fayfreethinkers.com

Stephen McCormick wrote:I have hit a bit of a snag... The document includes Greek font...

Stephen, having the right Greek font isn't going to help you. What happened to your responses to my numbered problems given above? Remember your confident claim?

"Did you want me to answer them all at once, or one at a time?"

Since that was two and a half months ago, perhaps one at a time would be best?

I believe the best I can do with this is post PDF's on my blog site and provide links. Is that acceptable?

Just do the best you can, links whatever. You'll find we'll be very helpful as we work these Bible problems. Try not to get too distracted with the electronic toys. The problems you have before you are timeless, old school and very much "old tech."

D.
--------------
"...a poetic rendering of a devout wish but certainly not an authentic record... since the Crucifixion was conducted by Roman soldiers,... Jesus' body was most likely left on the Cross or tossed into a shallow grave to be eaten by scavenger dogs, crows or other wild beasts. As for Jesus' family and followers, depicted in the Bible as conducting a decent burial of the body according to Jewish law, "as far as I can see, they ran," Crossan says. "They lost their nerve, though not their faith." --TIME mag., 4/10/95, pg. 70, religious scholars Robert W. Funk and Dominic Crossan.

Thanks Savonarola for the ideas. I probably do several things you suggest.

For now, let me respond to the list of five problems Till mentions that are listed above posted by Darrel.

I started out intending to quote all five, but will just let the readers go back up for most of them.

"1. Matthew has the women seeing an angel descend and roll away the stone
(28:2), but Mark, Luke, and John had the women (or Mary) finding the stone
already rolled away when they (she) arrived (Mk. 16:4; Lk. 24:2; JN. 20:1)."

Here is the text of Matt 28:1-5 from the NIV: 1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.

Please point out to me where the text says the women a) saw the angel descend, and b) saw the angel roll the stone away. It does not say that at all. It is an assumption on the part of Till, clear and simple, that the women saw this happen. And with respect to Mr Till, it is a simple error, one which many people make when reading scripture. All it says is that the angel who descended and rolled away the stone spoke to the women.

The Greek verb tenses of Mk 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1 all indicate that they found the stone rolled away, not that they saw the angel roll the stone away. There is additionally no indication by these writers that the women saw the angel at all who rolled the stone away as they approached the tomb.

It is very clear by studying all of Matthew’s account that he does not record the events with sequential representations that define intervening periods of time. Time is greatly compressed by his rendering of the events, yet he writes as if it is a continuous succession of happenings. This is an extremely common writing style by all of the authors.

It is commonly believed that the authors compiled their accounts from firsthand experience, reading the writings of others, and interviews of eye witnesses. This is a very reasonable assessment. Since this is most likely the manner in which the information for the stories was compiled, it is also reasonable to believe that by transforming the varying accounts to lists of people, places, events, and words that modern student has the greatest likelihood of compiling the original happenings.

Many assume that the angel spoke to the women from the stone where the angel sat down. The text also does not say that. All the text says, by use of the definite article in the Greek (ho), is that the angel who descended, rolled the stone, sat on it and frightened the soldiers, is the same angel who spoke to the women. It is assumed that there is no intervening time between the soldiers passing out and the angel speaking to the women. The text does not say that. In fact, it can be demonstrated that John’s account shows that there was a great deal of time between those events.

John clearly reveals that Mary Magdalene made two trips to the tomb, one indicated in 20:1, and then again she is seen weeping outside the tomb after Peter and John leave to go back home in verse 11. She had to have followed them back to the tomb. There is no appearance of an angelic presence at all in the intervening verses. The first trip from the tomb to tell Peter and John was to deliver the message that the tomb was empty and the women suspected that the body had been removed. Whether they knew the guard had been posted there or not is not clear, but their conversation on the way to the tomb indicates that they expected to be there alone with no one to help them move the stone. There is no indication there were soldiers present when they arrived. None of the other authors mention two trips.

John records that the women experienced the angels after Peter and John went to their homes (plural) indicating that the two men were not staying in the same location so it may have taken some time to reach both. This second time at the tomb is what the other writers refer to regarding the angelic encounter.

There is absolutely no reference point in any of the gospel accounts to indicate where the women or men disciples were staying. The trip could easily have taken half an hour or more one way if they had been staying somewhere away from Jerusalem which is likely given their fear of the Jewish authorities. How long did it take to find both Peter and John? Did the women split up to locate the men?

That being the case it is easy to see that the first trip to the tomb mentioned by John might indeed have taken place while it was quite dark, but the second when it was much lighter. The first trip to tell the disciples was one of confusion and grief thinking Jesus’ body had been moved, the second trip to tell the disciples was the one of joy mixed with fear of the reaction of the Jews.

"By the way, they returned home and
prepared spices (according to Luke), even though (according to John), if they
followed Joseph and saw how the body was laid, they had seen Joseph of
Arimathea prepare the body with "about a hundred pounds of myrr and aloes"
(Jn. 19:38-39). Did they think 100 pounds weren't be enough?"

The body of Jesus was taken by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus and wrapped in linen cloth. Then they transported it to the tomb and laid him there. The women followed from the place of crucifixion and saw them place the body. Then they left. Luke 23:53-55. No mention is made of spices being applied up to this point. No one else helped the two men. It is impossible that they carried both Jesus’ body and 75 to 100 pounds of spices, and Nicodemus surely would not have taken them to the crucifixion. Joseph didn’t even have permission to take the body until AFTER the crucifixion so it unlikely that any preparation would have taken place beforehand. If the women left without knowing that Nicodemus would bring the spices that might explain why they went home and prepared them. Or if they did know it may have been a final act of love for Jesus just as Mary the sister of Martha had anointed his body for burial days earlier.

