Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Taking McElhaney To Task: Failed Christian Apologetic Part 2

Here is part 2 of my response to thegrandverbalizers' latest post regarding my post about his post about New Testament writers quote mining the Old Testament.

McElhaney also fumbles the ball when it comes to Matthew 27:9-10 you can see his attempted 'response' here:http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/05/islam-and-christianity-common-word_3145.html

McElhaney obviously found this very curious as well, so on this point I won't be really addressing McElhaney or anything he has come up with. I will be addressing his copy and paste of people he went to researching about this and troubled his spirit. So let's look at what kind of sound advice his learned people gave him.

Some claim it is a mistake that Matthew attributes the quotation in Matthew 27:9-10to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah.
Most questions of this sort usually find answers in the footnotes of the common Study Bibles.
For example the NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Mt. 27:9

Jeremiah. The quotation that follows seems to be a combination of Zec 11:12-13 and Jer 19:1-13 (or perhaps Jer 18:2-12 or Jer 32:6-9). But Matthew attributes it to the major prophet Jeremiah, just as Mark (1:2-3) quotes Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3 but attributes them to the major prophet Isaiah.

This is actually pretty common in the Bible. The NIV Quest Study Bible addspossible another thought:

… it was customary to allude to an entire section of the Bible by the name of the first book in that section. It may be that in Matthew's day Jeremiah was the first of the prophetic books.

Wow! Is this what you have bought McElhaney? You didn't notice the uncertainty in choosing English words like "seems" , "possible" and "may be"? The other broken car I am not buying is the argument that "This is actually pretty common in the Bible". So because there are errors in the Bible and it's 'very common' than don't worry! Errors in the Bible are so common so don't worry about the errors in the Bible as that is perfectly fine! Say what?

What seems like an error to you did not seem like an error in the first century. If you had have said this to a Jew  back then in the context of the time they would not have thought of you as making a mistake. I think it's because the prophet wasn't the one who got credit for the prophecy. God should So to them it didn't really matter if Zechariah or Jeremiah said it. What mattered is if God said it.  The Bible is inspired not dictated.  It's a product of the author's personality and culture. There are other examples from contemporaneous sources that this was a common practice. We don't do things like this anymore but that doesn't make our way better than theirs.

Notice also when they say above "It was customary to allude to an entire section of the Bible by the name of the first book in that section. It may be that in Matthew's day Jeremiah was the first of the prophetic books"

Not only is this a clever ploy to dupe you people it also doesn't explain the inconsistency of it. Why wasn't it done all the time?

Why should it be the same and never change?  If you go to the store and buy KJV it's not going to be exactly the same as the ones that rolled off the printing presses in 1611. God gives us all much freedom and things are allowed to change over time without it being sin. In Muslim countries women were not allowed to drive, now they can in many instances. Is that bad? I don't think so.

I hope you people can see how subtle that was. It was customary to allude to an entire section of the Bible by the name of the first book. We have no proof of that but today we are offering all of you gullible people a special. Now we have "MAYBE" on sale. If you act now we will throw in other wild speculation for free!

Excuse me. That was the culture of Judaism in the first century AD, In case you didn't know, now you have learned something.

McElhaney who is one of those people who are giving wild speculation away for free even offers up the following free of charge.

"Also in the first century they would not have looked at this as a mistake,"

They would not have look at this as a mistake? They who? How do you know that? How many copies of Matthew were there available at that time? Could you just walk into your local borders book store and get a copy of the gospel of Matthew? How many people were even looking at these things?

In case you just missed it and given your comment, thegrandverbalizer, that's probable, "they" in my statements refers to contemporaneous literate people of the time Matthew is written. If other Jews saw this as a mistake we would see writing and evidence of folks writing against it during the first three millenniums of Christianity, but I have seen no such evidence of that.

"His Jewish audience knew that Matthew was referring to zachariah not to Jeremiah."

His Jewish audience knew that Matthew was referencing Zechariah? Really? More snake oil for sale McElhaney? What proof do you have for this?

Literate and educated Jews of Jesus' time knew the scriptures backwards and forwards. They studied them as if their lives depended on it...and it does as do ours. Based on all the information presented on how referring to the prophets be the first book of the prophets is true, why would they not know. If you didn't already know this, consider yourself further educated.

You can read his "response" to what I said about Matthew 2:23 here:http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/05/islam-and-christianity-common-word_2367.html

One of the irrefutable proofs for me that show that McElhaney is a wily individual who is not after truth is the following. In spite of the fact that he absolutely dotes on James White.

So here goes McElhaney not double checking sources and looking at the facts. When I mentioned in one blog entry that James White was slowly backing away from the doctrine of biblical inerrancy it took McElhaney for a spin. Could it be? Not James White right?

“Or did they recognize that God had preserved the text in such a way that they could quote from the Greek Septuagint (the text known to their target audience) and still identify this translation as the Word of God?Surely, their use of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament raises all sorts of challenging, difficult questions.”

I'm gonna assume that this quote is also from Dr. White.

