Demolishing Triablogue: how to get nowhere fast, a reply to "annoyed pinoy"

"Annoyed Pinoy" who frequents Triablogue responded to my criticism of his views.

I reply by new blog post instead of "reply" because the word count is greater than the 4, 096 allowed for "replies".

Pinoy and others raise the issue of whether Ezekiel 16:7-8 constitutes criteria for sexual readiness, and the issue of my prior lawsuits against James Patrick Holding.

Thanks AP for the reply. 

“Because of a comment HERE, I did a very quick search of your blog for my nick and I noticed you made the following response to me.”
No, your God only identifies two criteria, boobs and pubic hair. Ezekiel 16. “
That's an example of poor reasoning and poor reading skills. Different types of literature should be read according to their genre and intent/purpose. Just because two criteria are given doesn't mean there are only two criteria.

 That’s technically true, but there are several problems your response creates:

1. The burden of proof is on the claimant.  You apparently claim Ezekiel and or God think more criteria than the “boobs and pubic hair” need to be fulfilled before the girl can be considered legitimately ready for marriage (since apparently you don’t like the idea that they believed only two criteria needed to be met).  I don’t know why you claim this, you have absolutely nothing in the bible to indicate God felt more criteria needed be fulfilled, than these two.  Indeed where does the bible indicate girls need to have more qualifications than signs of puberty, to be deemed legitimately ready for martial relations? 

2. If God believes just as strongly as you that more criteria than these two must be fulfilled for a girl to be deemed legitimately ready for marital relations, don’t you think he would specified what those minimum criteria are?  If he was willing to specify prohibitions against conduct that is “obviously” sinful (like homosexuality, bestiality), you cannot argue that pedophilia is so obviously immoral that he didn’t think we needed a prohibition against it.  We also didn’t need to be told bestiality is wrong, but God specified a prohibition against that act anyway.  So it is reasonable, whether detrimental to you or not, to assume that your God will not shy away from specifying a prohibition against certain acts even if he trusts us to intuitively “know” they are immoral. 

3. Your implication that more criteria than those two were needed, fails on historical grounds anyway, as most ANE scholars agree that the age of 12, or menses or when signs of puberty showed, was when ANE peoples generally deemed a girl ready for marriage.  For example, Life in the Ancient Near East, 3100-332 B.C.E., Daniel C. Snell, Yale University Press, 1997. p. 90 

“You're reading that INTO the passage. The point of the passage is that YHVH waited till the girl was mature.”

And the criteria for maturity are given by the author.  If you wish to argue ancient Jews believed more criteria for marriage-readiness were required to be fulfilled than the two Ezekiel mentions, that is your claim, for which you incur the burden of proof.  Good luck.  Evangelical scholar L. C. Allen sees no problem with the boobs and public hair being set forth as sufficient signs of sexual maturity:

“The creative command turned into fact, and the baby grew into adolescence and sexual maturity, marked by breasts and pubic hair…” Allen, L. C. (2002). Vol. 28: Word Biblical Commentary : Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 237). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Pinoy continues:

NOT your claim that, "...your God only identifies two criteria, boobs and pubic hair."

What I said was true.  Your God does not identify any other criteria in that passage for sex-readiness for the girl, except boobs and pubic hair.   So why you insist there was more to the criteria-story than that, remains a mystery.  Perhaps your bible says things my bible doesn't?

“Moreover, you press the allegory beyond it's intended purpose.”

No, I’m only responding to other apologists who, in sheer desperation, resorted to Ezekiel 16 to refute my argument that the god of the bible approves of sex within adult-child marriages.  I actually agree with you that the passage was not intended to instruct the reader on what the ancient Jews believed to be the minimum signs of marriage-readiness for girls.

“Since the passage is NOT about the criteria of when it's permissible for a female to get married and become sexually active. It's about the spiritual infidelity of God's people.”

Correct.  And when you find biblical criteria telling what signs or age indicate a girl first becomes ready in her life for martial relations, let me know.  But for now, that's a change in your interpretation, as earlier this year you DID argue that what Ezekiel 16:7-8 can tell us what ancient Jews thought about the minimum age of marriage for girls:

   ANNOYED PINOY7/08/2017 3:00 PM  
    I think there's a place for natural law considerations in Christian ethics. We don't require biblical warrant for all our ethical determinations.
    That's a powerful statement by Steve. Christian ethics based on the Bible takes into consideration natural law. Even if Islam could theoretically do the same thing, Islam nevertheless teaches that it's okay for men to have sex with prepubescent girls. As I said in the comments of another blog:
    To add to what Steve said, if one reads Ezek. 16:1-8 (and following) God likens his relationship with His people as Him having found her like a newly born abandoned child. He waited until she was sexually mature to "marry" her in covenant. I think that suggests the same thing Steve is saying. I think we can inductively infer from this what the Jews believed during that time and what God Himself approves of regarding when it's appropriate for a female to get married.

Pinoy continues:

“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?- Micah 6:8”29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."- Mark 12:29-31 The former passage is a summation of Jewish theology and ethics in the OT, the latter a Christian summation in the NT. But it would be eisegetical (not exegetical) to assume that those passages are all there is to Jewish and/or Christian theology. You make a similar mistake about Ezekiel 16.”

See above.  I don’t think Ezekiel 16 is giving criteria for marriage.  I’m simply responding to Christian apologists who appeal to it as such in their desperate effort to refute my theory that the god of the ancient Jews approved of sex within adult-child marriages.  Apparently you and I agree that such apologists are using the passage in a way Ezekiel did not intend.

As for quoting the NT, perhaps you didn’t know, but I am an atheist.  I do not believe in biblical inerrancy, biblical inspiration, or harmony of morals or theology between the testaments.  

“You're completely ignoring cultural context of the passage. As far as I know, there are no records that describe ante-Christian Jewish communities that regularly had problems of mothers dying or suffering from having infants at too early an age.”

We have literally zero “records” produced by the Jews in the days of Moses, with the exception of course of the Pentateuch itself and a few fragments whose date is hotly contested, neither of which resolve the issue of to what extent early pregnancies were fatal in ancient Israel.  Not all arguments from silence are fallacious, but the one you now advance surely is. 

You are also assuming that sex within adult-child marriages necessarily involved attempts to make the girl pregnant, when in fact Hebrews 13:4 and the Song of Songs counsel that cunnilingus was considered acceptable sexual practice, and if so, then the problem of physically traumatizing the underage girl in an adult-child marriage among the ancient Jews, disappears:

 4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Heb. 13:4 NAU) 

 16 "Awake, O north wind, And come, wind of the south; Make my garden breathe out fragrance, Let its spices be wafted abroad. May my beloved come into his garden And eat its choice fruits!" (Cant. 4:16 NAU)

Pinoy continues: 

“Unlike what regularly happens among Muslims communities. Yet writings like the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud have many discussions about the finer aspects of the law as it relates to human living. Including addressing some medical issues.”

The Talmud also says girls at least three years and one day old are “suitable for sexual relations”, and more words to that effect.  I’ll be more than happy to discuss the context these verses sit in, to disabuse you of any possible “they-were-just-talking-technicalities-about-the-extreme-fringes-of-the-law-not-intended-to-apply-to-real-world-situations” foolishness you might share with most of the unfortunate Christian souls who attempted this fallacious trick to get rid of this rather embarrassing historical evidence.

These particular rabbis and sages are quoted in the older more authoritative Babylonian Talmud, and are they are the earlier human teachers, it is only the later teachers in the B.Talmud who voice concerns against adult-child marriage:

Abodah Zarah 36B-37A:

Said Rabina, “Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, (!?) also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety.”  

Niddah 44 b

Misnah: a girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed  by intercourse;

Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old.

