Ken,

I will remember you in my prayers. I have gone through, nothing like you
are going through, two prostate infections during the last few months.
Keep a positive attitude! A positive attitude and prayer can really make
a difference.

Yours, Frank R. Williams

Ken Ford wrote:
>
> Fellow laborers for Him,
> This is Ken Ford in Brisbane, Australia. I want to thank each one who
> has graciously prayed on my behalf in view of my ordeal with prostate
> cancer.
> I am asking especially for prayer as I go to hospital for
> prostatectomy surgery on December 11. I am confident that the Lord's
> will will be done, and I love and trust Him. But he knows of my fears
> and my needs.
> In case I don't get the chance to say it this side of eternity, I have
> great love and respect for the brethren I know only via this list and
> through sermons and lectures I have downloaded and listened to. I pray
> that your faithfulness to God and your defence of truth will continue
> and bear fruit.
>
> In our Lord's love and service,
> Ken Ford.
>
> __________________________________________________________
> See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
> http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/
> <http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Fellow laborers for Him,
This is Ken Ford in Brisbane, Australia.  I want to thank each one who has
graciously prayed on my behalf in view of my ordeal with prostate cancer.
I am asking especially for prayer as I go to hospital for prostatectomy surgery
on December 11.  I am confident that the Lord's will will be done, and I love
and trust Him.  But he knows of my fears and my needs.
In case I don't get the chance to say it this side of eternity, I have great
love and respect for the brethren I know only via this list and through sermons
and lectures I have downloaded and listened to.  I pray that your faithfulness
to God and your defence of truth will continue and bear fruit.

In our Lord's love and service,
Ken Ford.


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The author writes: "The New Testament inherits the culture of the Old Testament,
and the later was full of instrumentation."



False. The NT does not inherit the culture of the OT, especialy when it comes to
Chrisgtian worship.

 
The author continues: " The burden of proof would lie on the person assuming
that instruments were not used in New Testament worship, and then it would have
to be proven that the absence is normative for all worship of all time."



The proof is found in the NT, i.e., there is no record of use of instruments in
Christian worship. This, therefore, is the normative in the NT.  



As for the contemporary use of psallo in the first century, here is a good
article from Hugo Mccord:



Psallo and Psalmos
By Hugo McCord


A sincere brother wonders why do we have the right to say that the terms psallo
and psalmos lost all connection to the instrument by the time of the writing of
the New Testament. If the early church was in fact using the LXX [Septuagint,
Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made by 72 Jewish translators in
Alexandria Egypt in the second or third century B.C.] version of the OT, then
they would be very familiar with the book of Psalms. And since that would be
true, how could Paul's use of these terms be significantly different?

No one has such a right. The terms psallo and psalmos had not “lost all
connection to the instrument by the time of the writing of the New Testament,”
nor since. On the contrary, in the very century in which the NT was written,
psallo could mean “sing” or “play,” depending on what the writer had in
mind. Josephus, in the first century A.D., wrote of some who “psallowed on the
harp” ( Antiq ., 6:8,2), in which example psallo could not mean, “sing.”

I have seen three other examples in print with psallo meaning “play”: (1) in
the first century, Strabo ( Geography , 1:23; 14:2,26); (2) in the first
century, Plutarch ( Life of Pericles , 1:5); (3) in the second century, Lucian (
The Parasiste 17). A second century inscription is cited by Moulton and Milligan
( Vocabulary , psalmos) in which psalmos signifies a song sung with a harp.

Likewise, Paul commanded Christians to do two things: aido and psallo (Ephesians
5:19). If in Paul's time psallo meant “ 'sing' exclusively, . . . with no
reference to instrumental accompaniment (Bauer-Gingrich-Danker, A Greek-English
Lexicon to the New Testament , p. 891, 2nd edition, 1979), and aido meant the
same thing, then Paul was commanding “singing [aidontes] and singing
[psallontes].” Apparently, Paul was commanding both singing and playing.

But on what was the playing to be done? He did not command it to be done on a
harp or psaltery or a timbrel, as the LXX (translated 285-247 B.C.) commanded in
Psalm 32:2-3; 67:26; and 70:22, nor as the NASB (translated 1971 A.D.) commanded
in Psalm 33:2-3; 68:25; 71:22), but “with your heart” (Ephesians 5:19).

If the instrument specified was a harp or a psaltery or a timbrel, the playing
necessarily had to be literal, with each Christian at Ephesus having his own
harp or psaltery or timbrel (as the Hebrew and the Greek and the English
versions of the Book of Psalms specify). But the instruments specified for the
Ephesian Christians were their hearts, on which literal playing was impossible.

Therefore, psallo in Ephesians 5:19 cannot mean “singing,” but only
“playing,” and the playing has to be figurative, that is, “plucking the
strings of the heart,” “with no reference to instrumental accompaniment”
(B-G-D, p. 891, second edition, 1979). The NASB has “making melody with your
heart.”

Thus two things are commanded: (1) singing, external, “the fruit of the
lips” (Hebrews 13:15) and (2) playing, internal, “with your heart”
(Ephesians 5:19). Since the earliest meaning of psallo (strengthened from psao,
to touch) is to strike, pull, twang, or pluck, the translation of Ephesians 5:19
becomes: speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing
[aido] and plucking [psallo] the strings of your heart to the Lord.




A sincere brother wonders why do we have the right to say that the terms psallo
and psalmos lost all connection to the instrument by the time of the writing of
the New Testament. If the early church was in fact using the LXX [Septuagint,
Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made by 72 Jewish translators in
Alexandria Egypt in the second or third century B.C.] version of the OT, then
they would be very familiar with the book of Psalms. And since that would be
true, how could Paul's use of these terms be significantly different?

No one has such a right. The terms psallo and psalmos had not “lost all
connection to the instrument by the time of the writing of the New Testament,”
nor since. On the contrary, in the very century in which the NT was written,
psallo could mean “sing” or “play,” depending on what the writer had in
mind. Josephus, in the first century A.D., wrote of some who “psallowed on the
harp” ( Antiq ., 6:8,2), in which example psallo could not mean, “sing.”

I have seen three other examples in print with psallo meaning “play”: (1) in
the first century, Strabo ( Geography , 1:23; 14:2,26); (2) in the first
century, Plutarch ( Life of Pericles , 1:5); (3) in the second century, Lucian (
The Parasiste 17). A second century inscription is cited by Moulton and Milligan
( Vocabulary , psalmos) in which psalmos signifies a song sung with a harp.

Likewise, Paul commanded Christians to do two things: aido and psallo (Ephesians
5:19). If in Paul's time psallo meant “ 'sing' exclusively, . . . with no
reference to instrumental accompaniment (Bauer-Gingrich-Danker, A Greek-English
Lexicon to the New Testament , p. 891, 2nd edition, 1979), and aido meant the
same thing, then Paul was commanding “singing [aidontes] and singing
[psallontes].” Apparently, Paul was commanding both singing and playing.

But on what was the playing to be done? He did not command it to be done on a
harp or psaltery or a timbrel, as the LXX (translated 285-247 B.C.) commanded in
Psalm 32:2-3; 67:26; and 70:22, nor as the NASB (translated 1971 A.D.) commanded
in Psalm 33:2-3; 68:25; 71:22), but “with your heart” (Ephesians 5:19).

If the instrument specified was a harp or a psaltery or a timbrel, the playing
necessarily had to be literal, with each Christian at Ephesus having his own
harp or psaltery or timbrel (as the Hebrew and the Greek and the English
versions of the Book of Psalms specify). But the instruments specified for the
Ephesian Christians were their hearts, on which literal playing was impossible.

Therefore, psallo in Ephesians 5:19 cannot mean “singing,” but only
“playing,” and the playing has to be figurative, that is, “plucking the
strings of the heart,” “with no reference to instrumental accompaniment”
(B-G-D, p. 891, second edition, 1979). The NASB has “making melody with your
heart.”

Thus two things are commanded: (1) singing, external, “the fruit of the
lips” (Hebrews 13:15) and (2) playing, internal, “with your heart”
(Ephesians 5:19). Since the earliest meaning of psallo (strengthened from psao,
to touch) is to strike, pull, twang, or pluck, the translation of Ephesians 5:19
becomes: speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing
[aido] and plucking [psallo] the strings of your heart to the Lord.


Doug Post

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bobby D. Gayton here:
Read this very carefully and you will see a Greeek scholar deny what he teaches
about the Greek word psallo!
Bobby
 
ψαλλω and Musical Instruments (Monday with Mounce 45)
Posted: 19 Oct 2009 05:36 AM PDT
Someone asked me the other day about the precise meaning of the Greek word
ψαλλω and any relationships it has, if any, to the ancient debate of
musical instruments in worship.
I hesitate to blog on this because I am sure there has been much discussion in
the Worship Wars literature about this and I am not aware of the pitfalls lying
in wait for me. (Can pitfalls "lie in wait" or am I mixing my metaphors? Oh
well, you understand.) My books on worship are at school and I can't get to
them. So much for disclaimers.
But the person mentioned that some lexicons support one position, and others
lexicons support the other. Let's see.
The latest version of BDAG gives this meaning to ψαλλω: "to sing songs of
praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment." The suggested glosses are
"sing, sing praise." The cognate noun ÏˆÎ±Î»ÎŒÎżÏ‚ is defined as "song of
praise, psalm and is used in the NT as a reference to the Psalms or more
generally to a hymn of praise."
It is interesting that Liddell and Scott give these meanings for classical
Greek: "to play a stringed instrument with the fingers; later, to sing to a
harp, sing, N.T. Louw and Nida agree. "to sing songs of praise, with the
possible implication of instrumental accompaniment."
Both words are used in the LXX to refer to the Psalms, which were often sung
with musical accompaniment. However, the word can be used just of singing apart
from mention of an instrument (Ps 33:2).
ψαλλω occurs five times in the NT, none of which specify anything more than
the voice (Rom 15:9; 1 Cor 14:15 (2x); Eph 5:1; James 5:13). The noun occurs
seven times, four times in Luke-Acts of a psalm, the books of Psalms, or the
entire section of the Jewish canon also called the Writings (Luke 20:42; 24:44;
acts 1:20; 13:33). In Paul they are used of a song sung (1 Cor 14:26; Eph 5:19;
Col 3:16).
So what can we conclude? It appears that the word has shifted somewhat in
meaning, since originally it clearly referred to playing an instrument, but by
NT times it could be used more generally of human singing. I suspect the lexical
data will not take us any further than that.
But it does point out an important lesson for all young Greek translators to
understand, and that is that words change their meaning.
They can widen in scope, narrow in scope, or shift altogether. I suspect the
question that engendered this blog was because the Classical Greek definition
and the Koine are somewhat different, and the person asking did not realize that
Liddell Scott cannot be compared directly to Koine lexicons like BDAG.
But does this mean that the "songs" in the NT were unaccompanied by musical
instrument. Absolutely not. The New Testament inherits the culture of the Old
Testament, and the later was full of instrumentation.
The burden of proof would lie on the person assuming that instruments were not
used in New Testament worship, and then it would have to be proven that the
absence is normative for all worship of all time.
The lesson for us is to watch the dating of the references, realizing that words
shift meaning from Classical to Koine. And also realizing that word studies
don't necessarily solve debate. They may give us the range of possible options,
but other factors usually determine which option we choose.
As for me and my house, we will use any means available to praise God for who he
is and what he has done.
William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis,
and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including
the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek (third edition coming in 2009!), and
general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New
Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard
Version Bible translation. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with
scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.  





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Doug,

I just looked at "The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament" and
in 1 Cor. 15:3, it reads, "I hand down For to you among first things
what also I received, that Christ died ..."  No one seemed to reply to
your post, so just to keep your thought before those the list, I thought
this might help.

Yours, Frank R. Williams

d_post2000 wrote:
>
>
> Revised:
> Brethren,
>
> If the word "ev" always means "among" when plural, then how can "ev
> protois" mean anyting but "among first things"?
>
> Doug Post
>
>

List:

There is no room on this list for unknown writers! All post are to have
the name of the writer at the end of each post.  That is my
understanding of the rules for this list.  Then, there is the
UNChristian nature of the unknown writer from another list put on this
list. If a person desires to debate, let that person put forth his
proposition and put his name on the line.  Due to very bad health
through the summer and even now, I have not written much, but these
posts cannot continue.

Yours, Frank R. Williams

Jerry,
 
I will not go on a list and be abused. I went on the Sons of Demas list and they
made promises to me and did not keep them, they lied!
 
You seem to have been lied to on the clashgroup list and you seem to be wanting
me to  go on that list and be abused. What is this all about.
 
I  am willing to debate on the baptism in the the Holy Spirit in a public four
night oral debate. Obviously this unknown person is not willing to debate this
publicly. Does he want to hide behind his anonymity?
 
Jerry stop posting challenges from another list to the One Heart list.
 
Marion R. Fox (list moderator)


 







Marion R. Fox

 
Five F Publishing Company: http://www.fivefpublishing.com  
 
Oklahoma City School of Biblical Studies: http://www.okcsbs.com
 
Blog: http://okcsbs.com/blog/

 
One Heart Journal: http://www.okcsbs.com/oneheart.html 

--- On Sat, 10/24/09, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:


From: Jerry McDonald <jerry@...>
Subject: [OneheartinChrist] Fw: [THECLASHGROUP] MARION FOX STILL INVITED
To: "MAET6g" <MAET6g@yahoogroups.com>, "OneHeartIn Christ"
<OneheartinChrist@yahoogroups.com>, "ChallengeII Biblical Examination"
<C2BE@yahoogroups.com>, "ChallengeIIBuster Busted" <C2BB@yahoogroups.com>,
"Whosthecultistmore" <WHOSTHECULTISTMORE@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, October 24, 2009, 10:03 PM


 





----- Forwarded Message ----
From: J427750108 <goldsmithmark@ rocketmail. com>
To: THECLASHGROUP@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 8:32:49 PM
Subject: [THECLASHGROUP] MARION FOX STILL INVITED

 
MISTER FOX IS STILL INVITED TO COME AND DISCUSS THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

THAT IS, IF HE IS THROUGH TELLING EVERYONE HOW GREAT HE IS AND FACE THE BIG
BOYS.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: J427750108 <goldsmithmark@...>
To: THECLASHGROUP@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 8:32:49 PM
Subject: [THECLASHGROUP] MARION FOX STILL INVITED

 
MISTER FOX IS STILL INVITED TO COME AND DISCUSS THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

THAT IS, IF HE IS THROUGH TELLING EVERYONE HOW GREAT HE IS AND FACE THE BIG
BOYS.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: J427750108 <goldsmithmark@...>
To: THECLASHGROUP@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 8:27:11 PM
Subject: [THECLASHGROUP] MARION FOX IS AFRAID

 
MARION FOX, AFTER SEEING JERRY MCDONALD DESTROYED, WON'T FACE THE BAPTISTS HERE.
WE CAN UNDERSTAND HIS POSITION. HOWEVER, HE IS INVITED TO COME AND ENTER INTO
HONEST DISCUSSION.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Man my post just got posted and it was immediately deleted.  How hypocritical
can this guy get.  He is such a liar!   What he hasn't figured out yet, however,
is that people notice the sequence numbers, and they know that when they see
hugh gaps in the sequence numbers they know that something has been deleted.

So go ahead and tell all the lies you want to tell Mark.  We all see your lies.

jdm 




________________________________
From: J427750108 <goldsmithmark@...>
To: THECLASHGROUP@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 8:17:45 PM
Subject: [THECLASHGROUP] THE NUMBER 7

 
THE NUMBER 7 INDICATES COMPLETION IN THE SCRIPTURES. JERRY HAS NOW RUN SEVEN
TIMES. HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY DEFEATED.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Revised:
Brethren,

If the word "ev" always means "among" when plural, then how can "ev protois"
mean anyting but "among first things"?

Doug Post

Brethren,

If the word "ev" always means "among" when plural, then how can ćí đńùôïéò mean
anyting but "among first things" ?

Doug Post

Here is a cartoon that everyone should see.

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-i\
n-1948.html

jdm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Who is challenging me to a debate? What propositions is he wanting to debate?
What format for the debate?
 
I never buy a "pig in a poke."
 
I will be ready to have an oral debate (four nights) if we can get a reasonable
proposition. Let me know if you are interested.
 
 
Yours in His service,









Marion R. Fox

 
Five F Publishing Company: http://www.fivefpublishing.com  
 
Oklahoma City School of Biblical Studies: http://www.okcsbs.com
 
Blog: http://okcsbs.com/blog/

 
One Heart Journal: http://www.okcsbs.com/oneheart.html 

--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:


From: Jerry McDonald <jerry@...>
Subject: [OneheartinChrist] Fw: [THECLASHGROUP] Challenge to Marion Fox
To: "Back To The" <backtothebible1@yahoogroups.com>, "Challenge2"
<challengeii@yahoogroups.com>, "ChallengeII Biblical Examination"
<C2BE@yahoogroups.com>, "ChallengeIIBuster Busted" <C2BB@yahoogroups.com>,
"Marion Fox" <mrfox@...>, "OneHeartIn Christ"
<OneheartinChrist@yahoogroups.com>, "Whosthecultistmore"
<WHOSTHECULTISTMORE@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 12:18 PM


 





----- Forwarded Message ----
From: tinroad6g <tinroad6g@yahoo. com>
To: THECLASHGROUP@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 4:55:46 AM
Subject: [THECLASHGROUP] Challenge to Marion Fox

 
I challenge Marion Fox to come here and discuss the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: tinroad6g <tinroad6g@...>
To: THECLASHGROUP@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 4:55:46 AM
Subject: [THECLASHGROUP] Challenge to Marion Fox

 
I challenge Marion Fox to come here and discuss the Baptism of the Holy Spirit




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Go ahead and send it to him tin.  I will gladly stand aside and let you and
Marion discuss it.  I have no problem with allowing this to happen.  I'll send
Marion a copy of this message so he will be sure to get it.
jdm




________________________________
From: tinroad6g <tinroad6g@...>
To: THECLASHGROUP@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 6:33:49 AM
Subject: [THECLASHGROUP] To Marion Fox

 
I wish to have a discussion on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with a qualified
CoC preacher. I have seen what Jerry McDonald and Terry Benton have to offer in
the way of honest discussion and scriptual knowledge.

