JoeWallack

JW:
Glenn Miller of http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ appears to be the go-to-goy for many Internet apologists right now. JP Holding and Jews for Jesus, who hordes of missionaries quote from, both often refer to Miller's articles. In my opinion, Miller's apologetic technique is very good. He takes a long time to respond to questions and if a question is too tough (like my asking him how the Temple at Luzor could have pictures on the walls of an Annunciation, Miraculous Birth, Nativity and Adoration over a thousand years before the Christian era) he will claim that he is still researching it (ad Nazorean). He utilizes the classic apologetic technique of making the length of his response proportional to the difficulties he is facing. Through the course of an extremely long article he will weave in peripheral issues where he thinks his position is strongest and then while largely ignoring the primary issues will claim victory due to his "solving" of a peripheral issue or two. Just like in music where you have to watch for the key change, watch for the issue change with Miller.

I was skimming an article of his regarding the proper translation
of "almah" and found the following gem:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

“In verse 14, the Hebrew translated 'a virgin' (NIV et. al) is actually the 'almah' word, WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (e.g. 'the' in English). The significance of this for our understanding of the passage can be found in the standard Hebrew grammars. In Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (as updated by Kautzsch and Cowley) this passage is discussed in 126q:

"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used."

The import for our passage is that 'the virgin' is SOMEONE 'unknown' to either Ahaz or Isaiah, and hence could NOT refer to Isaiah's wife (the Prophetess of 8.3) or Ahaz' royal court virgins (as many commentators argue for). This reference is left nebulous before Ahaz...a 'floating' referent, as it were...�

Every commentator I've ever seen, Jewish, Christian, or Other, agrees that the use of the definite article before "almah" indicates that the woman was KNOWN. Miller is saying here that the definite article in Hebrew is the indefinite article. From a scholarly standpoint, it would be impossible for Miller to have a more contradictory conclusion and it's also very economical of Miller to base such a conclusion on the opinion of one Christian Biblical Hebrew grammar "expert" from the 19th century and telling that Apologists such as Miller think 20th century new editions that preserve this landmark effort in Bible scholarship from the 19th century should be used instead of 20th century editions of 20th century work. From an entertainment standpoint though, let's see if we can figure out how Miller got himself into this situation.

The problem for Christian apologists like Miller is that it's very
difficult to find Christians who are fluent in Hebrew, let alone
Biblical Hebrew. Miller is not fluent in Hebrew so he has to rely on someone else for Hebrew grammar analysis. There are plenty of experts in Hebrew grammar but the problem for Miller is that they are Hebrews. Miller doesn't trust a book on Hebrew grammar written by Hebrews. He wants one written by Christians.

In the nineteenth century Dr. William Gesenius, as Christian as you get, starting to write about Biblical Hebrew grammar. After reading part of the Tanakh and writing a book about Biblical Hebrew grammar Christian apologists now had an "expert" in Biblical Hebrew grammar. Miller likely doesn't even know enough Hebrew to read Gesenius' books directly so he may have had to rely on the reviews of other Christians who had read Gesenius' books.

When Miller quoted above,

"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a
single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and
therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used."

The sentence in parentheses may be the comment of the updaters and
not Gesenius (as Yogi Berra said, "sounds like Deja-Jew all over
again). The phrase "as being present to the mind under given
circumstances" contradicts the conclusion that use of the definite
article meant that the woman was unknown. Gesenius is giving a conclusion that the NIV translation of "a" is correct which isn't even supported by Gesenius' own explanation! Miller is spiritually blind to the flaw in Gesenius' reasoning, he just likes Gesenius' conclusion.

Apparently, real Hebrew Biblical grammar experts subsequently were
able to convince Gesenius that the definite article means the
definite article and not the indefinite article. In the updated
Gesenius Hebrew grammar book, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker, 1979, which Miller had no reason to check since he had already found the conclusion he wanted, Gesenius writes on page 211,

"the definite article, the, ...The question has been raised...whether the definite article can ever be used for the indefinite. To this it must be replied, that the definite article can never rightly be said to be used for the indefinite;"

Gesenius goes on to explain the source of Miller's confusion as
follows (page 212):

"After these remarks it is needless to state that there is no noun, which has the article, which both cannot and even not to be taken definitely. As to the instances which I formerly brought forward in contradiction to this they may be explained as follows:"

The translation is that, Gesenius the translator, is incapable of
translating "I was wrong" into English.

JP Holding, probably the best known Internet Apologist, has a link to Glenn Miller’s referenced article above at:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

Holding does have a disclaimer at the top of this page saying:

“Links to other sites do not constitute endorsement of all that is found on that site or even on that page; sift things critically!�

but I told Holding over a year ago about Miller’s comical error above which Holding publicly acknowledged. Apparently being made aware that the “expert� Holding refers to maybe more than anyone else, argued for perhaps the most famous verse in the history of polemics, that the Hebrew definite article was proof that the indefinite article was meant and therefore Isaiah, while making one of the most important prophecies of all time didn’t know what he was saying, and publicly acknowledging such error, was insufficient motivation for Holding to delete the link or better yet get Miller to correct his error.