...An objection was raised: A girl of the age of three years and even one of the age of two years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old.

Sanhedrin 55b  

R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her;

Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 69a

R. Jeremiah of Difti said: We also learnt the following: A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabited with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her...

Kethuboth 39

"|Three [categories of] women may use an absorbent4  in their marital intercourse:   a minor, and an expectant and nursing mother. The minor,  because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,  because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.   A nursing mother,  because otherwise she might have to wean her child [prematurely]  and this would result in his death.  And what is [the age of such] a minor?  From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under,  or over this age  must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages said: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner, and mercy  will be vouchsafed from Heaven, for it is said in the Scriptures, The Lord preserveth the simple.”

One who is under the age of 11 must carry on her marital intercourse in the normal manner (i.e., without an absorbent [contraceptive]).(!?)

They would hardly have a rule like this, if in their law or view of the law there was some absolute prohibition against vaginal intercourse with girls under the age of 11.  Having Rabbis regulate the sex life of prepubescent girls while absolutely forbidding girls of that age from sexual activity, would be about as stupid as California telling 9 year old girls how and when they can have sex within marriage, despite California law absolutely prohibiting any and all sexual contact with a 9 year old girl.  The more reasonable interpretation of the Talmud is that the Rabbis issue such regulations because prepubescent girls having sex within marriage was not absolutely forbidden.

Gleason Archer and others have accepted that some kings in the Monarchy were fathering kids at 11 years old.“But the males didn't physically suffer from such a situation.”

But ancient Jewish boys having sex at 11 years old still bounces the vast majority of Christian apologists out of their theological comfort zones.  Years ago when I started this craze on the internet, the apologists were saying pedophilia likely wouldn’t even enter the mind of the ancient Jew.  NOW they are softening their position, and admitting that happened but was considered a crime.  Maybe in the next 10 years they’ll figure out there’s no biblical anything to substantiate their view that Moses or the bible god views sex within adult-child marriages as “sin”.  I am not an extreme skeptic, I don’t say Moses used prepubescent girls like disposable love dolls, I simply say there is no plausible biblical argument to justify the proposition that God has always thought sex within adult-child marriages was “sin”.

“Also, not everything the monarchs did were morally licit.”

I’m only using the monarchs to refute the apologists who desperately deny that the ancient Jews would ever have done any such thing.  Child sex wasn’t quite as unheard of in ancient Judaism as most of today’s apologists insist it was.

“Even assuming some pregnancies were licit, they probably impregnated women who were older than them and were mature enough to bear children without destroying their bodies.”

Sure is funny that the God who hates the idea of 11 year old boys having sex as much as you hate it, never bothers to specifically condemn it, despite his ability to specify which exact sexual relations are indeed prohibited (homosexuality, adultery, bestiality, degrees of incest, etc).  Some would argue that the reason an infinitely holy God doesn’t condemn something is because he doesn’t regard it as sin.

“You're so gung-ho to refute and defame Judaism and Christianity that you fail to make a good faith argument on a topic so simple.”

You’ve got a lot to learn if you think the topic of God’s beliefs about the minimum proper age of sexual consent/marriage is “simple”.

 If I were an honest atheist I wouldn't use such a bad argument. The fact that you do use such bad argumentation gives me some reason to dismiss your other comments.”

Well now you’ve been disabused of your faulty presuppositions.  Whenever you wish to discuss your reasons for saying your bible god has always believed sex within adult-child marriages to be “sin”, let me know.  I’ll be ready and waiting to discuss your best evidence and arguments to that effect.

(What follows are what other Triablogue posters gabbed about concerning my blog, and my replies to each): 

JBsptfn12/27/2017 11:58 PM☍

I have read that book, and I don't really think that Colton spun this all by himself. Also, his parents do seem pretty honest, although I don't know them. If it is a hoax, though, I just pray that Colton comes clean someday like Alex did.

Have you seen this, though? Apparently, a guy named Barry is attacking this blog:

Turch is Rong: Triablogue

steve12/28/2017 12:07 AM☍

Thanks for the tip. Looks like Barry has anger-management issues.

A true scholar would not indicate that the irrelevant personal gossipy issues were his first priority.  My alleged anger-management issues have nothing to do with the question of whether my arguments are correct.  But then again, spiritually dead atheists like me are prone to forget that Calvinists were infallibly predestined by God to manifest whatever degree of spiritual immaturity God wants them to manifest.

Epistle of Dude12/28/2017 1:02 AM☍

Barry Jones is just his alias (among many others). His real name is Christian Behrend Doscher. He's a militant atheist.

Correct.  But again, my real identity has nothing to do with whether my arguments are correct, raising the question as to what relevance you think my real name has to the biblical issues I raise. 

JBsptfn12/28/2017 2:21 PM☍

I think that is the guy that tried to sue J.P. Holding.

Incorrect.  I didn’t “try”, I did sue him.  And that he was sinful and immoral in his attempts to avoid the merits of my accusations, may be seen from the fact that he (at least to my knowledge) took down those internet posts that I said were defamatory.

Now the trouble is that despite his actions indicating he thinks those posts were genuinely libelous, he refuses to apologize to me, and refuses to forthrightly acknowledge the libelous character of those posts, the way you might expect a genuinely repentant born-again Christian to do when their sins have been exposed.  Actions speak louder than words, and you will know a tree by its fruit.   

An asshole like James Patrick Holding, with his sordid 20-year fruit of taking gleeful pleasure in defaming anybody who dares disagree with him, would never have folded up shop like that had he sincerely believed at the end of the litigation that the internet posts in question were legitimate non-libelous exercises of his free speech.  So they were indeed genuinely libelous, and my claims were meritorious.  I was correct when I concluded months ago that somebody with far more knowledge of the law than he, must have slapped him in the head with a legal 2x4.  

You’ll have to now decide whether Jesus would want his follows to prioritize legal tricks invented by non-Christian lawyers for helping genuinely guilty persons to avoid having to answer charges on the merits, or whether Jesus would want his followers to engage in honest acknowledgement of the truth and make a reasonable attempt to settle.  

 25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
 26 "Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent. (Matt. 5:25-26 NAU)
 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. (Matt. 5:40 NAU)

Holding was forced to come up with a way to get around the obvious in Matthew 5:25, 40, since I continued throwing these in his face the whole time.  His absurd interpretation of those passages is contradicted by all conservative Christian scholarship, one example being Craig Blomberg’s.

Holding spent more than $21,000 on a lawyer in his effort to avoid having to litigate my accusations on their merits.    He shows no intent to repent, there is no sign that any Christian brother confronted Holding in the spirit of Matthew 18, and to top it all off, I forced Holding to disclose numerous private emails during litigation showing how Gary Habermas and Craig Blomberg evinced a shocking apathy toward Holding’s immoral conduct.  See my blog, my “Open Letter” to Blomberg.

After I sent Blomberg several emails providing a very detailed documentation of evidence against Holding's fitness for the office of Christian teacher, Blomberg simply replied in private to Holding that he avoided answering me on the matter because he didn't know what was going on.

So apparently we are supposed to believe that if Craig Blomberg reads a summation of charges and evidence, he will not know what is going on.  The reaction that would have been more biblical would be to ask me for clarification of whatever he thought was ambiguous, and then inquire with Holding whether the charges were true.  If they were true, Craig as Holding's spiritual mentor was required to employ the Matthew 18 process.  To my knowledge, he not only never did, he never intended to "get involved" in the first place.  The more spiritually mature person would view the accusations as potential evidence of a fracture in the body of Christ, not merely as a scuffle between two other people.

