Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
The original was a great book - a big help and comfort to me. It remains one of the most coherent and comprehensive arguments against Fundamentalism and Literalism that I've ever read.
So one of Satan's helpers has written "Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism." I'm interesting in reading "Rescuing the bible from liberalism." Do readers ever ponder Dennis's motivation in posting these articles?
Do readers here ever ponder why some COG members have such shallow faith that they cannot dare to read anything that might enlighten them some? Even if you disagree with its premise, reading it will give you an understanding that helps you understand how others think.
I personally did not care much for the book, but it did give me great things to ponder and think about.
Die-hard COG members are so enamored by being special and having the "truth" that they are blinded by reality and the real truth that surrounds them.
I have seen more "satan's helpers" in the Church of God than I have in the churches around me. Every self-appointed COG leader is actively doing that. God never appointed any splinter group leader out there today.
"Do readers ever ponder Dennis's motivation in posting these articles?"
Sometimes to show another view of scripture we had not been exposed to. Sometimes to take the mystery out of scripture. Sometimes to point out the folly of the self appointed and the price the congregants and followers pay. Sometimes to point out their biblical illiteracy. Sometimes to share personal experiences in ministry, WCG and/or the transition out. Sometimes to contrast Bible literalism with science. Sometimes to just have a chuckle.
Adding Christmas to the bible is just made up giberish based on fantasy. The literal words of Jesus are what we should follow not panty wasted narissicists that want to worshipped.
Of course they do Anon 3:33. Dennis is not alone, he is part of a loose louche group who are out to destroy the Sabbath movement churches from within. Dennis is the only one who is out and honest about his views, the others are very much dwell in deceitful closets.
Know God and stay close to God. God knows what's going on. Joe Tkatch Snr 1995 chabges was the tip of the iceberg.
Anonymous 3:33 wrote, "I'm interesting in reading "Rescuing the bible from liberalism."
I am, too. The Christian right does not seem to have taken up the gauntlet. I believe it is because fundamentalism and literalism have never been based on history, historiography, hermeneutics, the grammar of ancient langugages and carefully parsed exegesis. For the Christian right it has been about low church liturgy and praxis. And the reading of liturgy and praxis back into the Bible through eisegesis. And that eisegesis is done with the boast of literalism.
But it is only a boast and does not position the Christian right to deal with what they choose to call "liberalism." They like to target anti-nomianism rather than careful exegesis but they class both as liberal. The former has a social policing leaning and the latter a scholastic/academic leaning. It is not difficult to discern which is the easier pursuit for an evangelical with commitment to right-wing politics along with suspicions about academia.
But this leaves them open to easy attack from atheism. Atheists are not bashful about digging into the Bible and finding non-literal texts. To wit, Dennis Diehl. The average churchman on the evangelical right cannot tell you why the Bible says in one place that David killed Goliath and at another place Elhanan killed Goliath. In fact, they don't even know there is a discrepancy because they have been fed a diet of "Bible stories." Spong and othe higher critics know about such discrepancies. Atheists certainly know about these discrepancies. The evangelical right (I include Armstrongism in this category at least at the level of methodology) is still trying to avoid getting a clue, ever perched on the chair of willful ignorance ready to attribute satanism to someone. And I believe atheists would have it continue this way - with the easily challengeable views of the Christian right subcategory as defacto Christianity. Because, let's face it, the Christian right is unable to meet atheism on its ground.
So, in fact, the Christian right has never mounted an effective response to good exegesis (which they include in their neologistic and politically slanted term "liberalism"). Maybe one day the right will rise up and generate a rebuttal that is something more than ardent assertion of faith along with special pleading.
(See Mark A. Noll, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind")
The Hebrew language allows for Elhanan to strike Goliath but not necessarily kill him. Some translations have "brother of Goliath" but that appears to be a whimsical thought of an uninspired translator.
The left/right and liberal/conservative labels are simplistic and almost meaningless within the context (religious and political) that most folks employ them in 2021. Indeed, those monikers serve more to identify the nature of the two-dimensional/dualistic/black-and-white thinking of the folks who use them than they do in describing the people to which they are assigned. There are many shades of gray between white and black, and there are a wide variety of colors extant in the real world! Indeed, the number of folks who actually occupy the two extremes are relatively small in number (most folks occupy various places along the continuum between conservative and liberal).
In fact, if we defined conservativism as being "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values," then pronouncements like "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" would not be considered conservative (the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is a relatively modern invention). Indeed, the words attributed to Paul in the second epistle to Timothy (written decades before there was anything approaching our notions of a New Testament) has traditionally been considered the definitive statement among Christians regarding the proper uses of Scripture. We read there: "You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work." (II Timothy 3:15-17) Notice that NOTHING is said about Scripture being inerrant, representative of God's complete will and revelation to mankind, or our final authority in matters of faith (these are all things that some folks read into this statement).
The fact is that the doctrines of Fundamentalism and Literalism are not supported by the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves or the scholarly research of those who study those documents/manuscripts and/or the subjects addressed therein. In short, though many have tried, Biblical Fundamentalism and Literalism are unsustainable teachings and cannot be convincingly defended by anyone! Indeed, even someone who is only modestly familiar with the subject would be quite capable of refuting and destroying any defense which could be offered by the proponents of these teachings.