With regard to Till’s problem of point number 5, the answer is simple, he left. Consider the reaction of the disciples when the women told them about the encounter with the angels and Jesus. All of the disciples dismissed it as a fable. No one believed their story, including Thomas Lk 24:9-11. Thomas was present when the Emmaus Road disciples arrived to tell their story. It has to be that Thomas decided to leave when he heard another “fable” being told. He wasn’t in the mood for more of the same nonsense he heard from the women earlier. It wasn’t until a week later according to John that Thomas saw him. If it is objected that Luke doesn’t state that Thomas left the meeting, the parallel argument can be clearly made from the earlier fact about Mary Magdalene’s second trip to the tomb not being stated by John, but required by context.

Good job Stephen. Now we've got you thinking. I've sent your response along to Farrell Till's errancy list and invited a big bunch of people (largely skeptics and atheists) to read it. I've invited them over here, and I also welcome you to jump in and talk to Farrell Till directly by joining his errancy list. I think you can do that by going here:

http://iierrancy.com/

(It's been a long time since I joined, having been on that list, on and off, since the mid-'90's).

I think I was a little quick on the "good job" comment (I had just gotten home from a bar). Your answer is actually a bit of a muddled mess. Farrell's problems as presented are specific and carefully numbered. It would be much better if you could address each problem, directly, as numbered rather than a great pile of assertions making it not clear which comments refer to which problem. It is probably this sort of muddled, non specific approach that has led you to your rather unorthodox Bible scholarship and conclusions.

Anyway, a nice fellow on errancy passed along this rebuttal Farrell wrote to someone else who tried one of your arguments quite some time ago.

***

>Pastor STEPHEN [quoted by DAR]
>For now, let me respond to the list of five problems Till mentions that are listed above posted by Darrel.
>
>I started out intending to quote all five, but will just let the readers go back up for most of them.
>
>"1. Matthew has the women seeing an angel descend and roll away the stone
>(28:2), but Mark, Luke, and John had the women (or Mary) finding the stone
>already rolled away when they (she) arrived (Mk. 16:4; Lk. 24:2; JN. 20:1)."
>
>Here is the text of Matt 28:1-5 from the NIV: 1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.
>
>Please point out to me where the text says the women a) saw the angel descend, and b) saw the angel roll the stone away. It does not say that at all. It is an assumption on the part of Till, clear and simple, that the women saw this happen. And with respect to Mr Till, it is a simple error, one which many people make when reading scripture. All it says is that the angel who descended and rolled away the stone spoke to the women.
>
>The Greek verb tenses of Mk 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1 all indicate that they found the stone rolled away, not that they saw the angel roll the stone away. There is additionally no indication by these writers that the women saw the angel at all who rolled the stone away as they approached the tomb.
>
>It is very clear by studying all of Matthew’s account that he does not record the events with sequential representations that define intervening periods of time. Time is greatly compressed by his rendering of the events, yet he writes as if it is a continuous succession of happenings. This is an extremely common writing style by all of the authors.
>
>It is commonly believed that the authors compiled their accounts from firsthand experience, reading the writings of others, and interviews of eye witnesses. This is a very reasonable assessment. Since this is most likely the manner in which the information for the stories was compiled, it is also reasonable to believe that by transforming the varying accounts to lists of people, places, events, and words that modern student has the greatest likelihood of compiling the original happenings.
>
>Many assume that the angel spoke to the women from the stone where the angel sat down. The text also does not say that. All the text says, by use of the definite article in the Greek (ho), is that the angel who descended, rolled the stone, sat on it and frightened the soldiers, is the same angel who spoke to the women. It is assumed that there is no intervening time between the soldiers passing out and the angel speaking to the women. The text does not say that. In fact, it can be demonstrated that John’s account shows that there was a great deal of time between those events.
<snip>

J. KESLER
Below is a reprint of Till's reply to this argument, from July 2009. I also refer readers here for a similar analysis.

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

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

This expression was used throughout the NT, but I am going to limit my examples just to Matthew, because his usage of it elsewhere than 28:2 would cast light on how he probably used it in the passage under consideration. As we go through them, please notice that the passages quoted mention events that had happened after which Matthew then introduced new events or material with kai idou. The sequence is invariably A, B, C, [kai idou], D, E, so D and E happened after and not before A or B or C.

2:7 Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. 9 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.” 9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold [kai idou], the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

The wise men departed first, and then the star that they had seen in the East went before them. The star could not have gone before them until they had departed. Hence, kai idou in this text obviously introduced something new.

8:1 When He [Jesus] had come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him. 2 And behold [kai idou], a leper came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.”

Jesus had come down from the mountain before the leper came and worshiped him. Hence, kai idou in this passage also introduced something new.

8:23 Now when He [Jesus] got into a boat, His disciples followed Him. 24 And suddenly [kai idou] a great tempest arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep.

The tempest didn't arise before Jesus and his disciples got into a boat. It came after they had gotten into the boat. Hence, we see again that the Greek expression kai idou was used by Matthew to introduce new material.

8:28 When He [Jesus] had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way. 29 And suddenly [kai idou] they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?” 30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding. 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, “If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine.” 32 And He said to them, “Go.” So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly [kai idou] the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. 33 Then those who kept them fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34 And behold [ kai idou], the whole city came out to meet Jesus.

The men possessed <snicker, snicker> with demons didn't cry out before they had met Jesus. Obviously, they met him first and then they cried out. Likewise, the demons didn't go into the herd of swine until after they had come out of the men. In the same way, the whole city did not come out to meet Jesus until those who had kept the herd of swine had gone into the city to tell what had happened to the <snicker, snicker> demon-possessed men. We see in three cases, then, that kai idou was used to introduce new events that happened--in all cases--after the events related in the verses before the use of kai idou.