Don't ever assume McElhaney. When you assume as the teacher says it makes an ASS of U and ME. So instead of being lazy and desperately trying to defend an untenable position why didn't you simply click on the link and read ithttp://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/james-white-backs-away-from-biblical.html

Than you can click on the link I quoted fromhttp://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3714

I triple double dog dare you to do it! So you don't need to 'ASSUME' anything McElhaney. You just need to stop being such an ingrate to the creator who has helped you through so many difficult times. Has given you an internet, a chair and air conditioning. It would take you less than 10 minutes to verify my point. Why do you treat yourself so unjustly?

So your problem is that I wasn't clear on if you were quoting James White or not? Okay. So I assumed correctly. Thanks for proving my thought correct.

One of the irrefutable proofs for me that show that thegrandverbalizer is a wily individual who is not after truth is tat he completely ignored the point of addressing his charge against James White.

McElhaney still just doesn't get it when it comes to Matthew 21:1-11. After proving beyond doubt to all except the vain glorious that the writer of 'Matthew' whom ever he/she is misquoted Zechariah 9:9 by using a the Greek Septuagint it seems that McElhaney too is going to show his ignorance of the Hebrew language by stating,

So, thegrandverbalizer, you either are ignoring Dr. White's point or you didn't get it because you don't like him. You wouldn't be the first. If you walked into a market and purchased a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures in  the first century, they would hand you the Septuagint. At that time the scriptures were read most commonly in Greek. The is why the NT is also in Kione Greek. Most Jews of the time could not even read Hebrew. They didn't look at it as if the Septuagint was a false copy and evil. Why should you? In comparing the Septuagint and the most ancient copies of the Hebrew Old Testament I see very little reason to be upset. Don't forget that Jews made the Septuagint translation. The truth is that Dr White neither backed off from sola scriptora and neither is he incorrect in this case.You are wrong, not him.

"No problem here. Jesus was riding the colt and the colt's mother walked ahead leading the colt. This was standard in that day for a colt that had never been ridden. Matthew was not wrong. The Septuagint is not wrong. The Hebrew is not wrong."

Well, does the text say that 'the colt's mother walked ahead leading the colt' ? If McElhaney does not repent for adding words to the scripture he will have the plagues added to him from God.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." Revelation 22:18

Before I address the colt, let me point out  that thegrandverbalizer has no standing to quote Revelations 22:18 because according to him Matthew is adding to scripture. Let's look at why he is too hasty in his judgment.

Can McElhaney show us the other Gospel he has that says, "and the colt's mother walked ahead leading the colt"? McElhaney I know the Gospel is deficient, however you are not going to help your own salvation by adding to what you believe to be revelation. Repent because there is still time!

The Septuagint is not wrong and the Hebrew is not wrong says McElhaney. Really? So when the Hebrew says that this person will ride ONE DONKEY and the Greek says that Jesus will ride TWO DONKEYS they are both correct? Amazing!

The Greek is not saying that Jesus would ride two donkeys simultaneously. I'm not adding a revelation. History says that if a donkey was never ridden before the colt's mother would lead the colt. Matthew adds the detail that the colt's mother was there. Zechariah does not say the colt's mother is not there. This doesn't invalidate the prophecy being fulfilled at all.

McElhaney likes to assure us that,

"I have answer each of the points you have raised without using "double application". Do you have anymore? There are hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament. I'm more than willing to one-by-one if you are."

You haven't answered Jack! Infact the only thing you have done effectively is to show the desperate state that Christian apologetic s finds itself in currently.

Even if you refuse to accept an answer it does not mean you have effectively given reason enough to dismiss it.

The one thing I do love about brother McElhaney is that he doesn't mince words when it comes to the following statement,

"This why Biblical inerrancy is important. If any part is wrong we should throw the whole thing out."

Amen! I admire McElhaney for being so courageous in saying this. So many times I have shown contradictions in error's in the Bible and I have heard time and again, "Oh it's only one". I have heard people say, "Who cares it doesn't effect my doctrine".

I never understood that very creepy response. It would be like sitting on an air plane and a window is busted open and the air stewardess smiles to your face and says, "Don't worry it's only one window".

I many how many holes does it take to pop a balloon? One hole in the balloon is a big problem. One window busted open on an airplane is a huge deal. One of the doctrines that evangelical Christians have is that the Bible is inerrant. Therefore it does effect your doctrine.

I don't understand the response from other Christians either. It must be out of fear. The things is that the pointed thgrandverbalizer can't be and should not be avoided or ignored. If Jesus is who He claimed to be there should not be any  errancy in the Bible. We should be able to understand the text without ignoring contradictions and errors. My point is that we can. Thegrandverbalizer failed to express such contradictions. All the ones he brought up  has been explained in the past. There truly is nothing new, but every generation needs to be assured that the Bible is true and we can trust God's Word.

Since McElhaney wants to throw the Bible out I wonder where he's going to go? May Allah open up his heart and guide him to the God that Christ Jesus worshiped. May Allah use this exchange between the two of us to help truth seekers to see where the truth is on matters of faith between our respective faith traditions.

Funny, When did I say I wanna throw out the Bible? I see no reason to because there are no errors or contradictions. I'm wondering how do Muslims understand John 8:24 which Jesus said:

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

The Qur'an does not tell us who Jesus claimed to be. Where do you need to go if you want to know about Jesus whom without you have no hope for being saved from your sins: The Bible - Old and New Testaments. Seems like a touch down to me.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Taking McElhaney To Task: Failed Christian Apologetic