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

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Taking McElhaney To Task: Failed Christian Apologetic Part 1

Thegrandverbalizer has written a response to my response to his blog post alleging that the New Testament writers just engaged in quote mining rendering the Bible untrustworthy.  Of course I disagree. I'm going to respond to his post with my responses in red.

For those of you who would like to follow this exchange you would do well to read my initial post here:http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/04/ancient-christian-art-quoting-out-of.html

Of course it demands a response because it shows the New Testament for what it is literary fiction. How could a person with any integrity just ignore that. However, McElhaney I am sure is a well intentioned person but his 'logic' and 'responses' really baffle the mind.

Let's take a look and see if you have a point.

His attempted response to my article 'Quote Mining: An Ancient Christian Art' can be seen here:

http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/05/islam-and-christianity-common-word_10.html

First off I am glad to see that McElhaney has agreed to the definition of what quote mining is as this gives him very little wiggle room as our exchange will show. Allah-willing.

I did agree to the definition. The New Testament does not quote mine - if this is the definition is the one we wanna use

McElhaney took exception to me saying that the "dual prophecy" dodge that Christian apologist like to use is non biblical. Well, I have not seen McElhaney give any due diligence to it all. Notice that his response is very weak.

"What Bible passage is he referring to that say that there is no such thing as dual prophecy? No example is given."

I did not know that McElhaney was a Roman Catholic. I do admit I assumed he was a Protestant Christian and evangelical at that. I thought he held to the doctrine of 'sola scriptura'. When I pointed out to McElhaney that this concept of 'dual prophecy' does not have biblical support he asked for a passage that says that.

I guess he  thinks that only Roman Catholics see one prophecy being fulfilled multiple times. I didn't see this post or the present one as the appropriate place to flesh out how Prophecy works. I'm preparing such a post to discuss this more fully. In the meantime, I merely was pointing out that thegrandverbalizer basically performed a drive-by without really hitting anything. It would be nice to see an example from the Bible saying that God cannot fulfill a prophecy more than once because God's word never returns to him void. 

Well lets see how consistent McElhaney apologetic really is. McElhaney would you kindly give Christians and Muslims the passage from the Bible that says there is such a thing as dual prophecy? Because no example was given from you to show that it exist.

Such examples will be put forth in a separate post because it deserves more space than I want to give here. Beside in this response, thegrandverbalizer didn't give an example where Christians invoke "dual prophecy" to explain anything. Therefore a fuller discussion doesn't need to be here in this response.

Taking the time to type of some words in text is appreciated but if your going to try your hand at apologetic you will need to do more than that.

When McElhaney saw my example of Matthew 2:15 quote mining Hosea 11:1-2 he was obviously taken a back by it. He looked at the passage and thought no this can't be. He than went for a walk hid by his couch jumped over it and grabbed the Bible off the shelf and quickly opened it back up to Hosea 11-1-2 and those verses were still there.

Attempted humor? Maybe. However, being acquainted with Hosea I know what the passage says.

McElhaney than pinched himself, "No I am not dreaming" he said quietly to himself. He than sat the Bible down and searched the internet. Maybe he just got some kind of faulty translation. Where other people seeing what he was seeing? Couldn't be could it? So he went and searched the internet and sure enough no matter what translation no matter what Bible the problem was still there.

As I stated in my response this is hardly a "problem".

So McElhaney not able to escape the fact that quote mining was before his very eyes decided that it wasn't him who was confused it was the world that was confused!

The world is not confused but I would say thegrandverbalizer is confused.

So than McElhaney feeling obliged to respond wrote,

"I see the confusion. Matthew was referring only to verse 1 not verse 2. Do you really think the "they" of verse 2 are the same as the Israel that was called out of Egypt? No they are not. The worship of the Baals came later - centuries after the Exodus."

This is the apologetic that Christians accept and than go to bed at night thinking to themselves that all is good and right in the world? Amazing! McElhaney sees the confusion when he looks in the mirror.

Therefore thegrandverbalizer is definitely wrong if he agrees that many Christians agree with me. It's not that the whole world that is wrong.

But in my article I defined quote mining as

Quoting out of context or "quote mining" is a logical fallacy and type of false attributionin which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Here is where the confusion is. Did Matthew take Hosea 11:1 out of its context? No. As I stated the people who God called out of Egypt were not the same people who sacrificed to the Baals. There is no way you can equate the two Hosea is giving a retrospective issue of what God has done for Israel. Therefore the same individuals who were called out of Egypt  are not the same as those who obstinately worshiped the Baals centuries later. So did Matthew take a passage meant solely for Israel and misapplied it to Jesus. No. If Hosea 11:1 referred to just Israel  as a nation of people why  does it not say "...out of Egypt I called my sons." Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy of the future. It's talking about a point in time prior to Hosea's and future to Hosea. Matthew only quoted the part regarding the future with respect to Hosea. Considering that Hosea's words are singular I think it is disingenuous to say that the intended meaning is not what Matthew said he was. I'm not saying that Hosea fully understood what he said, but since he was talking under the inspiration of God, God knew what was being said and it was his intention in Hebrews 11:1 and Matthew 2:15

Than McElhaney said clear as day

I agree with this definition.

Maybe McElhaney could tell us how Hosea 11-1 was NOT removed from it's surrounding mater. Is McElhaney also not aware that the concept of verses came much much latter.

For example is McElhaney not aware of the fact There are 1,189 chapters in the Protestant Bible?These chapter divisions were not in the original manuscripts- They are not Divinely inspired. They were inserted in the early 1200s. This was done for much the same reason your house and my house have numbers in front of them. These chapters are like ADDRESSES by which we can find the location of particular sections/ events/persons or truths. In the 1500s those 1,889 chapters were further divided into 31,173. So now there is not just the general address-of say, Romans 1 and 2 now there are sub-addresses Romans 1:16. So today we have 1,189 chapters in the Bible and we have 31,173 verses within those 1,189 chapters.

How  do you know I don't know that about chapters and verses? Putting chapters and verses  does not change the text. The older copies didn't have spaces or punctuations and all capital letters. So? I'm not saying that Matthew knew anything about  verses or cared. He quoted a piece of a text but not out of its context or from out of  what it was meant. If you conclude that he did think about what you are saying. This apologetic from Matthew has converted many Jews to Christianity. Are you really willing to say that  1st century Jews were not smart enough to be able to counter the arguments that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament? This is one of the proofs Paul, Peter, John, and many others used these same arguments and they held. Why is that?  Because they are true. Matthew didn't quote mine anything.

This is why McElhaney should have thought very carefully before venturing a 'response' if that is what he calls it. I very clearly stated about Hosea 11-1-2 the following,

"So much for a prophecy awaiting fulfillment. The original context of this verse does not speak about Jesus at all! The only way for Christians to say that Hosea 11:1 speaks about Jesus is to use quote mining. You have to completely ignore the context"

You, thegreatverbalizer, has  ignored the context of both Hosea and Matthew because you said you think that the son who was called out of Egypt sacrificed to Baals. There is quite a bit more context involved.

Remember that McElhaney agrees with the definition of quote mining.

So now McElhaney says that Matthew was only quoting Hosea 11:1. McElhaney is trying to sell Christians and Muslims a 1983 Gremlin with a flat tire and bad transmission. I'm sorry guy but were not buying it.

You don't have to buy it. Just read the text. Part 2 of my response is forthcoming.

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