9:1 So He got into a boat, crossed over, and came to His own city. 2 Then behold [kai idou ], they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.” 3 And at once [kai idou] some of the scribes said within themselves, “This Man blasphemes!”

The people did not bring the paralytic to Jesus before he had entered the city. Hence, the event introduced by kai idou happened after the events mentioned in the verse before it. Likewise, the scribes did not accuse Jesus of blasphemy until after he had told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven. Hence, kai idou introduced events that had happened chronologically after the events in the preceding verse.

9:10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold [kai idou], many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples.

The tax collectors and sinners did not sit down with Jesus and his disciples until after they had sat down at the table. Kai idou introduced something new.

12:9 Now when He [Jesus] had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 11 And behold [kai idou], there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”­-that they might accuse Him.

Jesus was not asked if it was lawful to heal on the sabbath until after he had entered the synagogue. Hence, the expression kai idou introduced events that happened after the events in the verse before it.

15:21 Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 23 And behold [kai idou], a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.”

The woman of Canaan did not cry out to Jesus till after he had departed for the region of Tyre and Sidon. So, again, kai idou introduced events that happened after those in the verse before it.

A pattern seems to be developing, doesn't it?

17:1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold [kai idou], Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 5 While he was still speaking, behold [idou ], a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”

Moses and Elijah did not appear until after Jesus had been transfigured; hence, kai idou here introduced events that happened after those in the preceding verses. Idou was used without kai in verse 5, but we see that it functioned in the same way--to introduce new events.

20:29 Now as they went out of Jericho, a great multitude followed Him. 30 And behold [kai idou ], two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, “Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David!”

The blind men, who incidentally was just one blind man in Luke's and Mark's account, did not cry out until after Jesus had gone out of Jericho (in Mark's and Luke's account, he was going into Jericho) and come to where they were sitting by the road. Hence, Matthew again used kai idou to introduce events that had happened after those in the preceding verse.

26:49 Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. 50 But Jesus said to him, “Friend, why have you come?” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took Him. 51 And suddenly [kai idou], one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.

The men laid hold of Jesus, and then someone in his entourage drew a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant, so kai idou again introduced events that happened after those in the preceding verses.

27:50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. Then, behold [kai idou], the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split....

O'Reilly calls this a "parenthetical aside" solely because Luke stated that the veil in the temple was torn before Jesus died. In other words, he believes in speculation when he needs it to "explain" a discrepancy. However, on the basis of the various examples quoted and analyzed above, we can clearly see that Matthew used kai idou to introduce new events or material, so any reasonable person will have to conclude that Matthew thought that the veil of the temple and the earthquake happened after Jesus cried out and died. If he rejects this, let him explain to us why one should not assume that Luke was the one who related the events out of chronological sequence.

Matthew's extensive usage of kai idou to introduce new events or materials makes it very unlikely that he deviated from this pattern in 28:2 and used it to introduce older events that had happened before those in the preceding verse. If O'Reilly sticks to this track, he will need to show us some linguistic reason to so believe. His mere say-so just isn't sufficient." --Farrell Till
***

DAR
Also, we have a tract which specifically deals with these order of events problems in Matthew and how they contradict the other versions. You can read it here:

The Mary Magdalene Problem

If you can solve this problem we will either take down that link, or post your solution with full credit to you.

Then, if you can work your way through the rest of the tracts on our freethinker site, maybe we won't have a skeptical website left at all and it will be entirely devoted to Jesus!

Savonarola, I haven't seen anything of my last post. Didn't you receive it?

Stephen McCormick wrote:Savonarola, I haven't seen anything of my last post. Didn't you receive it?

The last one I've seen is the one posted here, above. There is no record in the moderation queue or logs of a more recent submission.

(If you'd register as a user, then you could (a) post without needing my approval, (b) post links, and (c) post instantly. We don't email you, we don't allow others to email you via this board, and you can set your profile to hide your email address from others so that you'll never get spammed due to signing up.)

Farrell has further extensive analysis of the problems with the Matthew version, and your apologetic, here:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/sh ... ?p=3759175

And here: http://theskepticalreview.com/JFTBobbyStraws1.html

Yes, Darrel, an excellent suggestion, let's stick with one item at a time.

Here is the first problem you mention:
"1. Matthew has the women seeing an angel descend and roll away the stone
(28:2), but Mark, Luke, and John had the women (or Mary) finding the stone
already rolled away when they (she) arrived (Mk. 16:4; Lk. 24:2; JN. 20:1)."

Here is the text of Matt 28:1-5 from the NIV: 1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.

Please point out to me where the text says the women a) saw the angel descend, and b) saw the angel roll the stone away. It does not say that at all. It is an assumption on the part of Till, clear and simple, that the women saw this happen. And with respect to Mr Till, it is a simple error, one which many people make when reading scripture. All it says is that the angel who descended and rolled away the stone spoke to the women.

The Greek verb tenses of Mk 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1 all indicate that they found the stone rolled away, not that they saw the angel roll the stone away. There is additionally no indication by these writers that the women saw the angel at all who rolled the stone away as they approached the tomb.

It is very clear by studying all of Matthew’s account that he does not record the events with sequential representations that define intervening periods of time. Time is greatly compressed by his rendering of the events, yet he writes as if it is a continuous succession of happenings. This is an extremely common writing style by all of the authors.

Let's stick with one thing at a time. So please answer my request, point out to me where the text says the women saw the angel roll away the stone as Till specifically stated. Sorry for so much confusion, for your answer has absolutely nothing with reference to my request. I will try to be much more specific in the future.

Stephen McCormick wrote:Yes, Darrel, an excellent suggestion, let's stick with one item at a time.

