Thursday, November 7, 2019
81 comments:
I was hoping to wind down our conversation on the topic of the Trinity which engaged in at both my blogpost and [predominantly] your blogpost. Despite the fact that you think I've been impatient with you and others, I've been delaying things I've needed to do in order to address your questions/concerns/objections to the doctrine of the Trinity.
ReplyDelete
You said you want to debate "various bible-related issues". I don't have time for a debate. Especially one that involves "various" issues. However, I'm willing to quickly address one very specific topic if you post it in this thread. This single thread to make it easier to following the conversation. I recommend you pick a topic that is every VERY BIG/major or or VERY SMALL/minor. If very small, I might be able answer it quickly. If very big, it'll either be something I have no answer to, and so would defer it to a real and seasoned apologist. Or, I might have some things to say about it that might help shed some light for skeptics to understand the Christian position better.I've spent so much time responding to your questions on the Trinity [HERE and HERE] that in trying to respond to you so quickly to save time, I'm accidentally typing a lot of errata/typos.
Delete
Also, I hope you appreciate how I took a lot of time answering (I'm guessing) around 90-95% of your comments/objections/concerns on the Trinity DIRECTLY. Often quoting you verbatim to address your specific concerns. You didn't reciprocate and take the time to do that with my comments, yet you claimed I wasn't being patient. It seems to me that you weren't the one being patient enough to address most of my salient points. Though, I did that with yours, and then some. But that's fine. I'm willing to indulge people to some extent, and be the more gracious one in the conversation.
typo corrections:
//I was hoping to wind down our conversation on the topic of the Trinity which [we] engaged in at both my blogpost and [predominantly] your blogpost.//
//This single thread to make it easier to following ["follow"] the conversation.//
//I recommend you pick a topic that is every [delete "every"] VERY BIG/major or or VERY SMALL/minor.//
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but because you apparently prefer to answer lots of issues within single posts (at least on my trinity challenge) I just assumed that yes, you DO have plenty of time to respond to debate challenges.
Delete
And since you chose to answer me at my blog, I'll assume that confining my replies to my own blog will be acceptable to you (i.e., you don't have any problems replying at my blog).
(you may also feel free to avoid posting "corrections" to your own wording, unless the original wording was opposite to your actual belief. Merely imperfect grammar is acceptable 'roun here.)
But in either case, the challenge that I now present is as follows:
Do you agree with the following assumption: King David and his servants knew perfectly well that keeping warm at night would be as easy as sleeping next to the fireplace?
If you agree to this otherwise apparently common sense, then what exactly is "unreasonable" in declaring the last part of 1st Kings 1:4 ("but the king did not cohabit with her") a case of genuine historical error that more than likely appeared in the original manuscript of Kings (i.e., David DID "cohabit" with that girl in that circumstance)?
1 Now King David was old, advanced in age; and they covered him with clothes, but he could not keep warm.
2 So his servants said to him, "Let them seek a young virgin for my lord the king, and let her attend the king and become his nurse; and let her lie in your bosom, that my lord the king may keep warm."
3 So they searched for a beautiful girl throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
4 The girl was very beautiful; and she became the king's nurse and served him, but the king did not cohabit with her. (1 Ki. 1:1-4 NAU)
=======================
If you don't think it "unreasonable" to accuse the biblical author of telling a falsehood in the last part of 1st Kings 1:4, please specify so.I'm wondering whether you consider this is a big, small or medium difficulty. Since I can think of much bigger difficulties in the OT or NT. But I'll stick with your example. First off, I'm not sure what the objection is. Most skeptics doubt a historical David even existed. If the story was completely made up, then they could have left out what might have been an "embarassing" aspect of the story from the beginning. Or are you claiming the original fictional story was later changed by redactors by adding the interpolation of verse 4c? Or are you claiming the original story is true (or at least based on a true story) and later redactors added the interpolation? If there was an interpolation, is there any textual evidence you can provide in any extant manuscripts or fragments that demonstrate this?
Delete
There are various traditional interpretations to the passage. Here's another possible interpretation that's less orthodox/popular that I've come up with. It's possible that while he did suffer from coldness, David sinfully used the opportunity to possibly justify having a beautiful woman to serve him and whom he could later try to seduce. But because of his advanced age he suffered from erectile dysfunction so that it was technically true that he never had sex with her. A feeling of coldness is often due to poor circulation, and you need good circulation to get an erection. Maybe David suffered from diabetes or something. Also, David had multiple wives. If he wanted more women, he could have married another one. Or taken her as a concubine. So, I don't know what your problem is with the passage.
Yes, fires can keep people warm, but it can't serve/wait on them. Also, there's nothing like skin to skin contact for warmth, comfort and intimacy (even non-sexual intimacy). David may have been lonely too and wanted more neutral company which his wives couldn't provide. Wives can be very political. Especially when there are multiple wives vying for power. With Abishag not being an official wive or concubine, she wouldn't pose another threat to any existing wives.
CONTINUEDIt even might be the case that the servants had sinfully suggested openly, or by innuendo, or silently hoped that David would take Abishag "to bed" sexually to help revive him physically and psychologically. You have to remember that we're reading the OT. Their sense of morality wasn't exactly the same as the NT's. Also, the OT presents many of the kings as imperfect. Even the good ones. Also, that in the OT YHVH accepted polygamy (possibly as a concession). Whereas under the New Covenant it's explicitly taught that the ideal marriage is between one man and one woman as originally idealized with Adam and Eve. Even some of the Mosaic laws, while acknowledging the reality of polygamy sometimes implied that monogamy was preferred/ideal. Some Christians think that polygamy was sinful in the OT/Old Covenant and the NT/NC, or sinful only in the NT/NC. I'm not convinced of that. It may not have been sinful either in the OT/OC or the NT/NC. Though, as I said, the NT makes clear monogamy is the ideal. Like many Christians, my position on converts to Christianity who have multiple wives is to keep their current wives AS wives and take care of them and the children they bore. But don't take on any more wives until you have none left due to death.
Delete
Since I don't have much time to spare, I'll just link to online commentaries for the more traditional interpretations:
For free online commentaries on verse 1:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_kings/1-1.htm
For free online commentaries on verse 2:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_kings/1-2.htm
For free online commentaries on verse 3:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_kings/1-3.htm
For free online commentaries on verse 4:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_kings/1-4.htmBTW, as far as I can recall, I've never read the commentaries on this passage because I never thought there was a problem. If there are any similarities between my speculations and those of the commentaries, it's not because I consciously borrowed from them. Though, cryptomnesia on my part isn't impossible.
DeleteAlso, the original author might have intentionally recorded the fact that David didn't cohabit with her to emphasize how aged and feeble David the King had become. In which case the opposite of your allegation is true. That it was something added or changed to remove an embarrassing scandal from David's life. It might have ended up a scandal, if David could get an erection. But he might not have been able to achieve or maintain one.
Delete
In summary. I don't see any major problem with the passage. Positing erectile dysfunction is perfectly reasonable given his symptom of constantly feeling cold. Since coldness is often a sign of poor circulation.Finally, why would redactors want to change the story in order to save David's reputation. He already had a bad/damaged reputation for having committed adultery with Bathsheba. Maybe it was changed in order not to record that David had died in serious sin? That would be more of a NT concern given NT teaching on apostasy. If there was a redaction, why not remove the entire passage entirely. Or reconstruct it so that verse 1-3 doesn't include how beautiful Abishag was? Or say she was very homely in appearance. This is why I think it's more likely that v 4c is original and that it was recorded to indicate to the reader that the King had gotten really old and feeble. This seems to be confirmed by the verse next verse.
Delete
Now Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, "I will be king." And he prepared for himself chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him.- 1 Kings 1:5
The implication being that Adonijah saw an opportunity to usurp the reins of power because David demonstrated himself to be a weak and vulnerable King because he "couldn't get it up" and showed himself to no longer being "a real man"(much less a king).
I hope you'll agree that my solution of positing erectile dysfunction on the part of David is perfectly reasonable and plausible. If not, then I don't think you're capable of discussing Biblical matters in good faith.BTW, I'm not saying that I know David suffered ED. Nor that it was necessary for David to have that condition for your challenge to be answered. It's enough for Adonijah to have THOUGHT his father the King, his "old man" (figuratively & literally old), had ED. Or even if Adonijah didn't positively believe it, it was public knowledge that the King hadn't cohabited with one of the most beautiful woman in the land who was often in his arms. Maybe even in his bed. Adonijah could have used that public fact (or rumor) to insinuate that David was unfit to remain the King. He could have used it to rally people to his cause. Even King Rehoboam would later insult his father's "manhood"/loins in 1 Kings 12:10, 14 in order to try to tighten his grip over the people.
Delete
For all we know, David had the purest of motivations and intentions. He may never have intended or attempted to "bed" Abishag before or after she was chosen. David died at the age of about 70. People aged quicker then because of poor healthcare, sanitation, hygiene and understanding of nutrition and exercise. Past 40 years old men's libidos slowly wane due to lowering testosterone. In some men that decline is faster. As an elderly man, David's libido may have been low enough that he wasn't sexually aroused by Abishag. He had had multiple wives and he might have been desensitized to the physical beauty of women to some extent. Similar to how some young men are currently experiencing Porn-Induced ED. That might have been coupled with his further sanctification. Meaning, his growth in his devotion to God to live a holy life [especially if he knew his death was approaching and was soon to meet his Maker]. So, it's not absolutely impossible that David never cohabited with Abishag, contrary to your insinuation.
Nevertheless, my speculation about erectile dysfunction is not implausible. Kings got the best that life could offer. They often feasted on the choicest and richest of foods. High in calories, sugars, proteins and other things bad for one's heath. So, It's not impossible for David to have developed mild diabetes that lead to ED. Even King Asa may have developed gout (2 Chron. 16:12). Gout of course is well known for being called the disease of kings.Yeah, but, do you think the skeptic's interpretation (i.e., that the last sentence in 1st Kings 1:4 is false) can be "reasonable" even if not the only "possible" interpretation?
Delete
Hopefully you don't think that the reasonableness of your own interpretation somehow suddenly makes it impossible or unlikely for the skeptical interpretation to be reasonable.
And I'm not seeing any rule of historiography that requires the reader to believe all statements in ancient historical assertions until somebody can prove those statements to actually be false.I'm not a doctor, but I would suspect that there are more sicknesses beside diabetes that can cause (both) a feeling of coldness and ED.
DeleteThe word "reasonable" can mean different things. If by the word you mean that it's logically or conceptually possible for a skeptic to do so? Then, yeah. Extra-Terrestrials also might have assassinated John F. Kennedy. Is it reasonable in the sense that it's the most plausible or likely interpretation? No.
Delete
First off the redaction/interpolation/change you hypothesized about is not an interpretation of the story. That's a speculation about the corruption of the text with (AFAIK) no positive manuscript evidence.
Or if you're saying the story was ORIGINALLY crafted to disguise the sexual affair, there's no positive reason to think that either. Since I presented a more plausible and likely scenario based on multiple factors: 1. David could have married Abishag or made her a concubine; 2. David was sick with something that could reasonably include ED; 3. the writer seems to suggest that Adonijah's grab for power was connected to David's not having bedded Abishag and/or because of apparent weakness; 4. David was elderly and ED is common among the elderly; 5. Having had many wives he might have been desensitized to some extent to female beauty; 6. David already had a reputation for adultery, so recording another instance of sexual indiscretion wouldn't be too shocking; 7. David might have been further sanctified and learned his spiritual lesson, and from the past consequences of sin, so that he didn't again attempt to violate God's law (Et Cetera). Those are 7 reasons why my interpretation is more plausible and you haven't presented even one positive reason other than a "hermeneutic of suspicion" (as the saying goes) that wants to discredit the account a priori.