Habermas did little better, remarking that he was glad to see Holding admitting to not caring to engage in the "strong comeback" that he used to (a conveniently timed admission of Holding, since he never indicated any such thing until after my litigation against him ended).  But in both cases, these spiritual mentors of Holding fell far short of the requirement in the Matthew 18 requirement to confront a sinful brother and eventually regard him as a non-Christian if he doesn't repent.  Holding has not repented of his having libeled me (a sin under Romans 13 because America's libel laws are substantially similar to NT prohibitions on slander).

Apparently, you can be a real smarty pants in the area of gospel reliability and the resurrection of Jesus while being severely underdeveloped in the area of basic NT ethics.  

And Christian Research Institute is equally deserving of condemnation, since regardless of all the proof on my blog that Holding is unfit to hold any office of “teacher”, CRI continues to allow Holding to exercise the office of "teacher" by asking him to write articles for their Journal, despite my having supplied them, numerous times since 2015, with fully documented proof of Holding’s homosexuality, unrepentant attitude, and shocking spiritual immaturity (most signs of which on his website he conveniently took down after I exposed all such).

Between 1992 and 1998, I listened to the many recorded lectures of CRI founder Walter Martin over and over, never dreaming that Martin was dishonest.  But I had to eventually admit it.  The same is true of Hank Hanegraaff.  So I guess proving that CRI is more interested in promoting apologetics than in making sure their writers pass NT criteria for office of teacher, isn't any shocking thing.  So I guess my new attitude toward it all is to just consign CRI a place near Benny Hinn and TBN.

My challenge to Lee Strobel: Isaiah 13:13-18, God causes rape

Here's my challenge to Lee Strobel at one of his Youtube videos:

Barry Jones1 second ago

Dear Mr. Strobel, Read Isaiah 13:13-18. 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger. 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land. 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword. 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished. 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold. 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children. (Isa. 13:13-18 NAU) Has God ever caused men to rape women, yes or no? In the context, who is responsible for causing men to rape women? Is it not the "fury of the Lord" (v. 13)? Is it not God's having "stirred up" the pagans to commit this atrocity (v. 16-17)? Does blaming God for these men raping Hebrew women, violate anything in the grammar or immediate context? Can you think of a convincing reason why you don't feel comfortable limiting yourself to the exact wording of the OT prophets, when you comment about God's relation to evil? If Isaiah 13 is better than anything a sinner like you could possibly say about God's sovereignty, why do you feel compelled to "explain" God's perfect choice of words with your own sinful commentary, especially given that you don't claim to be inspired by God to anywhere near the extent you think OT prophets were? Could it be that the reason you refuse to speak as simply and plainly as the biblical prophets did on such matters, is because you care more about making the bible-god attractive to modern western audiences, and care somewhat less about honoring your alleged belief that God's word, without your commentary, is **sufficient** for faith and practice?

  

J. Warner Wallace denies the biblically proper response to mass-killing

This is my reply to a video by J. Warner Wallace entitled

How Should Christians Respond to Mass Shootings and Similar Events? (Podcast)

Posted: 30 Nov 2017 01:09 AM PST 

In this podcast, J. Warner Wallace is interviewed by Frank Turek on his CrossExamined Radio Show. They discuss recent shootings and terrorist attacks and talk about possible responses that Christians can offer. How can we respond to the problem of moral evil in general and issues related to violence and gun control?

There is no need, the bible makes it perfectly certain, at least for Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy, that when crazy people go on a killing rampage, it is because they are being caused to do so by the biblical god who used to cause crazy people to beat children to death, rape women, and force pregnant women to endure abortion-by-sword.  And no amount of trifling "God-works-through-secondary-causes-so-he-can-cause-evil-without-being-morally-culpable" bullshit can help the apologist save face:

 Isaiah 13:13-18 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger. 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.

Hosea 13:15-16 15 Though he flourishes among the reeds, An east wind will come, The wind of the LORD coming up from the wilderness; And his fountain will become dry And his spring will be dried up; It will plunder his treasury of every precious article.
 16 Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

Quite obviously, Christians who think God "would never" cause women to be raped and little kids to be "dashed in pieces", simply haven't read their bible.

Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 1: sin is transgression of God's law

Disclaimer:  I am an atheist, and not a pedophile.  When the US Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's death penalty for child-rape, I think the Court got it wrong and that the death penalty is the only appropriate answer of society to the crimes of child-rape and both production/possession of child porn.  Not only do I detest adult-child sexual acts, my atheism means I damn sure don't worry whether my morality is consistent with the bible, I don't prefer things I prefer because I noticed that they are approved in the bible.  So for any of the readers who might think I discuss this subject only because I myself am a pedophile, it is perfectly illogical to say an atheist would try to justify his or her sexuality from the bible.  That would be about as stupid as a Christian trying to justify their own morals from the Upanishads. 
------------------------------------

James Patrick Holding, aka Robert Turkel, decided on his own Molinist freewill to resurrect a controversy I started back in 2015 at theologyweb.com, a discussion board that particularly caters to the more immature Christians who perceive Jesus and the bible to be little more than talking points in a fun intellectual game.

The 2015 Tweb thread I started was entitled "Does your god approve of pedophilia?".

Those who responded to me were laymen Christians who were largely incapable of distinguishing their opinions from the voice of God, having learned to be this foolishly dogmatic from their leader James Patrick Holding, whose extensive list of moral disqualifications are thoroughly documented at this blog.

Now that I know how the more rabid "inerrantists" try to combat the accusation that their god approves of pedophilia, I've decided to subject each plank and presupposition in my argument, to all the invasive searching criticism that any Christian is capable of bringing to bear.

Mr. Holding produced a video this year where he tried to refute my arguments in said 2015 Tweb thread.

I've already responded to that video, and I've recently responded to his rebuttal.  Holding currently has the last word, with a second video "Cartoon Interlude", where the only thing in my response which he attempts to address is the fact that I made the off-hand remark that the cartoonish nature of his videos tells the viewer something about the intellect of Holding's followers. 


Because Holding refuses to admit the fallibility of his interpretations, and insists anybody is a moron if they disagree with his views on this matter, I will proceed to decimate him in point by point fashion

First, Holding is clear that he thinks the god of the bible views sex within adult-child marriages as "sin".

So naturally, we ask

What criteria does the bible say a human act must fulfill, 

in order to be correctly identified as "sin"?

For this blog post, I limit my analysis to a single bible verse.  Lawlessness is sin:

 4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
(1 Jn. 3:4 NAU)

The KJV makes the point a bit clearer:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
(1 Jn. 3:4 KJV)

This isn't controversial; you know that stealing is sin because the bible says "thou shalt not steal".

But sex within adult-child marriages cannot be identified as sin under this criteria, since to act with lawlessness means to act contrary to the Law, and the "Law" in the bible says nothing about this subject, and does not specify what age or other criteria a girl must fulfill before she can be eligible for marriage/sex.

Reply to James Patrick Holding Turkel's "News Bulletin" on Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21

Update: June 14, 2017:  Because there are many issues and sub-topics and presuppositions involved in the question of ancient Hebrew sexuality, I have chosen to create individual blog posts where each specific argument, belief or presupposition will be the sole focus. Only a fool would argue that providing a separate forum so as to subject each controlling presupposition to specific individualized scrutiny, hurts the cause of truth.  It is precisely the narrowed focus on specific presuppositions undergirding a belief, that is more likely to demonstrate the strength or weakness of the belief.  See the below links, which will be evolving as I add material:
 
Updated links here.

=================

Mr. Holding made rather weak unsupported arguments in a video he made to address the skeptical contention that according to Numbers 31 and Deut. 21, the ancient Hebrews allowed adult men to get married to prepubescent girls.

I replied to that video with critique.

Holding responded to said critique with yet another cartoon video in rebuttal (making it obvious what level of intellect he expects of his followers).  In that video, he uses a disheveled looking bum as his caricature of me, he asks questions of this character, and he has me begin all of my answers with a retarded sounding "duh".