Soooooo.......God inspires scripture that is errant?? Is not God's will (to reveal)?? Is not a revelation to mankind?? Is not the final authority?? Put finger between lips, raise up and down (the finger) and hummmmm....
Anonymous 9:40 wrote, "The Hebrew language allows for Elhanan to strike Goliath but not necessarily kill him."
The Hebrew term nāḵâ is used in regard to both David and Elhanan so it is non-determinative standing alone. One could construct a scenario where Elhanan killed Goliath, after Goliath got stoned, and then let David mutilate Goliath's body afterward as spoils of war - all for political reasons. And that is precisely the point. There is an issue of interpretation here. There is a loose end. Both statements about who killed Goliath stand together, yet in tension, in the OT canon. The OT authors let these statements be written without addressing the obvious need for clarification. There is no mention of Elhanan in any connection in the original account. A shadow of uncertainty is forever cast on David's most dramatic act of heroism. The minds of those on the Christian right cannot deal with this kind of uncertainty.
Read that book 15 years or more ago... happened to see John Hagee ranting about it and thought it had to be good if a twerp like Hagee was so upset by it.
Why do you jump to such conclusions ? Do you have supernatural ability to read another's mind? Or are you putting far too much emphasis on world psychology?
Anonymous said... Dennis is not alone, he is part of a loose louche group who are out to destroy the Sabbath movement churches from within. ------------------------------- Basic BS I simply enjoy sharing what I wish I had been told when younger thinking I was getting a proper education in theology etc. I wish someone had exposed me to the bigger picture of Biblical origins, authorship and contradictions much earlier in life. Would not have made such ridiculous decisions. I am not within the Sabbath Church and care not a bit about what people do with the Sabbath or what ultimately what they believe. I only care about what I believe and why I believe or don't.
By faith, we accept that it was God's decision to inspire certain people to write the various documents which comprise the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. And, although it is easy for us to imagine that God's inspiration was perfect and inerrant, it is almost impossible to swallow the notion that any human (even one who is acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) would/could produce anything that even approached perfection.
As Neo has noted a number of times, it was God's decision to let "his" people tell the story (and I'm sure that most of us could come up with a least a couple of reasons why "he" might proceed in that fashion). At any rate, it was God's decision to involve humans in the production of Scripture. Sure, "he" could have written it all down with "his" own "finger" (as "he" did with the Ten Commandments), but "HE" chose NOT to do that. Finally, God is supreme ("HE" is the final authority).
I appreciate your incisive comment. I would add one more thought. The fact that David and Elhanan are both credited with the death of Goliath reaches farther than just being a textual discrepancy. It tells us something about the people who wrote the various texts of the Bible in their original signatures. And it tells us something about the attitude of the Post-Exilic Jews towards the curation of their texts. No doubt the scribes knew every jot and tittle of the text when they edited what would later became the OT. And they let the discrepancy stand. They could have edited Elhanan out. They could have added clarifying details. But they didn't. Further, it tells us something about how the Bible must be read. As Peter Enns observed, the Jews regard the Bible as a problem that must be solved whereas Christians regard the Bible as a message to be proclaimed. In my view the former explains the intensive midrash of the Jews and the latter the boast of literalness among some Christians. Enns is also the one who said that "God let his children tell the story."
The David Story is a good example of the incarnational nature of the Bible. A close reader will also notice that David was a harpist who played for Saul to make him feel less depressed. Yet in the Goliath event, Saul seems to have no idea who David is. I noticed this when I first read the Bible as a new member of the WCG back when I was twenty years old. Clearly, the David Story is derived from two different traditions. Both traditions were edited together in the OT. In reaction, some will try to develop an uncomfortable and ill fitting theory of harmonization. Others will recognize that the Bible cannot be read and understood as if it were an engineering manual.
Let me hasten to say that I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. But it is provocative and challenging. You have to bring your "A" game when you read it.
Let me hasten to say that I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. But it is provocative and challenging. You have to bring your "A" game when you read it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed. And after reviewing 1Sam 16 to 2Sam 21, I, anon 9:40AM, correct myself: It looks like years after David killed Goliath, that servants of David killed four sons "of the giant" which presumably was Goliath, and those four sons were Ishbi-benob, Saph, Goliath - another Goliath who could be "Goliath 11", and an unnamed giant of 2Sam 21:20, and all four died "by the hand of his (David's) servants" - 21:22. Also: it looks like at one time Saul knew David but not his father and asked who was the father of the "stripling" - 1Sam 17:56 KJV.
I wasn't going to do this, but here goes. The original point was that Biblical literacy is not high among literalists and that there are some scriptures that require some digging and literalists seemed disinclined to do this. We are doing the digging right now. Most people don't and what we are doing supports my view point.
