough to grab a hold of him and bring him out to the elders. I'll address that objection later.

Also, the son is clearly incorrigible (so not a recent or very young teenager). He's described as stubborn. So, it's not a matter of a one time offense, but a son with a persistently unteachable spirit/attitude.

Furthermore, it seems the law was voluntary. The parents must voluntarily give up the son to the fate of stoning, and the community as a whole must agree to the stoning of the incorrigibly rebellious son. It wasn't a matter of private justice, but public justice. Parents couldn't just unilaterally stone their son to death in the backyard. Parents must (voluntarily) enlist the support of the community. So, both the parents and the community must be in agreement.

Finally, in all likelihood, the law served more regularly as a deterrent to scare kids straight. Few parents likely took advantage of the law. Especially since it would be a shame to the family for a son to have been stoned to death. Corporal punishment was an accepted form of training for parents to use back then and they would have availed themselves of that option as much as possible before recourse to stoning (v. 18). Stoning would have been the very last resort.

Regular beatings would remind kids of how much more stoning would hurt and its permanent nature (i.e. death). I'm reminded of how when me and my cousin were around six years old my uncle drove both of us to the parking lot of the Police Station and threatened to give us over to the police if we didn't stop fighting. It's no surprise that that scary experience dramatically decreased our tendency to fight. My cousin and I still laugh about it today.

Many adults (like myself) love and are thankful to their parents for having used corporal punishment on them when they were children. We also feel sorry for kids/adults who were never loved enough to be spanked, and the terrible consequences of that deprivation on the development of their character and the respectful attitude for authority (most especially toward God) they didn't develop.

Like I said above, some might object by saying that the parents are strong enough to grab a hold of the son and bring him out to the elders. So, this argues against the claim that the son is fairly mature. But the text doesn't say that the parents couldn't enlist other people to help them (like the elders themselves). Also, a sufficiently inebriated person is fairly easy to handle and guide. In which case, it's theoretically possible for parents to lead (or carry an unconscious) son to the elders. Then when he sobers up, he can be sentenced to death knowing full well why he deserved such a sentence.

Steve Hays wrote in his blogpost:

i) I didn't say if that was the thing to do now. Not everything that God commanded ancient Israel to do is a direct command to or for Christians.

ii) You fail to grasp the nature of the Mosaic penalty structure. As various scholars contend, the death penalty was generally a maximum penalty, not a mandatory penalty (first degree murder might be a notable exception). 

ii) The fact that the legislator invokes the purgation formula in the case of the incorrigible son indicates to me that in this case (and other cases in kind), the penalty is indexed to the cultic holiness of Israel. If so, that doesn't carry over into the new covenant era. By contrast, the penalty for murder antedates the Mosaic covenant. The penalty for murder is indexed to the image of God rather than holy land. 

Deuteronomy has a refrain about "purging evil" (Cf. Deut 13:5/6; 17:7,12; 19:13,19; 21:9,21; 22:21-22,24; 24:7). A dramatic illustration is the ceremony to cleanse the land of blood guilt (21:1-9). These penalties operate within a framework of ritual holiness, where the land is culturally holy, and transgressions defile the land, necessitating punitive actions that reconsecrate the land. But that principle doesn't carry over into the new covenant, because the holy land category is defunct.

Was the Penalty for Crushing A Man's Testicles Too Harsh?

11    "When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts,
12    then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.- Deut. 25:11-12

First off (pun intended) it should be noted that some extra-Scriptural Jewish interpreters believed that payment was able to take the place of having the woman's hand cut off. John Gill wrote regarding Deut. 25:11-12:

 .....though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it; so Jarchi; and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, "eye for eye", Exo_21:24; which they commonly understand of paying a price for the both, &c. lost; and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:
thine eye shall not pity her; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.

That seems like a plausible interpretation. But let's assume it's a wrong interpretation. How could a Christian respond to the allegation that the cutting off of a woman's hand is too harsh a punishment for crushing a man's private parts? The following is a more developed version of my comments HERE.

Presumably even at this time the Israelites were looking/waiting for the Messiah. By crushing the man's genitals it could prevent or delay the coming of the Messiah because he may no longer be able to produce offspring. So this would be a terrible offense in the eyes of Jews. Presumably, in the eyes of God it could be interpreted as rebellion against and unbelief in God's promise of the Messiah.

Also, just not being able to have children was already a terrible and shameful condition to be in for either males or females in Jewish culture. The man would have this shame forced on him for the rest of his life by the woman who crushed his private parts.

