Post your Easter Challenge Solution here

[Stephen McCormick]

“Thank you for allowing me post whatever I like. I really appreciate it.”

No problem.

You can label me how ever you like. That I have things in common with those in those groups is true, but that doesn’t mean I am part of their group with no issues of disagreement with their positions. I also believe things that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists believe, but I am not part of them. I avoid labels because of the misconceptions that go with them. I attend a Baptist church, and even preach and teach in a Baptist church, but if I wear a “Baptist” label then whatever preconceived notions held by those with whom I interact get stuck on me like sand burrs as well. I believe in inerrancy in the original manuscripts, but many people who know anything of the doctrine have strong feelings based on what they think they know about it that generate needless friction. Thanks, but no thanks.

I said I will be happy to continue the discussion after you do your own study of the 28 occurrences of kai idou in Matthew. To make things simpler for you, and for those who are reading our interaction, the references are: Matt 2:9; 3:16, 17; 4:11; 7:4; 8:2, 24, 29, 32, 34; 9:2, 3, 10, 20; 12:10, 41, 42; 15:22; 17:3, 5; 19:16; 20:30; 26:51; 27:51; 28:2, 7, 9, 20.

Let me quote from one of your earlier posts:

TILL
“To the contrary, the expression ‘and, behold,’ kai idou, in Greek was used to introduce new events or material (usually startlingly new events or material), and invariably the new events happened after those in the verses preceding kai idou.

This understanding is not just something that I have hatched up. Leading lexicographers have so defined the expression. Joseph Thayer, for example, said, ‘Kai idou is used, when at the close of a narrative something new is used... (Hendrickson, 1997, p. 297). Arndt and Gingrich said that it serves ‘to enliven a narrative by (a) arousing attention... (b) introducing something new... (Cambridge University Press, 1957, p. 371).”

Good pick by Till. Thayer, Arndt, and Gingrich are excellent resources. I am in agreement with them in how kai idou is used, in Matthew and elsewhere in Scripture.

But please note what Till asserts in his intro to their accurate statements, “…and invariably the new events happened after those in the verses preceding kai idou.” emphasis mine.

At your request Darrel we are seeking a high degree of precision in our communication so as to not mislead, or misinform. The definition of “invariably” according to Merriam-Webster is “: on every occasion : ALWAYS <invariably late>” emphasis theirs.

So, your assignment is to read the references in any English translation you prefer, and answer one simple question. Does Matthew use kai idou in such a manner that “…invariably the new events happened after those in the verses preceding kai idou.” No need for Greek training on this one, so you can safely perform it.

Enjoy the study. I always do.

Steve

[Dardedar]

That I have things in common with those in those groups is true, but that doesn’t mean I am part of their group with no issues of disagreement with their positions.

Yes, all labels have their limitations. Rather goes without saying.

I attend a Baptist church, and even preach and teach in a Baptist church, but if I wear a “Baptist” label then whatever preconceived notions held by those with whom I interact get stuck on me like sand burrs as well.

You go to a Baptist church, preach and teach at a Baptist church, but you're not a baptist. That makes sense. Reminds me of all of these Christian who are now so afraid of their religion they won't even admit to having one. They don't have a "religion" and they aren't "religious," they have a "relationship," or they're "spiritual." We've got them ashamed and on the run. Good.

I believe in inerrancy in the original manuscripts,...

Of course you do. And this is precisely, exactly, what biblical inerrancy is. Or didn't you know that? I think you're just ashamed to admit it. And that's okay, I understand.

I said I will be happy to continue the discussion after you do your own study of the 28 occurrences of kai idou in Matthew.

Oh yes, of course, because I signed up and committed to doing a Greek study. Oh wait, I didn't. Don't be lazy Stephen. You have work to do in defending your inerrant Bible and it's inerrant, consistent, reconcilable Easter stories. When are you going to begin? I'm not going to do you work for you. I'm not going to do any of it.

TILL
...please note what Till asserts in his intro to their accurate statements, “…and invariably the new events happened after those in the verses preceding kai idou.” emphasis mine.

I've already addressed this, and I even underlined it so you wouldn't miss it. The dictionary also gives: "constantly" and "regularly" as synonyms for "invariably." So speaking informally on a blog, as he was, Farrell's comment is easy to understand as:

“…and [regularly/constantly] the new events happened after those in the verses preceding kai idou.”

Which is true isn't it Stephen? Yes it is. This is no doubt why the preponderance of translations give a straightforward reading here which is not massaged to help out your inerrantist cause.

As Farrell finishes:
"Matthew's extensive ["extensive" doesn't mean without exception does it Stephen?] usage of kai idou to introduce new events or materials makes it very unlikely that he deviated from this pattern in 28:2 and used it to introduce older events that had happened before those in the preceding verse. If [our inerrantist] sticks to this track, he will need to show us some linguistic reason to so believe. His mere say-so just isn't sufficient."

So, your assignment is to read the references in any English translation you prefer,...

You're the one with the assignment, not me. I don't have an ancient anonymous book, filled with errors (and zombies and talking animals), written by bronze age goat famers, that I need to defend as inerrant (just the "originals copies" of course). But you do. You know you can't do this (that's why you tried avoid the label inerrantist even though it is an exact fit) but for some reason you are going to try.
I've already given you ten translations, simply the first ten I checked, and they all agree with me. Mary and Mary came to the tomb, and behold, there was a earthquake. You are the one who needs to provide eccentric linguistic tricks to this text in order to fix your special problem (a problem that didn't arise until much later when this gospel was patched together with the other ones that tell the story differently). Matthew by himself reads just fine. Matthew's tale beside the other ones, lot's of problems. But they're not my problems, their yours.

and answer one simple question. Does Matthew use kai idou in such a manner that “…invariably the new events happened after those in the verses preceding kai idou.”

If you have a reason why, or a case to make for why the straightforward reading of Matthew as provided by those ten translations, is wrong, and your understanding of Greek is better than the translators of those Bibles, then let's hear it. Even though you admittedly are not an expert in Greek and don't even have a student level understanding of Greek, why don't you give us your personal translation which solves the problem? Then all you have to do is persuade us into believing that your unskilled translation skills are to be preferred over those who actually know something about the language and also how to translate it into modern English.

[Stephen McCormick]

Up at 1:30am. First thing I thought of was you, and my interaction with you. You have no idea how grateful I am for our ongoing discussion (if you can call it that). Just got done thanking God for you and asking Him to pour out a blessing on you.

I think I am beginning to get it now. You have been really, really hurt by those who purport to be able to study the Bible, when in fact they just cram bits of scripture down your throat. You have been incensed by the media coverage of pastors and priests who have violated the trust of those who thought they were being helped to draw near to God. So you have figured out that the average person can't read or understand the Bible, even if there was a good reason to. So the only people you can trust who make comments on scripture are the "scholars" who either attack it outright, or might as well do so. So you have accumulated a wealth of these resources over the years that you revel in dumping on unsuspecting challengers.

Not only do you not trust others to make sound judgments on Bible interpretation unless they have their PhD, you don't even trust yourself. You don't have any background or training in using the tools for Greek and Hebrew, or exegesis and hermeneutics. So you just quote others.

Consequently I have asked you (well, close to demanded) to do something you wrote off long ago as impossible for the average person to do, and not worth learning.

Am I close?

Okay, you win. I won't ask you to do the study of kai idou on your own.