I do not subscribe to the idea that two Goliaths, separated in time, are being spoken about. It is because of this thematic detail:
From 1 Sam 17:7 - "And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam"
and,
From 2 Sam 21:19 - "the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam"
This repeated description could pertain to both of these Gittites but apparently later scribes felt that there was confusion here. In 1 Chronicles 20:5, "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam." The scribes of Chronicles smoothed over the descrepancy by introducting another Gittite named Lahmi. It wasn't Elhanan after all who slew Goliath, they contend.
It is interesting, as you cite, that though the giants were slain by David's champions, the text records "These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants." So David was credited with the actual killing even though he did not do it himself. This is a useful cultural detail.
So we have in chart form:
Goliath killed by David - when David was young Goliath "killed" by David - when David was older but through the hand of Elhanan Lahmi killed by Elhanan - it was not Goliath at all but Goliath's brother who also had the big spear staff.
The fact is the OT records, in unadorned language, Goliath being killed at two different times by two different people. There are a number of ornamental scenarios we could come up with that could make some sense of this. One Jewish scholar, Rashi, resolved the problem by asserting that David and Elhanan were one and the same person. The Jewish Study Bible posits that Elhanan probably (keep this word in mind) killed Goliath but that it was later attributed to the more popular David. The writers cite that Philistine David killed is referred to as simply "The Philistine." And later the name Goliath was edited into the text. (Jewish Study Bible, Second Edition, p. 644)
My point is that this is not trivial and it likely not going to be settled to everyone's satisfaction. But there are Christian conservatives who believe it is cut and dried. I actually don't care who killed Goliath - the bottom line is that it is a clear statement of principle no matter how the details may be conflated. I do care that there are people who believe in a fantasy about the Bible and seek to suppress all careful inquiry.
Examining another religious movement can be insightful in our understandings of our own background, particularly if we are honest in its origins.
Most Mormons of today (at least the ones with whom I have regular contact), are fairly well-balanced individuals. My experience in this goes way back to Mormons whom I knew in high school. And, then you have the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints of Warren Jeffs, basically a toxic throw-back group which has maintained so many of the very cultic practices of earliest Mormonism. They practice polygamy openly, live as separatists, having their own communities, the women are readily noticeable by their 1940s clothing and hair styles, and there are many social problems caused by the polygamous mature generation which affect young marriage-age men in search of wives within the faith, The most desirable ones are already with the old men, and have been since they were teenagers. These sorts of problems are mostly specific to an extreme approach to historic Mormon doctrines. The bulk of the LDS church, over centuries, evolved and shed many of the extreme positions that were once held by their then mainstream, and now lives a more balanced lifestyle.
We (the followers of Armstrongism) make up the fundamentalist throwback of Seventh Day Adventism! Warren Jeffs may be from a completely different generation and religious system than was Herbert W. Armstrong, but essentially, both men did the same to their respective religious movements. Both are risible characters, as was also David Koresh, and as are David Pack, Gerald Flurry, and countess others whom we all know. The reason I am pointing this out is that I once thought that given enough time, the rough corners of Armstrongism would become rounded out, and as the movement matured, it would become more mainstream and accessible to everyday normal folk. And that may well still be. However, the greater movement of which we were part, had already mellowed and matured. We were the toxic throwbacks to all that the SDAs had already shed. Actually, we may be looking at a repeating cycle which affects all marginal philosophies.
Freedom is so good! I doubt that I'll ever full comprehend how my parents could have been deceived and fooled by HWA. I have to look back and marvel at their completely wasted lives. I believe that after a number of years, for them, it was all just perseveration.
It could be? with the text "Elhanan....slew Goliath" in 2Sam 21:19 and "Elhanan....slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath" in 1Chron 20:5, that Elhanan slew two different giants. It is difficult to believe there was a copyist error linked with the two scriptures because the disparity is so large. Goliath that David killed years earlier could have had a son named Goliath, and five sons. Only four are listed in 2Sam b/c that's the narrative but the text does not indicate there are only four sons. David killed Goliath when a youth but by the time of 2Sam he was not to go out to battle - 2Sam 21:17 - and it was after he was told not to go out to battle that Elhanan killed what had to be another Goliath. All the giants could have had spear staffs like weaver's beams.
If you want to believe that you can. Other people believe different scenarios. Atheists would eat your lunch. The point is that the problem is not solved "in scriptura." The easiest and most direct answer, considering Occam's razor, is the the Biblical text is derived from two different traditions, two different texts. And the scribes who edited the Bible chose not to harmonize the statements. It was an exercise left to the reader as were many issues in the OT. Whatever, it does not diminish the gravitas of the OT at the principle level.
Neo is absolutely correct in his assessment of the David-Elhanan-Goliath story, and this isn't the only instance of this kind in Scripture. What about the story of Abimelech in Genesis? Did this episode happen to Abraham? (Genesis 20-21) or Isaac? (Genesis 26) Notice too that a man named Phichol was the captain of the host in both stories. Did Michal (Saul's daughter) die childless? (II Samuel 6:23) or did she have five sons? (II Samuel 21:8) We can speculate all day long about various ways to reconcile these inconsistencies, but the fact is that this remains extrabiblical speculation!