So that's the level of maturity we deal with when we deal with James Patrick Holding, or Robert "no links" Turkel as he was known before he changed his name.

  If one samples the audio of this character's voice and slows it down, it is clear that it is Holding doing the talking, he or somebody else simply changed the pitch.
===============

I now reply to Holding's rebuttal.  However, I need to spend significant time on the side-issue of Holding's ceaseless deep-seated need to fill his responses to critics with insults and demeaning invective, since according to the bible, this is a sin, and therefore, consistent employment of it would morally disqualify Holding from the office of "teacher" that he obviously wants his followers to believe he legitimately holds.

"You shall know them by their fruits..." (Matthew 7:16)

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing  that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." (Jas. 3:1 NAU)

  "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come 
from the heart, and those defile the man. (Matt. 15:18 NAU)

First, although Holding asks questions and makes various critiques of his fictional representation of me, Holding never contacted the real me before posting this rebuttal video, to find out what my answers would be, despite the fact that first checking with me to find out what my reply would be, would have been the more objective scholarly approach. In other words, Holding disdains the type of investigatory activity that would normally guard a bit better against him making misrepresentations, strawmen, and the other assorted oversights and fallacies contained in his latest video against me.

Second, that this is not just something he does uniquely in my case, is graphically proved from the fact that he never bothered to check with the Context Group scholars to see if his use of their bible scholarship for his intended ends, was accurate.  Holding, for the last 20 years, has been citing the work of Context Group Scholars, such as Richard Rohrbaugh, to defend his proposition that he has biblical license to reply to his public critics with the sneering insulting invective that obviously takes up the most space in his heart.  But as I've proved in an earlier blog post here, Dr. Rohrbaugh says

• Holding gives Christianity a bad name
• He does not deserve to be given the time of day
• Nobody should listen to him
• He is a boor with no manners, and 
• Holding's magnum opus where he argues biblical justification to demean and insult his critics, constitutes an "obvious" perversion of ALL Context Group scholarship in general, Rohrbaugh's scholarship in particular, and Holding here also perverts the New Testament itself, and does so in such an irresponsible manner that Rohrbaugh doesn't feel Holding's work even deserves any reply.

See all these charges backed up in my post to that effect.

Third, despite my concrete proof that the Context Group scholars see no biblical justification whatsoever for modern Christians to insult their critics, and despite Holding having been made aware since 2008 that this is so, his current video against me is still filled with sneers and insults toward me, for example:

• "fundy atheist moron", at 3:40,
• says at 8:00 that my level of brain damage is high
• at 9:00 calls me a stupid fundy atheist.
• at 10:20, suggests that I am too over-sexed to know that marriage at an early age might not have immediately allowed for sex.   This shows, once again, his inability to avoid filthy talk.  He could have made the same point with the same force without the sexual innuendo.  
• Calls me a moron again at 12:38

Fourth, Holding's utter lack of anything remotely approaching spiritual maturity can be safely deduced from the fact that he was forced by lawsuit to remove public access to a particularly libelous "Internet Predator Alert" he posted about me at his website, despite the contradiction between this action and his allegedly sincere belief that this Alert was perfectly legal and biblical...and yet despite his having fleeced his followers for $8,000 of the $20,000 in legal fees he paid to get those lawsuits dismissed for reasons other than the merits, he simply cannot stop calling me names.  Those who think Holding only engages in riposte because that's his preferred "style", are fools:  the need to demean his critics is a clearly sinful thing deeply embedded in his heart, that's why he couldn't care less when his mouth gets him sued, or when it shows that he's been misrepresenting his favorite scholars for 20 years.  Expecting Holding to give up his immature insulting demeanor is like expecting a dog to never bark again.  You don't get rid of something that is part of your nature.

Fifth, that Holding is a dishonest person and willing to lie to others where he thinks he can make money, can be seen from his 2015 email to apologist Gary Habermas.  When the lawsuits were pending, I emailed many supporters of Holding, including Habermas, with much proof that Holding's speech online was even worse than that of most infidels.  In an email to Habermas, Holding asserted that he no longer desires to engage in the "strong comebacks" that he used to, and tries to convince Habermas that this change of heart is real, by pointing out that he doesn't really attend theologyweb.com that much anymore, and chooses to focus primarily on his Tekton TV youtube ministry.  I will make that email available to anybody who asks for it.
And yet despite this alleged "change of heart", Holding's latest video is filled with insults directed toward me and my level of intelligence.  Only fools who blindly follow Holding wherever he goeth, would trifle that those insults are something different than the "strong comebacks" Holding said he didn't wish to engage in anymore.
The point is that because Habermas was once a supporter of Holding, it would appear that Holding only tells Habermas how he doesn't prefer "strong comebacks" anymore, not because that's the truth, but because he needs to convince Habermas that he shares with him the same moral outlook, if he wishes Habermas to continue endorsing him (i.e., lying for the sake of making money, and Habermas' endorsement certainly makes Holding's book worth a slightly higher price).

Sixth, Holding's email to Habermas naturally begs the question of how Holding can today have less desire to engage in "strong comebacks" than he did for the majority of his internet history:  Does Holding believe God was working through him all those years that he was using foul disgusting language to insult his critics, yes or no?  If yes, then Holding's alleged lack of enthusiasm for those "strong comebacks" today can only mean that Holding lacks enthusiasm for a manner of ministry that he thinks God blessed. If he answers "no", well gee, he opens the door to the distinct possibility that his 20-year career of using insulting and sexually inappropriate language to demean his critics, was something that God had always disapproved of.  What...does God change his mind about ministry tactics as much as Holding does?  But let's not forget that Holding hasn't really changed, he's still the asshole he always was, but apparently the libel lawsuits forced his more ignorant followers to reexamine whether they wish to continue publicly supporting him.

Seventh, a further proof that Holding's insulting "fuck you" sneering attitude is not something he adopts because of the bible, but adopts because that's just how he is naturally anyway, may be seen from the fact that even other Christian apologists, who have more formal education in biblical matters than Holding,  have complained that Holding is a pretentious filthy person who feels the need to pounce on every little thing any of his critics have to say:

One is always of two minds about responding to his defamatory tirades. Holding has filthy mind and a filthy mouth, and it is judgment call whether one should give another public platform for his sin.

...Holding’s personal antagonism towards me is so extreme that he will pounce on anything I say simply because I was the one who said it. And by being so utterly reactionary, he backs himself into the most indefensible corners imaginable. How else can you explain his denial that the Bible was written to be understood?

Read the entire correspondence Holding had with apologist Steve Hays, then decide for yourself whether you will side with Holding and call any of his critics "morons", or if the fact that other Christian apologists speak so negatively of Holding's morals just might count as legitimate evidence from within the orthodox Christian camp that Holding has a serious problem with sin here.  The point is that Holding's followers, who think it is only spiritually dead atheists/liberal Christians who have a problem with Holding's sneers, are sorely mistaken.  There's plenty of evidence, that, if Christianity be true, Holding's incessant use of insulting invective really is "sin" which he engages in to such an extreme degree that whether he is even subject to spiritual growth (whether he is even saved to begin with) is legitimately open to question.

Eighth, Holding's slanders are condemned everywhere in the bible:

 18 He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)

Gee, has Holding ever "spread slander"?  Before you answer, check out Holding's shockingly inappropriate mock suggestion that one of his critics engages in bestiality.

  JP Holding says:
Jeffy, you're such a dip! :D State of FL prisons don't offer Internet access on the prison compounds.  Speculation has it that you have intimate relations with farm animals. I guess that wasn't much fun because you're here posting comments. See? Isn't that great?  It's too bad you're reduced to this sort of babbling because not being able to answer actual arguments frustrates you so badly.

