Response

Anett Acker:

DagoodS,

That’s a bit of a puzzler. The “reasonable person” standard (f/k/a “reasonable man”) is a legal fiction to determine what a person would do in a situation; not what one would be persuaded.

I was in a rush this morning and I realized I got it wrong as soon as I remembered that he also goes by The Reasonably Prudent Person. But that "publish" button is always just so unforgiving.

Perhaps I read too much into this, but the word “conceded” made me laugh out loud. I have consistently and constantly claimed genea (and dowr and “generation”) have multiple meanings. As words commonly do. I have been consistent and constant when genea means those presently alive, and when it does not.

I went back and reread our conversation in "What the Large Print Giveth, the Small Print Taketh Away," and if that was your position then, you did not make it clear.

My recollection is that you started saying that genea has multiple meanings some time during this discussion. And if I'm wrong about that, then you still haven't explained what you meant by:

I strongly suspect, upon review of the verses listed, you realized no such methodology could consistently separate your one (1) instance as compared to the others.

Your implication was that there is no consistent methodology that allows me to determine that Jesus uses genea to mean those presently alive in Matthew 12:39-42, but uses it in a different sense elsewhere. But now that's exactly what you're saying.

Please don't think that I would hold it against you if you ever conceded points or modified your position, though. Rather, I would be quite impressed! It might even make it possible for us to have an actual dialogue(!) instead of just speaking past each other.

But . . . since such a ludicrous thought makes you laugh out loud, there's probably not much hope of that. *sigh*

When you and Vinny co-author your on-line memoirs, you'll probably ask him, "Remember that crazy woman who accused me of conceding a point? That's going in the book for sure!"

Good times indeed! :)

The Bible, I have found, becomes so much more interesting when we lose the doctrinal dependency, worrying, “Oh, Noes! We can’t have Jesus be perceived as wrong about anything!” and instead look to author’s intention.

Of course that makes it more interesting because then you can decide what you want it to mean. But you've never explained why, if Mark was written right after the fall of Jerusalem and the author expected Jesus' immediate return, he has Jesus say that He is not coming right away (Mark 13:5-8)?

Obviously I do not think these arguments prevail, but that’s what makes horse races.

But even horse races can get boring after watching them for six months, so I think we should call it quits here.

[emphasis in original}

We started this mess regarding which alternate meaning is appropriate amongst the many instances of ”genea” in the New Testament with my statement on my blog:

You [Anette Acker] have argued Jesus was referring to Old Testament passages (written in Hebrew, by the by) in other speeches. Yet equally, in other discussions, Jesus is recorded as utilizing genea to mean those immediately present. See Mt. 11:16, 12:39-42, 23:34-36, Mark 8:12, and Luke 17:25. [Synoptic parallels not cited.]

At best, Jesus utilized it both ways. Therefore, to realize what he meant in these particular passages, we need the context.

[emphasis added]

I (erroneously) assumed by stating Jesus utilized genea “both ways” you would understand I meant Jesus used genea with more than one meaning. Throughout your and my discussion, the focus has been exclusively regarding these verses where I claim Jesus meant genea to be “those presently alive” and you claim those verses mean “the whole human race” or “men of a certain characteristic.”

Your response:

Why are you so sure that these passages refer to those immediately present? It seems at least as likely that Jesus is using the following definition of “generation,” from the Greek lexicon: 2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character, 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation.

I was stunned you were not willing to even admit those passages referred to those presently alive:

But this wasn’t even the end (as amazing as that may be.) It was your response to the second argument (Jesus uses genea elsewhere, within context, to mean those present) where you implied those OTHER uses did not necessarily mean those present.

It was at that precise moment I realized you had abandoned any objectivity within biblical study. Even the most conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical (when not practicing apologetics) recognize Matt. 11:16 was discussing those present. Not every human has heard John the Baptist. That Matt 12:38-42 was a direct response to those present, indicating an event interpreted to take place within their lifetime. That Matt 23:33-36 was within their lifetimes (are Christians still being “flogged” in synagogue?).

Again in Mark 8:12—a direct response to a question. Luke 17:25 discussing Jesus’ crucifixion occurring in ‘this generation.’

Yet, in order to respond to the second argument you toss out the implication it was NOT referring to those immediately present. Or—excuse me—when the authors remembered what Jesus said and translated the Aramaic into the Greek, they utilized the Greek word genea to not necessarily mean those present.