Now, I know Jerry and Terry will get ruffled by that which I say next and I
really don't want to anger them. However, there is no other way to ask this.
Is that really it? Are they good examples of CoC preachers? Is that the best the
CoC has to offer?

Are you willing to discuss that Issue without all the boasting, blustering and
insults? Are you willing to take part in an honest discussion to the end
wiithout
unsubscribing 10 times




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

where can I get some good information on the word psallo and its use in the New
Testament?
Thanks, Steevn Estes





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Since we have several new members of our list, I am posting the rules for our
list. If any new members are not willing to abide by these rules, they should
remove themselves from the list.
 
 
 


 







Marion R. Fox  (Moderator)

 
Five F Publishing Company: http://www.fivefpublishing.com  
 
Oklahoma City School of Biblical Studies: http://www.okcsbs.com
 
Blog: http://okcsbs.com/blog/

 
One Heart Journal: http://www.okcsbs.com/oneheart.html 

--- On Tue, 7/26/05, MARION FOX <mrfox@...> wrote:


From: MARION FOX <mrfox@...>
Subject: [OneheartinChrist] Rules for One Heart list
To: "One Heart" <oneheartinchrist@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2005, 9:18 AM






Marion Fox here,
 
Everyone should read these rules.
 
On the One Heart list we do not allow several things that occur on some
other lists. First, we do not allow any impugning of motives because we deem it
to be sinful (1 Tim. 6:4). Second, we strongly suggest that there not be any
sarcasm in any posts. Third, if any charges of wrongdoing are made we require
proof of the charge. There are other things that we will require but essentially
we require that one conduct himself/herself as a Christian.
 
Some additional requirements are:  
 
When you respond to a post you should give the name of the person to whom you
are responding (in most cases - unless the person does not wish to be named).
 
You must always give your first and last name when posting on the list (no
anonymous posting on the list is allowed).
 
You should delete any information from the post to which you are replying that
is not necessary for the reader to see the point.
 
Keep your replies as brief as possible.
 
Use standard abbreviations of the books of the Bible when giving a Scripture
reference.
 
Do not say something cutting to another person and then use the symbol :)
 
When emotions become inflamed, people tend to say things that should not be said
and sarcasm and snide remarks inflame emotions. Our purpose should be that the
cause of the Lord should be advanced not to cause another person's temper to
flare and for him to do something that is wrong (perhaps even sinful).
 
Read your posts before sending them, this may help us keep snide remarks off the
list. These kind of remarks have no place on a list where Christians are
discussing the Scriptures.
 
If I deem that a discussion is becoming tense, I will (at my discretion) stop
the discussion for a day or so to allow the parties to "cool off."
 
If you deem that you are being insulted (whether or not it is true) we suggest
that you "turn the other cheek" and respond with kindness.
 

You should not post more than six times each day. (we may place more limits
later or allow more postings on the list later).
 
 
Yours in His service,
 
 





Marion R. Fox

http://www.okcsbs.com/
 
 



YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


 Visit your group "OneheartinChrist" on the web.
 
 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 OneheartinChrist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"(VI)
 
(VII)" (Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).Rom_6:21, Rom_6:23; Jam_5:20;
1Jo_5:16-17) which, in respect to the natural and temporal, is called the second
death (Rev_2:11; Rev_20:6, Rev_20:14) and implies everlasting punishment
(Rev_21:8). Eternal death (
 
According to the Word Study Dictionary, a Greek Lexicon, the word death when
used in reference to our sins has reference to spiritual death and eternal
death.  Spiritual death is spiritual separation from spiritual life.  Eternal
death is everlasting punishment.  We have seen from several lexicons that the
word "destroy" is used metaphorically to refer to eternal damnation.  In other
words, the torment will continue rather than to be burned up.  What about those
verses that say that the wicked shall be burned up?
 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather
his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
(Mat 3:12)
 
It is interesting how those who make literal things into parables (the rich man
and Lazarus) and parabalic things literal.  Here you have John talking about
Jesus (v:11) baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with Fire.  The "with Fire"
here is often thought of as being part of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but it
isn't, it goes along with verse 12, "Whose fan is in his hand."  Whose hand,
"Jesus's!"  "and he"  Jesus  "will throughly purge his floor (the world) and
gather his wheat (the righteous) into the garner (heaven); but he will burn up
with unquenchable fire.
 
Now notice what McGarvey had to say:
 
but the chaff [when the Bible wishes to show the worthlessness and the doom of
the ungodly, chaff is one of its favorite figures-- Job_21:18, Psa_1:4,
Isa_17:13, Jer_15:7, Hos_13:3, Mal_4:1] he will burn up [To prevent chaff from
being blown back and mixed again with the wheat, it was burned up. All the chaff
in the church shall be consumed on the day of judgment ( 1Co_3:12, 1Co_3:13),
and there shall be no mixing of good and bad after death-- Luk_16:26] with
unquenchable fire [In this and in other places ( 2Th_1:8, 2Th_1:9, Mar_9:48,
Mat_25:41), the future suffering of the wicked is taught in the Bible. He shows
no kindness to his neighbor, no friendship toward mankind, who conceals the
terrors of the Lord. These terrors are set forth in no uncertain terms. Many
believe that God will restore the wicked and eventually save all the human race.
Others hold that God will annihilate the wicked, and thus end their torment.
This passage and the one cited in
  Mark would be hard to reconcile with either of these views; they indicate that
there will be no arrest of judgment nor stay of punishment when once God begins
to execute his condemnation. God purged the world with water [80] at the time of
the flood; he will again purge it with fire on the day of judgment--
2Pe_3:7-10.] 　 18 With many other exhortations [The sermon here given is in
the nature of a summary. It embodies the substance of John's preaching.
Afterwards John preached Christ more directly-- Joh_1:29-36] therefore preached
he good tidings unto the people. [but, like the good tidings of the angel at
Bethlehem, it was good only to those who, by repentance, made themselves well
pleasing to God.] [81]  McGarvey's Commentary. e-Sword.
 
This verse does not say that the wicked will be annihilated.  It simply uses
this as a figure of speech to show that as the chaff is burned up by fire the
wicked shall be burned up by unquenchable fire.  However, the chaff is a
material thing that can be extinquished.  A soul is something that will never
be extinquished.  There was a time when Jerry McDonald existed, but there will
never be a time when Jerry McDonald doesn't exist from the time of my
conception.  Even if I am lost, I will continue to exist.
 
This idea of annihilation is a convienent doctrine that soft preachers want to
preach so that they can keep their fat checks and comfortable positions and keep
everyone happy.  They don't want people getting mad at them, so they preach
smooth thing rathe than right things (Isa. 30:10).  They know that if they
preach the truth as given in the scriptures on Hell, that it will upset people
and it might make people leave and they might lose their fat checks and healthy
bank accounts.  Well, I would rather make people mad at me now than to have God
mad at me in the day of judgment.  I know that hell will be eternal.  I know
that people will suffer eternally.  I know that we won't be annihilated.  I
challenge any "annihilist theorist" to come either to C2BE or ChallengeII and
debate the issue with me.  The last person that debated this issue with me
backed out before the debate was supposed to end.  Go to the following website
and read it.  They
  don't have a case.
 
In Christ Jesus
Jerry McDonaldJoh_5:24; 1Jo_3:14). As spiritual life consists in constant
communication with the divine Life, so spiritual death is the separation from
that Life. Spiritual death (

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Robert Baty <rlbaty@...>
To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2009 9:29:01 PM
Subject: [M & B] Pledge challenge rejected in NH!

 
(In doing so, the Court appears to have given a slap in the face to those who
thought to make a big deal out of "under God".)

------------ Forwarded Article----- ---------

New Hampshire Federal Court Rejects Challenge To Pledge of Allegiance

In Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District, (D NH, Sept. 30,
2009), a New Hampshire federal district court dismissed a constitutional
challenge to the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in school classrooms.

Atheist and agnostic parents and students raised Establishment Clause, free
exercise, equal protection and due process claims.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the court's opinion was its lengthy
Establishment Clause analysis.

In concluding that the New Hampshire statute mandating recitation of the pledge
in classrooms, but making student participation voluntary, passed the Lemon
test, the court said in part:

------------ --------- -----

..the Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious prayer, nor is it a "nonsectarian
prayer" .... and its recitation in schools does not constitute a "religious
exercise."

The Pledge does not thank God. It does not ask God for a blessing, or for
guidance. It does not address God in any way....

Rather, the Pledge, in content and function, is a civic patriotic statement... .

Peer or social pressure to participate in a school exercise not of a religious
character does not implicate the Establishment Clause, and as a civic or
patriotic exercise, the statute is clear in making participation completely
voluntary... .

The words "under God" undeniably come from the vocabulary of religion, or, at
the least, reflect a theistic orientation, but no more so than the benign deism
reflected in the national trust in God declared on our currency, or in
ceremonial intercessions to "save this Honorable Court"....

It may well be that some, perhaps many, people required to employ U.S. currency,
or socially pressured to stand during civic ceremonies, feel offended by what
seems to them an imposition of theistic doctrine.

But the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion, or
coercing one to support or participate in religion, a religious exercise, or
prayer.

It does not mandate that government refrain from all civic, cultural, and
historic references to a God.....

When Congress added the words "under God," to the Pledge in 1954, its actual
intent probably had far more to do with politics than religion — more to do
with currying favor with the electorate than with an Almighty.

(God, if God exists, is probably not so easily fooled.)

In the intervening half century since the words were added, rote repetition has,
as Justice Brennan observed, removed any significant religious content embodied
in the words, if there ever was significant religious (as opposed to political)
content embodied in those words.

Today, the words remain religious words, but plainly fall comfortably within the
category of historic artifacts — reflecting a benign or ceremonial civic deism
that presents no threat to the fundamental values protected by the Establishment
Clause.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --
------------ --------- --------- --------- --

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

McDonald’s Third Rebuttal
 
Max seems to think that I have somehow missed the bus on this discussion, but I
have done nothing of the sort.  I have introduced no red herrings and my
introduction of homosexuality was a legitimate part of this debate given the
question.  He seems to think that I am foolish for thinking that single people
can commit adultery, but even he agrees to this idea (even though he contradicts
himself on the matter), notice:
 
“M.B. THE ISSUE CONCERNS THE OVERT ACT OF ADULTERY, NOW JERRY GOES ON TO TALK
OF MENTAL ADULTERY, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ISSUE. HOWEVER SINCE HE BROUGHT
IT UP, IT ALSO IS SIN THAT NEEDS TO BE AVOIDED, AND IS MORE COMMON THAN OVERT
ADULTERY.
 
Has he never read Mt. 5:28“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”
(Mat 5:28). The word “adultery” in this verse is the word ÎŒÎżÎčχΔυω
which means:
 
“To commit adultery. Used in the act. voice (Mat_5:27-28; Mat_19:18;
Mar_10:19; Luk_16:18; Luk_18:20; Rom_2:22; Rom_13:9; Jam_2:11;
 
Rev_2:22). In the mid. / pass. voice as a part. moicheuoménee (Joh_8:4),
"being considered an adulteress" (a.t.).
Deriv.: moicheĂ­a (G3430), adultery.
Syn.: moichĂĄoo (G3429), to commit adultery; porneĂșoo (G4203), to
commit sexual infidelity of any kind, whether involving a married person or not;
ekporneĂșoo (G1608), to give oneself up to fornication, implying
excessive sexual indulgence” (Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  M.B. GOING TO
THE GREEK - WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE - CHANGES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - IN THIS
CASE” (http://www.challenge2.org/bur2reb.pdf).
 
Now the question that never seems to have sunk into Max is this “If single
people can commit the mental act of adultery (as per Mt. 5:28 which he says they
can because he says the Greek is not in dispute and he argues that the mental
act is what is under consideration and not the overt act) then does it change to
something other than adultery if they go ahead and commit the overt act?  You
see, the whole point of keeping pure hearts is to keep from committing the overt
act.  If it is adultery in the heart, then if it leads to the overt act, it is
still adultery, not something else.  So if I have missed the bus on this, then
Max has as well.  The difference is that Max contradicts himself because he
doesn’t know which side of the issue he wants to stand on. 
 
He says that I have said that “people who are guilty of fornication” (i.e.,
adultery) are forbidden to marry.  Then he says “I doubt even Jerry believes
that!”  Well, let’s see, that depends on what he is talking about.  If he
is saying that all people who have been put away by their spouse because they
have committed fornication, then “Yes, I say that they are forbidden to
marry.”  However, just because a person has committed fornication does not
mean that he/she can never marry.  Max is quite at ease at trying to confuse
terms such as the guilty party with sinners so as to make the guilty party in a
divorce on par with those who have never obeyed the gospel.  He doesn’t want
a clearly defined discussion because he knows that such will destroy his
position.
 
My position has been consistent from beginning to end.  Max has not been able
to find one single inconsistency in it let alone a contradiction.  Yet I
produced two contradictions in his position in my second rebuttal and he
didn’t even try to deny them.  That says volumes about his position!  But he
is right about one thing:  God’s truth is clear and simple, but that is
something that we have not seen from Max Burgin.
 
The Bible teaches that the guilty party, following a Scriptural divorce, is
rightly spouseless as any other, with a God given right to marry.
 
(E)very person Scripturally divorced is as free of marriage as it's possible to
be, and is in the same state as never married - Scriptural divorce negates the
marriage.
 
Now the first statement is the proposition that he and I agreed that he would
affirm when he got into the affirmative position in the debate.  He started out
affirming that proposition, but in his second affirmative he says “I am now
affirming that
” in other words, “I was affirming The Bible teaches that
the guilty party, following a Scriptural divorce, is rightly spouseless as any
other, with a God given right to marry, but I am now affirming that every person
Scripturally divorced is as free of marriage as it’s possible to be, and is in
the same state as never before – Scriptural divorce negates the marriage.” 
This is what I was affirming, but this is what I am now affirming!  And Max has
the unmitigated gall to say that I can’t read!
 
He talks about my long delay.  Hmph
He had my first rebuttal on May 15th and
it was July 10th before I got his 2nd affirmative.  He received my 2nd rebuttal
on September 1st.   Unless it takes him until after October 15th to get his
summary in we will finish this debate long before the due date.  The dates on
the debate were from March 15th to October 15th.  I don’t know what he is so
upset about, most of my debates don’t meet the deadline; they have to go
over.  This one should finish on time, that should make him happy.  Now to
answer his final affirmative:
 
“McDonald

  I am not the one who was dishonorable.  I have been willing to answer any
and everything that Max has submitted, but Max has repeatedly refused to deal
with my material.  He simply blew off my first rebuttal as though I hadn’t
even written it.  I asked him 10 questions that he refused to even mention, so
I’ll ask them again:  M.B. THE REASON THEY WERE IGNORED IS THAT THEY ARE
IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE. BUT FOR SOME REASON JERRY THINKS THEY ARE IMOPORTANT,
SO HERE GOES.



    1.. If Bob marries Ann and meets Becky and commits adultery with Becky
does Mt. 19:9 give Bob the right to marry Becky if Ann puts Bob away on the
grounds that he committed fornication?  M.B. YES.
    2.. If June is married to Hank, and Hank is beating June mercilessly, but
Hank has not cheated on June, if June goes out and commits fornication with Rick
and Hank puts her away, then does June have a right to divorce Hank if she stays
single? M.B. A GARBLED QUESTION!!!! WHO DIVORCED WHO, AND FOR WHAT REASON?
 
McDonald:  June has been beaten by Hank and June goes out and commits
fornication with Rick and Hank puts her away, does she have a right to divorce
Hank (divorce is a two way street) if she stays single?

    3.. If Johnny and Susan divorce for incompatibility are they still married
in God’s eyes? M.B. YES, EVEN IF SEPARATED.
 
McDonald:  Then according to 1 Corinthians 7:1-4 they must be reunited because
if they are married, then they are to render due benevolence to the other.

    4.. If Johnny and Susan are still married in God do eyes and Susan sleeps
with Andy, May Johnny then remarry? M.B. NO, BUT HE MAY DIVORCE.THEN HE MAY
REMARRY.
 
McDonald:  Here is the problem, they are already divorced in the eyes of the
law of the land.  How can they get divorced again?  The law won’t allow a
divorce for a divorced couple.  If they are still married, they have to be
re-married (according to the law), but how can they be remarried if they are
already married?  What preacher is going to remarry a couplethat is already
married?  In Austraila it may be such a simple thing as going down to the
registers office, but in Americait isn’t quite that simple.

    5.. Did the Pharisees understand that the marriage bond could be broken
for reasons other than fornication?  M.B. WHAT THE PHARISEES UNDERSTOOD IS NOT
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.
 
McDonald:  What the Pharisees understood is totally relevant to the issue since
Mt. 19:9 is in the context of what the Pharisees understood.  You cannot take
Mt. 19:9 out of its context.  This is why you are making false doctrines out of
it, because you are taking it out of its context.

    6.. When Jesus said “Let not man put asunder” did he mean that man was
not to put the marriage bond asunder?  M.B. EXACTLY, EXCEPT  FOR FORNICATION.
 
McDonald:  Now watch what he says in the next question.  I don’t usually ask
questions like this for no reason.  When I ask “almost” identical questions
like this, there is usually a trap, and Max fell into it.

    7.. When Jesus said “Let not man put asunder” did he mean that man
could not put the marriage bond asunder?  M.B. EXACTLY, EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION.
 