Since the non-Christian amazon.com deleted this (apparently Holding sins in ways that even most infidels don't), it can only be found through the wayback machine and a couple of other websites.  Simply google the highlighted words as a single phrase in quotes.

Jesus included slander in a list of sins he said originated within an evil heart, and which defile a man:

 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." (Mk. 7:21-23 NAU)

The Greek word for slander is blasphemia, and the lexicons define it in a way that assures the reader that Holding is as guilty and culpable of sin here as any person can possibly be:

Friberg:
27445  ὑπερηφανία, ας, ἡ as a conscious effort to appear conspicuously above others arrogance, pride, haughtiness (MK 7.22), opposite ταπεινοφροσύνη (humility) 

 Holding's extreme problem with the sin of arrogance/pride is easy to document.  A liberal selection of such soundbytes from him are found in a 2008 internet post of mine which was posted specifically to prevent that evidence at theologyweb.com from disappearing, as it did.

More immaturely arrogant rantings are documented by Holding himself.

Baur-Danker:
a. gener., of any kind of speech that is defamatory or abusive, w. other vices Mk 7:22; Eph 4:31; Col 3:8. πᾶσα β. all abusive speech Hm 8:3; cp. Mt 12:31a. Pl. (Jos., Vi. 245) Mt 15:19; 1 Ti 6:4.

Paul forbade slander: 

 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (Eph. 4:31-32 NAU)

8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. (Col. 3:8 NAU)

  20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances; (2 Cor. 12:20 NAU)

1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, (1 Pet. 2:1 NAU)

 In 1 Peter 2:1 ad 2nd Cor,. 12:20, "slander" in the Greek is katalalia, and the lexicons make it clear this is the type of sneering insulting language Holding is so infamous for:

Baur-Danker:
3998  καταλαλιά • καταλαλιά, ᾶς, ἡ (s. prec. and next entry; Leontius 18 p. 36, 9; Wsd 1:11; TestGad 3:3; GrBar; AscIs 3, 26; AcPh 142 [Aa II/2, 81, 8].—The ancients preferred κατηγορία. Thus Thom. Mag.: καταλαλιὰ οὐδεὶς εἶπε τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ τούτου κατηγορία) the act of speaking ill of another, evil speech, slander, defamation, detraction in lists of vices (s. on πλεονεξία) in sing. and pl. (to denote individual instances) 2 Cor 12:20; 1 Cl 35:5; B 20:2; Pol 2:2; 4:3; Hm 8:3; s 9, 15, 3. ἀποτίθεσθαι πάσας καταλαλιάς put away all slanders 1 Pt 2:1. φεύγειν καταλαλιάς avoid evil speaking 1 Cl 30:1; cp. vs. 3; πιστεύειν τῇ κ. believe the slander Hm 2:2; πονηρὰ ἡ κ. 2:3; κ. is injurious to faith s 9, 23, 2; cp. 3.—DELG s.v. λαλέω. TW.

...to which Thayer, Gingrich, and the standard lexical resources agree, especially that it constitutes "defamation".

Holding lauds the Context Group (or did before he found out they think he is a dishonest immoral perverter of basic biblical morality, and yet the Context Group thinks Peter requires modern Christians to avoid insulting the unbelievers who insult them:

... this is what John H. Elliott, chair of the Context Group, had to say about riposte when discussing the instruction given by Peter to the addressees of 1 Peter.

First, the addressees are warned not to engage in the usual spitting match of riposte and retaliation. They are not to return "injury for injury" or "insult for insult" (3:9; see also the proscription of slander in 2:1), just as Jesus when insulted did not retaliate (2:23, echoing Isa 52:7and details of the passion narrative [Mark 14:61//Matt 26:63; Mark 15:5//Matt 27:12-14; Luke 23:9; John 19:9]). Rather, they are urged to bless their insulters (3:9c) and to disprove their slanderers with honorable and irreproachable modes of behavior within and beyond the community (2:12), for actions speak louder than words (3:1-2).

See here for this quote from the original source.
 
Even assuming for the sake of argument that these references were only intended to apply within the limited context of Christian fellowship (as Holding will surely trifle), Holding is still guilty of prolonged obstinate refusal to cease sinning in this way, with his bitter spiteful insulting words to his Christian brother, apologist Steve Hays (as documented above), a trait that anybody familiar with Holding knows that he has exercised abundantly when dealing with critics from within the Christian faith.

Apologist and Calvinist James White says he is glad to wash his hands of the "nasty apologist" Mr. Holding:

The man is a master at mockery of Christians—is that the attitude of one who is still “availing” himself of “further resources”? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding’s ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to “evangelicals” who act in the exact same manner.

 Steve Hays and James White are regarded in the Christian scholarly community as "intellectuals", they are not mere dimwits or loudmouths, so Holding's followers need to do some serious reexamination of their faith-hero and consider the great likelihood that their own bible requires that Holding's moral failures totally disqualify him, under biblical criteria, from the office of teacher, for which reason his allegedly superior knowledge of the bible becomes irrelevant.   And if that is true, then donating financially or otherwise to his ministry constitutes donating to a biblically disqualified teacher, which would then constitute sin no less than it is sin for any idiot to donate to Benny Hinn or similarly disqualified person.

For those who wonder, the lack of moral development and the obstinate blindness of Holding can also plausibly be explained by the fact that, if some of his statements about his beliefs are true, he probably isn't a true Christian in the first place.  You don't expect to see spiritual growth in unbelievers, do you?  For example, as I documented earlier, Holding admitted he wasn't being sarcastic when he had previously said he didn't "care" whether the bible was the word of God:

-----me: I just found out that you made a statement several years ago that you personally don't care if the bible is the inspired word of God or not, so that your gargantuan efforts to "defend biblical inerrancy" were all in the name of finding a way to beat up other people and had nothing to do with your personal convictions whatsoever. Better break out that "I-was-just-being-saracastic" excuse again, you're gonna need it to back out of that blooper.
-----Holding: I wasn't being sarcastic. Each of the 20 times I have said something like that, it was genuine. Which one did you have in mind? 

Naturally, the owner of theologyweb (who is also Holding's good buddy), got rid of this embarrassing blooper, but thankfully it is still preserved by the wayback machine, which is thus an example that a godless secular machine has more concern for actual historical truth than Mr. Holding himself.  Check out the link.

In Holding's quest to justify his insulting demeanor, he overlooks the obvious psychological fact that name-calling is more often associated with immaturity and childishness, and usually isn't present among mature people debating their differences.  Holding may not like it, but he cannot completely eliminate the legitimate possibility that the reason he engages in name-calling so much, is because he suffers from lack of emotional or spiritual development (or, more likely, he is like Alex Jones, and his online persona is nothing but an act intended to draw the interest of potential donors whom he thinks deserve to be fleeced).  If making money sitting on his ass and letting his blind wife get up and go to work every day is his intent, then the fact that money is the central concern might explain why Holding doesn't have the least bit of concern for the fact that no other Christian scholars, including those who supported him in the past, see any biblical or moral justification for his insulting demeanor. Something has to explain Holding's ridiculously absurd obstinacy, and with even the Context Group scholars, and every other conservative scholar finding no justification for modern Christians to run off at the mouth like Holding does, its a pretty fair bet that he is just a fake Christian.  That would be a reasonably and rationally justified conclusion for anybody else to draw, even if by some magical reason it wasn't the truth.  "By their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16), "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks...slanders...and these are they which defile a man..." (Luke 6:45).  These kinds of people usually don't exhibit any spiritual growth.