But I will do it with you. And I will show you the whole bag of "inerrantist tricks" as you call them. It will take a lot more time than I originally planned on, but we will go slow so I can work it into my schedule and wear out a keyboard or two. I figure a verse a day so this will take about a month and a half since I probably won't be able to do one every day.

But for now, back to bed.

Steve

I don't have any credentials, but I do use the resources of those who do. So I will quote them in context when appropriate, and give you their credentials.

[Dardedar]

Stephen was up late last night talking to God, and God told him all about me. Nice.

Up at 1:30am. First thing I thought of was you, and my interaction with you. You have no idea how grateful I am for our ongoing discussion (if you can call it that).

We're so glad you are here too Stephen, I hope you stick around.

Just got done thanking God for you and asking Him to pour out a blessing on you.

I hope it doesn't make a mess.

You have been really, really hurt by those who purport to be able to study the Bible,..."

No, not at all. It's just that I know biblical literalists don't have good reasons for their beliefs. I say this having studied their claims for a few decades.

So you have figured out that the average person can't read or understand the Bible,...

No, I think they can. And when they get to tricky technical issue, as with any other complex area of study/knowledge, it makes sense to look to those with training and expertise. And the people with training and expertise in Bible scholarship, do not support you. They support me.

So the only people you can trust who make comments on scripture are the "scholars" who either attack it outright, or might as well do so.

With open disdain, you put "scholars" in quotes as if there really isn't a category of expertise known as Bible scholarship. That's rather revealing.
When Bible scholars put forward information that ends up disagreeing with your faith based religious doctrines (which it regularly does), they don't do so in order to "attack" them "outright" but rather out of an interest in getting to the truth of the matter. As you must know, modern scholarship in the last 150 years has rather gutted your literalistic view of the Bible. Here is a little reading assignment for you written by an Episcopal bishop.

...you have accumulated a wealth of these resources over the years that you revel in dumping on unsuspecting challengers.

It doesn't really matter whether the challenger is suspecting or not, does it Mr. McCormick? Biblical inerrancy in the area of Bible scholarship is about as tenable as flat earthism is in geology. And this is rather easy to show.

Not only do you not trust others to make sound judgments on Bible interpretation unless they have their PhD, you don't even trust yourself.

Dear Stephen, you haven't even begun an attempt to make a case for your assertions regarding this little verse and the problem it causes for you. So aside from the fact that you don't have a PhD or even a student level understanding of Greek, you've given me no biblical interpretation to even appraise as being "sound judgement" or not. This is not to suggest that there are any circumstances whereby I would trust your admittedly uninformed knowledge of Greek over those who are experts. Who on earth would?

You don't have any background or training in using the tools for Greek and Hebrew, or exegesis and hermeneutics. So you just quote others.

I refer to experts with the training, knowledge and expertise to know best how to translate the ancient dead language of Koine Greek into modern English. Can you please explain why this is not a reasonable position for a person who is not an expert in Koine Greek, to do? Don't duck this question, answer it.

Okay, you win. I won't ask you to do the study of kai idou on your own.

Too late, you already did. But I am not interested in learning an ancient dead language. And it is simply the case that no reasonable person is going to find the chattering of someone like you, (an admittedly non-expert not having even a "student level" understanding of Koine Greek), to be persuasive when it is refuted by those who have taken the time to devote their lives to attaining expert knowledge in this field. Again, to begin, you need to:

a) Address, specifically, the affirmative case I have provided for why a straight forward reading and understanding of these verses, supported by the preponderance of translations, is to be preferred.
b) Provide an affirmative case for why your novel, inexpert assertions should be believed instead.

And then, and this is going to be the hard part:
c) Explain why your mere, admittedly uninformed knowledge of Greek should be accepted by neutral non-expert observers (like myself) rather than those who are professional experts in Koine Greek.

Your "a" and "b" are going to need to be very persuasive to overcome your problem at "c."

...I will show you the whole bag of "inerrantist tricks" as you call them.

That's nice, it's been a while. I'm sure they haven't changed. As with magic, once you know how the trick is done, it doesn't work for you anymore.

I don't have any credentials, but I do use the resources of those who do.

Stephen, those with credentials to rise to the level of being considered Bible scholars (definition provided), do not take your literalistic, errant Bible claims remotely seriously. Anyone who thinks the Bible is inerrant not only is at least 150 years out of date and behind in their understanding of scholarship but they are also woefully misinformed about the basics of their own Bible. You aren't aware of the errors because you purposely avoid looking for them. I can help you with that. You'll learn lots.

D.
-----------------
I invited you to Farrell's Till's errancy email list and have mentioned our exchange there. Some have passed along some interesting information on this matter we are considering, which I will copy below. Pay special attention to the comment by Mr. Brooks. [note: the Greek font does not come across in this cut and paste, but it hardly matter since neither one of us understands Greek].

RAY
"Remember too that verse numbers and even the punctuation (and word separations) were added long after the original autographs were written. Keeping the word separations of the translation for ease of reading, The text would have read something like the following:
"After the Sabbath at dawn on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb there was a violent earthquake for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and going to the tomb rolled back the stone and sat on it his appearance was like lightning and his clothes were white as snow the guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men the angel said to the women do not be afraid for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified"

M. BROOKS responds:
"The phrase “there was a violent earthquake” above can also be rendered as “a violent earthquake happened.” The verb here, egeneto, “it happened,” is aorist, as is the main verb of the introductory clause, hlqen, “she/they went.” This indicates that the author intends for the order of events here to be understood sequentially as “they went to… the tomb” and then “a violent earthquake happened.” The only way in which the author could have intended for the earthquake to have been understood as having preceded the women’s arrival at the tomb would be if he had rendered the verb depicting the earthquake not as egeneto, “it happened,” an aorist, but as gegenhtai, “it had happened,” a pluperfect. The only reason why anyone would insist that the earthquake had preceded the women’s arrival is not to resolve any apparent difficulty in the Gospel of Matthew but avoid having Matthew’s order of events conflict with the orders of Mark, Luke and John, all of which clearly indicate that the woman/women found the stone already rolled away. Considering that Matthew almost certainly used Mark but wrote independently of Luke and John, the author of Matthew would have had no concern about Luke’s and John’s order, regardless of inerrantist insistence otherwise. As to why Matthew would have thus changed Mark’s order, the most like explanation is that for theological and apologetic reasons Matthew recast the story to make the women witnesses to what happened and to the angel’s deeds and words and also to counter the claim that Matthew says that the Jews are spreading [stories] about the disciples’ having stolen the body, as reported in 28:11-15. After all, if the women saw the angel roll back the stone, then obviously the disciples didn’t steal the body before the women arrived."

J. Kesler
This Catholic scholar's [opinion]. Writing in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, John L McKenzie, S.J. writes the following on page 113 regarding Matthew 28:2-4:
"2-4. In Mt it is unnecessary for the women to ask who shall remove the stone [from Mark 16:3--JPK]; Mt's legendary expansion makes them witnesses of the removal of the stone by an angel..."

[Stephen McCormick]

"As you must know, modern scholarship in the last 150 years has rather gutted your literalistic view of the Bible. Here is a little reading assignment for you written by an Episcopal bishop."

Finally, we agree on something. Much of, but not all, modern scholarship in the last 150 years HAS rather gutted the literalistic view of the Bible, just not MY (or many of my brothers and sisters in Christ) literalistic view of the Bible. But then you already knew that, so I am not sure why you brought it up That is precisely why we are communicating in the first place.