Once again, these inconsistencies (and there are MANY of them) underscore the HUMAN fingerprints that are all over these documents. They do NOT, however, demonstrate/prove the absence of Divine fingerprints!
2Sam 21:8 refers to Merab, as stated in 38 translations out of a total of 54, which aligns with 1Sam 18:19. It looks like Abimelech and Phichol lived a long time, during Abraham's life and after his death during Isaac's life.
Of course in translations there are copyist errors, uninspired thoughts of uninspired translators who thought a verse meant something when it didn't, misunderstandings, etc.
NLT informs us that most Hebrew manuscripts (Masoretic text) have "Michal," and that the Syriac (along with a few Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) have "Merab." And, if Abimelech and Phichol lived a long time, how do you explain the fact that they experienced the same deception relative to both Abraham's and Isaac's wives? Notice also the same strife over wells and the focus on the place name of Beersheba in both stories. Isn't it more likely that the same story was simply attributed to both Abraham and Isaac by different authors?
Abimelech took Abraham's wife at first but didn't take Isaac's wife when told they were sisters. Beersheba was named because of oaths taken at that location, first by Abraham, later reiterated by Isaac.
"Isn't it more likely that the same story was simply attributed to both Abraham and Isaac by different authors?"
No.
Leaving aside the initial outworkings of Genesis 12:2-3 with the covenants of Abraham and Isaac (cp. 21:22 & 26:28), and the differences, a couple of notes:
"The covenant revived an earlier one with Abraham (21:22ff), which certainly needed renewal, and the present scene closely resembles its predecessor. The reappearance of the names Abimelech and Phicol after this long interval may mean that they were official names (cf. ‘Pharaoh', see on 20:2) or recurring family names... Naming sons after grandfathers (‘papponymy') was customary at various times. In a nearly contemporary example from Egypt the royal house and a provincial governing family retained this pattern side by side for four generations, so that Ammenemes I appointed Khnumhotep I, and his grandson Ammenemes II appointed Khnumhotep II. Alternating with them, Sesostris I and II appointed Nakht I and II, and certain negotiations were repeated as well..." (Derek Kidner, Genesis, TOTC, pp.164-65).
"Whatever the (foreign) etymology of Phicol may be, in Hebrew it means "mouthful"; yet he utters not even a syllable! [Y.T. Radday, "Humour in Names," in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible...]" (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, NICOT, p.206).
"There is a strange similarity between the death of Josiah and that of Ahab, a very different type of king. Both were fatally wounded by enemy archers and carried home in their chariots to their capital cities; and they both disguised themselves on the battle-field, and perhaps for the same sort of reason" (F.F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p.76).
"The first section of 2 Kings also continues parallels between the northern and southern kingdoms and particularly highlights similarities between the end of the Omride and Davidic dynasties (Liethart 2005a). Though a righteous king, Josiah death is reminiscent of Ahab's: both are killed during battles with a Gentile power, and both are taken from the battlefield to the capital city to be buried (1 Kgs 22:34-37; 2 Kgs 23:28-30). Both Ahab and Josiah hear a prophecy of doom on their dynasties, both are told that judgment will fall during the reign of their sons and not during their lifetimes (1 Kgs 21:20-29; 2 Kgs 22:15-20). Beyond this, Ahab and Josiah live in similar periods of history with respect to their dynasties and kingdoms. Within a generation of Ahab's death, his son is overthrown by Yahweh's avenger, Jehu (2 Kgs 9-10), who slaughters the royal family and destroys the temple of Baal in Samaria. Two of Ahab's sons reign over Israel (Ahaziah [2 Kgs 1] and Jehoram [2 Kgs 3:1; 9:14-16) and though several kings follow Josiah (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah), the dynasty only goes two generations pass Josiah (Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim are both sons of Josiah [23:25], and Jehoiachin is his grandson). The fall of Samaria likewise sets the pattern for the fall of Jerusalem. Both cities suffer three sieges, each from two different enemies. Samaria is twice besieged by the Arameans (1 Kgs20:1; 2 Kgs 6:24) and once by Assyria (17:5), while Jerusalem is besieged once by Assyria (2 Kgs 18-19) and twice by the Babylonians (24:10; 25:1). For both cities, attacks come because the kings of Israel and Judah break alliances with powerful Gentiles (Provan 1995, 278-79). In each case the city is delivered during the first siege, but ultimately falls in the last" (Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, Braqos Theological Commentary on the Bible).
2Ki 25:27 In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month.
Zedekiah was also a son of Josiah - but throne of the Lord (1 Chron 29:23) continues through Jehoiachin to Christ (Mt. 1:1-13).
34 comments:
The original was a great book - a big help and comfort to me. It remains one of the most coherent and comprehensive arguments against Fundamentalism and Literalism that I've ever read.
So one of Satan's helpers has written "Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism."
I'm interesting in reading "Rescuing the bible from liberalism."
Do readers ever ponder Dennis's motivation in posting these articles?
Do readers here ever ponder why some COG members have such shallow faith that they cannot dare to read anything that might enlighten them some? Even if you disagree with its premise, reading it will give you an understanding that helps you understand how others think.