You backtrack (somewhat) from claiming those other verses cited did not necessarily mean “those present” by the amorphous statement:

This is false. I said: ‘I did not say that Jesus never used the word “generation” to mean those who were presently alive. I just see no reason why we should lean toward that definition in the examples you gave.’

Pawing through the double negatives, It is not very clear whether you would list any of the previous verses mentioned as genea meaning “those presently alive.” One thing is certain—at this point you have yet to identify a single verse where genea means “those presently alive; let alone one where Jesus is speaking.

We then switch the discussion over to your blog.

We were discussing methodology, and I used this genea issue as an example:

For example, a person neutral to the proposition whether Jesus intended genea to mean all humans, or just the persons he was talking to in Mark 13, after reviewing the context, Jesus’ use of genea elsewhere, the dating of Mark, the history of the Jewish war, would determine it is more likely than not, Jesus intended genea to mean within the lifetime of the persons he was talking to.

Your Reply:

There is plenty of examples of Jesus seeming to use the word ‘generation’ to simply mean the human race. For example Mark 9:19 says: ‘O unbelieving generation,’ Jesus replied, ‘how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.’ Was it just the people alive at the time of Jesus (in this case, He was addressing His own disciples) who were ‘unbelieving’? And Mark 8:38 says: ‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.’ Again, it seems like Jesus uses ‘generation’ to mean the human race in that context.’

(Although I would highly recommend anyone reading this click on the link and read the Anette Acker’s entire response.)

I responded utilizing only Mark 8:38. A verse I remain, as of today, still uncertain whether you are now claiming it was referring to those presently alive, or the entire human race.

Vinny astutely noted the problem occurring: (because it is key, I will copy the entire statement)

Dagoods wrote: ‘Annette could not even agree with me that at times Jesus did use genea to mean those present.’

Anette responded: ‘I did not say that Jesus never used the word “generation” to mean those who were presently alive. I just see no reason why we should lean toward that definition in the examples you gave.’

Does Anette’s response actually correct Dagoods’ claim? Does Anette’s response indicate that she does agree with Dagoods that Jesus did at times use the word genea to mean those present? No it doesn’t. It does not preclude the possibility that Dagoods might yet identify such a case, but if he tries to do so, neither does it preclude the possibility that Anette would still fail to see any reason to think that Jesus meant the word that way. Therefore, Anette's response neither corrects nor contradicts Dagoods' statement.

If in fact Anette believes that Jesus ever used genea that way, she could expressly agree that he had and identify that situation. Then Dagoods’ statement would stand corrected. However, Anette doesn’t want to do that because that would allow Dagoods to compare the cases in which she agrees that he used the word that way to the cases she disputes. That would make it difficult for her to claim that she doesn’t see the reasons one might lean towards the definition that she wishes to avoid.

[emphasis added. Very important] Vinny accurately was indicating we would then compare:

1) Situations where we both agree genea is defined as “those presently alive”; and
2) Situation where I claim genea means “those presently alive” and you claim it means another alternative definition.

Your rely:

Vinny,

Does Anette’s response actually correct Dagoods’ claim? Does Anette’s response indicate that she does agree with Dagoods that Jesus did at times use the word genea to mean those present? No it doesn’t.

You're right about that. I stand corrected.

However, Anette doesn’t want to do that because that would allow Dagoods to compare the cases in which she agrees that he used the word that way to the cases she disputes. That would make it difficult for her to claim that she doesn’t see the reasons one might lean towards the definition that she wishes to avoid.

No, that's incorrect. I was going to mention that the passage about the Queen of the South referred to the generation of those present but did not find it relevant because I have already conceded that the definition of genea includes the more narrow modern definition.

But although I looked up DagoodS's Bible references before I didn't notice that he included that one (Matthew 12:39-42), so I apologize for that, DagoodS. I think that one clearly talks about the people presently alive, while the others are ambiguous. However, Luke 16:8 clearly uses genea to mean ‘kind.’

Now…for the players keeping track at home. For the first time I have one (1) instance where I can be definitively certain Anette Acker agrees genea means “those presently alive”—Matt. 12:39-42.
Immediately I ask:

So what method did you utilize to determine Matt. 12:39-42 referred to the generation of those present but Matt. 11:16, Mark 8:12. Luke 17:25 and (of course) Mark 13:30 did not?

Again, I am ONLY focusing on those passages I claim genea mean those presently alive. I didn’t ask about Luke 16:8, because I agree genea in that verse does not mean those presently alive. I didn’t care about instances where genea meant an alternative meaning—I have always focused on and referred to situations where genea mean “those presently alive."

Alas, our agreement on the one (1) instance did not last the day.