Regarding word limit: 1. maybe you should give the same warning to Anon; 2. Getting at the heart of the matter requires elaboration. If you'd rather me not elaborate
(and so give my strongest arguments and reasons), that's up to you. I thought I was saving us both some time from debating each other by showing how unlikely your interpretation is given my competing hypothesis and interpretation.//And I'm not seeing any rule of historiography that requires the reader to believe all statements in ancient historical assertions until somebody can prove those statements to actually be false. //
Delete
Speaking of "rule[s] of historiography", doing history requires dealing in probabilities. You haven't given any reasons for the probability of your interpretation. In that sense your interpretation(s) are not historically reasonable/probable.
In fact, for all we know David's INTENTION was to make Abishag his wife or concubine but he couldn't sexually consummate the marriage or concubinage. And THAT'S why Adonijah thought it was an opportune time to attempt to seize power, because he could make the case before the people that the current King was too weak in his dotage to remain ruler of Israel and that a new King (himself) was necessary for the sake of national pride before their surrounding pagan neighbors. Adonijah could say or imply it's a shame to have a King who couldn't consummate a marriage/concubinage such that the relationship had to remain one of a nurse to a king entering his 2nd infancy. Instead of a relationship between a virile King and a new recently deflowered wife.First, no, you aren't saving time when you try to rebut the anticipated hypothesis, you would do better to make singular points at a time. And thank you for sticking to the word limit.
Delete
Second, I haven't posited any textual corruptions in 1st Kings 1:1-4. I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument that what we have today is what the original authors wrote. I'm alleging the biblical author lied, not that his story has been corrupted.Your list of reasons did not make your hypothesis "more reasonable" than the skeptical interpretation, here's why:
Delete
There's a good reason to say the story is disguising an affair:
If the problem was keeping warm), he could have simply slept a little closer to the fireplace, no naked virgin vixen necessary. The greater complexity of their "solution", and David's history of sexual debauchery, make it reasonable to suppose 1st Kings 1:4 is falsehood.
David's marrying Abishag is irrelevant: She wasn't his wife at the time his men brought her to David. The issue is why he "needed" such a woman. Needing to keep warm is an excuse nobody in similar circumstances would believe, certainly not his existing wife!
David's having ED and being elderly is also irrelevant: David's inability to get warm from his own blood could be fixed by sleeping closer to the fireplace. We can only wonder what her parents thought as David's men said "the king needs to sleep next to your daughter, but only to keep warm."
Adonijah's grab for power etc, is irrelevant: The problem is with the biblical authors expecting the reader to accept as true a story that nobody in their right mind would believe, and certainly not any wife who came home to find her husband in bed with the town's hottest virgin, with the husband making the same excuse. You gonna call the wife's suspicion unreasonable?
5. Having had many wives he might have been desensitized to some extent to female beauty;
--------Begging the question of why David's men went looking for a "beautiful" girl (1st Kings 1:3). Worse, having committed adultery with Bathsheba and killed her husband to cover up the illegitimate resulting pregnancy, David also may have simply instructed his men to go find him a pretty young girl to have sex with. Either way, ugly women can keep men warm too, so it is suspicious that David's pimps just happened to bring back a "girl" that was "young" and "beautiful"...as if only those types of girls can cure the problem of an old man's coldness.
6. David already had a reputation for adultery, so recording another instance of sexual indiscretion wouldn't be too shocking;
-------Yes it would, the authors of 1st Kings desired to falsely sanitize his life and claim the "matter of Urriah the Hittite" was the only time David ever departed from what the Lord commanded" (15:5). Since God is rarely said to have commanded David on anything specific to his life, this statement means David never departed from the 10 commandments, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. Admitting the incident without admitting sex occurred is well within the motives of such lying authors.
7. David might have been further sanctified and learned his spiritual lesson, and from the past consequences of sin, so that he didn't again attempt to violate God's law (Et Cetera).
-------Naw, a "spiritual" man wouldn't have friends so stupid as to think the only proper way to cure his night chills is to go take a virgin girl from her home and make her sleep next to him. His friends would say the fireplace is the more prudent solution.
Those are 7 reasons why my interpretation is more plausible and you haven't presented even one positive reason other than a "hermeneutic of suspicion" (as the saying goes) that wants to discredit the account a priori.
----Nobody is discounting it a priori: we are giving it a fair hearing, and we are watching one apologist fail miserably in his effort to mistake "maybes" "might haves" for "historical truth".
The story is total bullshit, and it would never be believed for one second if used by a husband today whose wife came home, found him in bed with a beautiful virgin supplied to him by his henchmen.
Especially if the husband had a history of committing adultery and murdering the other husband to cover the affair.// And thank you for sticking to the word limit.//
Delete
I don't understand your "word limit" policy. Can you explain it? I don't want to violate your rules.
//David's marrying Abishag is irrelevant: She wasn't his wife at the time his men brought her to David.//
She didn't need to be. Sexual intercourse would be sufficient to declare one to be a wife or concubine. Marriage would have been a public event. They may not have gotten married in advance on purpose. Lest David couldn't consummate it and he look impotent in every sense of the word. That's precisely why Adonijah might have chosen that time to seize power. Because while their relationship was officially one where she waited on him, everyone "knew" that David was wanting to make her a wife or concubine. Or that his servants were hoping for that or recommending it to him to regain his youth.
//Needing to keep warm is an excuse nobody in similar circumstances would believe, certainly not his existing wife!
He could have married Abishag at any time. Before, during and after. That's a major hole in your hypothesis.
//David's having ED and being elderly is also irrelevant: David's inability to get warm from his own blood could be fixed by sleeping closer to the fireplace.
That assumes two things. 1. That fires will certainly keep cold people warm. That's not true to those who are really sick. Even people with fevers can feel cold right next to a fire. 2. That also assumes that David wasn't trying to bed her. Maybe he was trying, but couldn't. 3. As I said earlier, it might have been the hope of David's servants and doctors that by bedding her it would revive him and his health physically and psychologically.
//and certainly not any wife who came home to find her husband in bed with the town's hottest virgin//
As King, he was free to marry whomever, and how many, he wished. Later Solomon is said to have had 300 wives and 700 concubines. Those are probably symbolic and hyperbolic numbers. The point is that Kings, like David could marry any he wanted. The SCANDAL with Bathsheba was that she was ALREADY MARRIED. Abishag WASN'T married. So, she was free to marry David. There would be no scandal.
Many of your other objections require the same assumption. That it wasn't the case that David was trying to bed Abishag. But I gave reasons why he might have been trying to and why his failure to do so would account for Adonijah's attempted usurpation of power. So, there's no point in repeating my comments. Comments that neutralize your objections.// And thank you for sticking to the word limit.//
Delete
I don't understand your "word limit" policy. Can you explain it? I don't want to violate your rules.
--------Sure, you have a very bad habit of mistaking quantity for quality. You seem to think that if you write half a master's thesis in reply to a single question, your shield of bible inerrancy will remain firmly in place around you.
I've found that slowing down and giving careful attention to EACH of the assumptions we disagree on, is far more likely to expose which person in the debate is in the wrong. notice how convoluted the debate would be if I imitated you in my replies, so that we end up writing book-length posts just to make sure we reply to every point.
I'm also interested in educating the reader who may not know as much as you or I, and they will likely "tune out" if they find that we care more about writing volumes of rebuttal instead of devoting more attention to the precise presuppositions upon which we disagree.
The more time you devoate to staying on specific singular subtopics, the more likely you are to find out why turning every response into a master's thesis only hurts the cause of truth, at least in the context of a blog if not in a seminary.
Does that answer your question? Quantity does not equal quality. End of story.//David's marrying Abishag is irrelevant: She wasn't his wife at the time his men brought her to David.//
Delete
She didn't need to be. Sexual intercourse would be sufficient to declare one to be a wife or concubine. Marriage would have been a public event. They may not have gotten married in advance on purpose. Lest David couldn't consummate it and he look impotent in every sense of the word. That's precisely why Adonijah might have chosen that time to seize power. Because while their relationship was officially one where she waited on him, everyone "knew" that David was wanting to make her a wife or concubine. Or that his servants were hoping for that or recommending it to him to regain his youth.
-------You are missing the point: Abishag wasn't sought out to be a concubine. She was sought out to keep David warm in bed. her becoming David's nurse later is not what motivate David's friends to procure her in the first place.
You are forgetting the biblical author's reason for David's friends going and seeking out such a woman when you speak about David's political rival. Keeping warm is the only issue in context. Therefore, the skeptic only needs to consider why David's friends thought the best way to keep him warm is to go looking through the last for a pretty young virgin girl to sleep next to him...an excuse you know damn well not even any "inerrantist" Christian wife of an elderly man would believe, even given his inability to keep warm by himself, if she came home and heard this exactly same story ("this pretty young virgin was sought only only to keep me warm in bed, not sex").
YEAH RIGHT.
ESPECIALLY if that old man, like David, had a history of committing adultery with a woman then murdering her husband to cover up the resulting illegitimate pregnancy.
The fact that the skeptical viewpoint doesn't allow for biblical inerancy, doesn't mean you can show it false on its merits.//Needing to keep warm is an excuse nobody in similar circumstances would believe, certainly not his existing wife!//
Delete
He could have married Abishag at any time. Before, during and after. That's a major hole in your hypothesis.
----You were already informed that you don't win a debate on whether a historical document is telling the truth, by simply positing possibilities. You have to show that any possibility is more likely or probable than the possibility the skeptic argues for. You have done nothing to turn this possibility of prior marriage to Abishag, into a probability.//Abishag wasn't sought out to be a concubine. She was sought out to keep David warm in bed. her becoming David's nurse later is not what motivate David's friends to procure her in the first place.....Keeping warm is the only issue in context.//
Delete
That doesn't follow at all. Things can be done for multiple reasons beyond those specifically stated (either in the Bible or ordinary life). Besides, the text does specifically state it in verse 2:
Therefore his servants said to him, "Let a young woman be sought for my lord the king, and let her wait on the king and be in his service. Let her lie in your arms, that my lord the king may be warm."
//an excuse you know damn well not even any "inerrantist" Christian wife of an elderly man would believe//
You still haven't addressed the gaping hole in your theory that's so large that you can drive a semi-Truck through it. David, as King, could marry as many women as he pleases so long as the woman was not married or betrothed. Again, the scandal with Bathsheba was that she was already married. That's not the case with Abishag. If she were publicly announced to be David's next wife or concubine or if they had a public marriage ceremony, then that would put pressure on David to consummate the marriage/concubinage. But if he couldn't on account of ED, then he would look weak and impotent (in all ways). You might ask why wouldn't her ceasing OR continuing to be a virgin be kept a private matter? For many cultural reasons, including her own reputation/dignity, along with the fact that if she were announced as being deflowered she would no longer be able (or have difficulty) to find her own husband and have children. If she were deflowered despite her claim to be a virgin, she would get in trouble after her marriage to someone else because they got married under false pretenses.