Another terrible deprivation would be the fact that since his testicles were crushed, he would be barred from joining the "assembly of YHVH" for public worship (Deut. 23:1). By the way, this is wrongly interpreted by atheists to mean men with crushed testicles couldn't enter heaven. The law of Deut. 23:1 referred to the earthly religious situation in ancient Israel. Remember, the Old Testament prophet Daniel was likely a forced eunuch and he was well pleasing to Yehovah/Yahweh.

Crushed testicles could also damage his ability to produce sufficient amounts of testosterone and so render him physically weaker. In the harsh conditions of the ANE (Ancient Near East), you needed all the strength, vitality and ambition you could have. Also, with crushed testicles, one might not be able to produce children who were often essential for economic survival. Later on the man and his wife (if he had been married before the woman crushed his testicles) would also eventually need to be taken care of in their old age by children that never existed because of his forced impotence.

Semites understood the connection between testicles and masculinity because they could observe how eunuchs lost muscle mass, lost depth of voice, lost strength, lost aggression, lost ambition, lost masculine features in terms of the size and shape of their skulls and facial hair, penile shrinkage and dramatic drop in libido.

Psalm 10:5 and KJV Onlyism

I'm NOT a KJV Onlyist. However, here's an alleged problem with modern translations that I encountered on Facebook by a KJV Onlyist:

I don't claim to know which is the correct translation. However, I don't think the modern translations are necessarily wrong, for the following reasons (which I posted on Facebook).

"Prosper" might be legitimate translation in light of the next verse (6). The context implies that he's boasting that he's secure and that calamity won't strike him. Similar to other passages in the OT where the wicked boast in their riches and earthly blessings.

The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly.- Job 12:6 KJV

They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave.- Job 21:13 KJV

Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.- Ps. 37:7 KJV

For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.- Ps. 73:3 KJV

Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously?- Jer. 12:1 KJV

The NET Bible footnote on this verse says, "Heb “they are firm, his ways, at every time.” The verb חַיִל (khayil, “be firm, be strong”) occurs only here and in Job 20:21, where it has the sense “endure.”"

John Gill in his commentary says the following (notice Jarchi's interpretation):

To God and to his people; or, "his ways cause terror" (a), so Aben Ezra; make men fear; as antichrist has made the whole world tremble at him, Rev_13:4; or, "his ways are defiled", as the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin render it; for to him is nothing pure, his mind and conscience being defiled, Tit_1:15; or, "his ways always remain" (b); they are always the same, there is no change in them for the better: or they "prosper" (c) as Jarchi interprets it; and this is sometimes stumbling to the saints, Jer_12:1;

Albert Barnes prefers the interpretation of the KJV of the word. But Barnes nevertheless admits that it's a difficult word to translate. Here's what Barnes says:

Long QUOTE:
Psalms 10:5
His ways are always grievous - His paths; his manner of life; his conduct toward God; his dealings with men. The word rendered “are grievious,” יחילוּ yāchiylû - has been variously rendered. The Latin Vulgate renders it, “His ways are defiled.” So the Septuagint. Coverdale renders it, “His ways are always filthy.” Prof. Alexander, “His ways are firm.” So DeWette, “Es gelingen seine Wege.” Horsley, “His ways are confident.” This variety in the interpretation arises from the ambiguity of the original word - חול chûl. The meaning of this word, as given by Genesius, is to turn round, to twist, to whirl; and hence:
(1) to dance;
(2) to be whirled, or twisted upon anything;
(3) to twist oneself with pain, or to be in pain;
(4) to bear or bring forth;
(5) to tremble, to quake;
(6) to be strong or stable, as things twisted are.
Hence, he translates this passage, “his ways are firm, or stable, that is, all his affairs prosper.” But it seems to me plain that this is not the idea in the mind of the psalmist. He is not dwelling on the prosperity of the wicked, or on the result of his conduct, but on his character. In the previous verses he had stated some of the traits in his character, and the subsequent verses continue the description; hence, it is natural that we should expect to find some special feature of his character referred to here, and not that there should be an allusion to the stability of his affairs. It seems to me, therefore, that the exact idea here is, that his ways, or his modes of feelling and conduct were always perverse and forced, and hard; that there was always something tortuous and unnatural about him; that he was not straightforward and honest; that he did not see things as they are, and did not act in a plain and upright manner.
End QUOTE

When it comes to interpreting the Psalms, I always profit from reading Joseph Addison Alexander's commentary (various versions freely online at archive.org).

Here's a Screen Shot of of Alexander's commentary on this verse.

Click on picture to better read the comments.

I could have written more, but that should suffice to show that the modern translations do not commit a "gross" error.