Your reaction:

Jesus is distinguishing between this age and the age to come when Jesus will come in glory with His angels, indicating that everyone will want to be on His side when that happens. But if we call ourselves Christians and yet live as if we're ashamed of the Gospel in this world, we will find ourselves on the wrong side.

In retrospect, I think Jesus always used the word genea to distinguish between the people of this world and those who will inherit the kingdom of God. I came to that conclusion after looking more carefully at Matthew 12:39-42 and Luke 16:8.

My original thought was that the Queen of the South and the men of Nineveh (who lived at a different time) were compared to the contemporaries of Jesus. But that doesn't make sense because many of the contemporaries of Jesus received Him and launched the early church. I think Jesus is comparing them to people who reject Him--however, those who rejected Him after personally hearing His teachings and observing what He did were particularly culpable.

Also, when Jesus says that this generation will not pass away until all these things are accomplished, He cannot mean the entire human race because some will be saved. He is saying that this "generation"--meaning this age and its people--will not pass away until everything has been accomplished. And that is also when heaven and earth will pass away.

You drove the point home:

I explained my methodology in my comment to Vinny, and as you may have noticed I am now saying that Jesus never used the word genea to mean those presently alive.

[emphasis in the original]

I responded:

Vinny astutely predicted the difficulty: if you admit even one (1) instance of Jesus utilizing genea to mean those presently living, we would ask what method is used to differentiate between that one (1) instance and the others you declared as meaning the entire human race. I strongly suspect, upon review of the verses listed, you realized no such methodology could consistently separate your one (1) instance as compared to the others. Therefore, rather than come up with a methodology, you retreated back to claiming there are no instances whatsoever.

Here I will confess confusion was created. You had been talking to Vinny about Luke 16:8. Since I never talked about Luke 16:8 (I was never even considering Luke 16:8), I wasn’t thinking about Luke 16:8 in framing my reply. Remember what I bolded in Vinny’s comment above? I will reiterate this paragraph, inserting what my thoughts were at the time.

“Vinny astutely predicted the difficulty: if you admit even one (1) instance of Jesus utilizing genea to mean those presently living [in the verses I have listed,] we would ask what method is used to differentiate between that one (1) instance and the others [I listed as genea meaning “those presently alive and] you declared as meaning the entire human race. I strongly suspect, upon review of the verses [I] listed, you realized no such methodology could consistently separate your one (1) instance as compared to the others [verses I listed.] Therefore, rather than come up with a methodology, you retreated back to claiming there are no instances whatsoever.”

I saw this as a dispute where I was listing certain verses where genea meant “those presently alive” and you claimed in those verses genea did not. I was not concerned about, nor discussing verses where we both agreed genea meant another alternative meaning from Thayer’s. If you look way, way back to the first comment I cited here, I already agreed Jesus used it both ways.

We then began the discussion surrounding Thayers. (Too many links, if anyone wants to follow it, go back and re-read the blog entry.)

I will point out my statement:

How can I demonstrate to you (and readers) ’genea’--as recorded in the gospels—at times meant ‘those presently living or ‘this generation’? The readers already agree and I cannot convince you as your methodology does provide for it.

First, readers agree Jesus occasionally utilizes genea to mean ‘within your lifetime.’ Every person commenting on the issue (including Commentaries, Lexicons and Greek New Testaments) indicate such. I haven’t found any who agree with your position. Why must I demonstrate what is already explained by those more qualified to make the argument?

[emphasis added.]

I would have thought “at times” and “occasionally” would indicate at other times and on other occasions genea did not mean “within your lifetime.”

When this discussion began again recently, I stated:

Same way we review Greek genea and notice times (in context) it means a single descendant (Matt. 1:17), all humans (Luke 1:48) or those alive at a certain time. (Acts. 13:36, Luke 11:30). The translators realize this is the same multiple definitions we use for the English word ‘generation’ and therefore translate genea to ‘generation’--anticipating the reader to understand which meaning to use, dependant on context.

Again, pointing out my position there are alternative definitions for genea the same way there are alternative definitions for dowr and the English word “set.”

I state:

You should also review the meaning Thayer categorized genea in Luke 16—it was not “those presently living.”

and

My claim: ‘Thayer’s indicates Jesus utilizes genea, at least on occasion, to mean those presently living.’

…

My Claim: ‘Piper indicates Jesus utilizes genea, at least on occasion, to mean those presently living.’

[emphasis added] “On occasion” implying other times it does not.