So when Holding's followers say "yeah, but can you answer Holding's arguments?", they betray how lacking they are in biblical instruction and wisdom, and reveal their zeal far exceeds their knowledge.  Their stupidity helps us understand why they apparently cannot learn too much without watching Holding's cartoons. If Holding really is, for biblical reasons, disqualified from the teaching ministry because of his moral failings (sins of slander, defamation and pride), then his followers are participating in his gross sin by continuing to donate to his ministry financially and otherwise.

That's no different than the logic that says those who donate to Benny Hinn thus participate in his sin known as the prosperity gospel heresy.

Before we close this section, it must be noted that Holding's sin isn't limited to slander, he also has a serious sin of "pride".  For example, many years ago, Holding wrote a rebuttal to an article by skeptic Farrell Till.  Holding titled his rebuttal "Spitting into the Hurricane as your clothes get blown off".  How prideful is that?

Has Holding learned to temper his sinful pride in the near 20 years since he wrote that article?  No:  In the video where he responds to me, he still exhibits his high opinion of himself as a “train” that I was trying to stop “headfirst”.  He then ends the video by having me standing on the track and getting run over by the speeding train.  Apparently, Holding remains incapable of distinguishing his limited sinful commentary from God's own voice, and his sin of pride has existed unabated for a solid 20 years during which hundreds of Christians and his own favorite scholars have disowned him.

No, those are not the only examples of Holding's sin of pride. I wrote an earlier blog post where more of his exalted view of himself and his abilities are documented and referenced.  The reader is warned that the post is rated "R" and even "X" because Holding's language was truly disgusting.  Send the kids out of the room before you click the link.

Having destroyed any pretense that Holding is morally qualified to hold the office of Christian "teacher" (in the bible, your intellect is secondary, it is your moral failings that will disqualify you from office), let us move on to direct reply to Holding's rebuttal to my critique:

First, Holding does not inform the reader of where they can find my critique that he is responding to.  That's not scholarly. Apparently, something else that hasn't changed in 20 years is the accuracy of skeptics who labeled him as "Robert No-Links Turkel", because years ago, he was refuting criticisms without providing links for the readers so they could go evaluate his opponent's material for themselves.  Holding's excuse in the present case is that if he showed the readers where they could access my critique, he would be giving me more attention than he thinks I deserve:

ukchristian283 days ago (edited)

Where did the fundy atheist post these comments?

tektontv3 days ago

Email me on that if you would. :)  I don't want him to get any attention he doesn't deserve.

What would Holding think of an atheist who adopted the same logic (i.e., she critiques Holding, but doesn't provide the reader the link to Holding's material)? Holding can continue dreaming about how he won't help me promote this blog, because he picked on the wrong victim; I'm going to aggressively promote this blog on the internet to the best of my ability, and since I associate it with the proper tags, it WILL show up in Google search results whenever anybody googles anything unique to Holding or Turkel or tektonics.org or theologyweb.org.

Second, to my criticism that Holding provides no scholarly support for his assertion that the age of 12 was the age of marriage in the ANE, Holding asks

“where did you get the blithering idiot idea that if it isn’t actually said in the bible it can’t be the way it is?”

But I did not ever express or imply that a) something had to be stated in the bible to be true, or b) that scholarship disagrees with this age.  I was only pointing out that Holding did not cite any scholarly sources for it.  In fact, in my critique, I admitted that Holding was likely drawing on the majority view of scholarship that places the age of marriage for ANE girls at 12:

 Holding here is probably merely drawing upon a generalization by ANE scholars that 12 was the average age of marriage,

So Holding's question is, true to form, nothing but a trifle.  Given that the whole debate is about the minimum age a girl had to be, in the eyes of Moses, to be allowed to marry, Holding was unscholarly to try to establish that age by asserting without argument or citation to authority that this age surely was 12.

Furthermore, to my comment that because the Hebrew god hates the pagans, it is unwise for Holding to assume anything that is true about the ANE peoples can be safely assumed true about the Hebrews, Holding at time-code 4:35 responds

"what kind of stupid reasoning is that?"

Holding's problem is called the fallacy of accident, which is the error of assuming a truth about the "group" is thus also true about the particular individuals within the group. Here the group is the ANE cultures, and the particular individual subset would be the Hebrews.   I didn't say that Holding was necessarily wrong, I was only pointing out that if you are going to honor the bible's intention that the Hebrews be viewed as standing out from the pagan nations, then you need to do a bit more work to say something is true about ancient Hebrews, than simply to observe that the trait was true about the pagans.  For example, it is a common general truth that Americans love mom, baseball and apple pie.  But would you ever just assume that because this is generally true of Americans, that it is thus also true of any particular individual American?  Of course not.  If you don't assume the guy walking down the street surely loves mom, baseball and apple pie solely because he lives in America, why would you assume the pagan opinion on the minimal age of sexual consent tells us what the Hebrews thought such age was? 

Well then, because the bible is the best source we currently have for answering such nuanced questions about the ancient Hebrews, and it doesn't declare the minimum age of sexual consent/marriage, the social research Holding mentions which led scholars to the "12 years old" hypothesis as the normative age of consent in the ANE, was drawn from non-Hebrew sources.

Update: June 12, 2017:  Worse, in a 2015 theologyweb posting that has since disappeared, Holding and his ilk argued that because the Hebrews thought puberty was the age of consent (citing Ezekiel 16:7-8), and because girls back then didn't hit puberty until their late teens, it was "clear" that for the Hebrews in Moses' day, the age of consent was likely 16-18.  In other words, Holding would have to admit he no longer thinks 16 was the age Hebrews believed to be the proper age of consent, in order to sustain his current belief that because pagans thought the age was 12, so did the Hebrews. 


Third, he tries to avoid the significance of the Mosaic silence by saying the bible doesn’t say at what age kids should start eating solid food either.  But he has missed the point:  Holding doesn't claim God has an opinion about when a child should be started on solid food, but Holding does say God thinks sex within the marriage of an adult man to a prepubescent girl, is "sin".  How does Holding know this, if, as he admits, the bible doesn't give the minimum age a girl must reach before she can be married?  Telepathy?  Visions?  God must have thought the Israelites were unbearably stupid, because God gives a specific prohibition against more "obvious" sins such as bestiality and homosexuality (Lev. 18:22-23), so if they were so stupid, we'd expect God wouldn't have any confidence they would refrain from pedophilia without a specific prohibition against this too, yet no such prohibition appears.  So Holding cannot argue that God thought pedophilia too obviously sinful to justify a specific prohibition against it, unless he wishes to argue that among the ancient Hebrews, sex with animals wasn't considered an "obvious" immorality, and needed a specific law against it to help the Israelites know what was right and what was wrong.

Furthermore, history proves that humanity has disagreed very much on what the minimum age of sexual consent should be, so does it really make sense to argue, as Holding implies, that where God doesn't specify something in the bible, this is because God expects humans to figure it out? Ok, we've disagreed on the minimum age of consent for more than 2,000 years, why does God expect sinners to figure out the "proper" minimal age of consent?  Does God also expect birds to get good grades in trigonometry?

Perhaps the most devastating rebuttal against Holding's belief that his Jewish god hates pedophilic marriage, is apostle Paul's unqualified language that the secular powers over Christians are put there by decree of God, Romans 13:

1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (Rom. 13:1-5 NAU)

If there are no secular authorities except those which are established by God, then Who was ultimately responsible for the secular authorities of Delaware in the 1800's setting the minimum age of sexual consent for girls at 7 years old?

Holding may resort to his "that's just Greco-Roman rhetoric of exaggeration", but a) he won't be giving any evidence that this is indeed exaggeration, b) you will have great difficulty convincing the vast majority of inerrantist evangelicals that Paul's language here was exaggeration, proving that Holding's predictable comeback has less scholarly rigor than his sneering would suggest, and c) if it was exaggeration, then Paul was using exaggeration when making an important theological point, and that's a can of worms Holding will never close again if he decides to open it:  How many other theologically important statements from Paul were similarly a case of exaggeration?