The issue of Rape and Deut. 22:28-29

Steve Hays wrote a great blog on Deut. 22:28-29.

Legal technicalities by Steve Hays

This blogpost is my attempted supplement to Steve's comments.

I also highly recommend the following video on the topic by George Athas

George Athas - The Bible's attitude to Rape from Audio Advice on Vimeo.


Here are my comments on the topic:

Deut. 22:28-29 is really is a difficult case law to understand. From what I can gather, it seem to me that the woman actually does CLAIM being raped. And so, it seems to me that there are two possibilities. Either it was actually consensual, or actually non-consensual.

1. Assuming it was NON-CONSENSUAL (i.e. real rape)
The woman rightly claims rape. Must she then be forced to marry her rapist? Well, if we first look at and compare the situation where an unbetrothed woman engaged in consensual sex, what do we find?

In such a case, when an unbetrothed virgin woman is seduced (or allows herself to be seduced), the father has the option to utterly refuse to give his daughter in marriage to the man (Ex. 22:17). If that's the case in *consensual* sex, then it only makes sense that a father, or brother (or even the woman herself) has the option of utterly refusing to allow a rapist to marry the woman since it's a case of *NON-consensual* sex. It's not like the Jews were emotionally indifferent to the rape of their woman. Jacob's son slaughtered an entire city and plundered their goods because their sister Dinah was humiliated and defiled by rape (Gen. 34). George Athas seems to agree that the father or brother (and the woman) has the option of refusing marriage between the woman and the alleged rapist in this video HERE

The question I'm not sure of is whether a father or brother in that society can decide marriage contrary to the woman's wishes. Say for example, being motivated out of the prospect of sharing in the man's money.

The man, being actually guilty of rape but falsely claiming innocence, is fined with having to marry the woman and never having the option of divorcing her. Apparently ONLY if the father or brother (or the woman herself) is willing to allow the marriage.

Why would a woman ever be willing to marry her rapist? Maybe if she feels she may never get married because of the incident. Since, prospective men might find her unacceptable on account of her having been defiled. Other possible reasons include the woman concluding she is likely never to find a husband because 1. her family is  poor or of low standing in the community, and/or 2. her not attractive enough (Hence why she may still be unbetrothed. Arranged marriages back then being a family decision on both sides).

2. Assuming it was actually CONSENSUAL

Then the woman falsely claimed rape.
What motivation might an unbetrothed woman have in falsely claiming rape? The woman might be wanting a husband but can't find a man willing to marry her because (like above) 1. her family is  poor or of low standing in the community, and/or 2. not attractive (hence why she may still be unbetrothed).

The man innocent of rape, but falsely accused of it, is still fined with having to marry the woman without the possibility of divorce because, at the very least, he violated a virgin daughter of Israel.

Why would a woman in that society be motivated to claim rape when it was in fact consensual? Maybe to shame the man out of spite. Especially, if she still had the option of refusing to marry him, or convincing her father/brother not to allow the marriage. Or maybe a woman might lie about rape for pride's sake. In order to make it seem like she wasn't wantonly venereous/libidinous. In which case, she may still be willing to marry the man.

If she were to marry the man, she will have to live with the consequences of her decision of falsely claiming rape because he may never divorce her. However, does she have the future option of divorcing him (e.g. for adultery)? I'm not sure. I think so.

3. Is there ever a circumstance in which a woman who is actually raped might be motivated to claim it was consensual? Not if she were betrothed since she would be punished with death along with the man. What if she were not betrothed? If she were unbetrothed, she may do so in order to secure a marriage for similar reasons I explained in the last paragraph of part 1.
The difference being that in this instance she's claiming it's consensual even though in both cases [#1 and here] it's an actual case of non-consensual rape. She may also do so in order to make the marriage (which she wants for reasons given above in part 1) less scandalous. And if she got pregnant, in order not to have the child considered to have been conceived in more scandal than necessary. Thinking of the child's future reputation, it might be better to be perceived as having been conceived in consensual immorality than due to rape.

See these other blogs at Triablogue


OT rape laws
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/ot-rape-laws.html

OT honor-killings?
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/ot-honor-killings.html


Compare that with this Jewish article:

The Rape of the Unbetrothed Virgin in Torah and Assyrian Law" A Comparative Analysis
http://thetorah.com/rape-unbetrothed-virgin/

The Punishment for Rape and Bad Translations
https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/the-punishment-for-rape-and-bad-translations/


see also my blogpost: Answering Moral Objections to the Bible

Steve Hays blogpost on slavery: Flogging