And I finish up with:

We are not saying genea ALWAYS means ‘those alive at the time.’ You and I both agree with Thayer’s expertise in determining the varying ways genea is being used—I have no disagreement with Thayer on any of these three questions (assuming I got the first one correct.)

Bringing us (finally) to this latest comment.

The reason I listed all these quotes, and the exact citations, is that I have been consistent and constant throughout these discussions. From the very first quote to the last. I agree there could be confusion over the one parsed quote, due to the timing of your conversation with Vinny, but frankly think any charitable reading of this conversation in the entirety would clearly demonstrate my position.

Your position, on the other hand, has been anything BUT clear. As I write this today, months from the start of the conversation, I am unclear whether you are stating Jesus meant genea to mean “those presently living” on one (1) occasion, two (2) occasions, three (3) occasions, or if we are back to no (0) occasions at all! Since you did not answer my question: “Are you now agreeing Mark 8:12 (as modified by Matt. 12:39-42 and Luke 11:29-32) utilizes genea to mean those presently alive?”

Anette Acker: Of course that makes it [the Bible] more interesting because then you can decide what you want it [the Bible] to mean. [emphasis in original]

Perhaps it mere coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with Thayer. Probably Thayer was simply choosing whatever he wanted it to mean too.

I am sure it equally coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with ever single Greek authority. Probably all those Greek authorities are simply choosing whatever they wanted it to mean too.

And another coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with the person you claimed was gifted at hermeneutics—John Piper. Certainly he was simply choosing whatever he wanted it to mean too.

We are all shocked at the coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with every commentary I reviewed. No commentaries were provided stating otherwise. Obviously all those commentators were simply choosing whatever they wanted it to mean too.

Stunned at the coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with every person who has commented in this blog entries on the issue. Certainly we all are choosing whatever we wanted it to mean too.

Indeed, it must either be a coincidence to boggle the mind (or a grand conspiracy) that every single person, expert or laymen, Greek expert or novice, Christian or non, “decided” that on occasion when Jesus used genea it meant “those presently alive” and you are SOLE holder of Ultimate Truth that he NEVER meant it to mean “those presently alive”!

I am continuously baffled at the sheer arrogance Christians have believing they can disagree with every person alive—and that all those other people are missing out on “truth” because those people have some desire to “believe” different. It could NEVER be that the Christian might be wrong—oh, no! Everyone else is wrong; the Christian, after all, holds truth.

Anette Acker: But you've never explained why, if Mark was written right after the fall of Jerusalem and the author expected Jesus' immediate return, he has Jesus say that He is not coming right away (Mark 13:5-8) [emphasis in original]

Because that is not what is said.

Jesus begins to list the events to occur, starting off with false messiahs (vs. 6) and wars (vs. 7). Jesus then says, “but don’t think this is the end.” He goes on in vs 8, “this is just the beginning.” He then lists more war (vs. 8) and earthquakes (vs. 8), persecution of Disciples (vs. 9), gospel preached to all nations (vs. 10), betrayal amongst family (vs. 12), abomination of desolation (vs. 14), fleeing Judea (vs. 14), false christs and false signs (vs. 22), sun and moon darkened (vs. 24), stars fall (vs. 25), and Son of Man comes. (vs. 26)

The only items on the list that hadn’t happened by 70 CE is the sun darkening, etc. But those occur immediately prior to the Son of Man coming. Basically we have every event happening in the First Century up to vs. 22 and then there has been a long pause of over 2000 years before vs. 24. “The end is not yet” is referring way back to the initial situations before vs. 7. Not verse 22.

Anette Acker: I was in a rush this morning and I realized I got it wrong as soon as I remembered that he also goes by The Reasonably Prudent Person.

Uh…”Reasonably Prudent Person” is synonymous with “Reasonable Person.” It means the same thing. Leaving us with the same problem—“reasonable person” is discussing an action, not a determination of fact. The “reasonable person” doesn’t make determinations amongst arguments—that is the neutral determinate’s job. The “reasonable person” either acts (or does not) in a manner avoiding legal liability.

Frankly, it makes no sense to answer the question “in determining natural vs. supernatural claims, it is plausible to whom?” with “the Reasonable Man.” Why do we care how a person should/should not act to avoid liability when weighing claims? How is that relevant to competing arguments?

A Pause

You know how ever 10-15 minutes, conversations can come to a stop? Where there is complete silence? That is what this is.

I’ve prepared two (2) more blog entries, responding to previous statements—but what’s the use? This has become a decidedly one-person conversation! If you ever did respond, there would be far too much to catch up.