Read Spong's article. What's your point? He is certainly entitled to his opinion. The great thing about our country, and Christianity, is being able to voice your opinion without getting your head chopped off like you would under radial Islam. Don't bother bringing up the Inquisitions. That wasn't Christianity.

Steve

[Dardedar]

DAR
"As you must know, modern scholarship in the last 150 years has rather gutted your literalistic view of the Bible. Here is a little reading assignment for you written by an Episcopal bishop."

STEPHEN
Much of, but not all, modern scholarship in the last 150 years HAS rather gutted the literalistic view of the Bible, just not MY (or many of my brothers and sisters in Christ) literalistic view of the Bible. But then you already knew that, so I am not sure why you brought it up

For a fellow who ironically names his blog: "I am Not Ashamed you sure spend a lot of time squirming away from what you clearly believe (while at the same time going to some effort to posture yourself as something you are not, namely a freethinker). I brought it up because you are, as you admit, an inerrantist and biblical literalist. These are the crowing centerpieces of fundamentalist dogma and they are entirely unscholarly and unsupportable. Inerrancy and your flavor of biblical literalism, as clearly presented in your writing and apologetic, hasn't been taken seriously in scholarly circles for more than a century. That's why I brought it up. But you already knew that.

As the Dean of Princeton Theological Seminary put it 76 years ago:

"Few intelligent Christians can still hold to the idea that the Bible is an infallible Book, that it contains no linguistic errors, no historical discrepancies, no antiquated scientific assumptions, not even bad ethical standards. Historical investigation and literary criticism have taken the magic out of the Bible and have made it a composite human book, written by many hands in different ages. The existence of thousands of variations of texts makes it impossible to hold the doctrine of a book verbally infallible. Some might claim for the original copies of the Bible an infallible character, but this view only begs the question and makes such Christian apologetics more ridiculous in the eyes of the sincere man." --Elmer Homrighausen, former Dean of Princeton Theological Seminary. Christianity in America, p. 121, N.Y. Abbingdon Press (1936)

Read Spong's article. What's your point?

Well if you have to ask, I don't know that I can tell you. It's a safe bet that you buy into the three biblical misconceptions he talks about. You're "not ashamed" to admit that are you?

He is certainly entitled to his opinion.

That's rather non-responsive. But then your posts are mostly non-responsive. You don't respond to my points, as I do yours, and you typically don't respond to direct questions while I respond to all of yours.

The great thing about our country, and Christianity, is being able to voice your opinion without getting your head chopped off like you would under radial Islam.

Just as Christianity does, when it is allowed to have the power to do so. Fortunately that was mostly shut down due to the Enlightenment.

Don't bother bringing up the Inquisitions. That wasn't Christianity.

That would be the No True Scotsman fallacy. Fundism is fundism and radical Christians chop up those who don't have the one True Religion (or sect) just as gleefully as any Muslim. As an example I will quote from an exchange I had with a Christian Reconstructionalist, on a forum, in 1995:

“Yeah, I'm a CR [Christian Reconstructionalist]. And I do believe that if a person is caught in adultery, they should be stoned. Active, practicing homosexuals should be stoned. And non-Christians should be evangelized to, but not allowed to practice their faith openly. If they did practice their non-Christian faith openly, they should be punished by execution for worshipping(sic) false gods.
As far as the heretics go, I want the civil government to have the power and the will to execute heretics and blasphemers. It's what God's law calls for - and its the only viable model for civil government.
I do not advocate beating homosexuals. I advocate stoning *practicing* homosexuals. There is a difference. The prior is a violation of God's Law. The latter is a faithful application of God's Law. Witches should also be put to death, as you have said correctly.” --Sam Krishna. Christian Reconstructionalist, Fayetteville, AR (10/'95)

Now there is a fellow who takes his Bible seriously. He's not ashamed and he's not ashamed to admit it.

D.
-----------------
In "Resurrection: Myth or Reality" (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), Bishop Spong writes:

"I cannot say my yes to legends that have been clearly and
fancifully created. If I could not move my search beyond angelic
messages, empty tombs, and ghostlike apparitions, I could not say yes to
Easter. I will not allow my twentieth-century mind to be compromised by
the literalism of another era that is not capable of being believed in a
literal way today. If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed except
by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then
Christianity is doomed. For that view of resurrection is not believable,
and if that is all there is, then Christianity, which depends upon the
truth and authenticity of Jesus resurrection, also is not believable. If
that were the requirement of belief as a Christian, then I would sadly
leave my house of faith. WITH ME IN THAT EXODUS FROM THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH, HOWEVER, WOULD BE EVERY RANKING NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLAR IN THE
WORLD-- Catholic and Protestant alike: E.C. Hoskyns, C.H. Dodd, Rudolph
Bultmann, Reginald Fuller, Joseph Fitzmyer, W.E. Albright, Raymond Brown,
Paul Minear, R.H. Lightfoot, Herman Hendrickx, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans
Kung, Karl Rahner, Phyllis Trible, Jane Schaberg, D.H. Nineham, Maurice
Goguel, and countless others." (pp. 237-238, CAPS mine).

[L.Wood]

.

Darrell: "I hope it doesn't make a mess."

I think Stephen has made the mess. It's a doozy, but funny as all getout.

.

[Dardedar]

John K., adds another good point on the errancy list which I will pass along here:

***
"If you just read Matthew's resurrection account, would there be any reason to conjecture that the women didn't see the angel roll away the stone? I think not. Look back at Mathew's whole account leading up to Easter:

Matthew 27:55, 59-61; 28:1-5 (NRSV)
55 Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him.56Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee...59So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth60and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away.61Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. 28:1 After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.2And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.4For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men.5But the angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified.

"Matthew clearly says that the two Marys were witnesses to the crucifixion (they knew Jesus was actually dead) and burial (they wouldn't go to the wrong tomb) of Jesus, and in verse five the angel speaks directly to the women, so what good reason is there to suppose that according to Matthew's gospel, the women weren't witnesses to the stone being rolled away by the angel as well? Why make explicit that the women saw where Jesus was buried and knew exactly which tomb was his, but then have them miss the actual removal of the stone, especially since Matthew's stolen-body claim of the Jews (28:1-15), according to apologists, proves that the body was missing? If time elapsed from the time the guard was posted and the time the women arrived to see the open tomb, then how would they know that the body wasn't removed? After all, this is what John claims Mary Magdalene assumed when she encounterd the empty tomb (John 20:1-2; 13-15)."

John K.
***

[Stephen McCormick]

First off let me say once again how much I sincerely appreciate your interaction on this subject. Believe it or don't, the choice is yours.

I stick to what I said earlier, we can continue with other aspects of the discussion AFTER we complete a study of kai idou. We will start the long process tomorrow.

I realize now that this discussion is going to take an enormous amount of my time, a resource that I highly prize, and since I can only give it in bite-sized pieces, it is going to progress very slowly, perhaps too slowly to suit you. For that I can only apologize and say that if you decide to drop the post thread it will continue on my own blog site so you can keep up with my research there. I will be happy to provide that address for those who do not know where to find it, but I cannot post it here as I am not authorized to do so. I will be simultaneously posting updates there as we move along.

You have inadvertently given me some much needed help in determining the direction of my site content, and for that I am extremely grateful. So I say thanks once more, though you are probably getting tired of hearing that.