I personally did not care much for the book, but it did give me great things to ponder and think about.
Die-hard COG members are so enamored by being special and having the "truth" that they are blinded by reality and the real truth that surrounds them.
"Do readers ever ponder Dennis's motivation in posting these articles?"
Are you daft? Do you even see what Dennis did here? Do we need to spell it out here for you?
LOL!
I have seen more "satan's helpers" in the Church of God than I have in the churches around me. Every self-appointed COG leader is actively doing that. God never appointed any splinter group leader out there today.
"Do readers ever ponder Dennis's motivation in posting these articles?"
Sometimes to show another view of scripture we had not been exposed to. Sometimes to take the mystery out of scripture. Sometimes to point out the folly of the self appointed and the price the congregants and followers pay. Sometimes to point out their biblical illiteracy. Sometimes to share personal experiences in ministry, WCG and/or the transition out. Sometimes to contrast Bible literalism with science. Sometimes to just have a chuckle.
Adding Christmas to the bible is just made up giberish based on fantasy. The literal words of Jesus are what we should follow not panty wasted narissicists that want to worshipped.
Ok, Bob, we get it. You want the money spent on gifts to be sent to you. The answer to that is NO!
If this is Kevin, then LMAO!
Who is Kevin???
6.24 PM
Kevin is a pathological verbal attacker who used to frequently post here. He now seems to post occasionally, but only anonymously.
A cute little boy you were!
From my fundamentalist perspective, you look like you didnt need rescuing from that crib.
Crib harboring children still is the safe thing to do, right?
Of course they do Anon 3:33. Dennis is not alone, he is part of a loose louche group who are out to destroy the Sabbath movement churches from within. Dennis is the only one who is out and honest about his views, the others are very much dwell in deceitful closets.
Know God and stay close to God. God knows what's going on. Joe Tkatch Snr 1995 chabges was the tip of the iceberg.
This blog gets weirder.
Anonymous 3:33 wrote, "I'm interesting in reading "Rescuing the bible from liberalism."
I am, too. The Christian right does not seem to have taken up the gauntlet. I believe it is because fundamentalism and literalism have never been based on history, historiography, hermeneutics, the grammar of ancient langugages and carefully parsed exegesis. For the Christian right it has been about low church liturgy and praxis. And the reading of liturgy and praxis back into the Bible through eisegesis. And that eisegesis is done with the boast of literalism.
But it is only a boast and does not position the Christian right to deal with what they choose to call "liberalism." They like to target anti-nomianism rather than careful exegesis but they class both as liberal. The former has a social policing leaning and the latter a scholastic/academic leaning. It is not difficult to discern which is the easier pursuit for an evangelical with commitment to right-wing politics along with suspicions about academia.
But this leaves them open to easy attack from atheism. Atheists are not bashful about digging into the Bible and finding non-literal texts. To wit, Dennis Diehl. The average churchman on the evangelical right cannot tell you why the Bible says in one place that David killed Goliath and at another place Elhanan killed Goliath. In fact, they don't even know there is a discrepancy because they have been fed a diet of "Bible stories." Spong and othe higher critics know about such discrepancies. Atheists certainly know about these discrepancies. The evangelical right (I include Armstrongism in this category at least at the level of methodology) is still trying to avoid getting a clue, ever perched on the chair of willful ignorance ready to attribute satanism to someone. And I believe atheists would have it continue this way - with the easily challengeable views of the Christian right subcategory as defacto Christianity. Because, let's face it, the Christian right is unable to meet atheism on its ground.
So, in fact, the Christian right has never mounted an effective response to good exegesis (which they include in their neologistic and politically slanted term "liberalism"). Maybe one day the right will rise up and generate a rebuttal that is something more than ardent assertion of faith along with special pleading.
(See Mark A. Noll, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind")
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
The Hebrew language allows for Elhanan to strike Goliath but not necessarily kill him. Some translations have "brother of Goliath" but that appears to be a whimsical thought of an uninspired translator.
The left/right and liberal/conservative labels are simplistic and almost meaningless within the context (religious and political) that most folks employ them in 2021. Indeed, those monikers serve more to identify the nature of the two-dimensional/dualistic/black-and-white thinking of the folks who use them than they do in describing the people to which they are assigned. There are many shades of gray between white and black, and there are a wide variety of colors extant in the real world! Indeed, the number of folks who actually occupy the two extremes are relatively small in number (most folks occupy various places along the continuum between conservative and liberal).
In fact, if we defined conservativism as being "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values," then pronouncements like "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" would not be considered conservative (the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is a relatively modern invention). Indeed, the words attributed to Paul in the second epistle to Timothy (written decades before there was anything approaching our notions of a New Testament) has traditionally been considered the definitive statement among Christians regarding the proper uses of Scripture. We read there: "You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work." (II Timothy 3:15-17) Notice that NOTHING is said about Scripture being inerrant, representative of God's complete will and revelation to mankind, or our final authority in matters of faith (these are all things that some folks read into this statement).