//You were already informed that you don't win a debate on whether a historical document is telling the truth, by simply positing possibilities. //
You're doing the same thing. You're positing possibilities. But ones that are less likely, and unnecessary to postulate given the data and the (true or false) claims.
//You have to show that any possibility is more likely or probable than the possibility the skeptic argues for. You have done nothing to turn this possibility of prior marriage to Abishag, into a probability.//
You're the one who's arguing something contrary to and in addition to the text. Therefore the burden of proof (or plausibility) is on you to provide why your hypothesis is more probable than the plain statements in the story (irrespective of the issue of Inerrancy). It's perfectly plausible, even given the assumption of errancy, that David never had sex with Abishag. I gave at least 8 reasons why the text could be telling the truth. The simple fact that David was a sickly old man is sufficient to explain why she never had sex with David. Being sickly affects one's libido, one's self-perception and self-confidence and therefore additionally dent one's libido. A vicious (reinforcing) circle where one spirals downward. Add to that the fact that various sickness that cause coldness can also cause ED, and the story becomes completely plausible. It's as if you're bent on finding an error in the text.//David's having ED and being elderly is also irrelevant: David's inability to get warm from his own blood could be fixed by sleeping closer to the fireplace.//
Delete
That assumes two things. 1. That fires will certainly keep cold people warm.
-------No, it assumes that fireplaces are reasonably assumed to keep people warm, just like people who have poor blood circulation today keep warm by keeping the heaters on in their house.
You then say: That's not true to those who are really sick.
------I'm not aware of any medical literature that says some people who cannot stay warm, cannot even stay warm with application of external mechanical heaters. However, it is clear that if David needed such warmth, he could have slept in a water-soaked blanket next to the fireplace, and the wetness would have more effectively communicated the heat to his body, perhaps more efficiently than happens by somebody merely sleeping next to him.
You say "Even people with fevers can feel cold right next to a fire."
---------Once again, a mere possibility that you provide no probability-evidence for, you are just blindly assuming David's condition was so extreme that a fireplace would't work. This trifle of yours does not render the skeptical position unreasonable. No list of "how-it-could-have-beens" is going to displace the reasonableness of the skeptical view unless you provide medical evidence to corroborate your claims and show that in David's time, his sickness was so great that no other way to get warm, except sleeping next to another person, was the only way to get warm.
Otherwise you cannot condemn the skeptical position, since it is just as "possible" that the biblical author is lying.
You said: 2. That also assumes that David wasn't trying to bed her. Maybe he was trying, but couldn't.
------Then the biblical author is giving a false impression by simply citing to David's inability to keep warm, as if that was the "only" motive of the king. It would have been more honest for the author to admit specifically this, since a check of various conservative commentaries indicates this author has led conservative Christian scholars to believe that David's sole concern was to get warm. I cannot even find any conservative Commentary that alleges that David was trying to have sex with her. Again you are just throwing possibilities into the air and crying "victory".
You said: 3. As I said earlier, it might have been the hope of David's servants and doctors that by bedding her it would revive him and his health physically and psychologically.
------you mean the King David whom the author in 15:5 says never turned away from anything the Lord commanded him all of his days except in the matter of uriah the Hittite, a King David who was still married to Bathsheba at the time, turned away form the Lord's command to avoid committing adultery?
Since Jesus said that law is broken by mere lust, you cannot trifle that 15:5 would remain true as long as Davidv didn't succeed at physically consummating the act. His desire to do it rendered it "sin" unto him, thus rendering 15:5 a historical falsehood.//Then the biblical author is giving a false impression by simply citing to David's inability to keep warm, as if that was the "only" motive of the king.//
Delete
It's not required of Biblical authors (who in themselves are fallible) to state all the reasons why something is done or even for them to be able to read people's minds and know their various motivations and purposes for why they do what they do.
//you mean the King David whom the author in 15:5 says never turned away from anything the Lord commanded him all of his days except in the matter of uriah the Hittite,//
That's understood hyperbole. The author is highlighting major sins, not all sins.
//a King David who was still married to Bathsheba at the time, turned away form the Lord's command to avoid committing adultery?//
Not sure what you mean here. I'm thinking there's a typo in your statement. Maybe you meant "turned away from the Lord's commandment and nevertheless did commit adultery"?
//His desire to do it rendered it "sin" unto him, thus rendering 15:5 a historical falsehood.//
Again, 15:5 is hyperbole and highlighting major sins. We all violate the spirit of the law every day. So, did David.//and certainly not any wife who came home to find her husband in bed with the town's hottest virgin//
Delete
As King, he was free to marry whomever, and how many, he wished.
------Nope, there is a limitation to how many he is allowed to have, see Deuteronomy 17:17.
You say: Later Solomon is said to have had 300 wives and 700 concubines. Those are probably symbolic and hyperbolic numbers.
----Wouldn't matter if Solomon had only 7 wives and 3 concubines, the disregard for Deut. 17:17 is still clear, justifying the skeptic to be even more suspicious that David's sexual appetite was unabated even in old age, justifying skepticism even toward the part of the story that says David couldn't keep warm.
You say: The point is that Kings, like David could marry any he wanted.
-----No, see Deut. 17:17, unless you are willing to allow that David was unconcerned with God's law, making skepticism of the innocent-sounding account in 1st Kings 1:1-4 even more justified.
You say: The SCANDAL with Bathsheba was that she was ALREADY MARRIED. Abishag WASN'T married.
----I'm not seeing your point; 15:5 isn't limited to just "scandals" in David's life, it specifies he didn't turn away from anything the Lord commanded him all his days except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. That's an obvious lie.
You say: So, she was free to marry David. There would be no scandal.
---------You shouldn't talk so confidently about that, you don't know what Abishag's marital situation was before she was taken to David's palace. Given David's history, we would be well within our epistemic rights to presume Abishag was likely already betrothed to another man, and as a virgin likely still living with her parents.
you say: Many of your other objections require the same assumption. That it wasn't the case that David was trying to bed Abishag. But I gave reasons why he might have been trying to and why his failure to do so would account for Adonijah's attempted usurpation of power. So, there's no point in repeating my comments. Comments that neutralize your objections.
------Once again, if David's motive was in trying to "bed" her, then the biblical author, by giving only the "keep warm" excuse and non other, has misled lots of conservative Christian scholars who never dare allege that David might be trying to fulfill his lust here. I'm sorry, but your trifling possibilities do not neutralize my objections, they simply provide more justification to be skeptical that the Kings-author is a real life propagandist, and doing an imperfect job of sanitizing a corrupt monarchy.That doesn't follow at all. Things can be done for multiple reasons beyond those specifically stated (either in the Bible or ordinary life).
Delete
------I never said there couldn't be multiple reasons. But you and I are arguing about historical probability. you aren't meeting that goal by simply noting the possibility that things can be done for more reasons than those the author specifies.
You said:
Besides, the text does specifically state it in verse 2:
Therefore his servants said to him, "Let a young woman be sought for my lord the king, and let her wait on the king and be in his service. Let her lie in your arms, that my lord the king may be warm."
-------Then you apparently didn't read the the last 8 words. The author continues to cite warmth as the motive. YOU have the burden to show that there was any more motive than this. You don't render my skeptical opinion unlikely by merely carping that there are lots of possibilities going on here. Of course there are. If you think David intended to have sex with her, then the biblical author's failing to mention the more seedy motive and only mentioning the ore innocent sounding alibi makes that author unreliable. It would be like telling your wife that you picked up some groceries at the store after work, but NOT telling her that you committed adultery in the car along the way.//an excuse you know damn well not even any "inerrantist" Christian wife of an elderly man would believe//
Delete
You still haven't addressed the gaping hole in your theory that's so large that you can drive a semi-Truck through it. David, as King, could marry as many women as he pleases so long as the woman was not married or betrothed.
--------Already answered: a) Deut. 17:17 doesn't allow "as many women as he pleases. b) you don't know what marital situation Abishag was in, if any, before she slept with David, yet you are obviously blindly assuming here that because she was a "virgin" thus, she likely wasn't betrothed or married to another man. Once again, in the light of his sinning with Bathsheba (there are other cases of David becoming a woman's second husband), we are reasonable to assume the biblical author, by giving only the innocent "keep warm" excuse, intends the reader to think there was no sinful motive on the part of David, i.e., biblical error.
You said:
Again, the scandal with Bathsheba was that she was already married. That's not the case with Abishag. If she were publicly announced to be David's next wife or concubine or if they had a public marriage ceremony, then that would put pressure on David to consummate the marriage/concubinage. But if he couldn't on account of ED, then he would look weak and impotent (in all ways). You might ask why wouldn't her ceasing OR continuing to be a virgin be kept a private matter? For many cultural reasons, including her own reputation/dignity, along with the fact that if she were announced as being deflowered she would no longer be able (or have difficulty) to find her own husband and have children. If she were deflowered despite her claim to be a virgin, she would get in trouble after her marriage to someone else because they got married under false pretenses.
-----I already answered all this, except that you assume Abishag claimed to be a virgin. What makes you think she claimed such a thing? What happened to your love of unstated possibilities after you read something about virgins in 1st Kings 1:2?//You have to show that any possibility is more likely or probable than the possibility the skeptic argues for. You have done nothing to turn this possibility of prior marriage to Abishag, into a probability.//
Delete
You're the one who's arguing something contrary to and in addition to the text. Therefore the burden of proof (or plausibility) is on you to provide why your hypothesis is more probable than the plain statements in the story (irrespective of the issue of Inerrancy).
--------Not true. I don't claim you are unreasonable to believe the way you do. I only claim to be reasonable to hold the skeptical view that I hold. Contrary to popular belief, the reasonableness of position X doesn't automatically mean position non-X is unreasonable.
However, as a Christian and an inerrantist, YOU go further than this, YOU say the skeptical attack on the last sentence of 1st Kings 1:4 is unreasonable. that puts the burden of proof on YOU to show that our justifications for being skeptical over that are unreasonable. you've done no such thing. Admit that you don't think my skepticism of that verse is unreasonable, and this criticism disappears.
It's perfectly plausible, even given the assumption of errancy, that David never had sex with Abishag.
-------But I'm still reasonable to call the Kings-author a liar for mentioning the more innocent sounding motive ("keeping warm"), and and conveniently failing to mention the possibility that YOU allow for ("he wanted to bed her"). Contrary to popular belief, you can be guilty of lying by omission. Guilty husbands who have multiple good and bad reasons for coming home late from work are guilty of this: they correctly mention they stopped by the store after work...they conveniently fail to mention they stopped by their girlfriends house along the way. Then they employ YOUR logic and tell their wives that because there are lots of possibilities here, her skepticism is unjustified.
You say:
I gave at least 8 reasons why the text could be telling the truth.
-----But we've now entered the more nebulous area of whether the kings-author is lying by omission.
You say:
The simple fact that David was a sickly old man is sufficient to explain why she never had sex with David.
------You are assuming that part of the story is true. I don't think it is.
Being sickly affects one's libido, one's self-perception and self-confidence and therefore additionally dent one's libido. A vicious (reinforcing) circle where one spirals downward. Add to that the fact that various sickness that cause coldness can also cause ED, and the story becomes completely plausible.
-----professional liars know exactly how to tell a "plausible" story, that's why juries often find it difficult to tell whether a witness is lying.