On an aside, you have rightly placed a high value on credentials for trustworthiness. I searched in vain for any credentials for Farrell Till that would merit the level of trust you have placed in his abilities to analyze Greek, or evaluate the comments of those who do, or his training in exegesis or hermeneutics. I checked on his website (the page would not come up), and on Wikipedia, but only see that he has a BA and MA in English from Harding. This doesn't even come close to qualifying him for what you seem to suggest is his competence as a resource in these discussions, so I assume you are aware of training and credentials that I could not locate. I would appreciate you sharing this information with me. If it is public information I am surprised it isn't more readily available, but that is a problem readily and easily corrected.

That said, while you are welcome to offer Till's comments to the discussion, until you can prove to me that he actually has the training and credentials which you seem to claim are necessary, I will consider that input to be of minor relevance and certainly unauthoritative. Not being mean or haughty, just honest and realistic. You have already stated that you have no training or credentials that qualify you to make definitive statements on the issues.

Enough for this morning. I am off for a morning bike ride.

Steve

[Dardedar]

More editorializing and jawboning from Mr. McCormick and promises of how hard he is going to work very hard in the future but so far no actual work and no engaging with the points and arguments made above, and no response to specific questions asked and re-asked.

...we can continue with other aspects of the discussion AFTER we complete a study of kai idou.

Continue with this as you wish but if we are to have an exchange and you wish for me to respond to arguments and questions, then are going to need to develop the skill of responding directly to points made and responding to questions. You will know when I have asked a question because the sentence will have this symbol "?" at the end of it.

I can only give it in bite-sized pieces, it is going to progress very slowly, perhaps too slowly to suit you.

I don't care what speed you go. I have a very good memory and can remember details of debates I had 15 years ago.

if you decide to drop the post thread it will continue on my own blog site so you can keep up with my research there.

Drop the post thread? No, it will remain here for all time or until Jesus returns and cancels our internet service. We are in our 7th year here and with some nearly 20,000 posts, we haven't censored any posts (other than porn/spam) or threads.

I will be happy to provide that address for those who do not know where to find it, but I cannot post it here as I am not authorized to do so.

You mean this?. I've already linked to it twice in this thread. Why would you need authorization to link to a publicly viewable page you call "your blog?" It's been so long, sometimes I forget how fear driven religious people are.

I will be simultaneously posting updates there as we move along.

Excellent. The more the merrier. Teaching Christians about their Bible and modern scholarship is an important part of our mission. Too many pastors out there lying to their flocks. In fact, we have a former preacher speaking about this at our freethinker meeting this weekend. He's with the Clergy Project, helping unbelieving pastors (there are a lot of them) transition out of their life of promoting religion and superstition. The internet has really opened information up, and it is not going to be helpful to your faith based beliefs, in case you haven't noticed.

...you have rightly placed a high value on credentials for trustworthiness. I searched in vain for any credentials for Farrell Till that would merit the level of trust you have placed in his abilities to analyze Greek,...

At no time have I, or Farrell Till, ever referred to him having any expertise in Greek. So avoid making things up. Like me, he refers to the standard, peer-reviewed, mainstream Bible scholarship on these matters. Like you, he has no expertise in this ancient dead language, and like you, he readily admits it.

That said, while you are welcome to offer Till's comments to the discussion,...

If Farrell Till's comments and arguments were contrary to established Bible scholarship, I would defer to the experts and dismiss miss them just like I will have to dismiss yours when you appeal to your backwoods hillbilly homemade scholarship. But like me, Farrell doesn't hold positions about the Bible that cannot be supported by extremely robust biblical scholarship. You however, being an inerrantist, are up to your eyeballs in beliefs about the Bible that cannot be supported.

...until you can prove to me that he actually has the training and credentials which you seem to claim are necessary, I will consider that input to be of minor relevance and certainly unauthoritative.

When speaking outside of an area of expertise, Farrell's arguments are only as authoritative as the references he refers to. Arguments have been presented, when are you going to stop dancing around them and actually attempt to address them?

You have already stated that you have no training or credentials that qualify you to make definitive statements on the issues.

Right, that's why I go with the established scholarship on complex technical matters I have no training in. Apparently you don't have such restraint since you claim (we'll see), that you are going to walk us through your study of an ancient dead language you admit you don't even have a student level understanding of. The result will be rather predictable as I have outlined twice now with my a, b,c. Whether you ever rise to engaging points made and questions asked, remains to be seen.

[Savonarola]

I will be happy to provide that address for those who do not know where to find it, but I cannot post it here as I am not authorized to do so.

... Why would you need authorization to link to a publicly viewable page you call "your blog?"

Stephen must mean that he is unable to post links here. This is because he is posting as a guest, and our settings -- for the purpose of beating the spambots posting things like ads and porn -- currently do not permit guests to post links.
Not only have I previously explained this, I have recommended that Stephen register to sidestep this restriction, and I've also offered to work with him to get links posted otherwise. Let it be understood that "authorization" is not the issue here.

[SteveMc]

Well, I'll try again. This didn't work yesterday but I see the site has changed considerably since last night when I gave up trying to post after I registered. I think Sav got me straightened out and I really appreciate his help. And yes, Sav, I was referring to the spam restrictions on this site preventing the post. Sorry I did not articulate that well.

I want to state that my primary purpose in doing this study on the thread is to help everyone who reads these posts to understand the difficulty faced in the science of Biblical hermeneutics by well meaning, and even highly trained doctoral level scholars. I freely admit I have not yet attained to that level yet. But I would love to return to school, and perhaps someday that will be possible.

But secondarily I want "to give a defense of the hope that is within me" as the apostle Peter instructed his readers, and try to "do so with gentleness and respect" as he admonished them (1Pet 3:15).

Because of these two goals this thread is going to get really long as I post my resources and references and go through all the scriptures involved. There are processes and procedures to follow as in any scientific discipline. As I mentioned previously I will be posting the study to my own blog site, but it may not be as simultaneously I would like for now until I get some assistance from the guy who set it up for me.

This morning I want to provide a link to the first tool I used to begin to respond to the Easter Challenge. It is an analytical layout of all the texts involved as specified in the Challenge, plus the story of Paul's conversion which was not required, but I felt was helpful as context for understanding Paul.

While I want to give the disclaimer that as I study I might revise it further, I have made it available at http://not-ashamed.net/analytical-layout-of-texts/

I felt it was appropriate to post it now, although my reference to it on this thread won't come until later in this study of the use of kai idou in Matthew.

That's it for now as I head to work.

Steve

[SteveMc]

I will be going to Dallas Theological Seminary in February for concentrated study time in their huge theological library, so some questions that come up may have to wait for answers until after that time.

I want to get started with the study tonight by laying out the way I will conduct it. Again this study is in response to Till:

“To the contrary, the expression ‘and, behold,’ kai idou, in Greek was used to introduce new events or material (usually startlingly new events or material), and invariably the new events happened after those in the verses preceding kai idou.

This understanding is not just something that I have hatched up. Leading lexicographers have so defined the expression. Joseph Thayer, for example, said, ‘Kai idou is used, when at the close of a narrative something new is used... (Hendrickson, 1997, p. 297). Arndt and Gingrich said that it serves ‘to enliven a narrative by (a) arousing attention... (b) introducing something new... (Cambridge University Press, 1957, p. 371).”

The 28 verse references for the study are Matt 2:9; 3:16, 17; 4:11; 7:4; 8:2, 24, 29, 32, 34; 9:2, 3, 10, 20; 12:10, 41, 42; 15:22; 17:3, 5; 19:16; 20:30; 26:51; 27:51; 28:2, 7, 9, 20.