Yet it remains as a hilarious testimonial to the bias of theologians masquerading as Bible scholars who are primarily interested in finding support for pre-existing conclusions as opposed to determining conclusions based on an objective analysis of the evidence and Internet Apologists who uncritically accept as Gospel what these theologians say and lack the motivation to correct even when they are aware of the necessary correction.

Of course just because Miller made a comical error here and Holding linked to it doesn’t mean that either wouldn’t have relevant and even convincing arguments on any other subject and Holding has a further defense here of the Apologetic technique whereby upon bringing the arguments of those who support his position into a discussion he tries to shift the focus from determining whether or not there is error in the Christian Bible to whether or not there is error in the argument of someone who supports a part of Holding’s defense. But there is a simplistic beauty here in illustrating someone so desperate to try and support a pre-existing conclusion that they would argue that use of the definite article meant that the indefinite article was meant.



Joseph

SOPHISTRY, n.
The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling. This method is that of the later Sophists, a Grecian sect of philosophers who began by teaching wisdom, prudence, science, art and, in brief, whatever men ought to know, but lost themselves in a maze of quibbles and a fog of words.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Amlodhi

Thanks Joe,

I have encountered that particular (untenable) argument once or twice, but I was unaware that the misinformation originated with Gesenius.


Amlodhi

Steven Carr

In other words, his articles are unreadable.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qotripoff.html

is also an amusing article.

I had written 'Christians will at once recognise this strange story about how God tested the army of the Israelites by making them drink from a river. It comes from Judges 7:5-7.'

This was part of my effort to show that , using the same standards Christians use about the Koran, the New Testament is false.


Miller, of course, denied this and wrote 'Actually, I consider myself a Christian and I don't "recognise" this to be the case at all...the details aren't close enough to the story, nor clear enough in their referents.......At most we have a very vague similarity with the biblical passage. '

He then wrote 'So, close attention to the details shows that the passages are not even remotely close enough to suggest 'literary borrowing' of the type suggested by our objector.'

He then got into huge trouble with the Answering Islam people, who didn't like Christian apologists proclaiming that their attacks on Islam are wrong.

Miller was then stuck between a rock and a hard place.

He still wanted to be able to show that the Koran was false, but he dared not allow people to think that the standards Christians applied to the Koran could be used about the Bible.

So he wrote '. I am absolutely in agreement with Answering Islam (cf. #7) that there are reminisces of the Gideon passage, but modified by other borrowings (e.g., the abstinence motif of I Sam 14.24ff).

So he did a quick about face. There were 'other' borrowings, (implying that there had been borrowings from Gideon), although he had just denied that there was any borrowing.

There were 'reminiscences', although he had just claimed that there was 'a very vague similarity'.

He wrote 'I commented specifically that the passage was a
'confusion' of the stories (implying some borrowing and definite modification or faulty memory).'

Of course, he had commented specifically that they were 'not even remotely close'.

Hilarious!

gregor

Another example of what I perceive as Miller's 'just so' apologetics involved the issue of whether the stone covering the tomb of Jesus was round or square.

He answered Richard Carrier's question about the stone being 'rolled' away by an earthquake. Carrier mentioned that round tomb covers were not used in 1st century Palestine - square ones were. If it was square, the author would not describe it as being 'rolled away' - square stones don't roll. But into the second century, tomb covers were round, it could roll, and so it sounds like the synoptic story conflates this situation.

Miller argued that the original term 'rolled' was occassionally used to mean 'tumble end over end.' Thus, the stone could be square, since it didn't have to 'roll' as we understand that term. The square stone could simply tumble end over end. QED

However, Miller really didn't address the physics and geography of the problem. Earthquakes can cause the earth to shift laterally, but they generally don't push up vertically in sequential, one square-foot location bursts to cause a large, square stone to begin rolling like a cast die on a craps table. And I think the church of the holy sepulcher and other supposed tombs were located in depressions. How was the stone to tumble up hill?

Unless the tomb (and stone) was at the top of a hill, how was an earthquake to cause this unusual end-over-end movement?

e.g. www.cptryon.org/xpipassio/passio/arch/7tomb.html

Steven Carr

I was looking at Glenn Miller's article which is
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

LIPPARD
Both of these trace Jesus' lineage through his father, Joseph. If the
virgin birth story is taken seriously, then Jesus lacks the proper
ancestry.