This is the way it is with me. Some of it has to do with my personality—I can be unrelenting when discussing a topic I enjoy. Some of it has to do with skepticism—it can be tiring trying to provide explanations to every single item. Like talking to a two-year-old: “Why? Why? Why?” Some of it has to do with information—there is quite a bit out there and catching up can take some work.

Some of it has to do with time—do you concentrate on those more susceptible to your beliefs? Or do you spend time in the lions’ den with unbelievers?

I have a conversation graveyard.

Over there is the headstone of my talk with Pastor D--_. Very bright fellow, someone my wife asked me to counsel with. I did, he said, “There is no going back?” I replied, “Not unless you can answer my questions.” He couldn’t then, but he will get back to me….some day…

The crypt of my e-mail correspondence with Professor M--_. “I will not debate Christianity with you.”

The sarcophagus of my talk with Pastor M---. “You raise some good points. I will research them and get back to you.” Waiting…waiting…waiting…

Another headstone to (another) Pastor D--- who responded to my letter “I look forward to long talks with you on these subjects.” Must have meant next year. (‘Course that was four years ago!)

The grave of Pastor E---, “I really need to focus more on those who are already thinking of becoming Christians.” A quick funeral.

Pastor S---‘s mausoleum: “Our church isn’t designed for people like you; you can attend, but please don’t participate.”

The cairn of Deacon B---, “This talk has been really interesting. I’ll like to call you.” Musta lost my number.

The urn containing the ashes of my friendship with S---, “I will never speak to you on this. Ever.”

The list goes on and on and on and on. I could fill a graveyard with such conversations.

Please understand, I’m not complaining. Far from it—I am well used to it by now! I get that people are busy, and just because I enjoy these talks, doesn’t mean everyone (or even anyone else) likes to. Besides, the internet provides a wonderful field of opportunity to engage in such dialogue at countless spots.

And, as I say, I understand a good portion of the blame falls at my own feet. I am not the most…user-friendly. He he he.

So…go.

Enjoy conversing on what you love, whether it is sports or sun or shoes. Enjoy interacting with Christians; we all like talking with people of similar station.

I would add our conversation to the graveyard, but frankly there is little need--I only remember the graveyard on occasions such as this.

What to Do when you can’t find a 5th Grader?

I found this statement demonstrative:

The PRIMARY difference between our "opinions" however is ---- the BASIS for my "opinion" is SCRIPTURE - which I accept to be EXACTLY what it claims to be - the very WORD & WORDS of our Creator GOD (b/t/way - the average intelligent 5th grader can understand both the Words & the claims of Scripture - the old "interpretation" argument you're using is totally bogus.... I could furnish you a dozen or more elementary school students who could pretty accurately "interpret" just about any passage of Scripture you might choose....YOU in fact would have been one of them 30 years ago!)....[emphasis in original]

I would think many pastors would be surprised to learn the hours they spend studying and preparing on a sermon could be easily whittled down to a five-minute conversation with a 5th grader.

Why do seminary students spend years learning about the Bible and how to interpret it? Shoot, all they need is a 5th grade education. Millions of books…millions….have been devoted to interpreting the Bible, from literally within a few years of the New Testament books being written and for two (2) millennium after.

All of which were a waste to time; shoulda asked a 5th grader. It boggles the mind to reflect on the books, the billions of articles, the trillions of words, the hours of television, radio, and internet, not to mention billions of sermons, bible studies, Sunday schools, classes, small groups, informal discussion--all a waste of time…because one merely had to ask a 5th grader.

I’m being a bit facetious, but to make a point. We wouldn’t expect a 5th grader to interpret Shakespeare—a writing in an early form of Modern English, let alone a writing in three (3) dead languages—Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

By interpretation, we are looking for the original author’s motivation in writing it. What was the author trying to convey to his/her intended audience? If by “interpretation” we mean, “whatever I get out of a particular writing” then, yes—a 5th grader is adequate for interpreting the Bible. As is a 1st grader, a 10th grader or a person who hasn’t had a class in their life. Because each person can draw some concept from a writing--whether it is the Bible, Shakespeare or a telephone book.

(‘Course this doesn’t help your point, as you were arguing there is a cohesive interpretation, and allowing for individual interpretation is counter-productive to your position.)

This is a deep and insidious problem within the Church today. Because the Bible is so readily accessible (we have it on our iPods for goodness sake!), people simply read it and assume they are qualified to make whatever claims they desire about it. If two claims are in agreement, the two Christians heartily shake hands and proudly declare each other to be “True Christians.” If there is disagreement, each calls the other a heretic, banishes their belief as an incorrect interpretation, and brands the other a “Not True Christian.”