This is just for Matthew’s usage. But this is not the whole or necessary picture to understand the expression in Matthew’s day. For Matthew was not writing to Matthew, but to others. So then, we will also ultimately study the other gospel authors and their use to see how Matthew’s usage compares, as well as considering those outside the Christian community since Matthew’s gospel is to that audience.

We examine Farrell Till’s statement above, his citation of highly respected New Testament authors and lexicographers and their comments about the meaning, purpose, and use of kai idou, and his conclusion that ”…invariably the new events happened after those in the verses preceding kai idou.”

Any lexical (basically: word meaning)-syntactical (basically: word interaction and relationship) study requires rules so it is crucial to carefully and transparently set forth the rules to govern this study of kai idou before proceeding.

The most easily understood elucidation of the steps (which I currently possess for reference), is found in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, by Dr. Henry Virkler, PhD. (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1981)

Of the need to properly conduct lexical-syntactical study properly to obtain the intended meaning of the author, Virkler quotes a well known theologian, Alexander Carson:
“No man has a right to say, as some are in the habit of saying, ‘The Spirit tells me that the meaning of such or such is the meaning of a passage.’ How is he assured that it is the Holy Spirit, and not a spirit of delusion, except from the evidence that the interpretation is the legitimate meaning of the words?” Examination of the Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Cited in Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation. p. x-xi.

Dr Virkler states: “Lexical-syntactical analysis is sometimes difficult, but it often yields exciting and meaningful results. In order to make this complex process somewhat easier to understand, it has been operationalized into a seven-step procedure:
1. Identify the general literary form. The literary form an author uses (prose, poetry, etc.) influences the way he intends his words to be understood.
2. Trace the development of the author’s theme and show how the passage fits into the context. This step, [initiated during] contextual analysis, gives a necessary perspective for determining the meaning of words and syntax.
3. Identify the natural divisions of the text. The main conceptual units and transitional statements reveal the author’s thought process and therefore make his meaning clearer.
4. Identify the connecting words within the paragraphs and sentences. Connecting words (conjunctions, prepositions, relative pronouns) show the relationship between two or more thoughts.
5. Determine what the individual words mean. Any word that survives long in a language begins to take on a variety of meanings. Thus it is necessary to identify the various possible meanings of ancient words, and then to determine which of the several possible meanings is the one the author intended to convey in a specific context.
6. Analyze the syntax. The relationship of words to one another is expressed through their grammatical forms and arrangement.
7. Put the results of your lexical-syntactical analysis into nontechnical, easily understood words that clearly convey the author’s meaning to the English reader. Hermeneutics, pp 95-96.

To simplify the study somewhat, we will group the texts several ways:
Any differentiation based on genre (literary form) of the passage.
Where Matthew himself uses the expression kai idou to direct a reader’s attention.
Where Matthew uses the expression quoting someone else who uses the phrase to direct a listener’s attention.
Where there is sufficient information or evidence to show a time relationship between the expression and the event(s) that follow in the sentence.
Any verses outside of Matthew which bring to light any unusual uses varying from Matthew’s since that helps establish cultural understanding of the phrase.

[Dardedar]

Hello Steve, I'm glad you got the membership thing figured out and can post links etc.

Some thoughts... You are welcome to get into mind numbing minutia of your notion of how to properly translate a phrase in this one verse in Matthew, but you might consider if it represents a wise use of your admittedly limited, precious, time. I don't see how it could be but, perhaps you know something you aren't sharing. It's seems to me that the best case scenario is that you show a minority position/case can be made that it maybe, could be or isn't entirely impossible for one to translate the verse in the way you would like it to be translated. Well, obviously. Language has nuance. The NIV thought they could get away with it, so obviously they think they have enough scholarly cover to try it. But as I will show (see below), they are a fundamentalist inerrantist group and have been consistently dishonest with translation tricks they've pulled in the past. That's why a straightforward reading of the preponderance of translations I checked (all ten), disagree with your NIV. Even the EST version you have used to patch your verses together agrees with me and not you.

What you will need to show is that this verse should be read in the manner you wish. I don't think you can do that. You say 'this study is in response to Till." Again, with your limited time you might want to focus on the much bigger fish you have to fry, rather than this one snip of a verse you have cherry picked out of a list. In this post on Oct 19 gave two unnumbered problems, then six numbered problems, then six problems regarding who Jesus revealed himself to, then five numbered problems from Farrell. You want to spend all of this time on Farrell's number one? That's fine, if that's what you want to do, but I don't think it is a wise use of time, considering I know what your maximum payback is going to be for all of that effort.

I just don't want you to get tuckered out with small potatoes when you've got much bigger fish on deck. But, whatever, it's your time.

One other point before I address some comments directly. You need your Bible story to be consistent and not contradictory. I don't need that. The Easter story could be exactly 100% consistent with zero contradictions, and this would not suggest to me that its extraordinary claims are true. Lots of fictional, completely false stories are consistent and not self-contradictory. Probably most of them. So if you were able to fix these Easter problems (and you will learn you cannot), you will have achieved not evidence in favor of these stories being true, but rather, a minimal requirement of what we require before we even begin to consider whether something could be true: non self-impeachment or perjury. So I understand the need to start with this, inerrantists must fix these problems, but don't have any illusions that other than a goat, I don't have horse in this race. I think it would be really neat if you could fix these problems.

Now, since it appears you believe you are engaging in scholarship in this quest, let me point out a few reasons why you actually aren't.

First, on your blog you say:

"So far I have considered sixteen issues I have found firm or potential resolution for so far in the harmonizing of the resurrection to ascension texts. I use the word error in this list a lot, not to signify error in the text, but error on the part of those who use these issues as reason to doubt the reliability of the accounts.... Here is the list for now, which I am sure will grow as the study progresses with a brief mention of why each issue seems “irreconcilable” to those unskilled in understanding the Word of God:"

This is not something a scholar, or someone interested in the pursuit of truth, would ever say. You reveal you are on a mission from God. You start by assuming your conclusion when you say these things only "seem irreconcilable" but only to "those unskilled" in understanding your "Word of God." You use the word error a lot, but are so terrified that someone might think you could possibly referring to a potential error in scripture you make sure to assure them that it's "not to signify error in the text" but only refers to error "on the part of those who use these issues as reason to doubt the reliability of the accounts."

This is not scholarship and has nothing to do with scholarship. It's an exercise in evangelism cloaked under a thin veneer, a fascade of pseudo-scholarship. Scholarship doesn't assume its conclusion and go hunting for evidence, it follows the evidence to the conclusion best supported by the evidence. Creationists play this same game, and this is why their results are sterile and never lead to new or accurate information about anything. Creationism isn't science and has nothing to do with science for the very same reason your methods have nothing to do with scholarship.

But do continue, as I know/hope you will. I'm just pointing out the difference between the way scholarship works, and evangelism works. Scholarship doesn't begin by assuming a conclusion and then working to support that religious agenda.

I will be going to Dallas Theological Seminary in February for concentrated study time in their huge theological library,...

This fits nicely with the point I just made. I am sure they have a large library, but what is taught at that school is not scholarship and has nothing whatsoever to do with using the skills of scholarship to understand truth about the Bible. It's purely self-indulgent evangelism. Observe their mission statement:

"The mission of Dallas Theological Seminary is to
glorify God by equipping godly servant-leaders
for the proclamation of His Word and the
building up of the body of Christ worldwide."