McDonald:  In question 6 I asked “When Jesus said ‘Let not man put
asunder’ did he mean that man was not to put the marriage bond asunder?” 
Max’s answer was “Exactly, Except for fornication.  Then In question 7, I
asked “When Jesus said ‘Let not man put asunder’ did he mean that man
could not put the marriage bond asunder?”  Max’s answer:  “Exactly,
Except for Fornication.”  Now here is the problem!  One question shows that
cannot put the marriage bond asunder while the other shows that can but cannot
put the marriage bond asunder.  And so Max is trying to have it both ways.  He
is arguing that man can and cannot put the marriage bond asunder except it be
for fornication which puts him in self-contradiction.  If his position is in
self-contradiction his position is false.  The late Thomas Warren wrote:
 
“The law of contradiction for propositions is:  no proposition can be both
true and false, in the same respects.  It is false to say that John is the son
of Jim and to say that John is not to the son of Jim, in the same respects.  If
one affirms both the proposition, ‘All apples are red,’ and the proposition,
‘Some apples are red,he has affirmed a logical contradiction.  Every logical
contradiction is FALSE (EMPHASIS ADDED JDM) (Logic and the Bible, p. 23).
Thus we see that Max’s position is a logical contradiction because he says
that man can put the asunder except it be for fornication, but at the same time
he affirms that man cannot put the marriage bond asunder except it be for
fornication.  He has affirmed a logical contradiction here, thus his position
is false.

    8.. Wouldn’t you say that the sin, according to Mt. 19:9, is in the act
of the divorce and has nothing to do with the remarriage? M.B. NO. THE SIN IS
NEITHER IN THE DIVORCE, NOR THE REMARRIAGE, BUT IN ADULTERY, WHICH VALIDATES THE
DIVORCE.
 
McDonald:  So if the sin is not in the divorce or the remarriage, but in the
adultery, then Jesus’ words mean nothing when he said “and he that marrieth
her which is put away, committeth adultery.”

    9.. If June is married to Hank, and Hank is beating June mercilessly, but
Hank has not cheated on June, if June divorces Hank on the grounds of physical
cruelty does she have a right to divorce if she stays single?  M.B. NO, BUT
THOUGH SHE SEPARATES, THEY ARE STILL MARRIED.
 
 

    10.. In the case of Hank and June, wouldn’t you say that it is best for
June to go out and commit fornication so that she can get out of her marriage;
that way she can scripturally be divorced from her abusive husband? M.B. IF SHE
COUNTS  LOSING HER SOUL WORTH IT!!!!


McDonald:  Well, can’t she simply go forward and repent, or if she isn’t a
Christian go and become a Christian?  Wouldn’t Max say that she could then be
scripturally divorced and even free to remarry someone else?  If not, why not?

  He asked me 10 questions in his first affirmative, and I answered them, and
he refused to deal with my answers, so I’ll present them again:



  QUESTIONS



  1.      Is marriage always right for spouseless people of marriageable
age? No. M.B. PASSAGE THAT SO TEACHES PLEASE.
McDonald:  1 Cor. Chapter 7.

  2.      Are both parties after a Scriptural divorce rightly spouseless
people? Yes.  M.B. PASSAGE THAT SO TEACHES PLEASE.
McDonald:    Mt. 19:9
  3.      is spouseless ness the basis of decision with regard to a further
marriage? No. M.B. THEN NAME SOMETHING ELSE!
McDonald:  Innocence in the divorce.
  4.      Can spouseless “guilty sinners” marry with God’s sanction? 
That depends on your definition of “guilty sinners.”  If by “guilty
sinners” you mean the “guilty party” in a divorce who has been put away by
his/her spouse because he/she committed fornication then the answer is NO. M.B.
GIVE THE PASSAGE THAT SAYS SO PLEASE.
McDonald:  Mt. 19:9
  5.      Does Scriptural divorce result in a half marriage, where only the
“guilty” can go on to commit adultery, and then only if he remarries a
spouseless person? But the “innocent” can’t?  NO, scriptural divorce does
not result in half a marriage, but the guilty party still has no authority to
remarry.  M.B. WHAT AUTHORITY, OTHER THAN BEING SOPOUSELESS, DOES HE NEED? DOES
HE HAVE GOD'S AUTHORITY TO BECOME SPOUSELESS, THUS AVOIDING ADULTERY?
McDonald:  He does not have God’s authority to remarry.  God expects people
to honor their wedding vows the first time around.  If they can’t do that,
then he doesn’t give them a second chance.


  6.      If after a Scriptural divorce adultery can take place, with
spouseless people, which marriage is adulterated? The “guilty party.” M.B.
THAT SAYS NOTHING!
McDonald:  I don’t know how much clearer I can be.
  7.      Can fornication after Scriptural divorce be adultery? Yes.  M.B.
STATE HOW!
McDonald:  If the guilty party is the subject, then the guilty party commits
fornication if he/she remarries or has sex.

  8.      Do you agree where no marriage is involved, there is no
adultery?  No.  M.B. SO YOU DON'T AGREE THAT ADULTERY IS FORNICATION INVOLVING
ONLY A MARRIED PERSON ?!
McDonald:  Unmarried people can commit adultery (Mt. 5:28).  How many ways do
you want me to say this.  Max, I spent 11 years in law enforcement doing this
type of interrogation.  You won’t trap me doing this.  My answer is the
same.  Unmarried people can commit adultery.  Your effort is wasted.

  9.      Do you accept that adultery necessarily infers a marriage?  No. 
  M.B. APART FROM MENTAL ADULTERY - WHICH IS NOT THE ISSUE - GIVE THE PASSAGE.
McDonald:  Mt. 5:28  Adultery is adultery whether it is mental or physical. 
Adultery starts in the mind and then is committed by the body.

  10.  Do you accept there can be fornication without adultery, but no
adultery without fornication?  Yes, Example:  Homosexuality.  M.B. FOR CRYING
OUT LOUD, STAY WITH THE ISSUE, AND DON'T BE EVASIVE WITH RED HERRINGS!
McDonald:  It is not a red herring.  You asked if there can be fornication
without adultery and I said yes.  Homosexuality.  You can have beastiality. 
You are wanting me to say sex between a man and a woman, no.  It can’t
happen.  Your weak efforts to trip me up have failed.  My position is solid,
while yours is self-contradictory.  My position is true while yours is false.


  Maybe he will take the time to deal with them this time.  If he is honorable
he will at least attempt to do that. M.B. I DID, BUT IT WAS A WASTE OF TIME!



  Burgin

  You have stated, "single people can commit adultery", and when asked for
Scripture that so teaches, you flew to Matthew 5:28 - two things wrong: 1. You
assume they are single, even though the word "adultery" is used - which
necessitates a marriage is involved - it's impossible for spouseless people to
"commit adultery". 2. Mental adultery is not considered in the issue. What is
more, since the word "adultery" is used, they are therefore subject to the
exception for divorce Jesus gave. Will you please explain how and why they can
be divorced from a spouse that never existed???? If they can "commit adultery",
they have a spouse, or are involved with the spouse of an other. You think you
know the situation, please explain it!!!!



  McDonald

  1. If Mt. 5:28necessitates a marriage then it does not apply to single
people, and a single man may look at a single woman lust in his heart without
sin.  Cecil Hook took this position a number of years ago after taking Max’s
position that Mt. 5:28 applied only to married people, and actually said that it
was no more wrong for a single man to lust after a single woman than it was to
desire a piece of apple pie.  Will Max take the same position?  M.B. AND I
WONT BE FORCED INTO THE MOULD OF ANOTHER, NEITHER WILL I BE FORCED INTO SAYING
IT DOES NO INCLUDE SINGLE PEOPLE.

McDonald You are already in the mold, Max.  You put yourself into that mold
when you took this position.  I am not forcing you into anything.  You are the
one who has placed yourself into that mold.

  No, Mt. 5:28 applies to any man lusting after any woman.  Max would be hard
pressed to prove that this passage applies only to the married. M.B. I NOWHERE
TRIED THAT TACK, WHAT I SAID WAS, "ADULTERY NECESSARILY INFERS MARRRIAGE",
WHETHER IT BE MENTAL, OR OVERT.


McDonald:  Another self-contradiction.  He earlier admitted that Mt. 5:28has
reference to adultery referencing the unmarried.  Notice:
 
“Has he never read Mt. 5:28“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”
(Mat 5:28). The word “adultery” in this verse is the word ÎŒÎżÎčχΔυω
which means:
 
“To commit adultery. Used in the act. voice (Mat_5:27-28; Mat_19:18;
Mar_10:19; Luk_16:18; Luk_18:20; Rom_2:22; Rom_13:9; Jam_2:11;
 
Rev_2:22). In the mid. / pass. voice as a part. moicheuoménee (Joh_8:4),
"being considered an adulteress" (a.t.).
Deriv.: moicheĂ­a (G3430), adultery.
Syn.: moichĂĄoo (G3429), to commit adultery; porneĂșoo (G4203), to
commit sexual infidelity of any kind, whether involving a married person or not;
ekporneĂșoo (G1608), to give oneself up to fornication, implying
excessive sexual indulgence” (Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  M.B. GOING TO
THE GREEK - WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE - CHANGES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - IN THIS
CASE” (http://www.challenge2.org/bur2reb.pdf).”
 
The words in red belong to Max, not me.  So Max is agreeing that the word
adultery means to commit sexual infidelity of any kind “whether involving a
married person or not” when it comes to Mt. 5:28.  But here he says that this
is mental adultery.  However, as I have pointed out time and again that all
adultery starts out as mental adultery.  Now he states:  “M.B. Y OU HAVE
AGREED, “I am not saying that the act is committed by thinking about it,”
THEN GO ON TO SAY SINGLE PEOPLE HAVING “illicit sexual intercourse” IS
ADULTERY, HOW AND GIVE THE PASSAGE THAT SAYS SO!”  So what this tells us is
that once again he has contradicted himself.  In one place he recognizes that
Mt. 5:28does allow for single people to commit adultery in their hearts while in
this place he does not allow for Mt. 5:28to commit adultery in their hearts. 
His position is full of self-contradiction.  Just one self-contradiction makes
his entire position false,
  but here we find more than one.

  2.It doesn’t make any difference if it is mental adultery or not.  It
being mental adultery does not keep it from being between a man and a woman.  I
am not saying that the act is committed by thinking about it, but the fact
remains, adultery is still between a man and a woman whether a marriage is
involved or not.  M.B. Y OU HAVE AGREED, “I am not saying that the act is
committed by thinking about it,” THEN GO ON TO SAY SINGLE PEOPLE HAVING
“illicit sexual intercourse” IS ADULTERY, HOW AND GIVE THE PASSAGE THAT SAYS
SO!


McDonald:  Mt. 5:28.  See above.

  Adultery is committed when a single man and a single woman have illicit
sexual intercourse.  3. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is
adultery because some fornication is homosexuality, etc. M.B. A DESPERATE RED
HERRING, THAT HAS NO BEARING ON THE ISSUE.


McDonald:  Again, it is not a red herring.  See above.

    Fornication is the General name for unlawful sexual activity, and adultery
is the specific name for unlawful sexual activity between a man and a woman
whether a marriage is involved or not. M.B. A WORTHLESS OPINION THAT IS
COMPLETLY WITHOUGT SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT!


McDonald:  It is not an opinion.  See above.



  Burgin

  I am now affirming that every person Scripturally divorced is as free of
marriage as it’s possible to be, and is in the same state as never married –
Scriptural divorce negates the marriage. Both are equally no longer bound, they
become “loosed”. And then if they remarry, do so “without sin”
1Corinthians 7:27-28. Now answer the question.



  Now you have the task to show me wrong – you can’t do it.



  God does not accept divorce “except it be for fornication” – which is
adultery – it’s just that simple.



  McDonald

  You have changed what you are now affirming, but you can’t just change your
proposition in the middle of the debate.  M.B. I HAVE MADE NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER
TO WHAT I AM AFFIRMING – JUST GIVEN MORE DETAIL.
 
McDonald:  There is more than just detail.  You have changed your entire
proposition.  Anyone who can read can tell that what you are now wanting to
affirm is not what you agreed to affirm when this debate started.


    You are still obligated to defend the proposition that we agreed upon when
we negotiated this debate.  M.B. HAVE DONE THAT VERY WELL, NOW TRY TO DENY IT
– WITHOUT EVASION, OR RED HERRINGS.

  What you are now attempting to affirm will not be allowed because it does not
specify the guilty party which your original proposition does specify that you
prove does have a right to remarry.  M.B. I DON’T KNOW HOW IT CAN BE SAID
CLEARER, EVERY SPOUSELESS PERSON, WHO IS CAPABLE AND DESIRES MARRIAGE – GUILTY
SINNER OR OTHERWISE – HAS GOD’S BLESSING TO IT, AND SCRIPTURAL DIVORCE HAS
NO OTHER  RESULT  THAN MAKING BOTH  PARTIES RIGHTLY, AND EQUALLY SPOUSELESS
IN GOD’S EYES.


McDonald:  Not every person has a right to marry.  Those who have committed
adultery against their spouse do not have a right to marry again.  Mt. 19:9

  No, you have no right to affirm this position now.  You have to affirm that
the guilty party has the right to remarry. M.B. CAN’T YOU READ SIMPLE WORDS
THAT ADDRESS THE PROPOSITION????!!!!


 
McDonald:  I can read just fine.  The two propositions don’t say anything
akin to each other.  You’re stating that they do won’t make them say the
same thing.

  You can’t just change terminology around to suit yourself and go on your
merry way.  I don’t have the task of proving your new position wrong at all,
because I never agreed to deny that position.  M.B. YOU WERE NEVER EXPECTED
TO,  TRY DENYING THE PROPOSITION AS IT STANDS!!


 
McDonald:  I have already denied your proposition as it stands.  You have been
caught in self-contradiction:  twice.  That places it as false doctrine.

    That position is too vague and too generalized.  It could be understood
to be speaking of the innocent party in the divorce, leaving the guilty party
out.  No, Max, you have to affirm the proposition that you and I agreed upon
when we negotiated this debate late last year.  Now you were the one who pushed
for this debate, and you were the one who wanted that proposition, so now you
are stuck with it. M.B. AND HAPPY WITH IT.


McDonald:  Well, I am glad that you are happy with it, so am I.

  You cannot come back now and change propositions in the middle of the debate,
I won’t allow that. M.B. I HAVE’NT EVEN TRIED!


 
McDonald:  Yes, you have, but I am not going to allow it to stand.
 
This is my final statement in this debate.  Max will have a short summary of
the proposition and then the debate will be forever closed.  You, the reader,
are the one to decide who has the truth on this matter.  I urge you to closely
read the arguments again.  Your soul salvation is at stake.  Whatever position
you decide to take, I want you to know that I have done the best I know how to
do to present you with the truth as I know it.  So I take the burden off of my
shoulders and place it on yours (as the late Guy N. Woods used to say).
 
In Christ Jesus
Jerry McDonald

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ghost Sniper’s First Rebuttal
Again I wish to express my thanks to TWeb for hosting this debate and for Silent
Running for meeting me. I also with to thank all those who are reading this
debate, for you are the true judges. You are the ones who matter in this debate,
for with you there would be no reason for this debate.

I brought up a statement by Kenyon from his book The Bible and Archaeology, and
SR’s response was “When Kenyon wrote this in 1940, that was, indeed, the
prevailing view. In archaeology, as in other sciences, the ‘prevailing view’
changes when new evidence comes in.” It really doesn’t matter when the
statement was made. Those words are just as true today as they were when he
penned them. The fact that his daughter opposed him does not mean that his
statement was wrong or that Kathleen was right. Children sometimes reach
different conclusions than their parents do this, however, does not make their
parents wrong.

He labors to tell us that J.P. Holding is not a scholar, but an apologete. I
never said that he was, but his not being a scholar does not falsify what he
said. SR makes the following statement:

“In the case of the article cited above, Holding states that he is "on the
lookout" for refutation to either author he cites, while "failing" to note that
one of his cited authors (Wood) refuted the other (Rohl) back in 2001. (see
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...estine.aspx).” Apparently he did not
read what Holding wrote, “A second author to connect Middle Bronze Age Jericho
to the Joshuan conquest has taken a much different path than Wood - one that did
not even begin at Jericho. David M. Rohl, an Egyptologist.”

Now while it is true that Wood does disagree with Rohl, Holding’s statement is
also true, both men have come up with Middle Bronze age for Jericho. Holding is
simply giving two different alternatives here which come to the same conclusion.
Either way a person chooses to go, he will come to the same conclusion. Does
Wood disagree with Rohl? Absolutely, but this does not paint Holding in any kind
of a corner because Holding stated that they took different paths, but came to
the same conclusion. Holding was not under the impression that Rohl was saying
the same thing that Wood said as far as how he came to the conclusion to which
he came.