You say: It's as if you're bent on finding an error in the text.
--------No, it's as if I've shown that your observations about the text do not render the skeptical hypothesis unreasonable, you simply declare victory because there are possible presuppositions that would enable the story to be true. Sorry, but you are never going to overcome the one presupposition that justifies the skeptical view: David's sordid sexual history.//Then the biblical author is giving a false impression by simply citing to David's inability to keep warm, as if that was the "only" motive of the king.//
Delete
It's not required of Biblical authors (who in themselves are fallible) to state all the reasons why something is done or even for them to be able to read people's minds and know their various motivations and purposes for why they do what they do.
------The issue is not what's required, but whether it is reasonable to believe the biblical author wanted the reader to think the "keeping warm" excuse was the ONLY motive David had. Yes, he obviously did intend that...unless you are going to insist that many conservative Christian commentators, who never allow that David might have had corrupt motives here, were misled by the biblical wording?//you mean the King David whom the author in 15:5 says never turned away from anything the Lord commanded him all of his days except in the matter of uriah the Hittite,//
Delete
That's understood hyperbole. The author is highlighting major sins, not all sins.
----------I see no contextual basis for the hyperbole version. However, I DO see a motive for an inerrantist to take it as hyperbole. The mere fact that the literal interpretation would constitute error, causes you to blindly assume the author surely must have meant the statement in hyperbolic fashion.
That's not sufficient to render the errantist interpretation of 15:5 unreasonable.//Nope, there is a limitation to how many he is allowed to have, see Deuteronomy 17:17. //
Delete
The passage says "many wives". Meaning an excess of wives. It doesn't say a king can only have one wife. In Solomon's case, it was excessive (even though I suspect the numbers of 300 + 700 concubines is symbolic hyperbole). In fact the OT says multiple times that YHVH gave David multiple wives. That was one of the points the prophet Nathan condemned David for. That he wasn't content with the wives God gave him, but went and sought another man's wive (2 Sam. 12:7-8).
The PURPOSE of Deut. 17:17 is stated in the 2nd half of the verse:
//And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.//
That's what happened to Solomon. His wives turned his heart from YHVH. Notice that the command is next to not acquiring excess silver and gold. Does that mean the King should only have one piece of gold and one piece of silver only? And that having two pieces of gold is a violation of that commandment? Notice also the previous verse (16).
Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.'- Deut. 17:16
Does that mean that the King isn't to have any horses, or only have one horse? Obviously a King could have multiple horses. The prohibition wasn't against multiple horses, but of an excess of horses. Meaning, the King shouldn't be one who is bent on, or has a proclivity for, war and conquest. Many horses are an expression of that.
Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.- Ps. 20:7
//You shouldn't talk so confidently about that, you don't know what Abishag's marital situation was before she was taken to David's palace. //
//Given David's history, we would be well within our epistemic rights to presume Abishag was likely already betrothed to another man, and as a virgin likely still living with her parents. //
And neither do you. There's no indication that she was married or betrothed. Again, your hermeneutic of suspicion seems to be looking for an error a priori when it's perfectly reasonable for an elderly sick man to not have sex with a woman.
//... then the biblical author, by giving only the "keep warm" excuse and non other, has misled lots of conservative Christian scholars who never dare allege that David might be trying to fulfill his lust here//
If there's a fault, that would be the fault of interpreters, not of the text itself. The Bible doesn't claim, nor is it necessary for it to record every motivation and detail of every story. That would be impossible to do.//a King David who was still married to Bathsheba at the time, turned away form the Lord's command to avoid committing adultery?//
Delete
Not sure what you mean here. I'm thinking there's a typo in your statement. Maybe you meant "turned away from the Lord's commandment and nevertheless did commit adultery"?
-----No typo...God commanded in the 10 commandments that people refrain from committing adultery. David turned away from that command to refrain from adultery, did he not? But yes, I call 15:5 an error too, so maybe we need to discuss that too.//His desire to do it rendered it "sin" unto him, thus rendering 15:5 a historical falsehood.//
Delete
Again, 15:5 is hyperbole and highlighting major sins. We all violate the spirit of the law every day. So, did David.
-----------You are not causing the skeptical position on 15:5 to become unreasonable merely because you insist on the interpretation that calls it hyperbole. You need to provide evidence from the context to show it is hyperbole. You aren't going to do that because the author in v. 4 was telling a non-hyperbolic truth, and v. 6 is typical historical reporting, no hyperbole again.
And the genre of Kings is "historical".
And what do you recommend a person do with an interpretation of a bible verse that is consistent with its immediate context and the genre of the book? Insist that the need for biblical inerrancy outweighs those kind of hermeneutical considerations?//Nope, there is a limitation to how many he is allowed to have, see Deuteronomy 17:17. //
Delete
The passage says "many wives". Meaning an excess of wives. It doesn't say a king can only have one wife.
-----But the interpretation that it forbids more than one wife is held by conservative Christian scholar Dr. David Richardson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, 2007, (p. 198-191) Davidson is “J.N Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at Andrews University.” (back cover). When this is combined with Janson Engwer's disagreement with you and taking the same basic position Rchardson does (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/01/polygamy-is-condemned-by-scripture-and.html), this is plenty to show that Deut. 17:17 can be reasonably interpreted to prohibit more than one wife.
You said:
In Solomon's case, it was excessive (even though I suspect the numbers of 300 + 700 concubines is symbolic hyperbole).
-----How does your 'suspecting' translate into rendering my denial of the hyperbolic interpretation unreasonable?
You said:
In fact the OT says multiple times that YHVH gave David multiple wives.
-----You are on the only one in this debate who insists the bible is internally consistent. I don't share that assumption, I'm quite well with my assumption that the ancient Hebrews were inconsistent on whether polygamy was allowed.
You say:
That was one of the points the prophet Nathan condemned David for. That he wasn't content with the wives God gave him, but went and sought another man's wive (2 Sam. 12:7-8).
------The fact that Nathan could say God so easily "took away" david's death-deserving sins of adultery and murder tells me this part of the story is mere political propaganda, and has about as much spiritual significance as hypocrite evangelicals laying their hands on Donald Trump during prayer.
The PURPOSE of Deut. 17:17 is stated in the 2nd half of the verse:
//And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.//
That's what happened to Solomon. His wives turned his heart from YHVH. Notice that the command is next to not acquiring excess silver and gold. Does that mean the King should only have one piece of gold and one piece of silver only?
------Then you should notice the non-hyperbolic context surrounding 1st Kings 15:5. And your argument is not found convincing by other Chrstian scholars, so I think the absolute interpretation of 17:17 is reasonable, even if not infallible. Reasonable interpretations do not require that they are beyond all possible criticism.
Delete
//You shouldn't talk so confidently about that, you don't know what Abishag's marital situation was before she was taken to David's palace. //
//Given David's history, we would be well within our epistemic rights to presume Abishag was likely already betrothed to another man, and as a virgin likely still living with her parents. //
And neither do you. There's no indication that she was married or betrothed. Again, your hermeneutic of suspicion seems to be looking for an error a priori when it's perfectly reasonable for an elderly sick man to not have sex with a woman.
-------Sort of like the prosecutor who refuses to "just accept" the "plausible" alibi of the convicted felon testifying on the witness stand. Correct, I always think people who try to build up the reputations of obvious scoundrals, do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, and are more than likely lying. But here, we have assumed nothing a priori, we've instead been finding that you think the skeptical view is unreasonable, and all you have are a bunch of possibilities, for which you have never argued any probability. You simply note that the story's details aren't implausible. You fail to remember that profesional liars know that they need to make the story sound more plausible, so if we are going to do our best to make sure the biblical author isn't a profesional liar, we have to have criteria for deciding when an admittedly possibly true claim has low or high probability.
//... then the biblical author, by giving only the "keep warm" excuse and non other, has misled lots of conservative Christian scholars who never dare allege that David might be trying to fulfill his lust here//
If there's a fault, that would be the fault of interpreters, not of the text itself.
-----The point was that if even conservative Christian scholars think there's no lust on David's part here, then it might be reasonable to say that your own attempt to read it into the text is unreasonable.
You say:
The Bible doesn't claim, nor is it necessary for it to record every motivation and detail of every story. That would be impossible to do.
-----Professional liars who take the witness stand also don't mention every motivation and every detail. That would be impossible to do.// If you think David intended to have sex with her, then the biblical author's failing to mention the more seedy motive and only mentioning the ore innocent sounding alibi makes that author unreliable. //
Delete
It's not the job of a Biblical author to read people's hearts or know the secret councils and purposes of a King's circle of servants. Moreover, even if he knew or suspected it, it might not have been something appropriate to record or insinuate. Even if the whole land suspected it. The author(s) may have been trying to just stick with the facts as much as possible.
//I already answered all this, except that you assume Abishag claimed to be a virgin. What makes you think she claimed such a thing//
You granted it as a possibility in a previous comment. So, I can too.
//However, as a Christian and an inerrantist, YOU go further than this, YOU say the skeptical attack on the last sentence of 1st Kings 1:4 is unreasonable.//
And I say so even assuming errancy and without the assumption of Inerrancy. I mentioned there's no 1. manuscript evidence, and 2. the story is completely possible given David's age and sickness [and even if there were no God and everything happened naturalisticly]. You implied [or stated] that it was likely that David had intercourse with Abishag. But that doesn't follow from the data of the story itself. Nor have you provided a good reason to think that David had. All you provide is speculation. I, nor other atheists, need not resort to speculation [as you do] to accept the plain statement that a sick elderly man didn't have sex with a woman [despite his possible desire to do so].
//...unless you are going to insist that many conservative Christian commentators, who never allow that David might have had corrupt motives here, were misled by the biblical wording?//
I would more likely assign that to their prudishness.
//I see no contextual basis for the hyperbole version. //
The entire Bible (in all its genres) assumes that human beings are sinners and commit sins all the time. If not also major ones, at least minor ones and frequently. For example, Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:9; 23 etc.
Even the very book you're citing teaches it [i.e. 1 Kings]:
"If they sin against you---FOR THERE IS NO ONE WHO DOES NOT SIN---and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near,- 1 Kings 8:46// If you think David intended to have sex with her, then the biblical author's failing to mention the more seedy motive and only mentioning the ore innocent sounding alibi makes that author unreliable. //
Delete
It's not the job of a Biblical author to read people's hearts or know the secret councils and purposes of a King's circle of servants.
--------What makes you think the sexual motive of David in summoning Abishag was contained within the secret councils of a Kings circle of servants? The very implausibility of the story suggests the secret was spilled, and the biblical author's denail of David's sexual motive is intended to quell rumors that Abishag was summoned for sexual reasons.
You say: Moreover, even if he knew or suspected it, it might not have been something appropriate to record or insinuate.
-----And there you go again, "might", pretnding that the positing of mere possibilities renders the skeptical position unreasonable. Not so. If you think "might" is so probative of the facts, then the bibical also "might" have known the story was a lie, but was paid to spin the story anyway.
You say:
Even if the whole land suspected it. The author(s) may have been trying to just stick with the facts as much as possible.
------And there you go again "may have.." as if the positing of a possibility, alone, renders skepticism unreasonable.
//I already answered all this, except that you assume Abishag claimed to be a virgin. What makes you think she claimed such a thing//
You granted it as a possibility in a previous comment. So, I can too.