And note:

While our faculty and board annually affirm their agreement with the full doctrinal statement (below), students need only agree with these seven essentials:
the Trinity
the full deity and humanity of Christ
the spiritual lostness of the human race
the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ
salvation by faith alone in Christ alone
the physical return of Christ
the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

And that's just to be student there! The list of whoppers that the faculty has to affirm with an oath is far far longer and detailed. That's not scholarship, education or learning. It has nothing to do with scholarship. It's pseudo-scholarship and indoctrination dressed up to look like scholarship. It's a joke.

But I don't mean to spoil your fun. Do go and get your ears tickled, your faith built up and have a great time! Just don't confuse what they do at Dallas Theological Seminary as having anything to do with peer reviewed scholarship, because it doesn't.

Again this study is in response to Till:

Mr. Till is elderly and recently had a serious stroke. Please avoid the strawman of going after some complaint about the way he worded some comment. You need to address the scholarship, not Farrell Till, who is not here to respond to you (feel free to address the meat of his arguments, if you think this helps your case).

This is just for Matthew’s usage. But this is not the whole or necessary picture to understand the expression in Matthew’s day. For Matthew was not writing to Matthew, but to others.

Modern scholarship understands that the book of Matthew is anonymous, like the others.

So then, we will also ultimately study the other gospel authors and their use to see how Matthew’s usage compares, as well as considering those outside the Christian community since Matthew’s gospel is to that audience.

There is no evidence the person who wrote Matthew had any interaction with those who wrote the other gospels (other than obviously pinching most of his story from a similar source, "Q"). How others used Greek, including outside of Christianity, is not going to trump how Matthew has consistently used Greek.

The most easily understood elucidation of the steps (which I currently possess for reference), is found in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, by Dr. Henry Virkler, PhD. (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1981)

Dr. Henry Virkler is not a Bible scholar but an evangelist trained in psychology. When he wasn't training Christian councilors at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, he's writing evangelist books for Christians. I bet his "A Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking," is a doosey. Why would a Christian need their own special guide to critical thinking? Oh I know, so they don't go off the tracks and use critical thinking skills to get an answer that conflicts with... Christianity. I'm not sure what that is, but it's not critical thinking. Those engaging in critical thinking don't need to start with the assumption/conclusion that Christianity is true and shouldn't be questioned.

This doesn't mean what he says about things outside of his expertise are wrong, I will certainly consider his arguments. It just gives me some reason to suspect them while noting that you are consistently reaching for evangelical non-scholarly sources, from people speaking outside of their area of training.

To simplify the study somewhat, we will group the texts several ways:
Any differentiation based on genre (literary form) of the passage.

Stephen, you aren't a translator and as you have admitted you have next to no knowledge of ancient koine Greek. Why on earth should I, or any one, take your musings (no matter how much cut and paste guidelines you pass along about study procedure) over those who do have expert knowledge and training in this field? When are you going to address this question? I assure you it is not going to go away. And until you deal with this question, it's going to under cut whatever conclusion you come to that relies upon your own amateur evangelical investigation rather than solid, peer reviewed, non- loyalty oath taking, non-fundie, scholarship.

D.
--------------
Earlier I made the claim that the NIV has been less than scholarly in their attempts to fix Bible errors/contradictions/problems in their translation. Let me now support this with an excerpt from my book:

***
6.) Custom Translations for a Custom Doctrine, or, when All Else Fails Manipulate the Data.

Another very useful way of making those nasty
errors go away is to translate them away. This is
especially useful if the problem passage turns on a
Hebrew or Greek word that has usable alternate
meanings. Most words, ancient and modern, do have
alternate meanings.
A classic example is found (several times) in the
Book of Daniel, which was supposedly written by
someone in Nebuchadnezzar's court, someone who
should have been intimately familiar with Babylonian
royalty. Well, that writer mistakenly referred to
Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzer, and
Belshazzer as the son and successor of
Nebuchadnezzar. In fact, Belshazzer was never a
king, nor was he the son of King Nebuchadnezzar!
That and other glaring errors have, long ago,
convinced unbiased scholars that the work is of late
origin. That is to say, the Book of Daniel is a pious
fraud written around 165 BC.
In an effort to get around this glaring error in the
relationship between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzer,
the inerrantist has seized upon secondary meanings for
the words "father" and "son." In doing so, they have
violated a cardinal rule of good translation. One must
use the most probable meaning of a word unless
driven to secondary meanings by the evidence. (The
context in Daniel suggests that the words in question
mean exactly what they usually mean.) In short, the
inerrantist has not presented the best solution, the one
with the best track record.
Far worse than an individual monkeying around
with the Hebrew and Greek is the case whereby whole
Bibles are translated by those with a doctrinal axe to
grind. Examples of this type of tampering may be
found in at least two popular, modern
translations the NIV (New International Version)
and the LB (Living Bible, a paraphrase translation).
That was ably demonstrated by Dan Barker in the
Winter 1994 issue of The Skeptical Review. The
following is a excerpt from a portion of his article,
which appeared under the sub-heading, "Why do the
translations disagree?"

"The motives of the NIV and LB translators are
made clear in the preface to each book. The NIV,
translated by a team of evangelical scholars
(instigated by the National Association of
Evangelicals), is introduced with these words: "We
offer this version of the Bible to him in whose name
and for whose glory it has been made. We pray that
it will lead many into a better understanding of the
Holy Scriptures and a fuller knowledge of Jesus
Christ the incarnate Word, of whom the Scriptures
so faithfully testify."
If there is a contradiction in the New Testament,
then it could not "faithfully testify" anything.
The NIV team was extremely selective in
choosing its scholars: "[T]he translators were united
in their commitment to the authority and infallibility
of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They
believe that it contains the divine answer to the
deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds light on our
path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to
our eternal well-being." This is not the agenda of a
team of objective scholars! This is evangelism.
If there is a contradiction in the Bible, the NIV
translators, committed a priori to infallibility, could
never see it!. . ."

The Living Bible does not claim to be a strict
translation. It is a paraphrase by Dr. Kenneth
Taylor, who admits in the preface: ". . . when the
Greek or Hebrew is not clear, the theology of the
translator is his guide, along with his sense of logic.
. . The theological lodestar in this book has been a
rigid evangelical position."

What if an atheistic or skeptical organization
were to translate the Bible, putting together a team
of staunch materialists, systematically excluding
conservative or evangelical scholars, announcing a
"rigid skeptical position," claiming to be "united in
our commitment to the fallibility of the bible," and
advertising the "hope that this translation will lead
many astray from faith into a solid doubt of the
reliability of Scriptures?" Such prejudice clearly
would taint the objectivity of the translation.

Undoubtedly.

Dr. Edward P. Blair, in The Illustrated Bible
Handbook, states that the translators of the NIV were
expected to subscribe to the "high view of Scripture"
as put forth by the Westminster Confession of faith,
the Belgic Confession, and the Statement of Faith of
the National Association of Evangelicals. It is no
wonder then, when translators carry so much doctrinal
baggage, that they end up churning out such
disingenuous translations.