Fourth, if Holding thinks Romans 7:7 is inspired by God, then Paul's language there giving criteria for identifying sin, is so strong it leaves no logical possibility of being able to identify sin where the Law is silent on the act:

 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. (Rom. 7:6-8 NAU)

Does Holding agree with Paul, that Paul would not have known coveting was a sin, except this act had been prohibited in Mosaic Law, yes or no?  If yes, then because the Mosaic law doesn't prohibit sex within adult-child marriages, Holding cannot have a biblical justification to call that act a "sin".  Holding will say the bible teaches we can know sin through our conscience, but the only reason our conscience tells us what sin is, is because God wrote his law on our heart, as Paul said:

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
 17 But if you bear the name "Jew " and rely upon the Law and boast in God, (Rom. 2:12-17 NAU)

In context, the "Law" that is on the heart of the Gentile (v. 15) is no different than the written Mosaic Law that is otherwise exclusive to the Jew (v. 17), and that contextual link cannot be undone by citing to commentators who think "work of the law" is something different than the "law".

Fifth, Holding's followers sometimes say that because pedophilia hurts the child, God expected people to know it was sinful by simply using their brains.  But Americans in the early 1800's in Delaware had set the minimum age of sexual consent at 7, and other States in that era were similarly low:

 “…this society had urgent need to pronounce itself on the subject of the so-called age of consent laws. Girls are deemed capable of controlling property only at their majority, but States decide not so with their persons. In four States the age of consent is fixed at the shockingly low age of ten years, in four others at twelve, in three at thirteen, and so on, increasing, except in Delaware, where the original statute pertaining to the crime of rape is still unrepealed, fixing the age at seven years.”
----Source, "Purity Meets Congress”, New York Times, October 15, 1895, p. 16.

In other words, people disagree too much on what age is proper for marriage and sex, to justify saying that mere "using our brains" will tell us whether god thinks some act is sinful or not.  Picking up children and slamming them to death against rocks (Psalm 137:9) is also obviously harmful according to common sense, yet because inerrantists believe this language of David was inspired by God, they are quick to denigrate our "common sense".  For these reasons, the "just use your brain" comeback is strongly ill-advised, and the apologist will have to find another way to prove that his or her god disapproves of sex within adult-child marriages. 

Sixth, I noted that Holding's denial of the marriage motivation in Numbers 31:18 was contradicted by many conservative Christian scholars who think marriage was some of the motive for sparing those little girls. Holding at video time-code 9:30, tries to get around by asking what their arguments were for taking this position.  Excuse me, the issue was not whether their arguments for their reasoning were valid.  The issue was whether there are, in fact, any Christian scholars who, contrary to Holding, assert that concerns of marriage were part of the motive for what happened in that verse.  Holding had set forth his denial of the marriage possibility, as if his opinion was obvious truth.  It wasn't.  If Holding had a bit more concern to be objective and scholarly, he wouldn't pop off with statements that contradict the beliefs of many conservative Christian scholars, unless he provided argument to back up his contrary position.  He provided no argument to justify his denial position, so he is hypocritical to demand that the scholars who disagree with him on the point, do more than him.  If he provides no argument, he cannot rationally claim to have morally or intellectually obligated anybody to believe his interpretation.  Let him justify his marriage-denial interpretation, then we can talk further.

Holding also thinks my evidence that King Ahaz was 10-11 years old when he fathered a child, does nothing to disturb his position that 12 years old was the general age for marriage back then.  But my point in giving that evidence was not to say the normative age was lower, but that the ancient Jews found prepubescent marriage acceptable, even if not normative.  Consequently, they are not as opposed to kids having sex, as we are today, and this means they were significantly more open to sexual ethics opposed to our own today, than apologists say was the case.  In which case, it is nowhere near "obvious" that the ancient Jews found sex within adult-child marriages unacceptable or sinful.  Holding retains his black and white fundie logic, and thinks arguments are all or nothing, when in fact I'm only preventing him from closing the door on the possibility that his god approves of marital pedophilia sex. 

Seventh, I pointed out that the Christian translation GNT characterizes the sexual act in Deut. 21:14 as rape despite the fact that God allegedly gave this marital regulation. Holding  tries to duck the GNT saying “forced her to have intercourse with you” by asking what their arguments are for that.  But this is another obfuscation:  the point is not whether their reasons for the translation are good, the point was that it is Christian scholars, who otherwise have a high bias against making God look bad, who still apparently felt constrained to believe the "rape" rendering of 21:14 was the most objective way to translate it.  The point is that Holding constantly demeans the skeptical position here as "moronic" and "stupid" and "idiot", and I simply demand that he be consistent and also label the OT scholars behind the GNT as moronic, stupid and idiot too, since they obviously translate it in a way that makes it quite easy to prove from the bible that its god approves of rape.  Then when Holding decides to be more consistent, it will be easier to show how often he willfully defies the NT prohibition against slandering other Christians.  And if Holding doesn't wish to insult the GNT translators, then he is leaving open the possibility that viewing 21:14 as a case of rape can be justified on the basis of serious academic arguments, and not merely the wishful stupidity of moronic atheists.  Does Mr. Holding wish to leave such option open, yes or no?  If yes, why does he argue so strenuously against that interpretive option?  If no, what prevents him from taking his insults toward atheists who adopt that interpretation, and hurling them with equal gusto toward those Christian scholars who adopted the same interpretation?  Did he finally discover after 20 years of those verses hitting him in the face, that the NT prohibits Christians from insulting each other?  If interpreting Deut. 21:14 to be talking about rape is "stupidity" for atheists, why isn't it also stupidity for Christian translators who interpret it the same way? 

Eighth, Holding flashes the text on the screen:

“Fundy Atheist Tactic:  Shop around for a translation that says what you want to hear…that way you don’t have to defend arguments made by your source!”  

 This is dishonest of Holding because my article contained plenty of grammatical argument for why the anah in Deut. 21:14 should be translated to convey the sense of forced intercourse/rape, I did not merely cite the GNT and then leave the grammatical issues without defense. Goto that prior article and search for the phrase "There are grammatical reasons to support the rape interpretation". Contrary to Holding, I did defend my interpretation.

Ninth, I had asserted that there is scholarly support for the rape interpretation, and Holding then asks when I plan to convert to resurrection-belief because many scholars believe Jesus rose from the dead.  This is a straw-man, I never expressed or implied that the scholarly support for the rape-rendering of Deut. 21:14 meant that said rendering was thus accurate.   My point was that because they were Christian scholars, they must have had an existing bias against translating something in the bible that made God look bad, and therefore, when and if they do render the text in a way that makes God look bad, it is likely because the academic reasons for doing so were more persuasive to them than their existing presuppositions about God’s goodness.

I know perfectly well the fallacy of argument by authority, and I never committed it here, and since Holding bills himself as a smart guy, his choice to mischaracterize what I was doing constitutes deliberate lying on his part.  Holding simply refuses to deal with the sad fact that despite Christian scholars not wanting to translate the bible in a way that makes their God look bad, they still did in Deut. 21:14 anyway, and since they are Christians, Holding cannot call them stupid fundy atheists already predisposed to find something wrong with God, so the scholarly integrity of my position has not been swept off the table of possibilities, as HOlding's demeaning insulting sneers would suggest to his intended spiritually immature audience. 

Tenth,  Holding at 11:17 impatiently asks whether I have any serious arguments here, or if I’m just making up this stuff as I go along.  If he would have contacted me, he could have gotten the answer to that question, as there is much more to buttress my beliefs on these matters than what I am arguing online.