Here is the first problem you mention:
"1. Matthew has the women seeing an angel descend and roll away the stone
(28:2), but Mark, Luke, and John had the women (or Mary) finding the stone
already rolled away when they (she) arrived (Mk. 16:4; Lk. 24:2; JN. 20:1)."

Here is the text of Matt 28:1-5 from the NIV:

Stephen, the NIV is a notoriously dishonest fundie translation (I have a whole section with examples of their dishonesty in my book). For one, they required their translators to be inerrantists, which means it doesn't represent actual scholarship, but rather evangelism.

The KJV, ASV, RSV, 21st KJV, have (pretty close to): "...came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake:..."

The living Bible has "...went to the tomb. Suddenly there was a great earthquake,..."
Phillips Modern English: "...went to look at the tomb. At that moment there was a great earthquake, for an angel..."
Today's English Version: "...went to the grave. Suddenly there was a strong earthquake..."
Jerusalem Bible: "...went to visit the sepulcher. And all at once there was a violent earthquake..."
Young's Literal: "...came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, and lo, there came a great earthquake...,"
New English Bible: "came to look at the grave. Suddenly there was a violent earthquake..."

So what are the odds? The one version you happen to appeal to, an extraordinarily dishonest fundie translation, just happens to have left out this standard usage of "kai idou," which as Farrell has laid out in great deal, with extensive precedent throughout Matthew is used "to introduce new events or material (usually startlingly new events or material), and invariably the new events happened after those in the verses preceding kai idou." The NIV translators didn't go against every other translation I checked on this, by accident. It was a very much "on purpose." They are well aware of these problems and they try to massage them as best as possible for the inerrantists buying their version. Every single translation I checked, goes against your interpretation, and agrees with Farrell's. And with good reason, as Farrell has explained above.

STEPH
1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.

Please point out to me where the text says the women a) saw the angel descend, and b) saw the angel roll the stone away. It does not say that at all. It is an assumption on the part of Till, clear and simple, that the women saw this happen. And with respect to Mr Till, it is a simple error, one which many people make when reading scripture. All it says is that the angel who descended and rolled away the stone spoke to the women.

And precisely in that order.

STEPHEN
The Greek verb tenses of Mk 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1 all indicate that they found the stone rolled away, not that they saw the angel roll the stone away. There is additionally no indication by these writers that the women saw the angel at all who rolled the stone away as they approached the tomb.

It is very clear by studying all of Matthew’s account that he does not record the events with sequential representations that define intervening periods of time.

Mere assertion and does not address Till's argument given above, showing Matthew's standard usage of "kai idou."

STEPHEN
Time is greatly compressed by his rendering of the events, yet he writes as if it is a continuous succession of happenings. This is an extremely common writing style by all of the authors.

Mere assertion. You are suggesting that the author of Matthew is extremely misleading and can't tell his story straight. I see no reason to believe that. The reason you are giving this strained interpretation which goes against the scholarship, is because it presents problems for you.

Let's stick with one thing at a time. So please answer my request, point out to me where the text says the women saw the angel roll away the stone as Till specifically stated.

Explained above.

Sorry for so much confusion, for your answer has absolutely nothing with reference to my request.

It absolutely does. Aside from the fact that nearly all of the translations disagree with you (and thus a preponderance of scholars) Farrell went right to the Greek and gave extensive examples of how Matthew consistently used: "kai idou," yet, you ask that we suddenly should believe that it was used differently in this verse, because it presents a problem for your belief in biblical literalism.

I will try to be much more specific in the future.

Excellent.

Not much time this morning before I head to work, so I will be brief.

I am still waiting for you to show me where the text states that the women saw the angel descend, roll back the stone, and sit on it.

I notice that you love to quote Till extensively, particularly his research on "kai idou" in Matthew. Great trust in someone else and their work can be a good thing, or a terrible mistake. I can assume you have not personally done the work on studying the 28 appearances of the phrase in Matthew because if you had you would not have made the assertions you did in your post. I would suggest you do, and we can work on this point until we can agree with what Scripture says.

Appreciate your time and effort. This is a wonderful study!

Steve

Stephen McCormick wrote: I am still waiting for you to show me where the text states that the women saw the angel descend, roll back the stone, and sit on it.

That's the straightforward reading of the text. Yours is the strained interpretation. You need to explain why your strained interpretation, which goes against the plain reading of the text and of the preponderance of translations, is to be preferred. For instance, your sentence above could mean:

The women came to the tomb [then a day later] an angel descended, rolled back the stone [and then the next day], sat on it."

But we have no reason to assume those points in the square brackets from the text. You are trying to insert and assume information like that into the text, in order to preserve your personal doctrine of inerrancy. That's not scholarship, that's dogma.

I notice that you love to quote Till extensively,...

Since you chose to address the problem presented by Till, I thought it appropriate to use his rebuttal. In the post where I presented several Easter problems, you skipped over nine other problems and went for Farrell's list of five. That was your choice, not mine.

...particularly his research on "kai idou" in Matthew.

No, I also provided a link to another analysis of this problem. Perhaps you missed it. I will now post it here:

The Resurrection Narratives

1.) Was the tomb rolled away before the women arrived as in Mark, Luke, or John, or after the women arrived as in Matthew. In Matthew 28:2, it says that there was an earthquake and that an angel descended from heaven and rolled away the stone, apparently after all the women arrived. In Mark 16: 2-5, Mary Magdalene and her traveling companions wonder who will roll away the stone, on their way there and find the stone removed when they finally get there (verse 4). In Luke 24:2, the women arrive at the tomb and find the stone rolled away. In John 20:1-2, Mary Magdalene (and whoever else might've been with her) take one good look at the empty tomb and instantly run to get Peter (it doesn't even seem that they entered the tomb at all!) The usual inerrantist explanation for this is that in Matthew 28:2, the Greek word for "was" ("ginomai") in describing the earthquake is translated in the pluperfect sense. Inerrantists like Norman Geisler, the late Gleason Archer, and their cohorts regard the word "was" for the earthquake as being in the pluperfect sense so the verse is best understood as referring to an earthquake and descending angel rolling away the tomb before the women arrived. But there are serious problems with this "resolution". Thus they will argue that Matthew 28:2 should be read as the New American Standard Version or the New International Version translates it, such as the following:

"And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it." (New American Standard Version). Thus Turkel, the late Archer, Geisler, and others will argue the earthquake had occurred while the women were on their way to the tomb, and would've been rolled away as they arrived. I have two major problems with this "resolution".