Let's examine just one example of such tampering:

NINEVEH
The size of Nineveh as described in Jonah 3:3-4
has always been a problem for inerrantists. It is simply
too big. Much too big. Here are some translations of
the key verses:

"So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh,
according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh
was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's
journey,..." (King James Version)

"So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according
to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an
exceedingly great city, three days' journey in
breadth. Jonah began to go into the city, going a
day's journey." (Revised Standard Version)

"Jonah obeyed at once and went to Nineveh. He
began by going a day's journey into the city, a vast
city, three day's journey across..." (The New English Bible)

"...Now Nineveh was a city great beyond compare;
to cross it took three days. Jonah began by going a
day's journey into the city..." (The New Jerusalem Bible)

"So Jonah obeyed the LORD and went to
Nineveh, a city so large that it took three days to
walk through it." (Today's English Version)

It was common in ancient times to describe the size
of an area by the amount of time it took to cross it, a
figure often exaggerated in the case of great cities. A
day's journey was understood to be about 20 miles.
That makes for one, unbelievably large city. A city
that is 60 miles across might easily cover an area in
excess of 2500 square miles. That's about twice the
size of the state of Rhode Island! However,
archeology has revealed that Nineveh was definitely
only a fraction of this size. The New Oxford
Annotated Bible candidly gives the dimensions in
their footnote for this passage:

"Exceedingly great city; excavations have revealed
a city about three miles in length and somewhat
less than one and one-half miles wide." (New Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1121)

It is large by Old World standards, but it falls far
short of the gargantuan city boasted of in the Bible.
As might be expected, various solutions have been
invented to solve the problem. They range from
counting the neighboring cities as "Greater Nineveh"
to the novel idea that Nineveh was so busy with
people and donkey traffic that a day's journey was
considerably less than 20 miles!
Most translations give the sense that is clearly
implied in this passage, that Nineveh was
"exceedingly great" in size, so large that it was "three
days journey" across. A curious exception is the NIV.
Observe how they carefully wrote this problem out of
the script:

"Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to
Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city
a visit required three days." (New International Version)

Quite a hot spot that Nineveh!
The Living Bible translators choose to disguise the
problem in a different way. Rather than discarding the
large-city sense of the scripture, they expand it to fit
the multiple-city theory:

So Jonah obeyed, and went to Nineveh. Now
Nineveh was a very large city, with many villages
around it so large that it would take three days
to walk though it. (The Living Bible)

The subterfuge going on here is obvious. These are
Bibles written by fundamentalists, for
fundamentalists. Other works give many more
examples where these translations suffer from
doctrinal rewriting[17]. Fortunately, by comparing
different but widely respected versions, one can
usually disrobe such tampering.

Footnote:
17. This example is dealt with in much greater detail in a booklet entitled "Bible Errors: A Sampling From 4 Topics," by
Dave E. Matson. He cites Dr. Edward P. Blair in "The Illustrated Bible Handbook" (1987) as a source giving 12 other
scriptures in the NIV that have similarly had their difficulties "translated away."

[David Franks]

"What if an atheistic or skeptical organization
were to translate the Bible, putting together a team
of staunch materialists..."

Isn't that sort of how "real" Christians are able to make Jesus a follower of Ayn Rand?

[SteveMc]

Wow. Cool.

I'll be sure to let the admissions department not to expect an avalanche of student referrals from you or applications from the FF members.

I wish I was studying the Ninevah account so I could make use of your information, but since I'm not I guess I will stay on task.

On your appraisal of my research conduct, remember we aren't taking each other seriously. So that is just WYKs.

FYI, this will be busy weekend for me so don't look for much before Monday or Tuesday. Need to cut, split, and haul firewood most of Saturday, need to get ready for Sunday school class, and my daughter has a basketball game on Saturday.

A week ago we buried one of her favorite teammates who was murdered by her 15 year old brother.

I am beginning to sense a note of frustration with what I am doing in this study. Have you forgotten this was all your idea?

Steve

[kwlyon]

I am beginning to sense a note of frustration with what I am doing in this study. Have you forgotten this was all your idea?

Well for the love of GOD THEN GET ON WITH IT!!!!! I just read this whole damn exchange expecting, in my naivety, the conversation to finally get off the ground. Steve....dammit.... please just spit it out! Let us get this show on the road. I don't even remember what the hell this is all supposed to be about! I want the last half hour of my life back.

Steve, you need to actually RESPOND to points made in response to your post. Reading this post there simply is no conversation here...just random discombobulated assertions that are never again revisited. Here is how an exchange is supposed to work. You make an assertion or point. Someone responds to it. You then address the response and continue on from there.

Your Kent Hovind form of rhetoric is pointless and frankly rather boring to read through.

[SteveMc]

kwlyon, I am working through my study of what Kesler submitted so I can make my response, and I told you guys not to expect a response until Monday or Tuesday. I will be doing good to be able to accomplish that. Life goes on, stuff comes up, and I have to deal with it as I go. I understand that you folks at FF have absolutely no idea whatsoever how much work is involved in this for my part, so that helps me to be patient. All you do is cut and paste. You do not study. In fact, as Darrel has stated, in his case he REFUSES to study even when an offer to help is made. You can search his previous posts to see that, but then, as you just stated, you have already read it yourself.

You want a half hour back? Try the roughly 60 hours or more I have invested already with no end in sight, and then I will empathize with you. I really wish I could dedicate all my time to this study, but that is not possible.

I have heard OF Kent Hovind, but I have not heard Kent Hovind, so I assure you there is no attempt on my part to emulate his style. I have no clue what he says, or how he says it. I don't know what his creationist views are to agree or disagree. Though I am a creationist, and I understand the arguments of young earth creationists, I am not inclined at this point to hold a young earth creationist position.

I can tell you what I will no longer respond to as it is a total waste of my time as I seek to avoid foolish and stupid arguments (Titus 3:9):
1. Character assassination attempts on me personally. Love me or leave me, "country bumpkin southern baptist inerrantist preacher with a bible in one hand and a sermon in the other" guy that I am.
2. Mockery of my training to do what I do in exegesis and hermeneutics. I have training, you guys do not, not even enough to know if the people you quote have done the work necessary to make their statements. If you don't like my answers, don't ask me questions. That should speed things up a lot, which would be great and a huge help from my perspective.
3. Opportunities to get sidetracked on other issues in scripture, like the recent post about Ninevah.
4. Attacks on the credentials or abilities of the authors of the books I cite. I trust them at the very least in the things I quote. Whether you do or not is not my problem. Using Virkler as an example, I trust his book on hermeneutics and his approach to lexical-syntactical analysis, I have not read his book on critical thinking, so I have no comment on it.

This list is not exhaustive and I reserve the right to append it as the need arises. If I feel that something falls into one of the above categories I may not simply respond WYKs, it's wasting your keystrokes.

Steve McCormick

[Dardedar]

Steve would love to talk about anything besides the actual problems before him, so we get more rhetoric, editorializing, evasion and distraction rather than any attempt whatsoever to deal with substance and respond to points or questions. There is a very good reason for this behavior but I won't spoil the surprise.

I'll be sure to let the admissions department not to expect an avalanche of student referrals [to Dallas Theological Seminary]."

No Freethinker or person interested in learning about the field of Bible scholarship or the truth about the Bible would be interested in being associated with the blatant pseudo-scholarship peddled by a fundie school that requires loyalty oaths like Dallas Theological Seminary. It provides an education in faith building and apologetics, with goosestepping on the side, nothing more.

I wish I was studying the Ninevah account so I could make use of your information,...

I provided one of many specific referenced examples I can provide of how your NIV is dishonest. I made the claim regarding the NIV so I felt the responsibility to back it up specifically. Perhaps someday you will learn this habit so readers will be more impressed with your assertions.

...appraisal of my research conduct, remember we aren't taking each other seriously.

I am taking your claims and posts very seriously, it's just that you haven't provided anything substantive and you don't respond to direct questions asked repeatedly, and you don't rebut points made directly. You reframe, evade and editorialize. I will continue to point this out. This is what debating fundamentalists involves. Always.