----No, I said she was a virgin, I never said she CLAIMED to be a virgin. I'm just pointing out that you were putting words into her mouth that you have no historical basis for putting.
//However, as a Christian and an inerrantist, YOU go further than this, YOU say the skeptical attack on the last sentence of 1st Kings 1:4 is unreasonable.//
And I say so even assuming errancy and without the assumption of Inerrancy. I mentioned there's no 1. manuscript evidence,
-----I never claimed the text of 1st Kings 1:1-4 was corrupted. Let us assume what we have today was original. Nothing changes.
You say: and 2. the story is completely possible given David's age and sickness [and even if there were no God and everything happened naturalisticly].
------Once again, you posit a mere possibility, and you further also assume the story of his sickness is true. I think the story of David's sickness is part of the lie too. And as you know, I don't think a story is reasonable merely because it is plausible. Plausibility is not the final key to truth, unless you are going to say every possibility that has plausibility, is thus truth.
You said:
You implied [or stated] that it was likely that David had intercourse with Abishag. But that doesn't follow from the data of the story itself.
------The inference that a gangster is guilty of a crime also doesn't usually follow from his story itself. So? We can be reasonable to be suspicious of a story even in the absence of evidence directly refuting it. By comparing the story to other facts that are known about the gangster. He says he didn't commit murder tis time, but, does he have a reputation for threatening murder, or otherwise using violence to get what he wants? how are you going to fault the juror who inferrs from this evidence that his claim of innocence in the current charge is false? What, do you have all the magical tools of truth discovery that juries have suffered without for the last 2,000 years? Is it really THAT easy to "recognize" that somebody else's interpretation of the evidence is "unreasonable"?You say:
Delete
Nor have you provided a good reason to think that David had.
-------Sure I did, David's known prior and heinous sexual sins and generally sinful demeanor, when combined with the obvious fact that pretty young virgin girls aren't the only way elderly people of the ANE with night chills could keep warm.
And dont' forget, we are no longer talking about what David did or didn't do. NOW we are talking about whether the biblical author should be presumed honest merely because his story doesn't violate common sense. Under your logic, juries must either have direct rebuttal evidence, or the only reasonable conclusion they can reach is that all testimony that sounds "plausible", is more than likely the truth. You should know better than that.
All you provide is speculation.
-----Historiography is nothing less.
You say:
I, nor other atheists, need not resort to speculation [as you do] to accept the plain statement that a sick elderly man didn't have sex with a woman [despite his possible desire to do so].
---Except that you insist that it is unreasonable for anybody to doubt any biblical story, which means YOU have the burden. If you said skeptics can be reasonable to be skeptical here, you would not incur that burden. For unknown reasons, you seem to think that the presence of some ancient story about a king compels the reader to either trust it as true, or prove it wrong with direct rebuttal evidence. That's not how life works, and you know it.
//...unless you are going to insist that many conservative Christian commentators, who never allow that David might have had corrupt motives here, were misled by the biblical wording?//
I would more likely assign that to their prudishness.
------Wow, so even if I became a Protestant Christian and then obtained my ph.d in OT studies, nothing about this would reasonably guard against my having so much prudishness as to cause me to draw false conclusions about the bible? ANOTHER reason why becoming "saved" appears to constitute little more than sophistry, about as substantive as "winging out the old, winging in the new".
//I see no contextual basis for the hyperbole version. //
The entire Bible (in all its genres) assumes that human beings are sinners and commit sins all the time. If not also major ones, at least minor ones and frequently. For example, Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:9; 23 etc.
Even the very book you're citing teaches it [i.e. 1 Kings]:
"If they sin against you---FOR THERE IS NO ONE WHO DOES NOT SIN---and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near,- 1 Kings 8:46
------------First, there are you again, blindly using inerrancy as a hermeneutic, when you know I don't believe in inerrancy and therefore would never use it as a hermeneutic. Second, I showed you that the immediate context does not support the hyperbole interpretation. You are not going to avoid the conclusion "the immediate context doesn't support the hypberbolic interpretation of 1st Kings 15:5" by merely transferring focus onto other parts of the bible or that book in particular. Third, we don't know how many people contributed to the text of the book we now have today. Yet you blissfully assume everything you read in 1st Kings came from a single author, when you don't even know who that author is, and you cannot demonstrate solitary authorship.//The fact that Nathan could say God so easily "took away" david's death-deserving sins of adultery and murder tells me this part of the story is mere political propaganda, and has about as much spiritual significance as hypocrite evangelicals laying their hands on Donald Trump during prayer.//
Delete
And the same passage has God intentionally allowing calamity to befall David for that sin, even though God forgave him of it.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'
11 Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.'"-2 Sam. 12:10-12
That doesn't sound like "mere political propaganda" to me, does it to you?
//And what do you recommend a person do with an interpretation of a bible verse that is consistent with its immediate context and the genre of the book? Insist that the need for biblical inerrancy outweighs those kind of hermeneutical considerations?//
Despite my belief in Inerrancy, I often defend the text without its assumption (i.e. granting the the possibility, ad arguendo, of fallibility/errancy). Most of what I've been doing in this thread is defending the text without the assumption of inerrancy. Meaning, I've been showing that even granting for the sake of argument that inerrancy is false, the story of David's not having intercourse with Abishag is possible. Moreover, we have no positive reasons to think David did. And we know that David could have married her if he had disgraced her by seducing her as he did Bathsheba. For you however, you seem to be willing to doubt any and every aspect of the story so long as it fits with your hermeneutic of suspicion.
I'm tiring of this discussion. We're repeating ourselves. I think readers can decide for themselves which aspects of both our arguments are more reasonable and plausible.//The fact that Nathan could say God so easily "took away" david's death-deserving sins of adultery and murder tells me this part of the story is mere political propaganda, and has about as much spiritual significance as hypocrite evangelicals laying their hands on Donald Trump during prayer.//
Delete
And the same passage has God intentionally allowing calamity to befall David for that sin, even though God forgave him of it.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'
11 Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.'"-2 Sam. 12:10-12
That doesn't sound like "mere political propaganda" to me, does it to you?
-------yes, it does. God's quick unspecified "forgiveness" for two death-deserving sins sounds more like political propaganda, and the story about the baby's death sounds like something added to make the propagandistic nature of the account less obvious than it originally was. Due to the horrible state of the Kings-text, you won't be pretending that what we see today is assuredly what was originally written.
Summarizing the work of J. W. Wevers and others, G. H. Jones notes “six hermeneutical principles” that emerge from an analysis of the LXX text of Kings:
A clear tendency towards harmonisation and rationalisations; exaltation of the heroes of antiquity; condemnation of Joab, Jeroboam, the northern kingdom and Ahab; cultic correctness; condemnation of paganism; the emphasising of God’s transcendence.
House, P. R. (2001, c1995). Vol. 8: 1, 2 Kings (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 49). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
quoting Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 1:7. Cf. J. W. Wevers, “Exegetical Principles Underlying the Septuagint Text of I Kings ii.12–xxi. 43, ” OSt 8 (1950) 300–322//And what do you recommend a person do with an interpretation of a bible verse that is consistent with its immediate context and the genre of the book? Insist that the need for biblical inerrancy outweighs those kind of hermeneutical considerations?//
Delete
Despite my belief in Inerrancy, I often defend the text without its assumption (i.e. granting the the possibility, ad arguendo, of fallibility/errancy).
---------That's not answering the question. What do YOU recommanded a person do when their interpretation of a bible verse is consistent with its immediate context and genre of the book?
You say:
Most of what I've been doing in this thread is defending the text without the assumption of inerrancy. Meaning, I've been showing that even granting for the sake of argument that inerrancy is false, the story of David's not having intercourse with Abishag is possible.
------That's correct, you been defending "possible", which is not the same thing as "probable".
You say: Moreover, we have no positive reasons to think David did.
-------Many people are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Will you suggest it would be better for America's judicial system if it refused to use circumstantial evidence? or do you agree with America's courts that juries can be reasonable to rely on circumstantial evidence to discredit direct testimony?
You say: And we know that David could have married her if he had disgraced her by seducing her as he did Bathsheba.
---------what evidence is there suggesting that David was married to Abishag before the scene in 1st Kings 1:3 took place? NONE. So the skeptical view that says he wasn't married to her at that time, is reasonable.
You say:
For you however, you seem to be willing to doubt any and every aspect of the story so long as it fits with your hermeneutic of suspicion.
---------Because of the circumstantial evidence against David's integrity, because the story itself is implausible and would judged such by any right-thinking woman whose elderly husband used the same excuse to explain why he was in bed with a pretty virgin girl, and because there is nothing in historiography or hermeneutics that requires the reader to presume the factual truth of all ancient historical statements until proven otherwise. The "heremeneutic of suspicion" is employed by Christians all the time, especially in their attempts to account for ancient pagan miracle claims. Apologists always have a hermeneutic of suspicion against skeptical theories of Jesus' resurrection. I'm not seeing how this hermeneutic is unreasonable.
You say:
I'm tiring of this discussion. We're repeating ourselves. I think readers can decide for themselves which aspects of both our arguments are more reasonable and plausible.
-----Thanks for participating.// Yet you blissfully assume everything you read in 1st Kings came from a single author, when you don't even know who that author is, and you cannot demonstrate solitary authorship. //
Delete
I don't assume that at all. In fact, I suspect there were multiple authors, or at least redactors. I even implied in my previous comments that there might have been multiple authors. For example, I wrote "author(s)" HERE.
//And dont' forget, we are no longer talking about what David did or didn't do. NOW we are talking about whether the biblical author should be presumed honest merely because his story doesn't violate common sense. //
David's many indiscretions are recorded in many other parts of the Bible. What makes you think that the authors and redactors of 1 Kings are now all of a sudden trying to cover up all of David's past? And why assume that they think they can be successful in doing so when they were well known? Or are you claiming they were trying to do so for only the last stage of David's life? Many of the historical books record the good and bad of various kings. Including the errors and moral failures of the good kings. Your appeal to "political propoganda" doesn't really work given that fact. I recommend you read all the books of 1 Samuel all the way through 2 Chronicles. Much of the dirty laundry of both the bad AND THE GOOD kings are recorded.
//Except that you insist that it is unreasonable for anybody to doubt any biblical story, which means YOU have the burden. //
I'm not insisting that at all for other people. It's perfectly possible that Christianity is true and there are errors in the Bible. I already spoke on this. If I can show that an alleged Bible problem or contradiction isn't a contradiction or isn't as problematic as people claim, then that's consistent with Inerrancy, but that doesn't prove Inerrancy. I'm not attempting to prove Inerrancy, or claim that every problem has a clear or probably solution.
//First, there are you again, blindly using inerrancy as a hermeneutic, when you know I don't believe in inerrancy and therefore would never use it as a hermeneutic.//
One doesn't need to assume Inerrancy to determine that Jews always believed people were sinners and that when it says some people were "perfect" and "blameless" and obeyed all the commandments of YHVH (e.g. Gen. 6:9; Job 1:1; Luke 1:6) that it doesn't mean absolute perfect obedience to all of God's commandments. Since universal sinfulness is taught throughout the Bible and extra-Biblical sources and archaeology document that Jews generally always believed that. That's also why people often needed to offer various sacrifices to YHVH.//That's not answering the question. What do YOU recommanded a person do when their interpretation of a bible verse is consistent with its immediate context and genre of the book? //
Delete
I would recommend the person continue to read the Bible and improve on their skills in exegesis and hermeneutics. A fallible Bible is compatible with the truth of Christianity.