 Eleventh, Holding at 11:40 tries to get rid of the Deuteronomy-authors lack of concern over the woman’s possible lack of desire to get married, by saying "all" marriages back then were arranged".  But he is just digging his hole deeper, as he has now admitted that the ancient Hebrews did not require "consent" for adult marriages, and if they didn't think the adult woman needed to consent before the sexual activity could be morally justified, then they are far closer to finding acceptable other sexual relationships that likewise lacked authentic consent, such as the sex that occurs in adult-child marriages.

Have you ever seen a man physically abuse a woman?  If so, did you draw general conclusions about how he must act in other similar situations, yes or no?  So again, if "consent" wasn't necessary for ancient Hebrews to morally justify a sexual relationship among adults, then it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, absent specific evidence to the contrary, that they weren't bothered by lack of consent in other sexual or marital situations.

 Twelfth, I had argued that the female war captive of Deut. 21:10-14 would be unlikely to desire sex with the army man who would need to follow this law, since such army man could well have been part of the group that had recently murdered her family, descreated her religion, and kidnapped her.  Holding at 11:50 tries to duck this point by asking what makes me think sexual feelings were ever considered important in that culture. Holding at 12:01 puts up the text:

"Fundy Atheist Screwup: These bozos are worried about “sexual feelings”.  People in the biblical world were worrying about 1) personal honor and 2) the survival of themselves and their families!!” 

So let's begin our own advertisement campaign to other atheists:

 "Fundy Christian Screwup: These bozos think sexual feelings were not of importance to the ancient Hebrtews.  Well gee, why did God give women a clitoris?  Has Holding never read the Song of Songs?"

 Or maybe he thinks that book wasn't written in an ancient Semitic culture?  Or will he shamefully pretend to himself that the book isn't describing literal sexual passion of a literal married couple?  If Holding thinks sexual satisfaction wasn't important in marriages among ancient Hebrews, maybe he'd like to explain why sexual satisfaction is a command of God in the bible?

 19 As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love. (Prov. 5:19 NAU)

Update: June 11, 2017:   In an old theologyweb thread from 2015 that I started, which the site owner deleted, one of Holding's devotees similarly pretended, with dogmatism, that "we know" that in ancient Hebrew culture, the purpose of marriage was procreation, not sexual pleasure:

 03-23-2015, 08:21 PM #9 Chrawnus

spirit5er:  I did not forget to include it. I deliberately excluded it, because asserting that these spared girls would by marriage or slavery be brought into the covenant of Israelite faith would not contribute to resolving the disagreement the resident fundies have with me: whether the female war captives taken as brides in Numbers 31:18 included girls at or below prepubescent age.    

It is not stated in the text that all of them were taken as brides, which even the commentary which you cite acknowledges. But more importantly we are justified in thinking that they would not have taken as brides girls that had not yet reached puberty, given that we know that the main concern of marriage and sex in the ANE was childbirth, not the pleasure derived from it. The notion of sex solely for the reason of pleasure would have been quite a strange notion for the vast majority of Hebrew males. In other words, why on earth would God need to tell them not to have sex with prepubescent girls when it wouldn't even have been a thing that they would have been inclined to do in the first place?

(emphasis added by me). So by this guy's logic, the reason God specified a prohibition against bestiality in Leviticus 18, a far more "obvious" immorality than pedophilia, was because the Hebrews were a bit more inclined to bestiality than they were toward pedophilia.  Nice going. ----------end of update.

 Thirteenth, Holding at 12:30, calls the grammatical argument a “stupid objection”.  But he offers no counter argument based on grammar.  In his mental delusion, the fact that he vibrated his vocal cords was all the audience needed to recognize that they just heard absolute divine truth.

Fourteenth,  Holding says the mere fact that that the anah of Deut. 21:14 can mean rape, doesn't automatically mean that it does, but I never argued that because it "can", it thus "does".  I argued that it means rape so many other times in similar contexts that, given the contextual consideration that the women's feelings weren't considered, the GNT rendering "you forced her to have intercourse" had scholarly justification.  Apparently Holding willfully blinds himself to about half of my original critique.

Fifteenth, Holding at 12:38, says the anah/humbling in 21:14 would be the shame in being sent away by her husband, and calls this an “obvious contextual clue, moron.”  This is the fallacy of argument by assertion.  It is a possibly correct interpretation, and Holding automatically concludes it must be correct for no further reason than this.  He does not attempt to show that the "divorce=humbling" interpretation of the anah has greater justification grammatically or contextually.  And regardless, since he called me a moron for disregarding what he calls a "contextual clue", then he must think the translators of the GNT are no less moronic, since the alleged contextual clue was there for them to deal with.

Sixteenth, Holding says there were a heck of lot more ways in an honor-based society to humble someone, than by forcing them into sex.  I don't see the point:  Rape certainly qualifies as dishonoring all by itself, whether other actions could also dishonor someone or not.

 Finally,  Holding then refuses to answer my argument that the barbarity of the Hebrews in being willing to burn children to death strongly suggests that they also had barbaric views about sex.  Again, I did not hastily conclude that their barbarity in other areas automatically turned them all into pedophiles and rapists.  All I was doing was providing the reader with legitimate evidence and argument that because the ancient Hebrews lived by a more barbaric moral code than white Christian evangelicals do in America today, it is correspondingly more difficult for "apologists" to sweep the rape-interpretation of Deut. 21:14 off the table, or characterize it as an obviously false interpretation. That is, my evidence makes Holding an idiot to set forth his position with dogmatism, as if disagreeing with him is to disagree with God himself.

Bishops also have the function of "teacher" so the morals the bible requires for Bishops would also be required for teachers, even if the teacher didn't wish to take on all duties of pastor.  I end this article by highlighting the criteria for teachers which Paul gives in the Pastorals; criteria that Holding fails:

1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,
 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. (1 Tim. 3:1-10 NAU)

Holding not "above reproach" (v. 2), as plenty of Christians and not just skeptics, find him to be a reproach and have washed their hands of him, including Steve Hays and James White.

Holding is not "respectable" (v. 2) even in the estimation of many Christians, including the members of the "Context Group" whom Holding lauds so loudly about,  and especially because he continues to make his magnum opus (to justify his insulting demeanor) available to the public despite his having known since 2008 that the Context Group, whom he cites therein, find said magnum opus to be an "obvious perversion" of their scholarship.

Holding is neither "gentle" nor "peaceable" (v. 3), and it doesn't matter if Holding argues this is only talking about how Christians should treat each other, as his besmirching Christian apologists Steve Hays and James White constitutes violation of even that nuanced interpretation.  Other Christians have written Holding off and washed their hands of him too.

It is questionable whether Holding fulfills the "manage his own household well" criteria in v. 4, as his moral and biblical disqualification as Christian teacher means the money his idiot followers donate to him to finance his teaching efforts, he doesn't deserve to have, so that in an objective sense, Holding hasn't been carrying his share of the financial load of his household. Otherwise you could praise robbers for paying their bills, when they use money they don't deserve to have, to pay their bills.  I'm not impressed that some prosperity gospel preacher always pays his bills on time, and I'm not impressed that Holding pays his bills on time either, because in both cases, the teacher doesn't deserve the money in the first place.

Holding fails the "good reputation with those outside the church" criteria in v. 7 like gangbusters on crack.  There are too many non-Christians who think Holding is a piece of shit scumbag cocksucker.  

For all these reasons, Holding's reply-video was only good in the negative sense that it provides the reader with an example of how not to rebut an argument.  The evidence against Holding's moral and biblical qualification as Christian "teacher" is extensive and compelling, and that is fully sufficient, by itself to rationally and reasonably justify other Christians to regard him as a false teacher.  Regardless, one thing we can be sure of, he came nowhere near sweeping pedophilic marriages off the table of biblical possibilities.