FYI, this will be busy weekend...

Again, I don't care. You took a break from Oct. to January. Answer when you can but do attempt to respond to direct questions and points made. You will find that your attempts to evade and run will be continually pointed out. We have folks from all over the world observing this debate (I was instant messaged the other day from a fellow in Britain watching it). Bring your "A" game.

I am beginning to sense a note of frustration with what I am doing in this study.

Your sensors need to be calibrated. I don't get frustrated. You've supposedly spent 60 hours on this issue and so far you're accomplished nothing. Fundies generally have an expiration date and I would like you to actually accomplish something and learn something before you throw up your hands in frustration and run. I would also like to learn more about the details of these Easter Problems, but so far that hasn't happened because you have failed to:

a) engage the issues directly
b) respond to direct questions
c) respond to points directly

You can spend six months on these two words of Greek but, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is this really a wise use of your limited time considering any reasonable person is not going to take your "not even student" level understanding of Koine Greek over that of people who have spent their life becoming trained experts in translating this ancient dead language? You won't answer this question, for obviously reasons, so I'll answer it for you: No.

You've spent 60 hours spinning your wheels and opining (actually I suspect you have learned quite a bit about the problem before you in that time). It would be nice to see an attempt to actually address the issues. But I understand perfectly why you would like to put that off as long as possible. Others will understand this shortly, if they haven't figured it out already.

Incidentally, just to provide a flashback for those who haven't seen the beginning of this saga (or have simply forgotten). Pastor Steve contacted us in October, wanting to arrange for him to give a Power Point presentation at a meeting (months in the future) revealing how he can solve the Easter Challenge and these problems. Maybe he, not even having his "student level" understanding of Greek, was intending to hold us spellbound with an hour long exposition of "kai idou." Can you imagine!?

D.
--------------
Again, free advice intended to head of Steve's inevitable frustation:

If you would like to even begin your endeavor, you would need to:

a) Address, specifically, the affirmative case I have provided for why a straight forward reading and understanding of these verses, supported by the preponderance of translations, is to be preferred.

b) Provide an affirmative case for why your novel, inexpert assertions should be believed instead.

And then, and this is going to be the hard part:

c) Explain why your mere, admittedly uninformed knowledge of Greek should be accepted by neutral not expert observers (like myself) rather than those who are professional experts in Koine Greek.

Your "a" and "b" are going to need to be very persuasive to overcome your problem at "c." Let me be more blunt. Your "a" and "b" are not going to over come your problem at "c."

[Dardedar]

More editorial and excuses for why Steve, who can tap out paragraphs of chat, can't take a moment to address any of the dozens of the Easter problems before him, or respond to a simple question, or respond to a point directly.

...I understand that you folks at FF have absolutely no idea whatsoever how much work is involved in this for my part,...

I can't speak for others but I do have some idea of what is before you, that's why it would be really nifty if after almost four months and 60 hours logged you would begin. Instead we get cut and paste rules about how you are going conduct your investigation into this language you admittedly have no understanding of. To wit:

Any lexical (basically: word meaning)-syntactical (basically: word interaction and relationship) study requires rules so it is crucial to carefully and transparently set forth the rules to govern this study of kai idou before proceeding.

If you want to impress us with how smart you are, rather than copying fancy words about a specialized field out of a book, start addressing these Easter problems.

All you do is cut and paste. You do not study.

I provided an excerpt from my book which directly supports my claim that the NIV has a history of fudging their translation in order to assist with problems of inerrancy. This provides a good explanation for why:

a) you appealed to this translation to help with your problem
b) the NIV stands out from all of the other translations I referenced

In fact, as Darrel has stated, in his case he REFUSES to study even when an offer to help is made.

Yes, get this, I have the audacity to not receive "training" in an ancient dead language from someone who has:

a) a great and overwhelming incentive to distort that language in favor of his religious dogmas
b) no understanding whatsoever of the language in question

What was I thinking? Now if you'll excuse me, we have a broken water pipe under the sink, so I need to call the piano tuner to fix it!

...roughly 60 hours or more I have invested already with no end in sight,...

I hope you have learned something, because what readers of this thread haven't learned from your investment, is anything to do with actually addressing The Easter Problems. And that's unfortunate. While we have heard an outline of what you intend to do with two Greek words you don't understand, as I have pointed out repeatedly, this is unlikely to accomplish much for you since it avoids all but one problem.

I have heard OF Kent Hovind, but I have not heard Kent Hovind,...

Aside from perhaps Ken Ham and his monument to human ignorance known as the creationist museum, Kent Hovind is the leading debater, lecturer, popularizer of young earth creationism. He dishonestly calls himself a "Dr." (his degree is fake), and in 2007 was convicted of 58 federal counts of tax evasion, he is currently serving ten years in federal prison. I and a friend debated him on a radio show about ten years ago.

I am not inclined at this point to hold a young earth creationist position.

That's probably for the best. We have a tract on this if you would like 20 reasons to firm up your position on this. Course, since you are an inerrantist you might also want to learn about the earth being flat, which the Bible also clearly teaches. See our tract here.

I can tell you what I will no longer respond to as it is a total waste of my time... ]/quote]

Not only do you not have time to address questions and points directly (have you ever responded to a direct question?), but you do have time to give us a detailed list of what you will not take the time to address.

...as I seek to avoid foolish and stupid arguments (Titus 3:9)

Don't give up on those, you are going to need a great deal of them in the course of defending your positions.

1. Character assassination attempts on me personally. Love me or leave me, "country bumpkin southern baptist inerrantist preacher with a bible in one hand and a sermon in the other" guy that I am.

Pointing out that you have admitted you don't have a student level understanding of Greek is not character assassination, this entirely certainly germane to the weight people should give to your assertions on the matter.

2. Mockery of my training to do what I do in exegesis and hermeneutics.

Spades will be pointed out as being spades. If you have good arguments, lets seem them rather this posturing about your training. You've already admitted a great deal about how you study your Bible and come to your unscholarly conclusions, so I won't bother citing it yet once again.

If you don't like my answers, don't ask me questions.

You're not in church, you are trying to provide a case for your claim. You will be cross-examined on your claims, repeatedly and extensively. Your evasions will be pointed out, continuously and without mercy.

3. Opportunities to get sidetracked on other issues in scripture, like the recent post about Ninevah.

This was not a side track but a specific line of evidence supporting my assertion (that's what good debaters do, they support their assertions) that the NIV is a dishonest fundie translation made for fundies.

4. Attacks on the credentials or abilities of the authors of the books I cite.

I will not commit the genetic fallacy and dismiss an argument because it comes from a less than scholarly source, but after dealing with your arguments directly, I will, as necessary, point out that in addition to your argument being lame, this shouldn't be too much of a surprise because your source is defective.

I trust them at the very least in the things I quote.

Yes, but you operate upon religious faith. That's not going to work around here. You're not in church.

Whether you do or not is not my problem.

That you can't make your case by referring to standard, mainstream, peer-reviewed, Christian scholarship is indeed going to be a problem for you. Any reasonable person will be able to see this.

This list is not exhaustive and I reserve the right to append it as the need arises.

Yes, do treat us to lists of things you won't have the time to respond to, probably in part because you are so busy putting together long lists of things you won't have the time to respond to.

Anyone who is surprised that Steve is doing everything but answering simple questions, or directly addressing the problems before him, hasn't been debating fundies for 30+ years as I have.

D.