//what evidence is there suggesting that David was married to Abishag before the scene in 1st Kings 1:3 took place? NONE. So the skeptical view that says he wasn't married to her at that time, is reasonable.//
No, my comment was given with the assumption that they weren't married and David disgraced her by seducing her and having sex with her. Under those conditions the honorable thing for David to do is marry her.
Before I end my side of the conversation. Is there anything specific you want me to address? Or something you said that you think I didn't address enough of or dodged?//The point was that if even conservative Christian scholars think there's no lust on David's part here, then it might be reasonable to say that your own attempt to read it into the text is unreasonable. //
Delete
I posited various possibilities on how it's possible David didn't have sex with Abishag. Some included David having the purest of intentions at one end of the spectrum, while others have David being a horndog at the other end of the spectrum. As well as every other position in between (e.g. innocent intentions at the beginning, then in her presence a level of lust where he wanted to have sex with her [with him either failing or succeeding]).
//Summarizing the work of J. W. Wevers and others, G. H. Jones notes “six hermeneutical principles” that emerge from an analysis of the LXX text of Kings://
If Inerrancy is true, then I disagree with the Eastern Orthodox in thinking its the Greek LXX. If true, Inerrancy applies to the Hebrew text (and those places it has a little Aramaic).
//You say: And we know that David could have married her if he had disgraced her by seducing her as he did Bathsheba.
---------what evidence is there suggesting that David was married to Abishag before the scene in 1st Kings 1:3 took place? NONE. So the skeptical view that says he wasn't married to her at that time, is reasonable.//
I wrote: //No, my comment was given with the assumption that they weren't married and David disgraced her by seducing her and having sex with her. Under those conditions the honorable thing for David to do is marry her.//
Meaning, if David seduced her into having sex with him even though they weren't married, then David could have married Abishag. If you're right that redactors are trying to make David look good, then why not add that he married her after he seduced her? Better yet, fabricate that David married her up front? Or why leave inside the text that she was very beautiful instead of removing it to protect David's honor in order to prevent people like you into thinking that there was something fishy going on? It seems to me it was left in precisely to explain why Adonijah wanted to usurp royal power at that time.I wrote:
Delete
//If Inerrancy is true, then I disagree with the Eastern Orthodox in thinking its the Greek LXX. If true, Inerrancy applies to the Hebrew text (and those places it has a little Aramaic).//
I'm referring to the autographa, not the apographa. Inerrancy refers to the autographs and not the copies.Why do you say " Inerrancy refers to the autographs and not the copies."
Delete
Is it because the bible exempts the copies from inerrancy?
or because the errant nature of the copies cannot be denied, and therefore, the only way to maintain biblical inerrancy is to insist that it is limited to the autographs?
I would think that making darn sure we correctly understand what exactly the bible says is inspired, needs to be settled first, before we automatically drum up some ad hoc version that will "account for" the fact that the copies contain errors.Seems like our current dialogue is running down. Good. To answer your question:
Delete
Because the doctrine of Inerrancy deals with inspired revelation [in this case written revelation, as opposed to say verbal or visionary or angelic]. Generally speaking, the autographs are inspired revelation. More specifically, some of those inspired books might have also been redacted. While other books might consist of both inspired and non-inspired texts that were redacted into a form that was inspired and inerrant in its final version. For example, some of the Psalms might have been originally inspired, while others might not have been. But being included into the canon, they become part of inspired and inerrant Scripture. Some of the historical books might not have been inspired. Or originally written without the assumption or knowledge that it was inspired Revelation, or would end up in Scripture. God would have superintended their collection and redaction to exclude errors.
As a Calvinist, I believe God is sovereign enough to prevent errors entering Scripture. With that view of sovereignty, I can also believe [the less orthodox view] that God controlled which errors would be included in Scripture, if there are any [of course normative Calvinism denies any errors]. So, at a bare minimum, if Inerrancy is true, then the final version of the text when it was included into the canon, or recognized as canonical would be inerrant.
Though, that inerrancy can trace back to before the redaction to when it was first written. These my my views and not necessarily those of other Christians. I stated things in a redundant and repetitive way so that it's clear what I'm saying.
Someone might ask, "Why would a sovereign God intentionally include errors in the Bible?" Well, for various reasons including the Bible's narrative effect on minds, hearts and emotions. For example, I believe Noah's flood was local, but even if it were completely fictitious the story has moral and emotional impact that can be used to lead the elect to their salvation [by God's Special and efficacious grace of course].But you didn't answer my question.
Delete
Let's try this again.
Where does the bible teach that inerrancy is limited to the autographs?
That is, where does the bible teach this "only in the autographs" caveat that the Chicago Statement on Bible Inerrancy has carefully drafted?
If you cannot find a biblical basis for such caveat, you run the risk that the biblical statements on its own inerrancy were intended to describe the copies too.
The fact that the copies are obviously infested with error, does not determine whether the biblical authors thought the inerrancy of their writings extended to the copies, anymore than the fact that your being wrong about something being embarassing requires that you were not wrong. Sometimes we have to endure shocking bouts of knowledge that turn our world upside down, inerrantists are no exception.
It may very well be that the biblical authors DID extend inerrancy to the copies, in which case the bible's doctrine of inerrancy counts as one shining example of obvious error.The doctrine of Inerrancy is fundamentally about the nature of God and His revelation [which must be free of error]. The Bible also repeatedly warns about the corruption of that revelation through tradition and false interpretation. For example, how both Eve and the serpent misquoted God. Or how Jesus talked about how the Jews of His time nullified the Word of God by their human traditions. Compare Rev. 22:18-19 [which I'll quote below]. The accretion of errors and interpolations in the copies of the texts; acknowledge of that reality; and the attempt to get to the Ur-text using textual criticism; is understood to be an expansion of that principle.
Delete
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.- Rev. 22:18-19typo correction:
Delete
"...acknowledge[ment] of that reality..."
//If you cannot find a biblical basis for such caveat, you run the risk that the biblical statements on its own inerrancy were intended to describe the copies too.//
The ancient world [including the ANE] universally understood the reality of how copies of texts naturally accumulate errors. That's nothing new. It was know and expected. So, expecting inerrant copies would be the novelty. In which case, the evidence should be the other way around. Where in the Biblical texts does it positively teach that the copies would be preserved from all errors? If it doesn't, then we don't have reason to think that copies would be inerrant.Nice try but no dice: YOU are the one who says biblical inerrancy is limited to the autographs, therefore, YOU have the burden of showing evidence to support such.
Delete
It is perfectly reasonable to ask where you got this "only in the originals" caveat.
You cannot support that position from anything the bible says about itself.
Either way, I can answer your trifling attempt to evade your own burden of proof.
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:14-17 NAU)
Notice, the 'scripture' that Paul says is inspired (3:16) is the same as the 'scripture' he mentioned in v. 15.
In v. 15, Paul says Timothy knew the 'scripture' since childhood.
Timothy never knew the original pieces of parchment or papyrus that Moses, Isaiah, etc, actually set their pens to. No Christian or scholar has ever held that such originals had survived into the 1st century.
So the only way Timothy could have known the scriptures in the 1st century, is if what the OT authors originally wrote, was copied and recopied over the centuries before Timothy was born exactly as all scholars believe.
Thus, Timothy did not ever view the originals.
Thus, Timothy only knew COPIES.
So, I am reasonable to conclude that because Paul was speaking about COPIES in v. 15, he was also speaking about COPIES in v. 16 (i.e., the COPIES of scripture that existed in the first century were inspired by god).
That is, when Paul says the scriptures Timothy knew since childhood were inspired, he meant they were INERRANT.
That is, Paul meant that the COPIES of scripture, which were the only type of scripture Timothy knew, were inerrant.
The logical syllogism looks like this:
---Paul said the scriptures were inspired.
--In context, he meant copies.
-Therefore, Paul said the copies were inerrant.
---Inspiration = inerrancy.
--The scripture Timothy knew was inspired.
-Therefore, the scripture Timothy knew were inerrant.
---------------------------------
Since I have provided proof from the context that 2nd Timothy 3:16 is talking about COPIES, the burden transfers to you to show, FROM THE CONTEXT, that v. 16 was somehow talking about the "originals". Good luck.
Therefore, your evasive challenge "Where in the Biblical texts does it positively teach that the copies would be preserved from all errors?" has been properly met.You're begging the question [petitio principii] that Paul is saying that the very manuscripts that Timothy physically held and read were themselves inspired rather than "Scripture" in the abstract sense of "the Bible". YOU ARE THE ONE introducing a cultural, literary, scribal and theological novum, not me. The 1st century Christians called the Septuagint "Scripture" even though they knew that the translation, like all translations, was imperfect and could never convey exactly what the original languages did. They knew that the LXX sometimes deviated from their Hebrew copies. Sometimes they quoted the LXX verbatim, other times they consciously and intentionally cited the OT contrary to the LXX and closer to the Hebrew. Moreover, they knew that there were different "SeptuagintS" [plural] and that they deviated from each other and not just the Hebrew copies. On this see Peter Williams excellent video Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint.
Delete
So, you're interpreting Paul in a woodenly literal way, like an ignorant fundamentalist KJV Onlyist, contrary to Paul's intended meaning, and his actual practice of citing the OT. The fact that they could accept the LXX translation as generally reliable and useful for evangelism and teaching goes to show that they didn't think they needed inerrant copies of Scripture to preach or convey the message of the Gospel. You're interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:16, if true, would make a scholar like Paul, an idiot and a hypocrite. Even though he would have held what would nowadays be equivalent to 1 to 3 doctorates.
Moreover, you're not understanding what the underlying Greek word for "inspiration" means. It means "God-breathed" or "breathed out by God". When did this take place? When the autographs were originally written (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21). Or, in some cases, when the official redaction of a book was created. Where are Christians or Jews at the time of Paul claiming that scribes are being inspired of God as they copy the Scriptures? Nowhere. But that's what would have to take place if those copies are being breathed out by God all over again.
Article X of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states:
//WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.//
Steve Hays thinks that the CSBI be be improved upon and isn't as sophisticated and nuanced as it could be. I agree. My response to you above refutes your objection assuming the wording of Article X where it states, "that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture." It limits the status of inspiration to the autographs. However, for myself, there's a sense in which I'd be willing to say that copies are "inspired" "to the extent that they faithfully represent the original". Given this secondary sense of "inspired", copies can be inspired without being inerrant. So, that too would work as a solution to your objection/criticism. Since copies and translations can retain the influence of the original inspiration by generally conveying the core message of the originals. That would answer your point about the very copies Timothy had. Though, I still think that Paul was talking about Scripture in the abstract, and that when he talked about Scripture being "God-breathed", he was talking about the autographs.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
You're begging the question [petitio principii] that Paul is saying that the very manuscripts that Timothy physically held and read were themselves inspired rather than "Scripture" in the abstract sense of "the Bible".
----------------- What evidence within the immediate context of v. 16 are you relying on to justify your own interpretation that Paul in v. 16 was speaking about scripture in the “abstract”?ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
…YOU ARE THE ONE introducing a cultural, literary, scribal and theological novum, not me.