First of all, not all translations render the Greek word for "was" ("ginomai") as in "And behold, there was an earth, for an angel of the Lord descended..." Matthew 28:2, in the pluperfect sense. Some translations of the Bible, render the Greek word in simple past tense. I list some of the translations below:
"And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.(English Standard Version)
"And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it." (American Standard Version)
"And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of [the] Lord, descending out of heaven, came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it." (Darby Translation)

In all of these versions, the Greek word for "was" ("ginomai") is not translated in the pluperfect sense. But more importantly, is the Greek word phrase kai idou, which is translated in many versions of the Bible as "And behold!" In Matthew 28:2, this word phrase modifies the statement that an earthquake occurred because of the descending angel who rolled away the tomb. In Matthew's gospel, word phrase "And behold" is used, and Matthew often uses it to state the occurrence of an event in the statement it is grammatically connected to, as having occurred after the events in the proceeding verse. Let's look at some examples of this here. I am going to go through a number of verses, each verse coming from three translations: the New American Standard Version, the English Standard Version, and the American Standard Version (from all three when applicable)
Matthew 3: 16
After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, New American Standard Version
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him-English Standard Version

I ask readers here- who would believe that the author was trying to narrate that the heavens were opened up and the "Spirit of God" descended upon Jesus before Jesus was baptized? No, the phrase "and behold ( "kai Idou" in Greek) modifies the second sentence to show the event occurring after the baptism and coming up and out from the water.
Matthew 4:11

Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him-New American Standard VersionThen the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him-English Standard VersionThen the devil leaveth him; and behold, angels came and ministered unto him-American Standard Version

I ask readers again- who would believe that the author was narrating the story here as to suggest that the angels came to Jesus and started ministering to him before the devil left him? No, again, the phrase "and behold" suggests that "angels came" and "ministered to him" occurred after the devil left him.
Matthew 8:24
And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being covered with the waves; but Jesus Himself was asleep-New American Standard Version

And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep-English Standard VersionAnd behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the boat was covered with the waves: but he was asleep-American Standard Version

Here, "and behold" suggests that the great storm arose after Jesus and his followers had gotten into the boat and after Jesus had fallen asleep. I don't know of anyone who would seriously understand the author to be telling readers that the storm arose before Jesus and his followers got into the boat and Jesus dozed off.

Matthew 8:34

And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region-New American Standard VersionAnd behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region-English Standard Version
And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart from their border-American Standard Version
So, did "all the city" come out to meet Jesus and urge him to leave their region before Jesus performed the miracle? Nope. "And behold" modifies verse 34 as to suggest that the people in the city came out to meet Jesus and urge him to leave after Jesus performed the miracle spoken of in verse 33.

Matthew 17:3

And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him-New American Standard VersionAnd behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him
Did Moses and Elijah appear before Jesus and his three disciples went up to the mountain and watched as Jesus was transfigured? Or did it occur after Jesus took his followers up the mountain and was transfigured before them.

Matthew 26:51

And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear-New American Standard VersionAnd behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear-English Standard Version
And behold, one of them that were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear-American Standard Version
Did Peter draw his sword before Jesus was arrested? I don't think so! I believe that it was after Jesus was seized for the arrest that Peter drew up the sword and struck the slave of the high priest.

Matthew 27:51
And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split-New American Standard Version
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split-English Standard Version
And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent-American Standard Version
Did the curtain of the temple tear in half, from top to bottom, before Jesus spoke his last words and die? Or was it after Jesus died, that the curtain tore into two from the top, downward?

Thus, we see from numerous cases that "And behold" modifies the sentence that it attaches to and the sentence which is modified, describes something as occurring, after the event in the previous verse in the gospel of Matthew. This was not always the case with the word "And behold" [underline mine- DAR] but there are a few exceptions in Matthew's gospel but Matthew 28:1-2, as I have tried here to show, parallels many of the instances where "And behold" (the Greek word Kai Idou) was used to chronologically link events in order. We can see this in verse 51 of chapter 27, which suggests that the curtain-tearing occurred after 26 which speaks of Jesus' death. We can see that verse 51 of chapter 26 describes Peter as cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant, after Jesus was arrested in verse 50. We can see verse three of chapter 17, in which those present with Jesus at his transfiguration saw Moses and Elijah, after Jesus was transfigured on the mountain in verse two. In verse 16 of chapter three, "and behold" attaches the rest of the verse "the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending..." to "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water" in a single verse. But since "the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending.." comes after the phrase "and behold" what are readers to conclude but that Matthew meant to say that the heavens opened up after Jesus was baptized and come out immediately from the water? I don't know of anyone who would conclude that Matthew's author meant that the heavens opened up and the Spirit descended on Jesus before he stepped into the water to be baptized.

Readers can then understand why I believe that Matthew 28:2 describes the earthquake and angelic descent as being after the women have arrived at the tomb. It's precisely because "and behold" modifies verse 2 as describing something after verse 1 as it does in the verse cases I have just cited above from different translations. I, therefore, conclude that a contradiction here exists!"
LINK

STEPH
I can assume you have not personally done the work on studying the 28 appearances of the phrase in Matthew because if you had you would not have made the assertions you did in your post.