It seems that SR thinks that the retracted C-14 dated charcoal is the
“Achilles Heel” of Wood’s position. He said:

“Holding makes a brief mention of the fact that Wood's proposed date was
called into question when the British Museum withdrew the previous radiocarbon
findings, while not only failing to report that the British Museum re-dated his
find to the range agreeing with Kathleen Kenyon's date, but also completely
ignoring that Wood's proposed dating has been completely overturned by the work
of Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht in 1995.”Actually, what
Holding said was:

Much is sometimes made over the fact that Wood's radiocarbon dates had to be
retracted, due to an error by the British Museum (which also had to retract
other findings for the same reason). But the dating was done on wood items, and
radiocarbon dating gives the date the wood grew, not the date it was burned, and
it is hardly unlikely that a wooden item was in use for an extended period. See
more on this issue here.Now as far as Bruins and van der Plicht are concerned
what they dated was as follows:

“In 1995, when methods of radiocarbon dating had become more efficient,
Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht conducted C-14 tests on eighteen
samples from this same destruction layer at Jericho. They did this not in order
to refute Wood, but "as a contribution toward the establishment of an
independent radiocarbon chronology of Near Eastern archaeology" (Radiocarbon
Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995). They included six samples consisting of charred cereal
grains (more reliable for dating than wood, which might have been used over a
long period). The samples, it turned out, had lived and died in the 16th century
BC. This confirmed Kenyon's dating”
>(http://new.netours.com/index.php?opt...1&limitstart=3).This was given in
response:

"Strange results from the adjusted C14 dates
>Anyone familiar with radiocarbon techniques, however, knows that such is not
the case. The problem is that a simple comparison of C12 to C14 ratios, such as
gives the "BP" value, would not give the true age of a sample unless several
conditions were satisfied. One of those conditions is that the rate of C14
production by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere has been constant over time,
an assumption that is generally recognized as invalid. Therefore over the years
various checks have been applied to the basic BP values to see if there was a
need for adjustment to the BP readings. The principal adjustment method is to
compare BP values to the values given by tree-ring analysis, i.e.
dendrochronology. The refinement of these adjustments is an ongoing study, and
the results are published as calibration curves that transform BP values into
historic BC or AD years.
>
>Bruins and van der Plicht mention four calibration curves that they could
choose from. The calibration system they settled on gave the following result:
the 3306 BP figure (plus or minus 7 years) produces two date ranges for the
samples: 1601-1566 BC or 1561-1524 BC.. These date ranges (the ranges express
the 1-sigma variation in each range) have median values 41 years apart, compared
to the 7 year standard deviation in the original BP value derived from mass
spectrographic analysis.
>
>The most curious thing about these results is not that the four different
calibration systems give different results, although the reconciliation of the
various C14 calibration curves is of course a matter of much interest in the
scholarly literature. The intriguing question is: how did the careful mass
spectroscopic analysis that produced a ratio of C14 to C12 for which there was
only a plus or minus seven year deviation figure for a period of 36 centuries,
nevertheless come up with not one but two adjusted BC dates? Would anyone trust
a calculator or computer that, given one very precise input, produces two
answers for us to choose from?
>
>This strange result (two answers to choose from) is because all calibration
curves considered for use in this study showed a wiggle in the curve at just the
time of interest, namely the middle of the second millennium BC. The wiggle (the
curve essentially going back on itself) means that if you put in one BP date you
will get out two BC dates. Physically, of course, this is not reasonable.The
grain was all harvested in the same year, or at the most in two successive
years. Yet this strange phenomenon is familiar to physicists doing C14 studies
in the time range of the 16th and 15th centuries BC. For the unbiased observer,
however, it should be clear that there are some genuine questions that can be
raised about the reliability of the radiocarbon dates of the Jericho grain
samples. Prudence would dictate that until the anomalous phenomena of C14 dating
for this time can be explained, it would be better to rely on historical
indicators for dating events
  in the middle of the second millennium BC rather than on radiocarbon results"
(http://creationwiki.org/Jericho_chronology_dispute). Their work was in 1995, 14
years ago. Over the last 14 years they have found so many problems in the C-14
dating methods of the 80's and 90’s that it isn’t even funny. Case and
point: While I am not a firm believer of the Shroud of Turin the C-14 dating of
1988 showed it to be a work of fiction, but in 2008 all of that was overthrown
by new data. So to bring up what Bruins and van der Plicht did in ’95 is
really nothing at all. The charcoal was just one piece of evidence that Dr. Wood
used in his arguments to show that Jericho was destroyed around the 1400’s BC.
In fact if SR had actually read Holding’s article he would have read where
Holding said.

“Wood's main argument had to do with Kenyon's dating [175] being based on an
argument from silence -- a type of pottery that was NOT found. Arguments based
on such silence are far from compelling, especially since only a minimal amount
of any given site is excavated, Jericho included.”SR wrote:

“This is a problem because this is one of the ways that archaeologists look at
when dating digs. They look at the pottery that was used at what level they are
digging in.
>They look at far more than that. As Holding notes (and you, seemingly, miss),
"no archaeologist actually asserts" that pottery gives a precise date--but
pottery can give a relative date, and that date can be refined to a small
range.Charles Pfeiffer wrote: “Inscribed material frequently gives a clue to
the date of a given stratum, but pottery alone is often enough to provide an
accurate chronological record” (Baker’s Bible Atlas, p. 271). One of the
reasons that Kenyon gave for dating Jericho at the 1550 BC era is that she found
no Cypriot ware at the site. So apparently it carries more weight than SR thinks
it does.

He then tells us that Kenyon did not overlook Garstangs work, but rather refuted
it. No, she overlooked the Cypriot ware that Garstang found there. Whether she
did this accidentally or purposely is unknown, but she did it nonetheless
because the evidence was there when she did her work.

Then he tells us that Shirley Rollinson dated Jericho at 1550 BC. So what if she
did? How does that hurt me? Forevermore man all I did was to quote her on the
problems of archaeology. If I wanted to quote an atheist on the problems of
archaeology, as long as he was correct, what would it hurt? I wasn’t saying
that she stands beside me on this. I had no idea where she stood on the subject.
I just quoted her to let the reader know what the problems of archaeology are.
That doesn’t translate into her automatically agreeing with me.

SR tries to tell us that archaeology has not been kind to the Bible. He responds
to my statement that archaeology has been very kind to the Bible:

“Such a statement can only be made in ignorance of, or deliberate refusal to
accept, any archaeological work in the Middle East since the 1950s, or by (as
Holding has done) selectively ignoring the vast majority of that work. Doing so
is not an accurate understanding of the current findings within archaeology:
doing so deliberately (i.e. knowing about the refutations archaeology has
provided, but ignoring them nonetheless) is nothing short of dishonest--a charge
that must be placed against your next witness.”So now not only does he
assassinate the characters of Wood and Holding (see below), but now he begins an
assassination of my character by saying that my statement is either ignorance or
deliberate refusal to accept any archaeological work in the Middle East since
the 1950’s which he sums up is “nothing short of dishonest.”

He has taken a few statements from my opening statement and has dealt only with
them, and has not dealt with the meat of the article. However, with what he has
brought us in this article I still say that archaeology has been very kind to
the Bible.. If he is going to rely on C-14 dating readings back in the 80's and
90’s then he is free to do so, but due to the fact that C-14 dating has had so
many problems over the years, I find it difficult to put my faith in it.

SR complains because Wood hasn’t retracted the charcoal on his website. Well,
I don’t know that he should. With all the mistakes of C-14 dating of the
90’s I don’t know that he should retract it. I don’t see anything about it
at all on his website. He certainly isn’t promoting his view on it. Tell me SR
do you think that Bible critics ought to publish their errors about the Hittites
and Ai on their websites? If not, why not?

Since we have been discussing Wood on Jericho, let see what he wrote:

“Despite my disagreements with Kenyon’s major conclusion, I nevertheless
applaud her for her careful and painstaking field work. It was she who brought
order to the confused stratigraphic picture at Jericho. Her thoroughgoing
excavation methods and detailed reporting of her findings, however, did not
carry over into her analytical work. When the evidence is critically examined
there is no basis for her contention that City IV was destroyed by the Hyksos or
Egyptians in the mid-16th century B.C.E. The pottery, stratigraphic
considerations, scarab data and a Carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of
the city around the end of Late Bronze I, about 1400 B.C.E. Garstang’s
original date for this event appears to be the correct one!
>
>Was this destruction at the hands of the Israelites? The correlation between
the archaeological evidence and the Biblical narrative is substantial:
‱ The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20).
>>‱ The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6,
3:15, 5:10).
>>‱ The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua
6:1).
>>‱ The siege was short (Joshua 6:15).
>>‱ The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20)..
>>‱ The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18).
>>‱ The city was burned (Joshua 6:20).
One major problem remains: the date, 1400 B.C.E. Most scholars will reject the
possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E. because
of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200
years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period.
>
>A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical chronology, which places the
Israelite entry into Canaan in about 1400 B.C.E. The dispute between these two
views is already well-known to BAR readers.**
>
>But recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting that Israel was
resident in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze II period. As new data emerge and
as old data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of
current theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of Israel in
Canaan”
>(http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...-Evidence.aspx).The rest of SR’s
article seems to be a bashing of Wood's and Holding’s characters (which is
nothing other than Ad Hominem a fallacy of logic where if you can’t win the
argument you then start assasinating the character of the one who made the
argument). This is a common tactic by Bible critics when they have run out of
argumentation, and this is only SR’s second affirmative. He has three more to
go, so I guess that means we have three more articles to read where he spends
assasinating the characters of Holding and Wood, as well as anyone else that he
disagrees with.

The last thing is a list of things that I need to get to during the course of
this debate. Well, I will certainly do my best, but if I don’t get to them all
it won’t be because I can’t, it will only be because I don’t have the
space. He says that I am obligated to deal with more than just Jericho and Ai,
and he is correct, but I have to wonder if he is already throwing in the towel
on Jericho. I am quite sure he has thrown it in on Ai since he hasn’t even
mentioned it since his opening statement. He did bring up my quotation from Wood
on Ai, but he didn’t deal with anything I said on the matter and I have to
wonder why!

He told us, in his opening statement, that Jerusalem shows no signs of
destruction:

Archeologists find massive Canaanite wall in Jerusalem
>
>Archeologists working in the oldest part of Jerusalem announced on Wednesday
the recent uncovering of a 3,700-year-old stone fortification believed to have
been built by the Canaanites who controlled the city prior to King David's
conquest.
>The 26-foot-high wall is the oldest large-scale fortification ever found in the
city, and proves that Jerusalem was large and wealthy enough during that time
period to have supported major building projects.
>Archeologists working at the site said the wall was likely part of a protected
walkway that connected the hilltop fortress city to its only fresh water
source--the Gihon Spring that lies in the valley below. It is the same spring
that David and his men used to gain entry to the city when they captured it
seven centuries later.
>http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default...=178&nid=19504The next thing on the list
is Hebron. He says that there is no evidence that it existed of the Canaanite
Conquest. Rabbi Leibel Reznick wrote an article in defense of Hebron and gave
seven defenses (what he calls blunders of those who claim Hebron didn’t exist
at the time of the Canaanite Conquest). They are as follows.

“Blunder number one: Hebron is not a single archaeological site, but rather it
is a sprawling archaeological area consisting of seven distinct sites. They are:
>
>1) Tel Hebron, also called Tel Rumeide, where Hammond conducted his
excavations.
>
>2) Haram el-Khalil, which includes the Cave of the Patriarchs and its
surrounding area. Due to the reverence given to the site, no archaeological
excavations have ever been conducted in this area.
>
>3) The present-day city of Hebron.. Since it is inhabited, very little has been
done in the way of archaeological work.
>
>4) Jebel Nimra, a site of known Persian-era construction. Recent archaeological
work has been started there, but no reports have been released as yet.
>
>5) Haram Ramet el-Khalil. According to local tradition, this is the site of the
patriarchal Hebron.10 No archaeological work has been conducted there as yet.
>
>6) Khirbet en-Natzara, a site known to contain artifacts11 that date back to
the conquest era, but the area has not been excavated.
>
>7) Jebel Batrak, unexamined.
>
>The fact is that only one of the archaeological sites in Hebron, namely Tel
Hebron, was partially excavated by Hammond. That no evidence of habitation was
found coinciding with the epic of Moses' spies and Joshua's conquest is hardly
convincing evidence that these incidents did not occur. Six out of the seven
sites remain to be investigated.
>
>It is known that ancient cities would move about, changing their location as
the necessity arose. Ancient Dibon, in modern-day Jordan, is a classic example.
Evidence of ancient inhabitation was found in two distinct nearby locations. At
one time, the city was built high atop a lofty mound. After an enemy invasion,
the rubble made it difficult to build atop the ruins, so the city was relocated
at the base of the mound. That city too was invaded, due in large part to its
vulnerable location. It was then decided to relocate to the top of the mound
again. It is quite conceivable that the Hebron of the Patriarchal Era moved to
one of the other Hebron archaeological sites during the Spy-Conquest era and
still remains to be uncovered.
>
>Blunder number two: We do not have to bother speculating whether or not Hebron
existed in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age. There is very conclusive evidence
that it did.
>
>One of the more famous set of ancient inscriptions is known as the Egyptian
Amarna Letters. They came to light through the peculiar serendipity that lies
behind many archaeological finds. In 1887, an Egyptian woman was digging for
compost near the city of El-Amarna, 190 miles south of Cairo. In the earth, she
discovered some 350 small clay tablets with curious, wedge-shaped writing on
them. Hoping to sell them for a tidy sum, she brought the tablets to several
antiquities dealers, only to be told they were worthless fakes. Many of the
tablets were destroyed, yet a few specimens came to the attention of E.A. Wallis
Budge of the British Museum. Almost immediately, he recognized them as genuine
tablets written in Akkadian cuneiform, the language of Babylon, the lingua
franca of the 14th century BCE. They turned out to be missives sent from various
vassal kings to the 14th century BCE pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhenaten along
with copies of the pharaohs'
  responses. Amenhotep III and Akhenaten were Late Bronze Age pharaohs.
>
>The Amarna Letters are, for the most part, diplomatic correspondences between
minor kings and rulers from Syria, Lebanon, and Canaan and their Egyptian
overlords. The letters show that, during the reign of Amenhotep III, Egypt had
tight political control over Syria and Palestine, but that during the reign of
Akhenaten, Egyptian influence was collapsing. Numerous Egyptian outposts were
being overrun by invaders and the vassal kings and commanders were powerless to
stop them. Chaos was mounting as kings were turning against neighboring kings;
fortresses of former allies became enemy fortresses. There were numerous appeals
to Akhenaten for help, but the cries went unanswered.
>
>The pleas usually start with a groveling salutation. Typical of the Amarna
Letters is this one, sent by Abi Milku of Tyre:
>
>To the king, my lord, my god, my Sun: Message of Abi-Milku, your servant. I
fall at the feet of the king, my lord, seven times and seven times. I am the
dirt under the sandals of the king, my lord. My lord is the Sun who comes forth
over all lands day by day, according to the way (of being) the sun, his gracious
father, who gives life by his sweet breath and returns with his north wind; who
establishes the entire land in peace, by the power of his arm. 12
>
>There are ten surviving correspondences13 between king Shuwardata and
Akhenaten. Shuwardata was the king of the Hebron district, as he himself states
in letter EA#281. After the required greetings to Akhenaten, Shuwardata writes:
>
>My cities are rebelling against me... archers are needed... like in the city of
Hebron... they trembled before the Pharaoh... I prostrate myself before the
Pharaoh... know that the hostilities are great against me... send archers...
>
>If there are correspondences between the king of Hebron and a Late Bronze Age
pharaoh, Akhenaten, then Hebron must have been in existence at that time. This
translation and interpretation has been confirmed by the distinguished scholars
W.F. Albright and James B. Pritchard.14 If there are correspondences between the
king of Hebron and a Late Bronze Age pharaoh, Akhenaten, then Hebron must have
been in existence at that time.
>
>(http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48964966.html).There are five more blunders that I
will get to in my next article, but for now I have used up my space allottment,
regretfully, and will have to save the rest for that time. I do, however, urge
you, the reader, to watch SR closely. Watch and see how he handles my responses
to his objections. Watch and see if he responds as well to me as I did to him.
If he doesn’t, then you will know that there is something wrong with his
position. If he has nothing to hide then he should have no problem bringing
forth a straight forward article with no Ad Hominem remarks.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry McDonald


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 
Silent Running's Second Affirmative
Sir Fredrick Kenyon wrote “the more firmly a student believes in the Bible,
the more firmly convinced he must be that no new fact that the spade may reveal
can be really incompatible with it” (The Bible and Archaeology, p.261). When
Kenyon wrote this in 1940, that was, indeed, the prevailing view. In
archaeology, as in other sciences, the "prevailing view" changes when new
evidence comes in. What truly makes your choice of Kenyon to support your views
ironic is the fact that it was his daughter who investigated Jericho--and who,
while not the first to start overturning that view, certainly contributed to its
destruction.


The problem that J.P. Holding brings out in his article Jericho: The Evidence:
We do need to have a brief digression concerning JP Holding. Holding is not a
scholar: he's an apologete, and that is not an insult, or I'd be insulting
myself as well. As I have said before, however, there is a difference between
the scholar and the apologete.


And here we come to the fundamental difference between an apologete and a
scholar. Apologetics, very simply, is arguing in the defense of a position.
Theoretically speaking, an apologete is under absolutely no obligation to
expound, or even acknowledge, arguments that contradict his position. Some
apologetes do, some do not, but that is entirely a decision of the apologete in
question. Therefore, both of these authors are completely and totally within
their purview to only speak of the evidence that favors their preferred
conclusion, while ignoring contradictory data.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=131160&page=4

In the case of the article cited above, Holding states that he is "on the
lookout" for refutation to either author he cites, while "failing" to note that
one of his cited authors (Wood) refuted the other (Rohl) back in 2001. (see
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...Palestine.aspx) Holding makes a brief
mention of the fact that Wood's proposed date was called into question when the
British Museum withdrew the previous radiocarbon findings, while not only
failing to report that the British Museum re-dated his find to the range
agreeing with Kathleen Kenyon's date, but also completely ignoring that Wood's
proposed dating has been completely overturned by the work of Hendrik J. Bruins
and Johannes van der Plicht in 1995.

In the article above, Holding stated "I have yet to see adequate refutation of
any of these authors - but I am certainly on the lookout for them." This
information has been widely available to Mr. Holding--since 2001 for the article
by Wood, and since 1995 for the findings by Bruins and van der Plicht. Holding
is an apologete with the curiosity of a scholar, but he lacks scholarly rigor,
in that he does not acknowledge or discuss data that contradicts his views. Such
a lack of rigor makes his observations on this issue questionable at best. If a
witness selectively presents only the information that agrees with his
preconceptions (even if that information has been refuted) he is not reliable as
a source of information.

In many respects, Holding is rather like a magpie--he picks up and saves the
"shiny bits" of data that he feels support his position (regardless of whether
or not one shiny bit contradicts another), but ignores the mountains of data
that conflict with his presuppositions. To be an honest scholar, one must tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: Mr. Holding's lack of
committment to the middle of those three virtues renders his evaluation
worthless.