MILLER
What Jim is arguing here is simple and worth making explicit:

The genealogies show that JOSEPH is the descendent of David;
Jesus, by virtue of the virgin birth, is NOT a gene-carrying descendent
of Joseph;

Therefore, Jesus is NOT a gene-carrying descendent of David.
However, notice the main assumption in this argument:
Only gene-carrying descendants are considered as descendants.
This assumption is demonstrably false.

CARR
However, when it suits him, Miller writes in, in response to Lippard
saying, 'On the other hand, if the genealogy in Matthew is taken
seriously, then Jesus has as an ancestor Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12), of
whom the prophet Jeremiah said, "Write this man down as childless, a man
who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his descendants will
prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah."
(Jeremiah 22:30) The genealogy in Luke suffers from the same problem,
since it includes Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both of whom were
descendants of Jeconiah.'

MILLER
'EVEN IF the passage IS a longer-range prediction, the line THROUGH
Jeconiah only comes to Joseph and not to Mary. The gene-stream stops
physically at Joseph through the virgin birth. Therefore, Jeconiah, who
is only mentioned in Matthew (the legal line to Joseph) doesn't 'pass on
the blood'.'

CARR
So when Miller wants a descendant to be a descendant, he says the virgin
birth makes no difference, and when he wants a descendant not to be a
descendant, he points out that there was a virgin birth.

Miller writes 'Only gene-carrying descendants are considered as descendants.
This assumption is demonstrably false.' and then uses exactly the assumption he said was demonstrably false!


And, of course, Miller throws in some garbage about Matthew being 'the legal line', something which exists only in the vivid imagination of apologists, who can see words in the Bible which don't exist.

There is nothing in Matthew or Luke to say that one wanted to have a 'legal line', while the other had an 'illegal line'.

JoeWallack

JW:
Generally I think it's a waste of time to write articles like my thread here embarrasing opponents because it distracts from quality arguments (this is why it's a favored technique of Holding when he knows he lacks a good defense). But while I'm here (and maybe subconsciously trying to get this thread moved over to St. Elsewhere with all my other relative threads) let me highlight another favorite part of Glenn Miller's offending article:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

"The Cognate Languages. A study of the word in the cognate language sustains C. H. Gordon’s contention that beátuÆlaÆ in the near eastern languages by itself does not mean virgo intacta (JBR 21:240–41).
The Egyptian word especially parallel to our Hebrew word is h\wnt. While the word may denote “girl,� “virgin,� it can also denote a young marriageable woman, or a young woman who has had sexual relations. Thus the word is used in the Pyramid Texts of the king’s protectress who is explicitly called his mother, and of Isis, of whom it is said in a sarcophagus oracle that she is mysteriously pregnant. Tsevat concluded: “It can be stated that h\wnt is not used to denote biological virginity, but rather youthful vigor and potential motherhood� (P. 339).
The Akkadian cognate, batultu, denotes “primarily an age group: only in specific contexts … does it assume the connotation ‘virgin’ � (CAD II:174). J. J. Finkelstein (“Sex Offences in Sumerian Laws,� JAOS 86:355:72) and B. Landsberger “Jungfräulichkeit: Ein Beitrag zum ‘Thema Beilager und Eheschliessung’ � in Symbolae juridicae … M. David … edid. J. A. Ankum … , II (Leiden, 1968, pp. 41–105) have underscored in independent studies that the word is normally best understood as “young (unmarried) girl.� In fact, there is no one word for “virgin� in Sumerian or Akkadian; that concept is expressed negatively by “who is not deflowered.�
In Ugaritic btlt is a frequent epithet for Anat, Baal’s wife, who repeatedly has sexual intercourse (cf. A. van Selms, Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature, London, 1954, pp. 69, 109). [Tanknote: the promiscuity of Anat has been called into question recently…]
In a Shiite tradition, Fatima, though the mother of Hasan and Hussein along with other children, bears the title batuµl (C. Virolleaud, Le Theatre Persan, Paris, 1950, p. 37). And in an Aramaic text from Nippur, Montgomery interprets the phrase, btwlt “travailing and not bearing,� to denote a hapless wife suffering from miscarriages and other female complaints (Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, Philadelphia, 1913, p. 131)."

When you are trying to demonstrate the meaning of a Hebrew word and have to resort to using words like:

"The Cognate Languages

near eastern languages

The Egyptian word

the Pyramid Texts

The Akkadian cognate

Sex Offences in Sumerian Laws

In Ugaritic

In a Shiite tradition

Aramaic text"

you should know you are in trouble. Hey Glenn, there's a modern invention you should know about that just gives you the English definition of foreign words. Yea, it's called a Dictionary! All you have to be able to do is read English.


Joseph

INTERPRETER, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Steven Carr

Can you imagine the sheer volume of invective and ridicule apologists like Holding would dredge up if sceptics started pretending Hebrew words were really Akkadian and started talking about what Biblical words would have meant if Shiites had written the Old Testament?