And what assertion was that? Be specific. When you address my comments specifically, you might not make such mistakes. (see also the underlined portion in the large quote above).

This is a wonderful study!

Indeed it is. I used to be a lot more interested in this type of Christian minutia about 20 years ago. Now I find it a little boring. But I'll try to stay awake as I help you with your Bible problems and pull the pants down on your inerrantist tricks.

Stephen McCormick wrote:Great trust in someone else and their work can be a good thing, or a terrible mistake.

Does anybody else see the irony of this statement coming from a person who literally worships an Arabian carpenter and who insists that a book written by unknown persons at unknown times must be perfect?

To propose another aspect of the inerrantist blinders: I'm rather certain, though I will not draw Mr. McCormick into the sinful act of gambling, that all of his pictures of that carpenter depict a white guy-- including the ones in his.special Bible.

So, have you completed your personal study of kai idou in Matthew yet? We can continue our discussion after you do. If you need me to give you the references I will be happy to do so. I know you will want to be thorough, but don't worry, I can wait.

Steve

Stephen McCormick wrote:So, have you completed your personal study of kai idou in Matthew yet?

No, actually, like you, I don't know Greek. But unlike you, I don't pretend to have the expertise to conduct personal studies in ancient languages I am not an expert in (nor do I have the interest). Knowledge is specialized. And when people speak about things outside of their expertise, whether it be climatology, philosophy, piano tuning or Bible scholarship, they typically get very wrong, even laughably wrong, answers. Answers like "Paul said this, and it agrees with me," or "the Bible is inerrant." This is especially so when a person has a have favorite presumption and religious hobby horse they like to ride like the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Fortunately, people specialize in these technical matters and we are lucky to have access to no end of professional scholars and translators who have devoted their lives to becoming expert in these very narrow specific issues. They rise through the ranks of academia, receive doctorates and publish their material in peer reviewed papers for their colleagues to examine. The cracky stuff gets debunked, the good stuff rises to the top. In my references above, I have appealed to mainstream scholarship and the knowledge of scholars with a preponderance of translations. You may think you know more than professional translators and Bible scholars (and I am sure you think you do, because you have the power of prayer and you think this summons the Holy Spirit to whisper the answer in your ear) but I have seen no reason to believe you have any relevant or expert knowledge of the subtleties and nuance of ancient Koine Greek (c. 300 BC – AD 300). Your credential of being a sincere Ozark hillbilly country bumpkin preacher with a Bible in one hand and a sermon in the other, doesn't quite cut it with me.

D.
--------------------
Earlier exchange in this thread:

STEPH
"when I look for answers to these or any other questions on these matters, I park my butt in this chair with my Bible, my Bible study software, my reference books (sans commentaries), my Greek and Hebrew tools and I work myself into the ground until I am confident I have the answer."

DAR
Not impressed. This is how we get 30,000+ denominations/sects etc., of Christianity. That's not scholarship, that's homemade Bible goulash.

Interesting. You gave me a definition some time ago of what was required to be called a freethinker. One of the chief requirements was rejecting the traditions of the church and her teachers. I have been a teacher of inductive Bible study methodology since 1989. In all my years of interacting with people on these matters I have never come across anyone so bound up by orthodoxy and the traditions of men as you.

The study of kai idou in Matthew I have suggested does not require a knowledge of Greek. My 16 year old daughter could do it, so my assumption is you can too. I can help you with it if you like, but that really isn't necessary.

Steve

Wow. So let me get this straight. From your honest, humble admission, you have insufficient training to do even the most basic of studies in the text in question, relying completely on the input of experts, of which you are completely unqualified to determine who has the right information, you are completely uninterested in learning anything about Biblical languages so that you could have a basis for sound judgment in such issues, you are untrained in Biblical exegesis, or Biblical hermeneutics, so as to determine if the experts you pick are trustworthy, you are completely bound to follow only the well-trodden path that has failed to give an adequate response to the question at hand (thus insuring that there never is an answer). Amazing. And I would want to consider freethinking as viable means to real knowledge?

You must really believe I am a country bumpkin.

But that's okay. My Savior made himself of no reputation before those who claimed to know everything. And I am called to follow in his steps. He said if they hate his followers, it is because they hate him. So I won't take it personally.

What I am willing to do is keep posting what I have learned, and let you keep posting whatever you like.

Fair enough?

Steve

Stephen McCormick wrote: You gave me a definition some time ago of what was required to be called a freethinker.

No, not a requirement. A definition that refers to what generally defines a freethinker.

One of the chief requirements was rejecting the traditions of the church and her teachers.

No. As per the standard definition provided by the dictionary (which simply reflects common usage), a freethinker doesn't appeal to tradition as a reason to believe a claim is true (esp. a claim regarding religion or the supernatural). If you have good reason to believe something, there is no need to appeal to tradition. If you have good reason not to believe something, what mere "tradition" adds isn't useful and certainly doesn't trump the lack of good evidence. Everyone knows this is true because countless societies have no end of conflicting religious "traditions" which are contradictory and thus necessarily false. For some reason, on matters of religion people suddenly pretend like special rules apply and a mere societal tradition is a good reason to believe something. Freethinkers simply point out that it isn't.

I have been a teacher of inductive Bible study methodology since 1989.

That's nice. I was responding to fundie arguments in 1975. Sometimes a person doing something for 23 years, rather than rising to be 23 years of experience, is better described as 1 year of experience, 23 years in a row. I will quote what you said earlier in our exchange, back in October:

ST: "And by qualified, I am referring specifically to those trained in inductive Bible study methodology. I am not an expert, nor even a past student of Greek. I did not have an extra year available to enter the Greek program, and that wasn't my intended emphasis when I entered school. I know how to use the tools of those who are. My specialization is inductive Bible study, for it is the only method with reliable results."