Yet while Holding may be worthless as a witness, it still behooves us to examine
the argument he presents and that you cite:


“Now while it is not often explained in context of such charts, no
archaeologist actually asserts that at exactly the stroke of midnight on January
1, 1549 BC, all of the villages and towns of the region suddenly threw out all
of their Middle Bronze Age Stuff and bought the brand-new, never-before-seen
Late Bronze Age Stuff. There is bound to be overlap; no doubt some folks kept
their Middle Bronze Age stuff around after 1550. So we can't always fix an exact
date on ruins, just a general date”
(http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jericho.html).
>
>This is a problem because this is one of the ways that archaeologists look at
when dating digs. They look at the pottery that was used at what level they are
digging in. They look at far more than that. As Holding notes (and you,
seemingly, miss), "no archaeologist actually asserts" that pottery gives a
precise date--but pottery can give a relative date, and that date can be refined
to a small range. The dating of an archaeological site based on pottery is done
by looking at the entire assemblage from the relevant stratum, not by looking at
individual pieces. This form of archaeological dating was developed by William
Albright, during a time before radiocarbon dating was available, and was used by
Kenyon with great success--so great, indeed, that the advent of high-precision
radiocarbon dating verified Kenyon's date. (Bruins and van der Plicht, “The
Exodus Enigma,” Nature 382 [1996], pp. 213-214)


Kathleen Kenyon overlooked much of this in Garstangs work and it is still
unknown why she did. Kenyon did not "overlook" Garstang's work--she refuted it.
That refutation was not complete, as she never published her final findings (a
cardinal sin in archaeology, but far more prevalent than the archaeological
community would like), but even incomplete, it was sufficient not only to refute
Garstang, but also to stand the scrutiny of later generations, such as Bryant
Wood (whom we will discuss later).


Another problem that we often see in archaeology is a list of things as given by
Dr. Shirley Rollinson
>
><snip>
>
>Most of these things are self-explanatory, but if you go to the above website
you can get an explanation and examples of all the things listed. Dr. Rollinson
is quite correct in her list--yet she not only teaches the circa 1550 date for
the fall of Jericho, but her primary text (Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land
of the Bible, Doubleday, 1992) also teaches the mainstream date. Evidently
neither Rollison nor Mazar see these issues as a problem for this site..


All in all, archaeology has been very kind to the Bible Such a statement can
only be made in ignorance of, or deliberate refusal to accept, any
archaeological work in the Middle East since the 1950s, or by (as Holding has
done) selectively ignoring the vast majority of that work. Doing so is not an
accurate understanding of the current findings within archaeology: doing so
deliberately (i.e. knowing about the refutations archaeology has provided, but
ignoring them nonetheless) is nothing short of dishonest--a charge that must be
placed against your next witness.


....Bryant Woods:
>
>“In 1996 at Khirbet el-Maqatir, 10 miles north of Jerusalem, an ancient gate
complex and city wall system were discovered. Fragmentary pottery finds indicate
both were dated to the general time period of Joshua. Over a dozen slingstones
discovered in the gate area suggest a battle had been fought there. Large
storage jar fragments and burned limestone blocks point to destruction and fire.
Dr. Bryant G. Woods is an archaeologist, best known for his attempt to redate
the Jericho IV layer (the layer that Garstang originally dated to Joshua, and
that Kenyon redated to a century and a half earlier). In 1992, Wood offered a
proposed redating on based on a single radiocarbon date, scarab evidence, a
reanalysis of the pottery finds, and stratigraphic considerations.

All four of these arguments have been individually refuted--indeed, the
radiocarbon date was known to be flawed (e. g. M.S. Tite et al., “Preliminary
statement on an error in British Museum radio carbon dates (BM-1700 to
BM-2315),” Antiquity 61 [1987], p. 168), and had already been corrected (.G.E.
Bowman, J. Ambers, and M.N. Leese, “Re-Evaluation of British Museum
Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984,” Radiocarbon 32 [1990], p. 74:
BM-1790), before Wood published. Woods refused to acknowledge the error or the
correction in his publication. The fact that Woods based his proposed redating
on a single sample (a bad practice in and of itself) and completely ignored the
correction provided by the British Museum is in and of itself suspicious. The
fact that he still argues for that date on his website, completely ignoring the
later work of Bruins and van der Plicht, and still using the uncorrected date
(which he has acknowledged in other
  writings, yet refuses to correct on his website
(http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...-Evidence.aspx published 2008)) is
damning proof that Wood is not an honest source.

Woods is dishonest in his evaluation of Jericho: thus, his arguments for Kirbet
el-Maqatir (universally rejected in the archaeological community, even by such
conservative, pro-Bible lights as Mazar) are completely and totally irrelevant.


When we look at the Canaanite Conquest we see other problems with archaeology
one of which archaeologists often get it in their heads that the Exodus happened
at the late date of the 1200’s to 1100’s. J.P. Holding also wrote an
excellent critique of this idea: We have already discussed Holding. Regardless,
the date he proposes, and that you agree with, runs aground on the same shoals
as the early date: the consilience of evidence indicates that many of the sites
listed in the Bible were not inhabited, and many others suffered no destruction
or change of resident.

And that is the last of the arguments that your post fails utterly to deal
with--the concilience of evidence.. It is utterly worthless to point out one or
two sites that Holding argues incompletely, or Wood argues dishonestly, support
your thesis: to succeed in this debate, you must overturn the entirety of the
last fifty or so years of archaeological work in the Levant--work that
consistantly, cohesively, and completely paints an entirely different story of
the events in the Middle East, and that leave no room for the events portrayed
in the Biblical Narrative.


1. Key sites in the Book of Joshua’s conquest account — such as Jericho, Ai,
Gibeon, Heshbon, Arad — were either uninhabited or insignificant small
villages during the time of the Late Bronze Age.
2. The collapse of the Canaanite Late Bronze Age city system was a gradual
process over several decades — according to new finds at Lachish and Aphek,
and reevaluations of the evidence from the older studies at Megiddo and Hazor.
3. The collapse of the Late Bronze Age Canaan was part of a wider phenomenon
that embraced the entire eastern Mediterranean.
4. Egypt’s control of Canaan through the Late Bronze and early Iron Ages was
strong enough to have prevented the sort of invasion depicted in the Book of
Joshua.
5. The rise of villages in the central hill country of Palestine has been found
to have been “just one phase in a long-term, repeated, and cyclic process”
of an alternating nomad-settlement pattern of Palestine’s inhabitants. It was
not a unique event signalling the influx of a new ethnic group.

Israel Finklestein

And that is where the evidence stands, Ghost. Between the 1960s and the 1980s,
the Military Conquest view of this time period was put to rest, and is at this
point only defended by magpies like Holding, and dishonest "scholars" like Wood.
Credulous people such as yourself read what Holding and Wood publish, and what
others copy from their publication, and while you may take what you read in good
faith, your earnestness does not prevent you from being led astray.

Many have been led astray by the likes of Holding and Wood, but the tools to
lead them back to the facts are available. Those facts may not fit comfortably
with the assertion that the Bible is historically correct on this issue, but
they are the facts: one may certainly ignore the facts if one chooses, but
ignore them or not, they will not go away.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

First Rebuttal
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Jerry McDonald is attempting to do what he failed to accomplish in our last
debate: show that God raised Jesus supernaturally from the dead. McDonald's
attempt in his opening statement also fails, and fails so miserably that it
would be both unnecessary and an enormous burden to the general reader to
respond with more than a few passing remarks. I will only focus (briefly) on his
Supernatural Resurrection Argument (SRA), which he believes justifies the claim
"that if the resurrection happened...it would have had to have happened by
supernatural means." The first premise of SRA contains two propositions:
If we cannot properly infer from the fact that, if an event (resurrection) is
inconsistent with the physical laws understood by current science, then that
event will probably not be consistent with the physical laws understood by any
possible future state of science. Thus if the event happened it would have to
have been by supernatural means.
 
It is a complete and utter mystery why McDonald believes the second proposition,
beginning with "thus," follows from the first; but no matter, for he is
absolutely incorrect. The second proposition does not follow from the first, and
any competent student of logic after untying the "nots" will realize this. The
first proposition asserts that if the resurrection is inconsistent with current
scientific understanding, then we cannot infer from this fact that the
resurrection will probably be inconsistent with all possible future scientific
understanding -- that is, inconsistency now does not necessarily mean
inconsistency later. Consistent with this claim is the proposition that
resurrection will be consistent with some possible future scientific
understanding, even though it is at present inconsistent with current
understanding. Hence, McDonald's inference to "the resurrection (if it happened)
must have occurred supernaturally" is both grossly fallacious
  and contrary to what we are entitled to conclude.
 
Because SRA is seriously flawed, I conclude McDonald's first affirmative fails.
Miserably.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here is a message that was sent to me today:


I just got the following note on Facebook from Tommy Haynes who preaches for the
Central Church in Moore, OK.


My dear friend and comrade Lindsey Warren (Son of Thomas B. Warren) passed away
yesterday in Tennessee. He had a very bad heart and had been very sick. Lindsey
was only either 58 or 59.