-----------No, I justified the “copies” interpretation from the context or previous verse. Contextual interpretation does not involve imposing foreign cultural, literary, scribal or theologicall novum. Might be nice if you point out what exactly it was about interpreting v. 15 to be speaking of copies, that doesn’t justify interpreting the scriptures of v. 16 the same way. Charge of “woodenly literal” don’t qualify.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
The 1st century Christians called the Septuagint "Scripture" even though they knew that the translation, like all translations, was imperfect and could never convey exactly what the original languages did.
-------But I was talking about Paul’s intent, not the intent of “1st century Christians”. Where is your evidence that PAUL “knew that the translation, like all translations, was imperfect and could never convey exactly what the original languages did.”
Delete
ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
They knew that the LXX sometimes deviated from their Hebrew copies.
----------Where is your evidence that PAUL “knew that the LXX sometimes deviated from their Hebrew copies”?ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
Sometimes they quoted the LXX verbatim, other times they consciously and intentionally cited the OT contrary to the LXX and closer to the Hebrew.
--------Why would it be unreasonable to characterize this as simply quoting whatever version of the OT they thought might support their intended doctrinal teaching, sort of like the non-Jehovah Witness who doesn’t believe Jesus is god, but who merely cites the NWT of John 1:1 without acknowledging that other forms of that verse exist which do not support Arianism? I’ve done several studies of the use of the OT in the NT. I call the NT authors arbitrary.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
Moreover, they knew that there were different "SeptuagintS" [plural] and that they deviated from each other and not just the Hebrew copies.
----------Where is your evidence that PAUL “knew that there were different "SeptuagintS" [plural] and that they deviated from each other and not just the Hebrew copies.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
On this see Peter Williams excellent video Why I Don't Believe In The Septuagint.
---------saw it years ago.
ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
So, you're interpreting Paul in a woodenly literal way, like an ignorant fundamentalist KJV Onlyist, contrary to Paul's intended meaning, and his actual practice of citing the OT.
---------Not when I’ve proven, as shown above, that everything you said prior to this constituted nothing but presumption. Start showing that PAUL knew such things, and you might have a foundation to rest your cocky confidence on.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
The fact that they could accept the LXX translation as generally reliable and useful for evangelism and teaching goes to show that they didn't think they needed inerrant copies of Scripture to preach or convey the message of the Gospel.
----------You are assuming Paul and the apostles were consistent in their beliefs about the nature of scripture. But since Christians ever since then have had to admit changing their mind on doctrinal matters, including inerrancy, I don’t think it is a very good idea to pretend that every relevant statement on the matter in the NT constitutes some type of static monolithic concept that represents an unchanging belief among the apostles. I’m reasonable to read into the NT the notion that the authors were just like anybody else, and held opinions more or less in flux.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
You're interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:16, if true, would make a scholar like Paul, an idiot and a hypocrite.
----------How many times has one Christian scholar used similar language to describe another Christian scholar? The possibility of Paul being stupid doesn’t slow me down, at all, from interpreting his words in a way that show him to be stupid. Viewing him as stupid only bothers fundamentalists like you. But whether something “bothers” you is not the criteria by which to decide whether it is reasonable to believe.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
Even though he would have held what would nowadays be equivalent to 1 to 3 doctorates.
----------But only from diploma mills. Paul’s expressions are often rambling, and he takes the OT out of context all the time, prompting die hard fundies today to write numerous articles wherein they trifle that Paul “wasn’t necessarily wrong”. I am not unreasonable to saddle Paul with the belief that the words of the OT contained hidden meanings that could not be discerned by merely reading them the way one normally reads anything.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
Moreover, you're not understanding what the underlying Greek word for "inspiration" means. It means "God-breathed" or "breathed out by God". When did this take place? When the autographs were originally written (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21).
----------I told you before that I do not believe in bible inerrancy, therefore, I obviously don’t use bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic. I don’t care what Peter thought about divine inspiration, and I don’t assume that he and Paul agreed on how it happened. The only hermeneutics we can agree on in this 2nd Timothy 3:16 debate is what Paul meant in his immediate context and the grammar involved in those expressions. As soon as you go outside those and pretend that non-Pauline portions of the NT bear on this issue, I am reasonable to refuse such attempts.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
Or, in some cases, when the official redaction of a book was created.
------------Then apparently inspiration/inerrancy were not limited to just the originals.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
Where are Christians or Jews at the time of Paul claiming that scribes are being inspired of God as they copy the Scriptures? Nowhere. But that's what would have to take place if those copies are being breathed out by God all over again.
-----------I don’t claim that Paul was self-consistent, or that other Christians would have drawn the same inferences from his statements that he did. YOU do.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
Article X of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states:
//WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.//
Steve Hays thinks that the CSBI be be improved upon and isn't as sophisticated and nuanced as it could be. I agree.
-----------And only good can drive from a person’s refusal to adopt an imperfect statement of doctrine.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
My response to you above refutes your objection assuming the wording of Article X where it states, "that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture." It limits the status of inspiration to the autographs. However, for myself, there's a sense in which I'd be willing to say that copies are "inspired" "to the extent that they faithfully represent the original".
-------Well since you think inspiration = inerrancy, would you also be willing to say that the copies are inerrant “to the extent that they faithfully represent the original"? Or does that just sound stupid despite what logically follows from your own belief that inspiration and inerrancy are synonymous?ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
Given this secondary sense of "inspired", copies can be inspired without being inerrant. So, that too would work as a solution to your objection/criticism.
--------Then its also possible for the originals to be inspired without being inerrant, which would be a reasonable deduction especially in light of the fact that nobody has ever shown the originals to be inerrant in the first place.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
Since copies and translations can retain the influence of the original inspiration by generally conveying the core message of the originals.
-----------Your god is rather stupid for putting forth such massive effort to render the originals “inerrant”, only to let the copies become infested with error. Sort of like the author who spends years making sure his original manuscript is without error…but who subsequently does not care whether the later copying process causes copies of his manuscript to become error-ridden. Sure is funny that you are quick to prioritize human logic whenever god does something that makes human sense, but then you are quick to pretend human logic is insufficient to judge god whenever he does something that defies human logic.ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Delete
That would answer your point about the very copies Timothy had.
----------But nothing you have said renders my interpretation “unreasonable”, so you have no basis for declaring that interpretation unreasonable.
ANNOYED PINOYNovember 19, 2019 at 3:15 AM
Though, I still think that Paul was talking about Scripture in the abstract, and that when he talked about Scripture being "God-breathed", he was talking about the autographs.
-----------You provide no contextual warrant for the supposition that Paul in v. 16 was talking about the originals, or talking about scripture in the “abstract”.//What evidence within the immediate context of v. 16 are you relying on to justify your own interpretation that Paul in v. 16 was speaking about scripture in the “abstract”?//
Delete
That's the most common way the term "the Scriptures" is used among Jews and Christians at the time. As well as the New Testament. As far as I can tell, the term "Scripture", "Scriptures" and the phrase "the Scriptures" in the New Testament usually refers to "the Bible" in the abstract rather than any specific manuscripts. A possible exception is Luke 4:20-21; Acts 8:32-35; 17:11; 18:28. Maybe a few more. But the vast majority refer to them in the abstract. Most knowledgeable atheists would agree with me. Like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, John Loftus, Bart Ehrman. You're just being pedantic.
//No, I justified the “copies” interpretation from the context or previous verse. Contextual interpretation does not involve imposing foreign cultural, literary, scribal or theologicall novum.//
That's the problem. You read the Bible like a fundamentalist. Contrary to 2000 years of Christian history which often tries to take those things into consideration.
//Might be nice if you point out what exactly it was about interpreting v. 15 to be speaking of copies,//
If you're going to be annoyingly pedantic, then I can too. Where does it say that Paul is talking about copies? How do you know that Timothy didn't have the originals? It doesn't say he didn't have the originals. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to show that he's talking about copies. If you won't allow me to use cultural and historical context to make my case, then you shouldn't be able to either. In which case, you can't argue that all the extra-Biblical evidence suggests that the autographs were lost to history. That's using things outside of the passage, and you shouldn't be allowed to do it if you're not allowing me to. See how ridiculous your argumentation is? It's laughable. Again, no atheistic, agnostic or Jewish scholar would argue your point.
//Why would it be unreasonable to characterize this as simply quoting whatever version of the OT they thought might support their intended doctrinal teaching, sort of like the non-Jehovah Witness who doesn’t believe Jesus is god, but who merely cites the NWT of John 1:1 without acknowledging that other forms of that verse exist which do not support Arianism?//
Because the 1st century Apostolic church didn't publish their own edition of the OT and claim it was the "only true" Scriptures. They knew that differing copies of the LXX were already spread throughout the Roman Empire by the Jews in the diaspora generations prior AND they accepted them in their contemporary state as generally reliable. This is historical fact.
CONTINUED//You are assuming Paul and the apostles were consistent in their beliefs about the nature of scripture.//
Delete
Paul was taught by Gamaliel. It was common knowledge that there are differences in various copies. You are assuming that the Christian church either didn't know that there were differences between between Hebrew copies themselves, and LXX copies themselves, and Aramaic copies of the Targumim themselves [and other languages]. OR, you would have to be assuming that the Christian church believed they alone were in the possession of the inerrant editions of the OT Scriptures. There's no hint of that whatsoever in the NT, and would be against the fact when Christians evangelized an area, they encouraged the Jews in that location to examine the Scriptures they had (in whatever language) to confirm the truth of the Christian message (e.g. Act 17:11).
//Viewing him as stupid only bothers fundamentalists like you. But whether something “bothers” you is not the criteria by which to decide whether it is reasonable to believe.//
Same here. That you think these objections have any weight doesn't bother me at all since more informed atheistic scholars would laugh at your objections, criticisms, interpretations and view regarding Paul's scholarship. So, I'm done with this topic. You're just being pedantic. You're either not being serious, or you're lacking such basic understanding of the issues that you suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
//Paul’s expressions are often rambling, and he takes the OT out of context all the time, prompting die hard fundies today to write numerous articles wherein they trifle that Paul “wasn’t necessarily wrong”.
That statement seems to be so ignorant of many issues. Including the Jewish PaRDeS approach to interpreting and applying the Tanakh.
// I am not unreasonable to saddle Paul with the belief that the words of the OT contained hidden meanings that could not be discerned by merely reading them the way one normally reads anything.//
Actually, while I think the main point of the historical-grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures is the primary way to interpret the Bible, I don't limit it to that. The grammatico-historical method is wrong in saying it's the only way to interpret the Bible. I would include other ways as well. For example, PaRDeS, and the sensus plenior among others.
//I told you before that I do not believe in bible inerrancy, therefore, I obviously don’t use bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic.//
It's not about your beliefs, but about the author of 2 Timothy's beliefs about inspiration. Regardless of whether it was Paul, the Christian who wrote it likely believed a view of inspiration and inerrancy like his fellow Christians and Jews. Therefore, you have to interpret v. 16 in that light, not in your anachronistic, literalistic and Biblicistic [i.e. historical and cultural vacuum] way.
//Then apparently inspiration/inerrancy were not limited to just the originals.//
And if you were paying attention, I said that in my previous posts. Apparently, you're either not paying attention, or not reading my comments in their entirety.