I am sure you can find 5th graders whose interpretations are agreeable to yours, and therefore you find them to be sufficient. I give far greater deference to the Bible and biblical scholars. I don’t see the book as something to merely grab off the shelf, read whatever passage strikes your eye, give it whatever convenient expositions suits one’s mindset, and then look for others with similar beliefs to give confirmation bias.

Focus for an instance on the New Testament. (The Tanakh has other concerns, which I can address at a different time.) How many Christians study the society of First Century Mediterranean culture? Do they know what an Honor/Shame society is? How one treated an in-group as compared to an out-group? What a patron was?

Do they understand the different Jewish beliefs at the time? Shoot—do they even know Judea and Galilee were two different countries?

No, they don’t bother with this. Because they can read it and give it whatever interpretation they want.

Do they learn the original language—Greek, and wrestle with its nuances, verb forms, translation problems?

No, they have a translation, and figure if their favorite Bible is the KJV or NIV or NASB…well…that’s good enough for them. They don’t even bother to investigate why there are different translations. They get their interpretation from whatever committee translated their favorite verse.

Do they learn about textual criticism, and the difficulties in determining the original divergent point from whence we have our copies? Are they even aware of the time between copies? Or the difference between Alexandrian and Byzantine? Do they know Acts of Apostles is different lengths, depending on the text, by up to 9%?

No, they can pick their Bible up and read it, with the “inner assurance of the Holy Spirit” (i.e. “good feeling”) that the Bible they have today is the same as what was written original. So what if we have lost the ending of Mark and the story of the Adulterous woman.

Do they study the various theories of authorship? Or even think of reading the books of Paul in chronological order? Or resolving the Synoptic Problem?

Or do they figure some other minds must have already done that for them, or it is not important (otherwise they would have heard about it from their pastor, right?), or God doesn’t care whether they know about it.

Do they look at the structures of the writings? The grouping, the deliberate placement of events, peoples and stories? Do they look at non-canonical gospels? Or how the early church fathers treated these works (and grappled over their interpretations!)?

One of the biggest problems I see is how churches fail to study the Bible; they do Bible study. The average person in the pew doesn’t know any of these things, because absent a very rare Sunday School class, they instead are hearing someone with extremely similar beliefs telling them what they want to hear. They barely touch a skimming off the thinnest surface of biblical text.

The tragedy here is that they DO treat it like it is a 5th grade writing, rather then dive into its depths and immerse themselves into the glorious complicated study of how the Bible (and the contents of the Bible) came into being.

The Bible is Special because it’s the Bible

Time to address the next statement:

On the other hand - in a RADICALLY different manner - I believe the Scriptures to be EXACTLY what they claim to be (literally 100's & 100's of times throughout the SIXTY SIX Books) - the very WORD & WORDS of GOD revealed to mankind - by means of some FORTY different WRITERS (give or take 1 or 2) over a period of some FIFTEEN HUNDRED years (give or take a couple) - writing from MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (up to a dozen or more) - in TWO major languages - having been SUPERNATURALLY preserved (against countless attacks over CENTURIES) & yet astoundingly PROLIFERATED for 1000's of years - to the point of being THE most PUBLISHED/ READ & STUDIED writing/ compilation of writings in all of human history ( including TODAY!).[emphasis in original]

But before I respond, we should note a phenomenon that occurs in these discussions between people of different beliefs. A choice is made. It may not be a conscious choice; the person may not even realize they are making the choice--yet the choice affects the entire approach.

One chooses whether they are making statements to convince the already convinced, or attempting to persuade those of differing convictions. I constantly hear, “Oh, I am trying to do both,” but the simple reality is that this doesn’t work. This is one of those statements that may impress those already convinced the Bible is special (since it confirms their belief), but for those who question how special the Bible is, this is not very persuasive.

The problem is that: 1)this is an ad hoc argument, 2) the Christian will not stay consistent with and 3)isn’t the reason the Christian finds the Bible special in the first place!

Let’s unpack those three (3) points:

1. Ad Hoc Argument

Understand when I use the term “argument” I am not referring to a heated discussion over how long one’s mother-in-law will stay for the holidays; it is a compilation of evidences toward a claimed conclusion. The problem with an ad hoc argument is that its approach is backward; it first makes a conclusion and then looks for evidences for that conclusion.