Marion R. Fox

 
Five F Publishing Company: http://www.fivefpublishing.com  
 
Oklahoma City School of Biblical Studies: http://www.okcsbs.com
 
Blog: http://okcsbs.com/blog/

 
One Heart Journal: http://www.okcsbs.com/oneheart.html 


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Baptism of the Holy SpiritJerry D. McDonald
This article was originally written as a debate article, but has been modified
to offset the false doctrine that seems so rampant in the religious world today
that says that men are baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is the first in a
series of articles, and will set the stage for the rest.PROPOSITION
"Miraculous gifts always accompanied the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the
baptism of the Holy Spirit does not exist today." THE PROPOSITION DEFINED
"Miraculous": "Miraculous MIRAC'ULOUS, a. Performed supernaturally, or by a
power beyond the ordinary agency of natural laws; effected by the direct agency
of Almighty power, and not by natural causes; as the miraculous healing of the
sick or raising the dead by Christ.
1. Supernatural; furnished supernaturally, or competent to perform miracles; as
the miraculous powers of the Apostles. Miraculous, applied to the extraordinary
powers of the Apostles, may mean conferred by supernatural agency, or competent
to work miracles. I believe it is generally used in the latter sense.
2. In a less definite sense, wonderful; extra-ordinary" (Webster’s Dictionary,
e-Sword).
"gifts": "Gift GIFT, n. [from give.] A present; any thing given or bestowed; any
thing, the property of which is voluntarily transferred by one person to another
without compensation; a donation. It is applicable to any thing movable or
immovable.
1. The act of giving or conferring.
2. The right or power of giving or bestowing. The prince has the gift of many
lucrative offices.
3. An offering or oblation.
If thou bring thy gift to the altar. Mat 5..
4. A reward.
Let thy gifts be to thyself. Dan 5.
5. A bribe; any thing given to corrupt the judgment.
Neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise. Deu 16.
6. Power; faculty; some quality or endowment conferred by the author of our
nature; as the gift of wit; the gift of ridicule.GIFT
"always": "Always AL'WAY or AL'WAYS, adv. [all and way]
1. Perpetually; throughout all time; as, God is always the same.
2. Continually; without variation.
I do alway those things which please him. John 8. Mat 28.
3. Continually or constantly during a certain period, or regularly at stated
intervals.
Mephibosheth shall eat bread alway at my table. 2 Sam 9.
4. At all convenient times; regularly.
Cornelius prayed to God alway. Acts 10. Luke 18. Eph 6.
Alway is now seldom used. The application of this compound to time proceeds from
the primary sense of way, which is a going or passing; hence, continuation.
A.M. stand for Artium Magister, master of arts, the second degree given by
universities and colleges; called in some countries, doctor of philosophy. In
America, this degree is conferred without examination, on bachelors of three
years standing.
A.M.. stand also for Anno Mundi, in the year of the world.
AM, the first person of the verb to be, in the indicative mode, present tense.
I am that I am. Exo 3" (Ibid).
"accompanied": "Accompanied ACCOM'PANIED, pp. Attended; joined with in society"
(Ibid).
"the": "The THE, an adjective or definitive adjective.
1. This adjective is used as a definitive, that is, before nouns which are
specific or understood; or it is used to limit their signification to a specific
thing or things, or to describe them; as the laws of the twelve tables. The
independent tribunals of justice in our country, are the security or private
rights,and the best bulwark against arbitrary power. The sun is the source of
light and heat.
This he calls the preaching of the cross.
2. The is also used rhetorically before a noun in the singular number, to denote
a species by way of distinction; a single thing representing the whole. The fig
tree putteth forth her green figs; the almond tree shall flourish; the
grasshopper shall be a burden.
3. In poetry, the sometimes loses the final vowel before another vowel.
Th' adorning thee with so much art,
Is but a barb'rous skill.
4. The is used before adjectives in the comparative and superlative degree. The
longer we continue in sin, the more difficult it is to reform. The most
strenuous exertions will be used to emancipate Greece. The most we can do is to
submit; the best we can do; the worst that can happen" (Ibid).
"baptism": "G908Thayer Definition:Part of Speech:A Related Word by
Thayer’sCiting in TDNT: 1:545, 92" (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon,
e-Sword).from G907 noun neuter
1) immersion, submersion
1a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed
1b) of John’s baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their
sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins
and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom soon to be set
up. This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles
received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever rebaptised after
Pentecost.
1c) of Christian baptism; a rite of immersion in water as commanded by Christ,
by which one after confessing his sins and professing his faith in Christ,
having been born again by the Holy Spirit unto a new life, identifies publicly
with the fellowship of Christ and the church., v.t. To endow with any power or
faculty" (Ibid).baptisma baptisma/Strong’s Number: "of": "Of OF, prep. ov.
[Gr.] 1. From or out of; proceeding from, as the cause, source, means, author or
agent bestowing. (Webster’s Dictionary, e-Sword).
"the Holy Spirit": "Holy HO'LY, a. Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, the Divine
Spirit; the third person in the Trinity; the sanctifier of souls" (Ibid).
"and": "And AND, conj. And is a conjunction, connective or conjoining word. It
signifies that a word or part of a sentence is to be added to what precedes.
Thus, give me an apple and an orange; that is, give me an apple, add or give in
addition to that, an orange. John and Peter and James rode to New York, that is,
John rode to New York; add or further, Peter rode to New York; add James rode to
New York" (Ibid).
"the baptism of the Holy Spirit does not": "Does, the third person of the verb
do, indicative mode, present tense, contracted from doeth.
DOES
Not NOT, adv. [See Naught.]
1. A word that expresses negation, denial or refusal; as, he will no go; will
you remain? I will not. In the first member of a sentence, it may be followed by
nor or neither; as not for a price nor reward; I was not in safety, neither had
I rest.
2. With the substantive verb in the following phrase, it denies being, or
denotes extinction of existence.
Thine eyes are open upon me, and I am not. Job 7" (Ibid).
"exist": "Exist EXIST', v.i. egzist'. [L. existo; ex and sisto, or more directly
from Gr. to set, place or fix; L. sto, to stand. The primary sense is to set,
fix or be fixed, whence the sense of permanence, continuance.]
1. To be; to have an essence or real being; applicable to matter or body, and to
spiritual substances. A supreme being and first cause of all other beings must
have existed from eternity, for no being can have created himself.
2. To live; to have life or animation. Men cannot exist in water, nor fishes on
land.
3. To remain; to endure; to continue in being. How long shall national enmities
exist?" (Ibid).
"today": "Today TO'DAY, n. [to and day.] The present day" (Ibid).
This ought to define my proposition for this debate. It defines the terminology
perfectly, which is important because words need to be defined. Now I will
clearly state what I am affirming and what I am not affirming in this
article.WHAT THIS ARTICLE DOES AFFIRM
1. I am affirming that at one time there was the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
2. I am affirming that there are only two recorded instances of that baptism.
3. I am affirming that only the apostles of Christ (Paul was one of
them—though we don’t have a record of his being baptized in Holy Spirit),
and the household of Cornelius.
4. I am affirming that miraculous gifts always accompanied the baptism of the
Holy Spirit.
5. I am affirming that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a fulfillment of
Joel’s prophecy and that it was fulfilled for the Jews on the day of Pentecost
of Acts 2 and it was fulfilled for the Gentiles at the conversion of Cornelius
of Acts 10.
6. I am affirming that this baptism has fulfilled its purpose (to usher in the
church to both Jew and Gentile) and that it no longer is needed.
7. I am affirming that this baptism does not exist today.WHAT THIS ARTICLE DOES
NOT AFFIRM
1. I am not affirming that only tongues accompanied the baptism of the Holy
Spirit for the apostles for they had all spiritual gifts.
2. I am not affirming that the household of Cornelius had any other gift than
speaking in tongues.
3. I am not affirming that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the one baptism of
Ephesians 4.
4. I am not affirming that the household of Cornelius was saved before being
baptized in water for the remission of their sins; they weren’t.
5. I am not affirming that anyone other than the apostles of Christ (Paul
included) and the household of Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy
Spirit.
6. I am not affirming that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit ever saved anyone; it
didn’t—that wasn’t its purpose.
7. I am not affirming that anyone must have the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be
saved; it won’t save anyone—it never did and never will..
Miraculous gifts always accompanied the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the
baptism of the Holy Spirit does not exist today. This is a Biblical fact that
was prophecied by the prophet Joel and began to be fulfilled on the day of
Pentecost of Acts chapter 2. In this first article we will look and see that
Joel promised that miraculous gifts would accompany the baptism of the Holy
Spirit and that this began to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost of Acts 2
when the church came into its established state.
Now to my argument. I will make an argument that is logical and that is
scriptural and therefore is true. The raw argument itself will be in syllogistic
form, but it will be backed up by scripture at every point. I challenge you (the
reader) to study my arguments.. If you will answer them point by point then we
will know that you are doing what you honestly believe is right, but if you
don’t, then your ineffectiveness will be seen by one and all. Now to the
argument.
　
The Argument:Major PremiseMinor PremiseConclusion
Now all this argument says is that if all the parts are factual, then the whole
is true. The argument is valid. It conforms to the rules of this type of
syllogism. Both premises are precisely stated and the conclusion logically and
irrefutably follows from the premise. Therefore, the argument is valid. Is the
argument true? The major premise is true: "If all of the parts are factual then
the whole is true." The question is: "Are All of The Parts Factual?" Let us find
out.
Element # 1:
Joel's prophecy showed that the pouring out of the Spirit would be accompanied
by miraculous gifts.
"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all
flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall PROPHESY, your old men shall DREAM
DREAMS, your young men shall SEE VISIONS: And also upon the servants and upon
the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders
in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun
shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the
terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall
call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in
Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom
the LORD shall call" (Joel 2:28-32).
As we look at the prophecy, the miraculous gifts of prophesy, dreaming dreams
and seeing visions shall accompany the pouring out of the Spirit
Element # 2:
Joel's prophecy was fulfilled for the Jews on the day of Pentecost of Acts
chapter 2.
To this, there is no dispute. Peter simply said "For these are not drunken, as
ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which
was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Act 2:15-16). What had happened to cause Peter
to say this?
1. They were all sitting in one place in one house when the day of Pentecost had
fully come (Acts 2:1).
2. There was a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the
house where they were (Acts 2:2).
3. There appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each
of them (Acts 2:3).
4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4).
Now what have we seen?
1. They were in Jerusalem as Jesus had told them to be to wait for the baptism
of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-8).
2. When all of this happened, the Holy Spirit filled them all. What was that?
The baptism of the Holy Spirit.
3. Now looking at Jesus' statement he said "But ye shall receive power, after
that the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8).
4. So they were there, there was a great sound from heaven. There were cloven
tongues like as of fire, and it sat on each of them. They were then filled with
the Holy Ghost--Holy Spirit Baptism--and then they began to speak with other
tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
This is how the 12 apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of
Pentecost of Acts chapter 2. There is no denying that. There is no dispute over
that. It is a Biblical fact! They were endowed with miraculous gifts on that
day, that is a Biblical fact.
However, this was not only for the Jews, this promise was also for the Gentiles.
Remember that Peter said that what had happened was the fulfillment of the
prophecy of Joel? As far as the Jews were concerned this was the fulfillment,
but the Gentile part of the fulfillment had not yet happened. So when was this
to happen?
Now the phrase "I will pour out of my spirit" appears twice in Acts and Joel.
Once it appears when it speaks of pouring out on "all flesh" and once when it
talks about on "servants and handmaidens." Why does it say this? The phrase upon
all flesh refers to all nations, both Jew and Gentile, and upon servants and
handmaidens refers to the fact that it would go the common man and not so much
to people who were important. While it did go to people who were high up
(Cornelius and Paul) most of the people were common people (the 12 apostles).
The term servants and handmaidens shows that these people were of low estate,
not that there would be women baptized into the Holy Spirit.
Element # 3
The Gentile fulfillment of Joel's prophecy was fulfilled when Cornelius received
the gospel.
We have seen that Joel's prophecy was not only for the Jews, but for the
Gentiles as well. When Peter went to Cornelius' house the scripture tells us
"while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard
the word" (Act 10:44). Here we have the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius and
those in his house as he did on the twelve on the day of Pentecost. If the Holy
Spirit coming upon the twelve was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy
Spirit coming on Cornelius was also the baptism. Now you notice that there were
others, who received the Holy Spirit, but they always received the gift by the
laying on of the Apostles hands, on the day of Pentecost, and here this did not
happen. This was the same thing as was done on the day of Pentecost of Acts 2.
The Holy Spirit came without the laying on of an apostle's hands. Peter was an
apostle, and he was there, but he did not lay hands on them.
It cannot be denied that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit in the same manner
that the twelve did on the day of Pentecost. Jesus was the administrator of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit that the twelve received on the day of Pentecost. If
Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism Jesus would have had to have been the
administrator of it as well.
How was the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the house of Cornelius different than
the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the twelve on Pentecost?
On Pentecost the twelve were together there was a sound as of a mighty rushing
wind, and the Holy Spirit came upon them and cloven tongues like as of fire came
and sat upon them all and they began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit
gave them utterance.
Cornelius and those of his house were listening to Peter preach and the Holy
Spirit came upon them, and they began to speak in tongues.
What was the difference between the two instances? In the instance of the twelve
apostles there was a sound like as of a rushing might wind and cloven tongues
like as of fire that sat upon all the apostles that did not happen at the house
of Cornelius. However, in both instances, the Holy Spirit came without the
laying on of an apostle's hands, and in both cases, the recipients spoke in
tongues.
We have also seen that the pouring out of the Spirit was for all flesh (both Jew
and Gentiles and the common man (the 12 apostles) and not just for those who
were important (Cornelius and Paul).
Element # 4
Peter said that what the Gentiles received was the same as what the Apostles had
received on Pentecost.
In Acts chapter 11 Peter was telling the brethren in Jerusalem about the
conversion of Cornelius and he said "As I began to speak,the Holy Ghost fell on
them, AS ON US AT THE BEGINNING. THEN REMEMBERED I THE WORD OF THE LORD, HOW HE
SAID, JOHN INDEED BAPTIZED WITH WATER; BY YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY
GHOST. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who
believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; who was I, that I could withstand God" (Acts
11:15-17).
Now notice what he said: "The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the
beginning." Who did the Holy Ghost fall on at the beginning? The twelve
apostles. Who did the Holy Ghost fall on that Peter was talking about? Cornelius
and his house? So the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius as he did on the twelve at
the beginning.
We have to look at two things here.
The word "as" in verse 15.
When Peter said that the Holy Spirit fell on the household of Cornelius as on
the apostles at the beginning he was saying that the Spirit fell on the
household of Cornelius JUST LIKE he did on the apostles. The two can be compared
to each other. They are exactly like each other. If what the apostles received
was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and if what Cornelius received was exactly
like what the apostles received, then what Cornelius received was also the
baptism of the Holy Spirit.
We also need to look at the phrase "at the beginning."
The People's New Testament says: "As on us at the beginning. Note that Peter
compares the outpouring on the Gentiles with that of the day of Pentecost. He
calls both instances "baptisms of the Holy Spirit." Miraculous signs accompanied
each instance. Have we a right to speak of a baptism of the Holy Spirit without
such signs?" (E-Sword).
"At the beginning" has reference to the day of Pentecost. So when Peter said
that what Cornelius received was the same as what happened to them at the
beginning he was saying that what happened to Cornelius was the same as what
happened to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.
In both instances, the baptism of the Spirit was accompanied by the miraculous
gift of speaking in tongues. Now there were instances where people received the
Spirit and spoke in tongues without receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
One example is found in Acts 19:6 where Paul laid his hands on those people and
gave them the gift of the Holy Spirit and then they began to speak with tongues.
This was not the baptism of the Spirit because the baptism of the Spirit could
not come by the laying on of the apostles hands. This was the impartation of the
miraculous gifts that could only be given by an apostle.CONCLUSION
What have we seen?
Joel’s prophecy shows that miraculous gifts would accompany the baptism of the
Holy Spirit.
Joel's prophecy for the Jews was fulfilled for the Jews on the day of Pentecost
in Acts chapter 2, and they spoke with tongues.
That the Pouring out of the Spirit in both Acts and Joel in both places has
reference to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and that the phrase "upon all flesh"
has reference to "both Jew and Gentile" and the phrase "upon the servants and
handmaidens" has reference to the common man.
Joel's prophecy for the Gentiles was fulfilled for the Gentiles with Cornelius,
and they spoke with tongues.
Peter said that what Cornelius (the Gentiles) received was the same thing that
the apostles had received on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, and in both
cases miraculous gifts were involved.
　
　
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald: Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is
a total situation which is true.: The total situation described by my
proposition is a total situation, the constituent elements of which are
factual.: All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual,
are total situations which are true.wsperho(I)(II)(III)Deriv.: ho After a
hypothetical proposition, as asserting or confirming its truth and reality,
meaning as indeed ( Generally and without ho (G3779), thus, corresponding ( It
introduces a comparison followed by a corresponding clause with ho (G3779),
thus, or the like (spersĂștosMat_12:40; Mat_13:40; Mat_24:27,
Mat_24:37; Luk_17:24; Joh_5:21, Joh_5:26; Rom_5:19, Rom_5:21; Rom_6:4, Rom_6:19;
Rom_11:30; 1Co_11:12; 1Co_15:22; 1Co_16:1; 2Co_1:7; Gal_4:29; Eph_5:24;
Jam_2:26). Once with ho omitted as inconsequential (ĂștosMat_25:14), and in
Rom_5:12suspended by a parenthetic clause (cf. Rom_5:18).
  In 2Co_8:7used with kaĂ­(G2532), and.ĂștosMat_5:48; Mat_6:2, Mat_6:5,
Mat_6:7, Mat_6:16; Mat_20:28; Mat_25:32; Luk_18:11; Act_2:2; Act_3:17;
Act_11:15; 2Co_9:5[TR]; 1Th_5:3; Heb_4:10; Heb_7:27; Heb_9:25; Rev_10:3). In
Mat_18:17it should be translated "just as" (a.t.).1Co_8:5).spereĂ­(G5619),
just as if, as it were" (Word Study Dictionary, E-Sword).; adv. from ho (G5613),
as, and the emphatic enclitic particle per (G4007), much. Wholly as, just as,
exactly like. In the NT, it is used only in comparisons.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Because of the style of debate (format) that I was unfamiliar with the moderator
of the forum had me re-write my first article.  Apparently I was supposed to
write an opening statement, and the rebuttals won't come until later.  At any
rate I wrote it, although it is essentially the same, it was accepted.  Funny
how rewording something can change things, isn't it?

Ghost Sniper’s Opening Statement
 
I wish to express my thanks to TWeb for allowing this debate on their forum, and
I wish to express my thanks to Silent Running for agreeing to meet me on this
important subject.  I appreciate it very much.  I also wish to thank each of
those who take the time to read what both SR and I have taken the time to write.
 
Sir Fredrick Kenyon wrote “the more firmly a student believes in the Bible,
the more firmly convinced he must be that no new fact that the spade may reveal
can be really incompatible with it” (The Bible and Archaeology, p.261).  As
we go into this debate we need to realize that archaeology will play a large
part of what we will be studying.  Thus it behooves each of us to learn just
how archaeology works and what value it has in this area of study.
 
“Archaeology is the study of the ancient and recent human past through
material
remains”(http://www.saa.org/ForthePublic/Resources/EducationalResources/ForEdu\
cators/ArchaeologyforEducators/WhatisArchaeology/tabid/1346/Default.aspx).  
Now there are pitfalls in archaeology that we need to know about and we shall
look at some of those here.
 
	 * The problem that J.P. Holding brings out in his article Jericho:  The
Evidence:
 
“Now while it is not often explained in context of such charts, no
archaeologist actually asserts that at exactly the stroke of midnight on January
1, 1549 BC, all of the villages and towns of the region suddenly threw out all
of their Middle Bronze Age Stuff and bought the brand-new, never-before-seen
Late Bronze Age Stuff. There is bound to be overlap; no doubt some folks kept
their Middle Bronze Age stuff around after 1550. So we can't always fix an exact
date on ruins, just a general date”
(http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jericho.html).
 
This is a problem because this is one of the ways that archaeologists look at
when dating digs.  They look at the pottery that was used at what level they
are digging in.  Kathleen Kenyon overlooked much of this in Garstangs work and
it is still unknown why she did.
 
	 * Another problem that we often see in archaeology is a list of things as given
by Dr. Shirley Rollinson
	 * Forgery
	 * Frauds, Hoaxes, and Ignorant Mistakes
	 * Unprovenanced artifacts
	 * Private collections
	 * Illegal digs
	 * Black Market
	 * Theft
	 * Looting
	 * War
	 * Political and Ethnic Problems
	 * Removal of Cultural Heretiage
	 * Economic Problems
	 * Damage by Tourist and Nut cases
	 * Academic jealousy and personal antagonism between archaeologists 
http://www.drshirley.org/rel433/problems.html
Most of these things are self-explanatory, but if you go to the above website
you can get an explanation and examples of all the things listed.
 
All in all, archaeology has been very kind to the Bible, and those places where
it hasn’t found places where the Bible speaks, it hasn’t disagreed with the
Bible, it’s just a matter of all of the information not being taken into
consideration.  We need to remember when dealing with archaeology that it is an
on going thing, that we don’t wake up and find all the answers tomorrow.. 
Answers we look for today might not be found in our life times, but might be
found in our children’s life.  This is why we cannot rely solely on
archaeology.  We can use it, and see how it has agreed with the Bible in the
past, and how it continues to agree with the Bible, but we cannot depend solely
upon archaeology because we may never find the answers in our life time.  Case
and point:
 
In 1924 William F. Albright, who is known as the father of Biblical archaeology,
wrote an article identifying a large site at “et-Tell” as the site of
Biblical Ai.  Now the problem with this was that there was no one living at
this site during the time of Joshua’s battle.  In 1988 Joseph Calloway wrote
in Biblical Archaeology Review that the Bible was wrong on Ai.  In the
Jackson-Till Debate   Farrell Till made as much out of this as he could. 
However, it needs to be remembered that this debate took place in 1990 and
Joseph Calloway made his statements in 1988 and died shortly thereafter, and the
new results didn’t come in until 1995 and even later (after Jackson’s death
in 1991):
 
“Joshua 8 reports that the Israelite forces sacked and destroyed the city of
Aiduring their invasion of Canaan, an attack that according to Bible chronology
(I Kings 6:I) would have occurred around 1426 B.C.  Joseph Calloway, a
conservative Southern Baptist and former professor  at The Southern Baptist
Theologian Seminary, excavated the Ai ruins and made discoveries that
contradict  the Biblical record.  His findings were reported in Biblical
Archaeological Review:
 
The evidence from Ai was mainly negative.  There was a great walled city there
about 3000 B.C., more than 1,800 years before Israel’s emergence into
Canaan.  But this city was destroyed about 2400 B.C., after which the site was
abandoned.
 
   Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200
B.C.) Canaanite city was found.  In short, there was no Canaanite city here for
Joshua to conquer, (“Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988,” November/December 1988,
p. 24, emphasis added).
 
The same article quoted a statement that Calloway himself had made in announcing
the results of his nine year expedition to the Ai ruins:
 
   Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai
as reported in Joshua 7-8.  The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons
between 1964 and 1976
, only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the
Ai account in the Bible, (Ibid., p. 24)” (The Jackson-Till Debate, pp. 55,
56)..
 
Now as previously stated, Calloway’s work ended in ’76 and he died in ’88
so there was no way that he could have known that he was digging in the wrong
location.  However, rather than declare the Biblical record erroneous he should
have remembered the words of Sir Fredrick Kenyon (which I am sure he no doubt
knew for no student of Biblical archaeology would not have known them by heart)
who said “the more firmly a student believes in the Bible, the more firmly
convinced he must be that no new fact that the spade may reveal can be really
incompatible with it” (The Bible and Archaeology, p.261), and he might have
held on to his faith, in God’s word as being inspired, before he died.  I
would hate for one of my last actions on this earth to be one of accusing
God’s word of being erroneous.
 
Calloway had no way of knowing what the spade was going to reveal in 1995 and
later.  He had no way of knowing that in the year 2000 the following statement
would be made by Bryant Woods:
 
“In 1996 at Khirbet el-Maqatir, 10 miles north of Jerusalem, an ancient gate
complex and city wall system were discovered. Fragmentary pottery finds indicate
both were dated to the general time period of Joshua. Over a dozen slingstones
discovered in the gate area suggest a battle had been fought there. Large
storage jar fragments and burned limestone blocks point to destruction and fire.
Excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir in 1997 revealed an impressive 3.8 meters wide
defensive wall which was preserved to a height of 1.5 meters at its outer face,
and is one of the largest defensive walls ever found in Israel. Also, a
well-constructed and clearly visible approach road was discovered on the north
side, which can be traced from below the northwest corner of the fortress up the
hillside to the northeast corner. There was evidently a gate located here. While
much of the architecture in this area has been robbed out, several intriguing
walls have been found. Continued work in this area may produce at least a
portion of a city gate.
In 1998, the American public continues to be fascinated with various aspects of
Middle Eastern archaeology. More and more people will participate in
excavations. Newspapers, magazines and the evening news will continue to report
the most recent discoveries. New television documentaries on the subject appear
every month. We continue to be enriched by the greater understanding, afforded
us through archaeology, of those who have gone before”
(http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm). 
This location is better suited for Ai than “et-Tell”  and we need to keep
this in mind as we read Bryant Wood’s 2000 dig report conclusion:
“Five years of hard work at Kh. el-Maqatir have produced significant results.
The plan of the fortress from Joshua's time is slowly coming into focus. With
the discovery of evidence for the burning of the fortress, we now have all the
proof needed to make a strong case that Kh. el-Maqatir is the Ai of Joshua 7 8.
Should we terminate the project? Hardly! Although we have plenty of common
pottery from the time of Joshua, we are still lacking imported and  painted
pottery, the primary diagnostic indicators for the LB I period. Imported and
local painted pottery were the expensive fancy wares of the time and would not
have been the everyday pottery in use at a military outpost. The only place it
might have been used was in the commandant's house. In addition, officials at a
15th century BC border fortress would have needed to maintain contact with other
centers. One type of communication in use at that time was written
communiquĂ©s‚ in the form of
  cuneiform tablets. These most likely would have been kept at the administrative
center the commandant's house. So, the search is on for the commandant's house!
In addition, the more of the fortress we uncover, the stronger will be the
evidence that we have discovered a 15th century BC fortress that should be
identified as the Ai of Joshua 7-8. There are many more years of work yet to be
done at Kh. el-Maqatir” (http://www.bibleplaces.com/ai2000.htm).  Here is a
link to show the sites (http://www.bibleplaces.com/maqatir.htm).
Also the Archaeological Study Bible states:  “In conclusion, the site of
et-Tell identified as Ai by Albright is mostly likely the location of Ai in the
early patriarchal period.  By Joshua’s time, however, the fortress had
evidently migrated slightly to the west—to Khirbet el. Maqatir” (p. 316).
No, he had no way of knowing this, which is why one should not depend solely
upon archaeology.  Use it as much as is possible.  Show that it has, in the
past, agreed with the word of God, and that it continues to agree with the word
of God, but we cannot put our soul salvation in the hands of any science on this
earth.  Our salvation has to be put in the hands of God and the only way to do
that is to believe and obey his word.
 