CONTINUED//Well since you think inspiration = inerrancy, would you also be willing to say that the copies are inerrant “to the extent that they faithfully represent the original"? Or does that just sound stupid despite what logically follows from your own belief that inspiration and inerrancy are synonymous?//
Delete
I don't believe that inspiration = inerrancy. I already implicitly said so when I said that there is a secondary sense of "inspiration" that I'm willing to hold which can affirm the inspiration of the errant copies.
//Then its also possible for the originals to be inspired without being inerrant,//
And I said as much in times past.
//Your god is rather stupid for putting forth such massive effort to render the originals “inerrant”, only to let the copies become infested with error.//
Not at all. God providentially preserves the general truth through the copies among his true believers whom He elected and saved among various denominations down through history.
//But nothing you have said renders my interpretation “unreasonable”, so you have no basis for declaring that interpretation unreasonable. //
I dare say Richard Carrier, Robert Price, John Loftus and Bart Ehrman would likely disagree with most of what you've said, argued or inferred.
//You provide no contextual warrant for the supposition that Paul in v. 16 was talking about the originals, or talking about scripture in the “abstract”.//
Because I'm not accepting your fundamentalistic and Biblicistic limitations on the interpretation of Scripture. Thanks for the conversation. I'm terminating my end of the conversation because it's getting into issues that are just ridiculously pedantic, anachronistic and to a WAY OUT THERE fringe and conspiratorially suspicious approach to "scholarship".BTW, Timothy didn't actually have to have the autographs for your challenge to be met. It would be sufficient for him to have THOUGHT (though wrongly) that he had the autographs. Going by your pedantic Biblicistic method of interpretation, then the burden of proof is on you to show that the author of 2 Timothy in 3:16 was talking about copies and not the autographs and that Timothy didn't have the autographs. Since, for all you know, Timothy actually did have the autographs. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That's where your hermeneutics and exegesis leaves you.
Delete
"Well, I personally see Mark teaching Jesus is both human and YHVH [as I argued in my blogpost Markan Christology]. "
ReplyDelete
where does mark say jesus is yhwh? please don't present bullshit like this
jesus does x, yhwh does x, therefore jesus = yhwh
one can make the argument that david is jesus
https://trinities.org/blog/the-bible-teaches-that-david-is-god/
"If true, then he would more naturally believe that Jesus has YHVH's attribute of omniscience."
but not IDENTICAL, right? the son says that he does not know the hour.
"Therefore, it would make more sense that he would relegate Jesus' non-omniscience somehow and in some way to Jesus' humanity (even if he himself didn't know exactly how to understand/express that).""
this is bullshit. mark thinks that his jesus is not pre-existant being who HAS divine attributes.//where does mark say jesus is yhwh? please don't present bullshit like this//
Delete
Using language like that now does lead to you falling under the category of Matt. 7:6:
"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.- Matt. 7:6
You're not interested in civil dialogue. And I've indulged you enough with many responses to you in barry's other blogpost.
One of the many problems is that you're constantly criticizing a strawman understanding of the Trinity. So, instead of responding to a real criticism of the Trinity, I'm constantly having to correct your understanding, and THEN do your job for you by trying to apply your criticism in a way that actually touches on the Trinity. Giving me a double burden, when you should have already understood the basic of the Trinity before you start your critiques.
//jesus does x, yhwh does x, therefore jesus = yhwh//
That would be sufficient to start mounting an inductive argument, and sometimes I do that. But often my argument in my blogposts are:
Only YHVH does X according to the OT, Jesus does X according to NT writers who believed the OT, therefore Jesus is (YHVH in some sense)
In my blogposts I've given many examples from the NT. Just in GMark I already mentioned how the OT says only YHVH rides the clouds, yet Jesus portrays Himself as the Son of Man that does that. Jesus even uses "I am" in that passage and the high priest tears his clothes because He perceives Jesus as having committed blasphemy. It wasn't blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. But it was to claim to be God if you're only human.
//https://trinities.org/blog/the-bible-teaches-that-david-is-god///
I've interacted with Dale Tuggy many times before.
//but not IDENTICAL, right? the son says that he does not know the hour. //
I don't even know what you mean by "identical". You seem to either refuse to understand my terminology, or are incapable of understanding it, despite my explanations. I even linked to William Lane Craig's video where he explains the difference between "identification" and "predication". Yet, you don't phrase your questions in ways that I can understand what you're asking, and whether you are or aren't aware of the distinctions and qualifications I've made. Constantly having to guess what you mean and doing your job for you by reconstructing your objection is tiresome. I've already spent enough time indulging your simplistic and amateurish objections. Go and learn what we Trinitarians believe, master at least the basics, then come back and present your objections.
CONTINUED//this is bullshit. mark thinks that his jesus is not pre-existant being who HAS divine attributes.//
Delete
Again the abusive language. Yes, Mark does imply Christ's preexistence not merely by his constant connection of Jesus' character and acts with YHVH [for which I linked to Licona's video to explain how Roman biographies work], but I also already pointed out in that other blogpost what Tony Costa said.
QUOTING MYSELF in the comments you already should have read:
//[[Update: Apologist Tony Costa has said that Mark 1:1ff (esp. v. 2) alludes to Exodus 23:20 which refers to "the angel". Specifically, Costa says Mark 1:1ff is likely a cluster of three (3) quotations/allusion, not merely two (2). That's because Mark 1:2 in the Greek most closely resembles Exodus 23:20 (in the Septuagint) which refers to an angel/Angel whom God promised He would send. If 1. Mark really is alluding to this passage in Exodus, and 2. if that angel is The Angel of YHVH, then Mark is likely connecting Jesus with the Angel of YHVH. If so, then that kills at least two birds with one stone. It undermines versions of Unitarianism that 1. deny Christ's Preexistence and 2. versions of Unitarianism which affirm Jesus is only/merely a human savior.//
I'm done responding to you. You are either unwilling or unable to understand/remember what I'm saying we Trinitarians believe and then to adjust your objections in light of that. You're repeating the same ignorant and/or confused objections like a broken record.Mr. Pinoy, you will immediately cease and desist your practice of overcoming the reply word limit for single responses.
Delete
Do not spread your replies over more than one response.
Learn to conform to the word limit.
Learn to address the issues one at a time, instead of trying to answer 10 different points with so much text that you have to spread it out over more than one reply.
I would suspect the belief about the messenger of Yahweh (angel of the Lord) is akin to Joseph being as Pharaoh. Jesus speaks of how he was given authority to forgive sins, for example. I also don't think most biblical unitarians believe Jesus was merely human, but rather the supernaturally begotten son of God. I don't believe in biblical inerrancy, so I'm not one to think the authors all shared the same views, though such views might appear the same on the surface. I suppose if I was a Christian, I might settle for binitarianism. Some trinitarian arguments from a biblical stand-point seem reasonable.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that pre-Christian Judadism was a constantly evolving religion (Jews fought each other and split into competing factions in Moses' day and thereafter), so it's ideas about how a person could be rightly called god without being god ontologically, were not very well developed.
Delete
Then despite the very reasonable assumption that Jesus' popularity must have caused him to be hit numerous times with the same numerous and nuanced questions that divided the bishops at the Council of Nicaea (i.e., how exactly Jesus relates to the Father and how two persons who share the god-nature wouldn't constitute two gods, especially in light of Philo's admission that the Logos was correctly deemed a "second god"), the gospel authors make it appear that Jesus not only didn't answer such questions, but that nobody ever thought to confront him with such questions. If the Sanhedrin seriously wanted to put Jesus to death for blasphemy in claiming to be god, they would surely have hit him with all the same problematic questions that Christians ask today:
If you are equal to, yet separate from, the Father, what is the logical error in saying there are two gods?
If you always do the will of your father, were you doing his will while you were mouthing the words "let this cup pass" (Matthew 26:39)? Did the Father wish to spare you from the fate of crucifixion?
----------------
It is my strong opinion that the reason John the latest of the gospels makes Jesus' deity clearer than the later Synoptics, is because the earliest stories about Jesus, were concerned most with promoting Jesus as god's servant, a bit less with asserting Jesus was equal to the Father, and not interested at all in explaining how the latter could be consistent with OT monotheism.
For example, if you purchased a book purporting to be Benny Hinn's life story...but it never mentions how many times he has been hit with criticism and questions he couldn't answer...you'd be suspicious that the authors of the book were dishonestly trying to make Hinn look more awesome than he was, by completely avoiding what was a very real and well-founded opposition to his morals, theology and miracle-claims.
So for the skeptic, there is limited utility in using the bible against Christians. "theology" is about as reliably stable as a greased pig set on fire and forced to skate on ice. Perhaps that's why so many millions of sincere Christians, all using the same bible, disagree with each other so strongly about "what the bible teaches" about Jesus' nature or natures.
As soon as the Christian says "maybe god for his own mysterious reasons doesn't want Christians to be united on the doctrine of Jesus' deity", they open the door for skeptics to justify skepticism: "maybe god wants me to be blind to biblical truth for the present". If maybes completely absolve the Christian for any perceived inconsistencies, fairness dictates that maybes also absolve skeptical theories of any inconsistencies.
"In my blogposts I've given many examples from the NT. Just in GMark I already mentioned how the OT says only YHVH rides the clouds, yet Jesus portrays Himself as the Son of Man that does that."
ReplyDelete
quote :
The ancient Israelites also knew that the Canaanite deity Baal was a rider on the clouds. Moses could be transported in a cloud (Josephus, Antiquities 4.325-326).Daniel 7:18 explicitly interprets the apocalyptic imagery with reference to the saints of Israel
other human figures could be seated on the divine throne such as Moses (see the Exagōgē of Ezekiel the Tragedian) and Enoch in the Similitudes interpretation of Daniel 7 (see 1 Enoch 61:8; 62:2, 5; 69:27, 29) (page 78).
so can you tell me why yhwh never says that he exists as a seated one , but is the one who seats the person?
"Jesus even uses "I am" in that passage and the high priest tears his clothes because He perceives Jesus as having committed blasphemy."
"are you the son of the blessed one"
"i am "
so the high priest according to mark does not like it that a jewish nobody who gets his revelations from the devil claims to be "son of x"
" It wasn't blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. But it was to claim to be God if you're only human."
he doesn't claim to be god, he claims to be son of x.//but not IDENTICAL, right? the son says that he does not know the hour. //
ReplyDelete
I don't even know what you mean by "identical". You seem to either refuse to understand my terminology, or are incapable of understanding it, despite my explanations. I even linked to William Lane Craig's video where he explains the difference between "identification" and "predication".
////
"If true, then he would more naturally believe that Jesus has YHVH's attribute of omniscience."
but not IDENTICAL, right? the son says that he does not know the hour.
if i have IDENTICAL mind as a MATHEMATICIAN , then i am a mathematician. on the OTHER hand "god-man" DOES not have IDENTICAL mind as "yhwh" in his PERSON (god-mans).
is that better?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
I challenged "annoyed pinoy" at his blog as follows: 1 comment: barry November 7, 2019 at 4:01 PM I'd like to d...
-
Update July 14, 2017 : In 2008, I posted to another discussion forum several quotes from Holding, showing how highly he lauded the Contex...
-
Since Windows 10 came out, many have bemoaned the fact that Chessmaster 9000 will not install on it. I was one such person, and I personall...
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/11/my-general-challenge-to-annoyed-pinoy.html