A demonstration to make the point; imagine I claimed Bill Gates was the cleverest person to ever live. I point out how he has been consistently rated among the wealthiest people of the world. He has written several books, and is co-founder of Microsoft—arguably the most prolific computer software company to ever exist. He wrote his first computer program at age 13, and got 1590 out of 1600 on his SATs. He did all this without getting a college degree.

Now, do you see what I did? All I did was describe Bill Gates (taken from Wikipedia) and attach the label of “clever.” What I failed to do is demonstrate why those particular attributes constitute “clever” or what other factors should be taken into consideration, or address any counter-facts.

Apply this to our current situation. What you have done is describe the Bible, but have failed to demonstrate why this would make the book any more special than any other writing. Even more importantly, why it would be divine.

For example, you indicate it has sixty-six books…excuse me…”SIXTY-SIX Books.” What is significant about 66? Would it be less special if it had 65? More if it had 67? You list this fact, but it sits in a vacuum outside any criteria as to why this number holds significance. Or “FORTY different WRITER”—why 40 (give or take a few)? I’ll wager I hold to more authors involved in writing these 66 books, do I therefore find it of greater significance?

There are merely items about the Bible. And even if you did hold them as significant, you cannot stay consistent in this methodology.

2. Inconsistent Method

Presumably, the numbers within the description are meant to convey meaning. Value. As if the Bible is more important because of how many books, authors, countries and years are involved.

But if 66 books is significant, wouldn’t divine writing that held more be even more special? More worthy as qualification for “God’s word”?

Your listed criteria:

a) 66 books
b) 40 (+/-) different writers
c) Over 1500 years
c) Many different countries (at least 12)*
d) 2 Major Languages**
e) Miraculously preserved over centuries of attacks.

*I wonder whether the demarcation of countries was at the time of writing or current countries.

**Actually it was 3 languages—Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

What happens if we find a set of divine writings with more than every one of your criteria? Shouldn’t we look at them as better than the Bible, using your own method?

The Mormons include the Bible, plus the Book of Mormon within their divine writings. By default, they already have every one of these requirements. However, by including the Book of Mormon, they get more authors (another what, 10-12?), more years—2500, more countries (heck, they get one and possibly two more Continents!), more languages—at least one more, and it was also miraculously preserved over centuries.

If we consistently used this method, we would be forced to find the Mormons are more correct in determining what are the Words of God. This is exactly the problem with an ad hoc argument—it fails to consider other, equally valid claims using a similar method.

What makes it almost humorous is that none of these factors are what a Christian uses to claim the Bible is the word of God!

3. Wrong Reason

Christians claim, based upon 2 Tim. 3:16, the Bible is theopneustos--a combination Greek word of “god” (theo) and “spirit” or “breath” (pneuma). This was translated as “inspired” in the KJV. There are concerns about this, but we will reserve this for another discussion.

What is important is that the doctrine of Inspiration claims the words were inspired at the time of the original autographs—the original writing. So go to the moment the very first words were penned that eventually came to be in our Bible. If you wish, imagine Moses writing around 1500 BCE, and the first words he writes (in Hebrew, of course), “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

Stop.

Now…according to the doctrine of Inspiration, these words were as special, as divine, as inspired, at that moment as at any other time in history.

Instead of 40 (+/-) writers—we have one. Instead of 12 countries—we have one. Instead of 3 languages—we have one. Instead of 1500 years, and centuries of controversy, we have about 1 minute and no controversy whatsoever.

Yet the Christian still holds this one phrase as being just as special as any other phrase, verse, chapter or division of the rest of the Bible.

Simply put—the Christian isn’t using any of these factors in making their determination anyway, since none of these factors are required for inspiration!

In the end, this claim may make someone who is already convinced the Bible is special as confirming their belief, but to anyone who contemplates it for even a brief skeptical instant, the claim shreds apart.

The Gospels

This blog is a place to continue a discussion started elsewhere. If you are new to it, as with all on-going conversations, it will take a few moments to figure out the topic, the people’s positions and the history.

It "seems" that you see them (at least the Gospels) as merely "collections of Jesus stories" & "tales" which the "authors" "deliberately" compiled with some agendized purpose of manipulating their readers minds in such a way as to cause them to come to accept the writers own personal belief system(s). (Am I close??) On the other hand - in a RADICALLY different manner - I believe the Scriptures to be EXACTLY what they claim to be (literally 100's & 100's of times throughout the SIXTY SIX Books) - the very WORD & WORDS of GOD revealed to mankind …

Yes, you are close. I am unsure why such a position is even remotely controversial, nor how Christians believe in a radically different matter.