The fact is that the doctrines of Fundamentalism and Literalism are not supported by the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves or the scholarly research of those who study those documents/manuscripts and/or the subjects addressed therein. In short, though many have tried, Biblical Fundamentalism and Literalism are unsustainable teachings and cannot be convincingly defended by anyone! Indeed, even someone who is only modestly familiar with the subject would be quite capable of refuting and destroying any defense which could be offered by the proponents of these teachings.
Soooooo.......God inspires scripture that is errant?? Is not God's will (to reveal)?? Is not a revelation to mankind?? Is not the final authority?? Put finger between lips, raise up and down (the finger) and hummmmm....
Anonymous 9:40 wrote, "The Hebrew language allows for Elhanan to strike Goliath but not necessarily kill him."
The Hebrew term nāḵâ is used in regard to both David and Elhanan so it is non-determinative standing alone. One could construct a scenario where Elhanan killed Goliath, after Goliath got stoned, and then let David mutilate Goliath's body afterward as spoils of war - all for political reasons. And that is precisely the point. There is an issue of interpretation here. There is a loose end. Both statements about who killed Goliath stand together, yet in tension, in the OT canon. The OT authors let these statements be written without addressing the obvious need for clarification. There is no mention of Elhanan in any connection in the original account. A shadow of uncertainty is forever cast on David's most dramatic act of heroism. The minds of those on the Christian right cannot deal with this kind of uncertainty.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Read that book 15 years or more ago... happened to see John Hagee ranting about it and thought it had to be good if a twerp like Hagee was so upset by it.
Why do you jump to such conclusions ? Do you have supernatural ability to read another's mind? Or are you putting far too much emphasis on world psychology?
Anonymous said...
Dennis is not alone, he is part of a loose louche group who are out to destroy the Sabbath movement churches from within.
-------------------------------
Basic BS I simply enjoy sharing what I wish I had been told when younger thinking I was getting a proper education in theology etc. I wish someone had exposed me to the bigger picture of Biblical origins, authorship and contradictions much earlier in life. Would not have made such ridiculous decisions. I am not within the Sabbath Church and care not a bit about what people do with the Sabbath or what ultimately what they believe. I only care about what I believe and why I believe or don't.
I think the sought after phrase waa "CROWN STEALING".
Anonymous 11/30 @ 11:58,
By faith, we accept that it was God's decision to inspire certain people to write the various documents which comprise the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. And, although it is easy for us to imagine that God's inspiration was perfect and inerrant, it is almost impossible to swallow the notion that any human (even one who is acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) would/could produce anything that even approached perfection.
As Neo has noted a number of times, it was God's decision to let "his" people tell the story (and I'm sure that most of us could come up with a least a couple of reasons why "he" might proceed in that fashion). At any rate, it was God's decision to involve humans in the production of Scripture. Sure, "he" could have written it all down with "his" own "finger" (as "he" did with the Ten Commandments), but "HE" chose NOT to do that. Finally, God is supreme ("HE" is the final authority).
Miller 6:43
I appreciate your incisive comment. I would add one more thought. The fact that David and Elhanan are both credited with the death of Goliath reaches farther than just being a textual discrepancy. It tells us something about the people who wrote the various texts of the Bible in their original signatures. And it tells us something about the attitude of the Post-Exilic Jews towards the curation of their texts. No doubt the scribes knew every jot and tittle of the text when they edited what would later became the OT. And they let the discrepancy stand. They could have edited Elhanan out. They could have added clarifying details. But they didn't. Further, it tells us something about how the Bible must be read. As Peter Enns observed, the Jews regard the Bible as a problem that must be solved whereas Christians regard the Bible as a message to be proclaimed. In my view the former explains the intensive midrash of the Jews and the latter the boast of literalness among some Christians. Enns is also the one who said that "God let his children tell the story."
The David Story is a good example of the incarnational nature of the Bible. A close reader will also notice that David was a harpist who played for Saul to make him feel less depressed. Yet in the Goliath event, Saul seems to have no idea who David is. I noticed this when I first read the Bible as a new member of the WCG back when I was twenty years old. Clearly, the David Story is derived from two different traditions. Both traditions were edited together in the OT. In reaction, some will try to develop an uncomfortable and ill fitting theory of harmonization. Others will recognize that the Bible cannot be read and understood as if it were an engineering manual.
Let me hasten to say that I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. But it is provocative and challenging. You have to bring your "A" game when you read it.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Let me hasten to say that I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. But it is provocative and challenging. You have to bring your "A" game when you read it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. And after reviewing 1Sam 16 to 2Sam 21, I, anon 9:40AM, correct myself: It looks like years after David killed Goliath, that servants of David killed four sons "of the giant" which presumably was Goliath, and those four sons were Ishbi-benob, Saph, Goliath - another Goliath who could be "Goliath 11", and an unnamed giant of 2Sam 21:20, and all four died "by the hand of his (David's) servants" - 21:22. Also: it looks like at one time Saul knew David but not his father and asked who was the father of the "stripling" - 1Sam 17:56 KJV.