I responded:

DAR
In order for me to have good reason to believe that your specialized inductive Bible study method is "the only method with reliable results" I would need to see that your claims have passed some level of scholarly peer review. Have you published any scholarly papers in peer reviewed journals ST?

You never responded to this question because of course, not being a Bible scholar and lacking any of the qualifications that go with being a Bible scholar, you haven't written anything that would rise to the level of being considered of interest to professional Bible scholars.

In all my years of interacting with people on these matters I have never come across anyone so bound up by orthodoxy and the traditions of men as you.

I don't appeal to tradition, that's your game. I am interested in what works, and in matters of science and scholarship, expert training winnowed by the fire of expert peer review has been found to be the gold standard of discerning deep knowledge from deep nonsense. That's what makes the trains run on time, and the planes fly in the air. It has also allowed us to learn a great deal about the Bible in the last 150 years, and that knowledge has not been friendly to your fundamentalist, literalist, Bible beliefs. In fact, it's debunked them thoroughly.

The study of kai idou in Matthew I have suggested does not require a knowledge of Greek.

If that were true (and of course it isn't), how handy that would be for you since you have already admitted that not only are you "not an expert," in Greek, you're not "even a past student of Greek." Why would anyone think that the understanding of this ancient Koine Greek reference, within the context of a story written an ancient Koine Greek, would require a knowledge of Greek? Someone who might even be a student of Greek? How silly of me.

My 16 year old daughter could do it,...

Well then perhaps you should hand this debate over to her. Because perhaps even she would know that if you would like to even begin your endeavor, you would need to:

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

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

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

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

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

From your honest, humble admission, you have insufficient training to do even the most basic of studies in the text in question,...

Oh, you can do "the most basic studies in the text in question" (I have no interest in spending the time to become expert in an ancient dead language), but it's very unlikely that it could rise to the level of being of interest to anyone other than some gullible congregation (your usual audience). This is because, as you admit, your knowledge doesn't even rise to the level of being "even a past student of Greek." So when you speak about Greek (and so far you haven't even attempted to make a case), I have no reason to believe (or the necessary skills to deduce) whether you are on to something, or a complete crack-pot. Knowledge is specialized and you have already admitted you have no specialized knowledge of this issue. So going with a preponderance of expert opinion isn't just what a freethinker would do, it's what any reasonable person would do. Unless they had a faith belief to shill for, which you do.

[you]...relying completely on the input of experts, of which you are completely unqualified to determine who has the right information,...

Right, that's where peer review comes in. If you have some reason why the gold standard method of peer review, for discerning accurate knowledge from crackpot knowledge should be discarded in this case, let's hear your reasons. I'm all ears. Is it perhaps a conspiracy?

you are completely uninterested in learning anything about Biblical languages so that you could have a basis for sound judgment in such issues,...

Right, I am not interested in becoming a bona fide expert in a 2,000 year old dead language. And until I do, and you do, our opinions on the matter are not going to trump the majority opinion of trained expert professionals. Not without really really good reasons. And you don't have any of those.

you are untrained in Biblical exegesis, or Biblical hermeneutics,...

My specialty is putting fundies over the knee and giving them correction with the Big Truth Stick of No Mercy. The errors of reasoning made by fundamentalists of any stripe are so glaring and painfully obvious, it's really quite an easy task, requiring no training in exegesis or hermeneutics, just clear, rudimentary, critical thinking skills.

so as to determine if the experts you pick are trustworthy,

No, as when dealing with any complex subject I am not an expert in, it makes sense to appeal to those who do have expert training and knowledge. Not being a climatologist, when I want to form an accurate opinion about climatology, I refer to those with training and expertise in the field (i.e. a climatologist). If this wasn't a matter regarding your personal religion, you wouldn't have any trouble seeing this as obviously true. Who should we consider to be expert biblical scholars? Well, let me quote one them, Richard Elliott Friedman. Professor at the University of Calif., San Diego; Ph.D Harvard; Fellowship from the Am. Council of Learned Societies; Visiting scholar at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew Studies, etc., etc. He is author of the excellent book: WHO WROTE THE BIBLE? (Summit Books, 1987). From pg. 261:

"There are many persons who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology, and literary and historical skills to work on the problem [of authorship], and who meet, discuss, and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through scholarly journals, conferences, etc."

As you freely admit, you are not in any way a Bible scholar as defined by this normal and reasonable method given by professor Friedman. You are an evangelical preacher with no formal training in the tools of biblical scholarship beyond have a hobby of sitting in your living room, fiddling with software and opining about the Bible. This is very common among southern preachers, but it's not very persuasive to neutral observers.

...you are completely bound to follow only the well-trodden path that has failed to give an adequate response to the question at hand (thus insuring that there never is an answer).

Sorry, sometimes the most informed answer leads to a conclusion that is less than entirely conclusive. Sometimes it is better and more honest to be unsure, than to be confident and wrong. I know religious conservatives, liking simple answers to a complex universe, are uncomfortable with this, but, there it is.

And I would want to consider freethinking as viable means to real knowledge?

Only if you are interested in believing things because they are actually true, rather than convenient, comforting and offer imaginary rewards after you die. Most people aren't interested in that, they instead prefer comforting myths. Thinking is more difficult than believing, hence the reason why we have so many more believers than thinkers.

You must really believe I am a country bumpkin.

Yep.

But that's okay. My Savior made himself of no reputation before those who claimed to know everything. And I am called to follow in his steps. He said if they hate his followers, it is because they hate him. So I won't take it personally.