When we look at the Canaanite Conquest we see other problems with archaeology
one of which archaeologists often get it in their heads that the Exodus happened
at the late date of the 1200’s to 1100’s.  J.P. Holding also wrote an
excellent critique of this idea:
 
“Newer developments, however, suggest that Joshua's Jerichois to be identified
with another level of the Tell es-Sultan site entirely - one dated to the Middle
Bronze Age, which indeed, it was earlier suggested might have been the city that
the Book of Joshua had in mind [Hopp.WBA, 7]. Part of the problem is that
Garstang and Kenyon went along with the standard presumption that the Exodus
took place c. 1200 BC, based primarily on the assumed anachronism stating that
the Israelites labored in Ramesses (Ex. 1:11), and that the city was named after
Ramesses II, as well as the standard assumption that the Israelites did not
invade Palestine, but engaged in gradual settlement.
The OT, however, indicates a timeline that puts the Exodus at c. 1447 BC. The OT
timeline was assumed inaccurate based on the presumption of gradual settlement,
and on the naming of the city - overlooking the obvious solution that the city
name was a later scribal gloss intended to take the place of a city name that no
longer existed, much as "Dan" is named in Genesis although that city did not
exist at the time described.
The 1447 BC date puts Joshua closer to the Middle Bronze Age, but still in the
LBA - by the conventional chronology - by about 100 years. Can the gap be closed
to have Joshua conquering the MBA city?
The first question is as to whether one ought to care. The evidence of MBA
Jericho suits the Joshua narrative so well that it seems presumptive not to
allow for some error in modern dating. This is especially worth considering
since the dating of Jericho's remains has "shifted several times in the history
of the site's excavation." [BHI, 174]”
(http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jericho.html).
As we look at these things we see that the Bible is right, and thus far,
archaeology has backed it up.  I have no fear that if I lay down this night and
close my eyes in sleep and meet my maker that archaeology will continue to back
up the Bible.  I may never get to see all the times that it does, but I have no
doubt that it will.
When Joshua led the Israelites into the Promised land their first conquest was
Jericho, then Ai.  These two present the most problems for the Bible believer
than all the others.  They are the ones that have been “the fly in the
ointment” so to speak for the believer; and especially Ai, but when you get
around those there are always others that are brought up that you have to deal
with, such as Jerusalemand Hebron.  There will always be another one on the
list, and so the Bible believer should not lose faith because he solves one
problem and someone says “Well, what about this one?” or his opponent says
“No, that doesn’t answer that” because that will happen more often than
anything else.  Just remember that Archaeology is good to use, use it as a
tool, but remember the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Stick with it and
you can’t go wrong.  Paul said “All scripture is given by inspiration of
God, and is profitable for doctrine,
  for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2Ti 3:16-17). 
I realize that Silent Running will likely disagree with me, but as I look at the
evidence, and as I examine the evidence from both sides I have to say that
God’s word is what it claims to be:  The truth, and it will set us free (Jn.
8:32).
I join in with Silent Running when I say that I hope to learn from this
discussion and I hope that all who read learn from this discussion. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ghost Sniper’s First Rebuttal
 
I wish to express my thanks to TWeb for hosting this debate and for Silent
Runner for agreeing to meet me.  And I also know what that Chinese curse is as
it hits me quite frequently, so don’t worry about it SR.
 
As far as faith is concerned my view of faith is exactly what the Bible teaches
that it is “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen” (Heb 11:1).  Biblical faith is based upon evidence,
period.  The idea that faith is blind is taught nowhere in the Bible.  I
realize that many people have accepted this idea that we must have a blind faith
regardless, but that is not what God demands that we have.  He demands that our
faith be based upon evidence.  He does not want us doubting
 
“But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a
wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that
he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all
his ways” (Jas 1:6-8).
 
So as far as faith is concerned my faith is based upon evidence and not upon
some blind leap in the dark.  Archaeology, when it comes to the Bible, is a bit
more complex than it is when dealing with the Book of Mormon.  As SR has
pointed out, there is no evidence that the Lamanites or the Nephites were in
America, but when it comes to Bible it gets sticky.  The Bible critic is
forever faulting the Bible’s integrity in this field only to have to back up
each and every time and to have to eat (shall we say?) “humble pie.”  The
critics of the Bible argued that the Bible was wrong because it spoke of the
Hittite nation and archaeologists had never found any evidence of them; only to
have to eat crow when the evidence was found.  Of course there was never any
apology of any kind, just back to work.
 
SR brings up the statement that there seems to be some difficulty between
Numbers and Joshua and Judges as to what was done and what wasn’t.  What SR
wants to do is to take each and every statement on its own accord and set it
against the other and say that they don’t match.  You cannot do this with any
work, let alone with the Bible.  You have to take the context into
consideration when dealing with any statement.  In the Numbers account Moses
was still alive and they had not yet crossed over into the promised land, so
they were not in the Conquest as of yet, remember Moses was not allowed to enter
into the Promised land, he could only see it from the mountain.  So we can
dispense of that one immediately.  So now it is between Joshua and Judges.  
Joshua condemned the Israelites because they were to go in and take the land,
but they didn’t, and this will explain why, in the book of Judges +, the
Canaanites were still in the land. 
  Whenever man refuses to do what God tells him to do, in the first place,
complications are going to arise.
 
Now, he brings up about the Jerichosiege and the different dates between
Garstang, Albright and Kenyon.  Albright’s dates it at around 1250 BC while
Garstang dates it at around 1400 BC, then comes along Kathleen Kenyon and dates
it 150 years later at 1550 BC.  Bryant Wood wrote the following:
 
“Despite my disagreements with Kenyon’s major conclusion, I nevertheless
applaud her for her careful and painstaking field work. It was she who brought
order to the confused stratigraphic picture at Jericho. Her thoroughgoing
excavation methods and detailed reporting of her findings, however, did not
carry over into her analytical work. When the evidence is critically examined
there is no basis for her contention that City IV was destroyed by the Hyksos or
Egyptians in the mid-16th century B.C.E. The pottery, stratigraphic
considerations, scarab data and a Carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of
the city around the end of Late Bronze I, about 1400 B.C.E. Garstang’s
original date for this event appears to be the correct one!
 
Was this destruction at the hands of the Israelites? The correlation between the
archaeological evidence and the Biblical narrative is substantial:

‱ The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20).
‱ The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15,
5:10).
‱ The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua
6:1).
‱ The siege was short (Joshua 6:15).
‱ The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20).
‱ The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18).
‱ The city was burned (Joshua 6:20).
 

One major problem remains: the date, 1400 B.C.E. Most scholars will reject the
possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E. because
of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200
years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period.
 
A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical chronology, which places the
Israelite entry into Canaan in about 1400 B.C.E. The dispute between these two
views is already well-known to BAR readers.**
 
But recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting that Israel was resident
in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze II period. As new data emerge and as old
data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of current
theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of Israel in
Canaan”
(http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/01/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jeri\
cho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx).
 
Archaeology is a science that is ongoing and is one where new evidence is
constantly being uncovered.  I find that it is always the sensible thing to
take advise like the advise that Dr. Woods offered:  “As new data emerge and
as old data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of
current theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of Israel in
Canaan.”  All too often, men will jump the gun and make blanket statements
that such and such has wiped out the Biblical credibility of such and such, only
to turn around and find out that the Bible was right after all.
 
SR then brings up the conquest of Ai, another favorite of mine, in an attempt to
show that the Bible is in error on the Canannite Conquest.In 1924 William F.
Albright, who is known as the father of Biblical archaeology, wrote an article
identifying a large site at “et-Tell” as the site of Biblical Ai.  Now the
problem with this was that there was no one living at this site during the time
of Joshua’s battle.  In 1988 Joseph Calloway wrote in Biblical Archaeology
Review that the Bible was wrong on Ai.  In the Jackson-Till DebateTill made as
much out of this as he could.  However, it needs to be remembered that this
debate took place in 1990 and Joseph Calloway made his statements in 1988 and
died shortly thereafter, and the new results didn’t come in until 1995 and
later (after Jackson’s death in 1991):
 
“Joshua 8 reports that the Israelite forces sacked and destroyed the city of
Aiduring their invasion of Canaan, an attack that according to Bible chronology
(I Kings 6:I) would have occurred around 1426 B.C.  Joseph Calloway, a
conservative Southern Baptist and former professor  at The Southern Baptist
Theologian Seminary, excavated the Ai ruins and made discoveries that
contradict  the Biblical record.  His findings were reported in Biblical
Archaeological Review:
 
The evidence from Ai was mainly negative.  There was a great walled city there
about 3000 B.C., more than 1,800 years before Israel’s emergence into
Canaan.  But this city was destroyed about 2400 B.C., after which the site was
abandoned.
 
   Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200
B.C.) Canaanite city was found.  In short, there was no Canaanite city here for
Joshua to conquer, (“Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988,” November/December 1988,
p. 24, emphasis added).
 
The same article quoted a statement that Calloway himself had made in announcing
the results of his nine year expedition to the Ai ruins:
 
   Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai
as reported in Joshua 7-8.  The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons
between 1964 and 1976
, only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the
Ai account in the Bible, (Ibid., p. 24)” (The Jackson-Till Debate, pp. 55,
56).
 
Now as previously stated, Calloway’s work ended in ’76 and he died in ’88
so there was no way that he could have known that he was digging in the wrong
location.  However, rather than declare the Biblical record erroneous he should
have remembered the words of Sir Fredrick Kenyon (which I am sure he no doubt
knew for no student of archaeology would not know them) who said “the more
firmly a student believes in the Bible, the more firmly convinced he must be
that no new fact that the spade may reveal can be really incompatible with it”
(The Bible and Archaeology, p.261), and he might have held on to his faith, in
God’s word as being inspired, before he died.  I would hate for one of my
last actions on this earth to be one of accusing God’s word of being
erroneous.
            In looking at alternative location for Ai we read the
following: 
 
Khirbet el-Maqatir
 

Kh. el-Maqatir is upper left; et-Tell is right center   Aerial from east
One mile due west of traditional Ai (et-Tell) is Kh. el-Maqatir, an alternate
location for Ai.  Its location fits the approximate area one would expect to
find the city that Joshua destroyed in the Conquest.  Furthermore, the absence
of any evidence of inhabitation at et-Tell should compel the honest historian to
look elsewhere for Ai.
 
Aerial from north
If Kh. el-Maqatir were to prove to be Ai archaeologically, its location fits the
biblical record well.  The deep Wadi Sheban to the west provides a perfect
location for the ambush forces of the Israelites to hide.  Joshua's command
post was on the hill just east (left) of the modern road and he fled east away
from the wadi allowing the ambush force to attack from behind.  
Kh. el-Maqatir is left center; Wadi Sheban is right
 
    View from north
Separated from the north by a deep valley, Khirbet el-Maqatir is here seen from
the eyes of Joshua at his camp before attacking the city.  To date, much
evidence has been found indicating that Kh. el-Maqatir is the Ai of Joshua's
day, including the city fortifications, gate, evidence of battle and destruction
by fire.
 
(http://www.bibleplaces.com/maqatir.htm).
Also we notice the following about this site:
“In 1996 at Khirbet el-Maqatir, 10 miles north of Jerusalem, an ancient gate
complex and city wall system were discovered. Fragmentary pottery finds indicate
both were dated to the general time period of Joshua. Over a dozen slingstones
discovered in the gate area suggest a battle had been fought there. Large
storage jar fragments and burned limestone blocks point to destruction and fire.
Excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir in 1997 revealed an impressive 3.8 meters wide
defensive wall which was preserved to a height of 1.5 meters at its outer face,
and is one of the largest defensive walls ever found in Israel. Also, a
well-constructed and clearly visible approach road was discovered on the north
side, which can be traced from below the northwest corner of the fortress up the
hillside to the northeast corner. There was evidently a gate located here. While
much of the architecture in this area has been robbed out, several intriguing
walls have been found. Continued work in this area may produce at least a
portion of a city gate.
In 1998, the American public continues to be fascinated with various aspects of
Middle Eastern archaeology. More and more people will participate in
excavations. Newspapers, magazines and the evening news will continue to report
the most recent discoveries. New television documentaries on the subject appear
every month. We continue to be enriched by the greater understanding, afforded
us through archaeology, of those who have gone before”
(http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm).
This location is better suited for Ai than “et-Tell”  and we need to keep
this in mind as we read Bryant Wood’s 2000 dig report conclusion:
“Five years of hard work at Kh. el-Maqatir have produced significant results.
The plan of the fortress from Joshua's time is slowly coming into focus. With
the discovery of evidence for the burning of the fortress, we now have all the
proof needed to make a strong case that Kh. el-Maqatir is the Ai of Joshua 7 8.
Should we terminate the project? Hardly! Although we have plenty of common
pottery from the time of Joshua, we are still lacking imported and  painted
pottery, the primary diagnostic indicators for the LB I period. Imported and
local painted pottery were the expensive fancy wares of the time and would not
have been the everyday pottery in use at a military outpost. The only place it
might have been used was in the commandant's house. In addition, officials at a
15th century BC border fortress would have needed to maintain contact with other
centers. One type of communication in use at that time was written
communiquĂ©s‚ in the form of
  cuneiform tablets. These most likely would have been kept at the administrative
center the commandant's house. So, the search is on for the commandant's house!
In addition, the more of the fortress we uncover, the stronger will be the
evidence that we have discovered a 15th century BC fortress that should be
identified as the Ai of Joshua 7-8. There are many more years of work yet to be
done at Kh. el-Maqatir” (http://www.bibleplaces.com/ai2000.htm).
The Archaeological Study Bible states:  “In conclusion, the site of et-Tell
identified as Ai by Albright is mostly likely the location of Ai in the early
patriarchal period.  By Joshua’s time, however, the fortress had evidently
migrated slightly to the west—to Khirbet el. Maqatir” (p. 316).
Like the Hittite Nation, Ai was the fly in the ointment for Bible believers as
for many years we had no answers and the critics continue to push for answers. 
Now, all they can say is either nothing at all (which is what most of them are
doing) or that we have fabricated a place because we won’t accept the real
place “et-Tell.”  However, like the Hittite problem, this problem had an
answer and the answers seems to have been found to most people’s
satisfaction.   This should, but it won’t, teach all concerned not to start
popping off before all of the evidence is in.  As the late Bill Jackson wrote:
“Still the truth is that Ai existed, and all that Till can say is that there
is no archaeological evidence that the site was occupied in Joshua’s time! 
He cites his authority, Callaway, who states finding no evidence, and then jumps
to the point that ‘archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the
conquest of Ai
.’  Wiped out?  He couldn’t state that until all the
digging that ever could be done has been done!  This has no more value than a
year before Megiddowas found some man states, ‘We’ve found nothing yet, and
thus archaeology has wiped out the Bible record of Megiddo!’” (The
Jackson-Till Debate, p. 58).
Little could Brother Jackson know that just five years later the alternative
site would be found, and this should teach all to just wait and see what the
evidence may produce before jumping to conclusions.  Bill was right, far too
many people have given up their faith far too soon because they jumped the gun
way too soon.  Bible study, faith in God and living for God is not something
that you can rush.  It takes a lifetime to acquire!
He tells us that Jerusalemshows now signs of destruction:
 
Archeologists find massive Canaanite wall in Jerusalem
Archeologists working in the oldest part of Jerusalemannounced on Wednesday the
recent uncovering of a 3,700-year-old stone fortification believed to have been
built by the Canaanites who controlled the city prior to King David's conquest.
The 26-foot-high wall is the oldest large-scale fortification ever found in the
city, and proves that Jerusalemwas large and wealthy enough during that time
period to have supported major building projects.
Archeologists working at the site said the wall was likely part of a protected
walkway that connected the hilltop fortress city to its only fresh water
source--the Gihon Spring that lies in the valley below. It is the same spring
that David and his men used to gain entry to the city when they captured it
seven centuries later.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=19504
The next thing on the list is Hebron.  He says that there is no evidence that
it existed of the Canaanite Conquest.  Rabbi Leibel Reznick wrote an article in
defense of Hebronand gave seven defenses (what he calls blunders of those who
claim Hebrondidn’t exist at the time of the Canaanite Conquest).  They are as
follows.
 
“Blunder number one: Hebron is not a single archaeological site, but rather it
is a sprawling archaeological area consisting of seven distinct sites. They are:
 
1) Tel Hebron, also called Tel Rumeide, where Hammond conducted his excavations.
 
2) Haram el-Khalil, which includes the Cave of the Patriarchs and its
surrounding area. Due to the reverence given to the site, no archaeological
excavations have ever been conducted in this area.
 
3) The present-day city of Hebron. Since it is inhabited, very little has been
done in the way of archaeological work.
 
4) Jebel Nimra, a site of known Persian-era construction. Recent archaeological
work has been started there, but no reports have been released as yet.
 
5) Haram Ramet el-Khalil. According to local tradition, this is the site of the
patriarchal Hebron.10 No archaeological work has been conducted there as yet.
 
6) Khirbet en-Natzara, a site known to contain artifacts11 that date back to the
conquest era, but the area has not been excavated.
 
7) Jebel Batrak, unexamined.
 
The fact is that only one of the archaeological sites in Hebron, namely Tel
Hebron, was partially excavated by Hammond. That no evidence of habitation was
found coinciding with the epic of Moses' spies and Joshua's conquest is hardly
convincing evidence that these incidents did not occur. Six out of the seven
sites remain to be investigated..
 
It is known that ancient cities would move about, changing their location as the
necessity arose. Ancient Dibon, in modern-day Jordan, is a classic example.
Evidence of ancient inhabitation was found in two distinct nearby locations. At
one time, the city was built high atop a lofty mound. After an enemy invasion,
the rubble made it difficult to build atop the ruins, so the city was relocated
at the base of the mound. That city too was invaded, due in large part to its
vulnerable location. It was then decided to relocate to the top of the mound
again. It is quite conceivable that the Hebron of the Patriarchal Era moved to
one of the other Hebron archaeological sites during the Spy-Conquest era and
still remains to be uncovered..
 