Anonymous 10:46
I wasn't going to do this, but here goes. The original point was that Biblical literacy is not high among literalists and that there are some scriptures that require some digging and literalists seemed disinclined to do this. We are doing the digging right now. Most people don't and what we are doing supports my view point.
I do not subscribe to the idea that two Goliaths, separated in time, are being spoken about. It is because of this thematic detail:
From 1 Sam 17:7 - "And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam"
and,
From 2 Sam 21:19 - "the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam"
This repeated description could pertain to both of these Gittites but apparently later scribes felt that there was confusion here. In 1 Chronicles 20:5, "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam." The scribes of Chronicles smoothed over the descrepancy by introducting another Gittite named Lahmi. It wasn't Elhanan after all who slew Goliath, they contend.
It is interesting, as you cite, that though the giants were slain by David's champions, the text records "These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants." So David was credited with the actual killing even though he did not do it himself. This is a useful cultural detail.
So we have in chart form:
Goliath killed by David - when David was young
Goliath "killed" by David - when David was older but through the hand of Elhanan
Lahmi killed by Elhanan - it was not Goliath at all but Goliath's brother who also had the big spear staff.
The fact is the OT records, in unadorned language, Goliath being killed at two different times by two different people. There are a number of ornamental scenarios we could come up with that could make some sense of this. One Jewish scholar, Rashi, resolved the problem by asserting that David and Elhanan were one and the same person. The Jewish Study Bible posits that Elhanan probably (keep this word in mind) killed Goliath but that it was later attributed to the more popular David. The writers cite that Philistine David killed is referred to as simply "The Philistine." And later the name Goliath was edited into the text. (Jewish Study Bible, Second Edition, p. 644)
My point is that this is not trivial and it likely not going to be settled to everyone's satisfaction. But there are Christian conservatives who believe it is cut and dried. I actually don't care who killed Goliath - the bottom line is that it is a clear statement of principle no matter how the details may be conflated. I do care that there are people who believe in a fantasy about the Bible and seek to suppress all careful inquiry.
******** Click on my icon for Discalaimer
Examining another religious movement can be insightful in our understandings of our own background, particularly if we are honest in its origins.
Most Mormons of today (at least the ones with whom I have regular contact), are fairly well-balanced individuals. My experience in this goes way back to Mormons whom I knew in high school. And, then you have the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints of Warren Jeffs, basically a toxic throw-back group which has maintained so many of the very cultic practices of earliest Mormonism. They practice polygamy openly, live as separatists, having their own communities, the women are readily noticeable by their 1940s clothing and hair styles, and there are many social problems caused by the polygamous mature generation which affect young marriage-age men in search of wives within the faith, The most desirable ones are already with the old men, and have been since they were teenagers. These sorts of problems are mostly specific to an extreme approach to historic Mormon doctrines. The bulk of the LDS church, over centuries, evolved and shed many of the extreme positions that were once held by their then mainstream, and now lives a more balanced lifestyle.
We (the followers of Armstrongism) make up the fundamentalist throwback of Seventh Day Adventism! Warren Jeffs may be from a completely different generation and religious system than was Herbert W. Armstrong, but essentially, both men did the same to their respective religious movements. Both are risible characters, as was also David Koresh, and as are David Pack, Gerald Flurry, and countess others whom we all know. The reason I am pointing this out is that I once thought that given enough time, the rough corners of Armstrongism would become rounded out, and as the movement matured, it would become more mainstream and accessible to everyday normal folk. And that may well still be. However, the greater movement of which we were part, had already mellowed and matured. We were the toxic throwbacks to all that the SDAs had already shed. Actually, we may be looking at a repeating cycle which affects all marginal philosophies.
Freedom is so good! I doubt that I'll ever full comprehend how my parents could have been deceived and fooled by HWA. I have to look back and marvel at their completely wasted lives. I believe that after a number of years, for them, it was all just perseveration.
It could be? with the text "Elhanan....slew Goliath" in 2Sam 21:19 and "Elhanan....slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath" in 1Chron 20:5, that Elhanan slew two different giants. It is difficult to believe there was a copyist error linked with the two scriptures because the disparity is so large. Goliath that David killed years earlier could have had a son named Goliath, and five sons. Only four are listed in 2Sam b/c that's the narrative but the text does not indicate there are only four sons. David killed Goliath when a youth but by the time of 2Sam he was not to go out to battle - 2Sam 21:17 - and it was after he was told not to go out to battle that Elhanan killed what had to be another Goliath. All the giants could have had spear staffs like weaver's beams.
Anonymous 8:35
If you want to believe that you can. Other people believe different scenarios. Atheists would eat your lunch. The point is that the problem is not solved "in scriptura." The easiest and most direct answer, considering Occam's razor, is the the Biblical text is derived from two different traditions, two different texts. And the scribes who edited the Bible chose not to harmonize the statements. It was an exercise left to the reader as were many issues in the OT. Whatever, it does not diminish the gravitas of the OT at the principle level.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Neo is absolutely correct in his assessment of the David-Elhanan-Goliath story, and this isn't the only instance of this kind in Scripture. What about the story of Abimelech in Genesis? Did this episode happen to Abraham? (Genesis 20-21) or Isaac? (Genesis 26) Notice too that a man named Phichol was the captain of the host in both stories. Did Michal (Saul's daughter) die childless? (II Samuel 6:23) or did she have five sons? (II Samuel 21:8) We can speculate all day long about various ways to reconcile these inconsistencies, but the fact is that this remains extrabiblical speculation!