I don't hate you, or Jesus, I just know you don't have good reasons for your beliefs. Faith is never a good reason to believe in something, in fact, it is specifically an admitted lack of a good reason. When you have good reasons for a belief, you don't appeal to faith.

What I am willing to do is keep posting what I have learned, and let you keep posting whatever you like.

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

D.
--------------------
"Anyone who believes today in the year 2000 that the Bible is “reliable” and “infallible,” without error or contradiction, is approaching insanity."
--William Edelen. Active ordained Presbyterian and Congregational minister for 30 years. Adjunct professor of Religious Studies and Anthropology, University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington.

It is amazing how much you know, about me I mean. So far you have called me a fundamentalist, an inerrantist, a country bumpkin, a southern preacher, an evangelical. a self-proclaimed Biblical scholar, with no training beyond sitting in my living room...and so on. You did get the "Bible in one hand and sermon in the other..." part right. Beyond that you have an incredible imagination. I am not a fundamentalist, an inerrantist (I have lost track of how many times I have made that known, although I do lean toward the Chicago statement), country bumpkin suits me fine, but I am not from the south (England actually, though I grew up in Michigan), never claimed to be a Biblical scholar, and you don't understand my schooling, or my professors at all. So far I am completely unimpressed with your assessment of even a living person whom you could know if you were inclined, let alone someone dead for two thousand years. But I am an encourager of my students. Keep trying, you will get it.

And you are one of my students you realize...just can't send you to the principle's office...

Good then, we will live by the Golden Rule. You don't take me seriously, and you have given me far more proof than I need to see that you do not want me to take you seriously, so I will oblige...we can both have a good laugh out of it.

I also have invited friends to follow the exchanges. They are also amused, as I am sure yours are as well. So a good time will be had by all.

"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice..." Phil 1:18

I thank you so much for giving me a platform to preach the gospel to atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers. I could not have gotten it any other way, and you even sent out the invitations for me.

With gratitude,

Steve

Stephen McCormick wrote:It is amazing how much you know, about me I mean.

Well, I've been doing it a long time. You quack like a duck, and when it quacks like a duck...

So far you have called me a fundamentalist,...

If your beliefs differ from the classic list of fundamentals, feel free to point this out.

fundamentalist. Websters:
1. religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals;
2. the 20th-cent. movement among some American Protestants, based on these beliefs.

an inerrantist,...

I simply asked you, and you waffled. And you didn't deny it. If you weren't, you could simply say that you aren't. That's what I would do. That's what people who aren't inerrantists do.

a country bumpkin, a southern preacher, an evangelical.

Again, you don't seem to deny this. It's rather a statement of fact that you are the latter two right?

a self-proclaimed Biblical scholar,

No, I haven't. A simple word search of this thread shows that this is the first instance of the word "proclaimed." Please be precise and accurate when you attribute comments to me. One cure is to respond to my comments directly, as I do yours, rather than work from your memory and reinterpretation machine (you have been consistently and extremely sloppy in this regard from the very beginning).

with no training beyond sitting in my living room...

Nope, never said that. Avoid inaccurately making things up. You're not in church at the moment.

I am not a fundamentalist,

Excellent. So you don't agree with the five fundamentals from 1910?

The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

Okay, I'll make a note of it. Which one do you disagree with? If it's the first one, perhaps you can share a few examples of what you acknowledge to be errors in the Bible? That would demonstrate that you aren't confused about being an inerrantist or not.

[I'am not] ...an inerrantist...

Excellent, then what are a few of what you would acknowledge to be errors in the Bible? Would you like some examples to choose from? I have lots. I'm a collector of fine Bible errors.

(I have lost track of how many times I have made that known,...

Not at any time in this forum. Not once (until now).

although I do lean toward the Chicago statement),

The Chicago statement is hardcore fundamentalist inerrancy. So you... lean toward... hardcore fundamentalist, inerrancy. Okay, whatever, label yourself however you wish. Load the waffles up, dodge and duck. Regardless, you have so far defended the Bible exactly as an inerrantist does, even if you run from the label (with good reason).

...never claimed to be a Biblical scholar,

And I never claimed that you claimed to be one (for instance, a biblical scholar would probably know that "biblical" isn't capitalized). I simply pointed out that you weren't one. There is a difference.

So far I am completely unimpressed with your assessment of even a living person whom you could know if you were inclined, let alone someone dead for two thousand years. But I am an encourager of my students.

Not really interested in what you can claim or editorialize about. I am interested in what you can show. And so far, that ain't much.

And you are one of my students you realize...

I am quite pleased to let the readers decide who is receiving a schooling. Feel free to begin at anytime.

I also have invited friends to follow the exchanges.

Excellent. They are welcome to join in and help you out.

[Reminder of insults and time wasting distractions snipped.]

Now get to work. You have a lot of Easter Problems to solve (course, if you weren't an inerrantist, you wouldn't bother with such silliness) and you haven't even scratched the surface on the first part of the first one. Do you need me to post them again, or would you like some fresh ones?

Bonus bit: This from Stephen's blog prompts me to ask where would anyone get the idea that Stephen is an inerrantist?. An excerpt:

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

When we find an "error" in the text, it's not an "error" no, it's an "error on the part of those who use these issues as reason to doubt the reliability of the accounts." And if an "issue seems “irreconcilable”" it's only because the reader is... "unskilled in understanding the Word of God:"

Yes, where in the world would anyone possibly get the idea that Stephen would be an inerrantist?

D.
-----------------
"...when we run into a so-called "error" in the
Bible, we must assume one of two things--either
the manuscript was not copied correctly, or we
have not understood it rightly. What we may not
assume is that God made an error in inspiring
the original text." (Giesler and Howe in their classic
inerrancy appologetic: "When Critics Ask" p.23-24)