Blunder number two: We do not have to bother speculating whether or not Hebron
existed in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age. There is very conclusive evidence
that it did.
 
One of the more famous set of ancient inscriptions is known as the Egyptian
Amarna Letters. They came to light through the peculiar serendipity that lies
behind many archaeological finds. In 1887, an Egyptian woman was digging for
compost near the city of El-Amarna, 190 miles south of Cairo. In the earth, she
discovered some 350 small clay tablets with curious, wedge-shaped writing on
them. Hoping to sell them for a tidy sum, she brought the tablets to several
antiquities dealers, only to be told they were worthless fakes. Many of the
tablets were destroyed, yet a few specimens came to the attention of E.A. Wallis
Budge of the British Museum. Almost immediately, he recognized them as genuine
tablets written in Akkadian cuneiform, the language of Babylon, the lingua
franca of the 14th century BCE. They turned out to be missives sent from various
vassal kings to the 14th century BCE pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhenaten along
with copies of the pharaohs'
  responses. Amenhotep III and Akhenaten were Late Bronze Age pharaohs.
 
  The Amarna Letters are, for the most part, diplomatic correspondences between
minor kings and rulers from Syria, Lebanon, and Canaan and their Egyptian
overlords. The letters show that, during the reign of Amenhotep III, Egypt had
tight political control over Syria and Palestine, but that during the reign of
Akhenaten, Egyptian influence was collapsing. Numerous Egyptian outposts were
being overrun by invaders and the vassal kings and commanders were powerless to
stop them. Chaos was mounting as kings were turning against neighboring kings;
fortresses of former allies became enemy fortresses. There were numerous appeals
to Akhenaten for help, but the cries went unanswered.
 
The pleas usually start with a groveling salutation. Typical of the Amarna
Letters is this one, sent by Abi Milku of Tyre:
 
To the king, my lord, my god, my Sun: Message of Abi-Milku, your servant. I fall
at the feet of the king, my lord, seven times and seven times. I am the dirt
under the sandals of the king, my lord. My lord is the Sun who comes forth over
all lands day by day, according to the way (of being) the sun, his gracious
father, who gives life by his sweet breath and returns with his north wind; who
establishes the entire land in peace, by the power of his arm. 12
 
There are ten surviving correspondences13 between king Shuwardata and Akhenaten.
Shuwardata was the king of the Hebron district, as he himself states in letter
EA#281. After the required greetings to Akhenaten, Shuwardata writes:
 
My cities are rebelling against me... archers are needed... like in the city of
Hebron... they trembled before the Pharaoh... I prostrate myself before the
Pharaoh... know that the hostilities are great against me... send archers...
 
If there are correspondences between the king of Hebron and a Late Bronze Age
pharaoh, Akhenaten, then Hebron must have been in existence at that time. This
translation and interpretation has been confirmed by the distinguished scholars
W.F. Albright and James B. Pritchard.14 If there are correspondences between the
king of Hebron and a Late Bronze Age pharaoh, Akhenaten, then Hebron must have
been in existence at that time.
 
 (http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48964966.html).
 
I have used up my space allottment, regretfully without being able to get to the
rest of the list.  I will take up the others in due time.
 
Silent Runner’s Second Affirmative
 
Home

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In this debate my name is Ghost Sniper (that is what I am known by on TWeb).. 
I don't know Silent Runner's real name, but I do know he has a back ground the
restoration movement.

Silent Runner’s First Affirmative
 
First and foremost, I want to thank TWeb for having a forum where formal debates
are possible, and to also thank GhostSniper for being willing to participate. I
wish you well in the debate to come, and I truly hope we may both learn from our
experiences here. I apologize for the delay in producing this. I had intended to
have things ready yesterday afternoon, or this morning at the latest, but
unfortunately things at work got “interesting” 
 in the sense of the
Chinese curse.

But now to business.

In Christian parlance, faith is important. Even secular motivation programs
extol the importance of faith, prompting the participant to “Believe in
yourself.” In Christianity, only two other virtues are as central to
Christianity as faith: faith is acknowledged as being powerful enough to move
mountains, and is recognized as the vehicle of salvation itself. Paul even
called faith “the evidence of things unseen, the substance of things hoped
for.”

Yet there are things that faith cannot do. Faith cannot allow a person to do the
impossible: the classic example of this in Wiccan circles is no matter how
profound your faith that you can hop on a broom and fly, jumping off a roof with
a broom between your knees will only result in injury. In Christian circles,
none but some of the aberrant Christian sects (such as Christian Scientist)
believe that disease is an illusion caused by a lack of faith. Faith, no matter
how sincere, cannot cause gravity to cease, or disease to go away, nor can faith
overcome (using the LDS church as an example) the fact that archaeology
conclusively disproves their claims of the existence of the Lamanites and the
Nephites.

In short, faith cannot contradict fact—if we believe something that
contradicts the facts, then our beliefs are in error.

So what are facts, and how do we determine them? Facts are statements that are
supported by objective evidence. It is a fact that gravity prevents human beings
from unassisted flight (and no, a broom does not count as assistance)—we have
the evidence that gravity affects any object with mass, and can even state how
fast our proposed broom-wrangler would fall if he were to jump off the roof. It
is a fact that disease is caused by real, objective conditions, such as
infection, injury, or wear-and-tear on the body—we have the evidence to back
this assertion up. It is a fact that the Lamanites and Nephites never inhabited
the Americas—again, we have the evidence that refutes this assertion.

Facts must be backed by evidence, but some quibble about how evidence is
interpreted. For the purpose of this argument, I propose that the evidence be
allowed, as much as possible, to speak for itself. This is the usual practice in
archaeology: it is by letting the evidence speak for itself that we can
determine that the claims of Lamanites and Nephites in the Americasis false..
When evidence must be interpreted, it must be examined in the light of all
available evidence.

The reason for examining all available evidence is to gain the most accurate
understanding of the issue in question. Individual pieces of evidence can, if
incorrectly interpreted, give an erroneous result. When all available evidence
points in one direction, to a unified conclusion, we have a greater certainty
that the conclusion is accurate. This sum total, or consilience, of evidence
allows for a degree of confidence that an individual piece of evidence does not
grant.

In the case of the Conquest, we have a more-or-less concise narrative of the
purported events. Numbers 21 and on tells of the conquest of the
Transjordanarea, while the book of Joshua describes a series of rapid,
lightning-fast raids within Canaan. There is some confusion in the narrative, as
Joshua describes a total or near-total conquest, while the early chapters of
Judges indicate that the conquest was not complete, and that the Canaanites were
still a significant force within the land, but all in all the Biblical account
is overwhelmingly positive. Thirty-one cities are named as having been taken by
the Israelites, and the narrative of the conquest of Canaanis a sweeping epic,
as worthy of wonder as any grand account of conquest.

Such a grand, dramatic, and sweeping conquest would have left evidence, and it
was assumed from the advent of the study of Biblical archaeology that the
evidence would be easy to find, easy to interpret, and make the historicity of
the Bible easy to establish. Even before the first spade hit the ground, those
who went to the Holy Landto dig expected to find a series of cities with
synchronous destruction layers, a clear distinction between the various cultures
before those destruction layers, and a more-or-less uniform layer of
“Israelite” finds above the destruction. The prevalence of mud-brick
architecture actually makes archaeology far easier, in that it was a universal
practice to simply build a newer house on top of the ruins of the old, as Wooley
had proven in Mesopotamia.

The early archaeologists who investigated the Middle Eastlooked to the Bible as
a guide for their searches, and indeed, their early investigation was fruitful.
Archaeologists such as John Garstang and William Albright excavated in the
1930s, digging at Jerichoand Beitin, respectively. Garstang found a massive
layer indicative of complete destruction which he attributed (circumstantially)
to the Israelites, and thus to the traditional Conquest date of circa 1400 bce.
Albright developed the science of relative dating of a site by the pottery on
that site, but was forced to accept a later date for the conquest (c. 1250). The
battle raged for years in the historical and archaeological communities between
these two dates, but acceptance of the fact of the Exodus, and the Conquest that
followed, was undimmed.

Yet further digs led to further problems. Kathleen Kenyon’s excavation of
Jericho overturned Garstang’s date—indeed, her meticulous work precluded
either Garstang’s early Conquest, or Albright’s late Conquest, as she
discovered that Jericho was destroyed around 1550—a century and a half too
early for a proposed Joshua. At the later time of either proposed Conquest,
Jerichowas completely uninhabited—at the earlier proposed time, it was a most
a small village, unfortified and defenseless. Later digs at Ai (El Tell) proved
even more damaging to the credibility of the Biblical account, as Ai was
discovered to have been abandoned a millennia before Joseph would have crossed
the Jordan.

And the more archaeology that was conducted, the more tenuous the connection
between the Bible and history became. Of the thirty-one cities listed in the
Bible as having been destroyed during the conquest, twenty have been found by
archaeologists—of that twenty, only two have a destruction layer that can
possibly be attributed to the Israelites. (See chart at the end of this post.)

Now, this is not to say that there were no people called by the name Israelites.
Indeed, the Merneptah Stele makes quite clear that they existed, and that they
were in Canaanin 1204 bce. And it must be mentioned that some claim another
reference to the Hebrews—the Amarna letters, which mention the “Habiru.”
That certainly looks like the word “Hebrew,” yet a wider examination of the
available texts illustrates quite clearly that the Habiru had been around since
even before Abraham supposedly left Mesopotamia. As far back as 2150, the Habiru
were described as "unclothed people, who travel in dead silence, who destroy
everything, whose menfolk go where they will — they establish their tents and
their camps — they spend their time in the countryside without observing the
decrees of my king." A later text—the Tikunani Prism—lists the names of over
400 Habiru who served King Tunip-Tessup of Tikunani, and the majority of the
names are Hurrian
  (from the north-eastern Caucasus mountains). Habiru are not Hebrew—they are a
multi-ethnic class of people who hired themselves out to those able to pay for
their services. Even the Amarna letters make quite clear that the Habiru they
are speaking of are not invaders, but mercenaries that some of the local
Canaanite kings had employed.

So what can we say about the origin of Israel? Rather than being an outside
invader, the Israelites were indigenous to Canaan. This can be seen in their
language (directly descended from West Canaanite, and most closely related to
Ugarit), their early material culture (which started out distinctly Canaanite,
and only diverged over time), and even their religion. While this last may seem
incomprehensible to those who follow Abrahamic religions, in the Canaanite
pantheon, Yahweh was the son of El, the brother of Baal, and in some texts the
wife of Asherah. All in all, the consilience of available evidence indicates
that the Israelites were a rural subset of Canaanite culture.

While it may seem amazing or even impossible to the eyes of the believer, the
evidence concerning the era where the supposed Conquest took place paints quite
a different picture. That does not mean that the Bible account is
“fiction”—but it does mean that we must examine another word, one that
many Christians are opposed to when applied to their scriptures. The Conquest
narrative is not history, and it is not fiction: it is myth. A myth is simply a
story, or a series of stories, that are told within a culture, that transmit the
morals and values of that culture. The British legends of King Arthur are myths
(technically, legends, but the distinction is unimportant for our discussion),
but so is the tale of Washingtoncrossing the Delaware River: both transmit
important cultural information, even though the former is not historical and the
latter is.

This document is somewhat shorter, perhaps, than it should have been, and in
many respects some may argue I have not done a complete job of defending the
thesis. I have not included footnotes providing the precise source of my
assertions (though said references are available upon request), nor have I
belittled those apologists who defend the Conquest as a historical event (and I
will not). As I said earlier, let the evidence speak for itself.

List of cities: (Adapted from Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael
David Coogan. Oxford: 2001. Pp 98-99)
	 * Jericho: Destroyed 150 years too early, unwalled village, later abandoned.
	 * Ai: Destroyed almost a millennium before the conquest, abandoned until the
9th centry
	 * Jerusalem: No destruction layer
	 * Hebron: No evidence
	 * Jarmuth: uninterrupted occupation
	 * Lachish: City VII destroyed at the end of the 13th century, but replaced by
an Egypto-Canaanite settlement
	 * Eglon: Occupation uncertain
	 * Gezer: Destroyed by Merneptah or the Philistines
	 * Debir: no destruction
	 * Geder: Late Bronze and early Iron Age pottery, not excavated
	 * Hormah: Not identified
	 * Arad: Did not exist in the Conquest period
	 * Libnah: Identification unknown
	 * Adullam: Not excavated
	 * Makkedah: identification unknown
	 * Bethel: Destruction in the late 13th century
	 * Tappuah: Not excavated
	 * Hepher: Not excavated
	 * Aphek: Destroyed in the late Bronze age, then occupied by early Iron Age
“Sea People.”
	 * Lasharon: Identification unknown
	 * Madon: Identification unknown
	 * Hazor: Destroyed 13th centry
	 * Shimron-meron: identification unknown
	 * Achsaph: occupied late Bronze to early Iron, no destruction layer
	 * Taanach: Meager LB remains, early Iron village destroyed in the later half of
the 12th century
	 * Megiddo: Uninterrupted occupation through the Late Bronze/early Iron,
destroyed in latter half of the 12th century
	 * Kadish: Early iron, destroyed latter half of the 12th century
	 * Jokneam: Late Bronze settlement, destroyed late 13th/early 12th century
	 * Dor: “Sea Peoples” known as the Sikils occupied city in 12th century
	 * Goiim: Identification unknown
	 * Tirzah: No evidence of destruction
Ghost Sniper’s First Rebuttal
 
Home

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here is an article that was forwarded to me recently. Does anyone have any
comments on it?


 







 


#yiv1395079266 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1395079266 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}


 
"Under Authority"
 
Jerry C. Brewer
 
The Bible often speaks of one doing something when, in fact, others did that
thing under his authority. When Jesus was asked to heal a centurion’s servant,
he approached the man’s house, but "the centurion sent friends to him, saying
unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself; for I am not worthy that thou shouldest
enter under my roof: wherefore neither thought myself worthy to come unto thee:
but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man set under
authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and
to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it"
(Luke 7:6-8).
The centurion’s meaning was that Jesus could heal his servant by His authority
without actually being present in his house. The same kind of language was used
of Jesus baptizing His followers. "After these things came Jesus and his
disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and
baptized...Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and
the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, he
that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same
baptizeth, and all me come unto him" (John 3:22, 25-26). But John later records
that, "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made
and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but
his disciples,) he left Judea and departed again into Galilee" (John 4:1-3).
 
The centurion in the first instance above was said to do something when his
servants carried out his order, acting under his authority, and Jesus was said
to baptize more disciples than John, although Jesus did not do the actual
baptizing. His disciples did the baptizing under His authority.
Now, consider the Great Commission. In recent years it has been claimed that
this commission was not given to all Christians—either in the first century or
today—but to the apostles only. The fact is that it was spoken to the apostles
(Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). But does this mean that the church today is
under no obligation to obey this command? The New Testament was not written to
us, but its precepts are binding on us. It was written for us.
 
For instance, Paul’s command to "withdraw yourselves from every brother that
walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us," (2
Thess. 3:6) was written to the church at Thessalonica. Does that mean it is not
applicable to churches today? Of course not! It was written to Thessalonica for
the church in all ages from an apostle whom Jesus styled a "judge" of "the
twelve tribes of Israel" in Matthew 19:18. Apostolic authority is Christ’s
authority and when we obey apostolic authority, we obey Christ.
Before He ascended to the Father, Jesus said to His apostles, "But ye shall
receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto
the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). The Holy Spirit empowered the
apostles to be witnesses for Jesus—His only witnesses, there are none
today—and their authority as His witnesses would extend to the end of time.
When they spoke by inspiration as they were empowered, it was as though Jesus
Himself spoke (2 Cor. 5:20). Thus, the apostles were "under authority" from
Christ and their teaching was Christ’s teaching.
 
After the establishment of the church in Jerusalem on Pentecost (Acts 2) there
was a great growth of its numbers, attended by a great persecution against
it by the Jews. That persecution culminated in the stoning of Stephen, the
first martyr to the Cause of the Lord (Acts 7:54-60). Prior to this, the Cause
of the Lord had been restricted to Jerusalem, but this event and the persecution
that followed caused members of the church to flee the city. One of the most
significant passages relating to our topic is found in these words: "...and they
were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except
the apostles (emph. JCB)...Therefore they that were scattered abroad went
everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:1, 4). That the Holy Spirit had Luke to
add, "except the apostles" is significant. When faithful Christians went
everywhere in Judea and Samaria—where Jesus said the apostles would be
witnesses—the apostles were still in
  Jerusalem. Yet, it can be said that the apostles preached "throughout the
regions of Judea and Samaria" just as "Jesus made and baptized more disciples
than John (though Jesus baptized not, but his disciples)." The apostles were,
indeed, witnesses to Jesus in Judea and Samaria without ever going there
themselves. Where did those scattered brethren get the message they preached?
From the apostles. What they preached was the "apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:42)
and they preached it "under authority" of the apostles.
 
And, though they never left Jerusalem, the apostles were also witnesses "unto
the uttermost part of the earth" when those who were scattered abroad, "traveled
as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but
unto the Jews only. And some of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they
were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus" (Acts
11:19-20). When tidings of this came to the apostles’ ears in Jerusalem, they
did not themselves go to Antioch. Instead, they sent Barnabas "under their
authority."
 
To insist that the Great Commission is not for us today is to repudiate the
authority of Christ expressed through His apostles. He sent them "under
authority" and they, in His name, sent others "under authority" and we today are
as much under the authority of Christ and His inspired apostles as the church of
the first century.

 
 
Yours in His service,
 

 







Marion R. Fox

 
Five F Publishing Company: http://www.fivefpublishing.com  
 
Oklahoma City School of Biblical Studies: http://www.okcsbs.com
 
Blog: http://okcsbs.com/blog/

 
One Heart Journal: http://www.okcsbs.com/oneheart.html 

 
 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]