Once again, these inconsistencies (and there are MANY of them) underscore the HUMAN fingerprints that are all over these documents. They do NOT, however, demonstrate/prove the absence of Divine fingerprints!
2Sam 21:8 refers to Merab, as stated in 38 translations out of a total of 54, which aligns with 1Sam 18:19. It looks like Abimelech and Phichol lived a long time, during Abraham's life and after his death during Isaac's life.
Of course in translations there are copyist errors, uninspired thoughts of uninspired translators who thought a verse meant something when it didn't, misunderstandings, etc.
NLT informs us that most Hebrew manuscripts (Masoretic text) have "Michal," and that the Syriac (along with a few Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) have "Merab." And, if Abimelech and Phichol lived a long time, how do you explain the fact that they experienced the same deception relative to both Abraham's and Isaac's wives? Notice also the same strife over wells and the focus on the place name of Beersheba in both stories. Isn't it more likely that the same story was simply attributed to both Abraham and Isaac by different authors?
Abimelech took Abraham's wife at first but didn't take Isaac's wife when told they were sisters. Beersheba was named because of oaths taken at that location, first by Abraham, later reiterated by Isaac.
"Isn't it more likely that the same story was simply attributed to both Abraham and Isaac by different authors?"
No.
Leaving aside the initial outworkings of Genesis 12:2-3 with the covenants of Abraham and Isaac (cp. 21:22 & 26:28), and the differences, a couple of notes:
"The covenant revived an earlier one with Abraham (21:22ff), which certainly needed renewal, and the present scene closely resembles its predecessor. The reappearance of the names Abimelech and Phicol after this long interval may mean that they were official names (cf. ‘Pharaoh', see on 20:2) or recurring family names... Naming sons after grandfathers (‘papponymy') was customary at various times. In a nearly contemporary example from Egypt the royal house and a provincial governing family retained this pattern side by side for four generations, so that Ammenemes I appointed Khnumhotep I, and his grandson Ammenemes II appointed Khnumhotep II. Alternating with them, Sesostris I and II appointed Nakht I and II, and certain negotiations were repeated as well..." (Derek Kidner, Genesis, TOTC, pp.164-65).
"Whatever the (foreign) etymology of Phicol may be, in Hebrew it means "mouthful"; yet he utters not even a syllable! [Y.T. Radday, "Humour in Names," in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible...]" (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, NICOT, p.206).
"There is a strange similarity between the death of Josiah and that of Ahab, a very different type of king. Both were fatally wounded by enemy archers and carried home in their chariots to their capital cities; and they both disguised themselves on the battle-field, and perhaps for the same sort of reason" (F.F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p.76).
"The first section of 2 Kings also continues parallels between the northern and southern kingdoms and particularly highlights similarities between the end of the Omride and Davidic dynasties (Liethart 2005a). Though a righteous king, Josiah death is reminiscent of Ahab's: both are killed during battles with a Gentile power, and both are taken from the battlefield to the capital city to be buried (1 Kgs 22:34-37; 2 Kgs 23:28-30). Both Ahab and Josiah hear a prophecy of doom on their dynasties, both are told that judgment will fall during the reign of their sons and not during their lifetimes (1 Kgs 21:20-29; 2 Kgs 22:15-20). Beyond this, Ahab and Josiah live in similar periods of history with respect to their dynasties and kingdoms. Within a generation of Ahab's death, his son is overthrown by Yahweh's avenger, Jehu (2 Kgs 9-10), who slaughters the royal family and destroys the temple of Baal in Samaria. Two of Ahab's sons reign over Israel (Ahaziah [2 Kgs 1] and Jehoram [2 Kgs 3:1; 9:14-16) and though several kings follow Josiah (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah), the dynasty only goes two generations pass Josiah (Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim are both sons of Josiah [23:25], and Jehoiachin is his grandson). The fall of Samaria likewise sets the pattern for the fall of Jerusalem. Both cities suffer three sieges, each from two different enemies. Samaria is twice besieged by the Arameans (1 Kgs20:1; 2 Kgs 6:24) and once by Assyria (17:5), while Jerusalem is besieged once by Assyria (2 Kgs 18-19) and twice by the Babylonians (24:10; 25:1). For both cities, attacks come because the kings of Israel and Judah break alliances with powerful Gentiles (Provan 1995, 278-79). In each case the city is delivered during the first siege, but ultimately falls in the last" (Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, Braqos Theological Commentary on the Bible).
2Ki 25:27 In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month.
Zedekiah was also a son of Josiah - but throne of the Lord (1 Chron 29:23) continues through Jehoiachin to Christ (Mt. 1:1-13).
Post a Comment