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.