First of all, aren’t they collections of Jesus stories? They aren’t diaries. They aren’t words on a scrabble board. They aren’t dictionaries. If you believe these are something “radically different” than stories about Jesus—I am profoundly curious as to what you possibly claim they are.

Secondly, most Bible scholars I know, from conservative to liberal to non-Christian to everything in-between hold to the position these particular stories and portions of stories are deliberately chosen by the authors. Inerrantists in particular constantly claim the authors were aware of multiple facts but only focused on a portion. E.g., when confronted with the difference between the women at the tomb, Inerrantists often claim Matthew knew Salome went to the tomb on Sunday morning, but only listed Mary and Mary, whereas Mark listed Mary, Mary and Salome. Or John just listing one Mary.

Either they were deliberately choosing, or only knew a portion, or were creating contradictory stories. Matthew and Luke ordered stories differently. Mark placed them in chiasms. John placed the clearing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, as compared to the Synoptic Gospels’ placing at the end, etc.

John’s gospel even indicated there were other stories not included. John 21:25.

Now, the authors’ agenda becomes more tricky. We generally presume the authors did have an agenda, because people who write a disseminated work generally have a reason for doing so. They want their work to portray something; to generate some response from the recipient. It is possible the authors of every single Gospel randomly grabbed stories from a big pot, and pasted them on paper with no thought of who would read it.

This makes little sense, in light of the extra-ordinary results. For example, Mark writes in chiasms—a particular form of “sandwiching” ideas. Jesus cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12-26) then clearing the temple, then returning to the results of the fig tree is one (of many) examples.

Or saying, “The last shall be first and the first shall be last” and then Judas Iscariot (who is listed as the last disciple) being the first to betray Jesus and Peter (listed the first disciple) being the last to betray Jesus. I could go on and on with examples from gospels demonstrating deliberate placement, phrasing and stories by the author.

The fact the authors had an agenda is also not very controversial, and (as far as I know) accepted by virtually all. Again, I would be curious, if you think they did not have a reason for forming the stories, how they put them together?

The real question, of course, is what that agenda was. I am uncertain what you mean by “manipulating their readers minds in such a way as to cause them to come to accept the writers own personal belief system(s).” We don’t know what the author’s personal belief systems were, so this claim is irrelevant.

We don’t know who the authors were. We can speculate, and many attempt to attribute the authors to the traditional (Matthew the Disciple, Thomas the Disciple, etc.) Some of those speculations are stronger than others, but the bottom line is that we don’t know. We don’t know when the authors wrote. Again, we attempt to determine by the writings themselves, but whether they were written prior to the fall of Jerusalem (70 C.E.) would impact the why they were written.

We don’t know the intended audience. Was the Gospel of Matthew intended to supplement the Gospel of Mark or supplant the Gospel of Mark? Same question with the Gospel of Luke as to the Gospel of Mark. Matthew and Luke used Mark in writing their Gospels, why didn’t John? Was that to a completely separate community, and if so, where was that community?

Some Gospels we only have fragments (Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Hebrews, Signs Gospels.) Other Gospels, through textual criticism, reveal additions (Adulterous Woman story, ending of Mark). Other Gospels reveal a very different Jesus (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of John vs. Synoptic Gospels).

And in the end, the way we can determine the authors’ intent—the only way we have—is from the writing itself, which is limited without this additional information.

(And I’m not even getting into the different context, economic system, government and society of First Century Judea; also impacting the content.)

What biblical scholars understand (and write thousands of books and millions of articles on) is the complexity of determining these authors’ intents. Obviously there is disagreement and agreement, depending on which person you read.
To be honest, the “radical difference” between you and I is that I don’t read the Gospels with a Sunday School mind; merely reading them and wondering how to apply them to my 21st century American life. I wrestle with them, and read on them, and delve into them, trying to draw out (as much as feasible) what they were trying to get to. Why did Mark end his Gospel when he did? Why have women at the tomb? Where was Joseph, Jesus’ father and Mary, Jesus’ mother, when Jesus died? Why did Mark have another Joseph do Jesus’ father’s job, and another Mary do Jesus’ mother’s job? (Did you ever think about that, or what a coincidence that would be?)

I could spend pages and pages on the complexity within the Gospels. Why did Luke include an apocryphal type story of Jesus at 12? Why did John change the date of Jesus’ death? Why didn’t John know the names of the disciples?

The “radical difference” is that I understand how unremarkable my position is within the biblical scholarship world, whereas most Christians sitting in pews year after year, decade after decade haven’t even thought of the simplest question in this regard.

When they do, they see such thinking as confrontational, whereas it is actually typical.