In the Feedback section of this website, linked to above, Tom Kabis posted a challenge to me to debate the issue of when the apostle Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion to Christianity. In his post, dated December 21, 2004, Mr. Kabis left the impression with readers that I was refusing to debate this issue with him, but he failed to tell readers that he and I had exchanged correspondence on this issue almost three weeks before he posted his challenge in the feedback section. Upon finding Mr. Kabis's article today (Feb. 3, 2005), I reposted those earlier exchanges, and they can be accessed at Topica.com, which archives posts to Errancy@iierrancy.com.
My failure to notice Mr. Kabis's article was due to a potentially serious health problem that I experienced shortly after our initial exchanges. (Notice of this problem has been posted on the Errancy site, so I won't bore readers with any details about it here.) Mr. Kabis's "solution" to the discrepancy that I identified in detail in my article (linked to above) shows me that he is just another biblical inerrantist who will lean over backwards to keep from admitting that errors are in the Bible. I suggest that those who have not read my original article on this subject and Kabis's tirades in the Feedback section of this website take the time to read both before going further into my reply to him.
I will follow my usual format and use the headers Kabis and Till to assist readers in following who has said what. I would also remind everyone that Mr. Kabis presented an arbitrary set of rules and guidelines in his challenge (linked to above) in which he kept stipulating that any violation of those guidelines would result in forfeiture of the debate. I am going to quote here his guidelines so that I can refer back to them each time I point out that Mr. Kabis has violated his own rules. I will emphasize in boldprint the places where Mr. Kabis illogically stated that violation of these rules would mean that the offending party "quits his position and accedes to his opponents [sic] side of the argument."
1. All arguments are to be founded on one single premise or specific allegation of biblical discrepancy, and may not open up additional, refer to additional, nor proffer additional argument of allegation of other possible discrepancies. There must be a single focus. If either party broaches the subject of new or additional allegations of other discrepancies other than the single and central focus quits his position and accedes to his opponents [sic] side of the argument.
2. There can be no personal attacks of any sort, nor inferences, intentional or not. Intelligent, cogent men of good will must choose their words carefully. Personal slurs or slanders or epithets are not allowed; profanity is completely outlawed. Each party may be reprimanded for such action one time only during the course of the debate and given the opportunity to apologize and retract to the other, thereafter the following shall apply. The individual, who proffers a personal slur or unfounded observation of his opponent, issues slurs, slanders, epithets, or profanity at any time, quits his position and accedes to his opponent’s side of the argument.
3. The debate will consist of point and counter point, challenge and answer. The individual who does not directly answer each and every point of his opponent's challenge or reply, or who dismiss [sic] such point, or the entire reply as irrelevant quits his position and accedes to his opponents [sic] side of the argument. Keep in mind, that both opponents must remain "on topic" and cannot use argumentation by assertion, special pleading, or question begging.
4. Argument by threat or demeaning tone is not only undeserving of men of good will, but demeaning to the very nature of the debate. Any individual who resorts to demeaning, intimidating or threatening his opponent quits his position and accedes to his opponents [sic] side of the argument.
5. It must be recognized and agreed to up front, that the central point to skepticism is the Demosthianic quest for the ultimate truth, and not argument for the simple sake of argument; that there is an ultimate truth and that truth is not and has never been relativistic.
6. The tools of the biblical scholar may be used to proffer a point or a counterpoint; these tools include various translations such as the Septuagint, Strong’s Concordance, and common and popular texts and white papers on Biblical Archaeology and Ancient Cultural and Social Anthropology as it pertains to Social structures and Cultures of Biblical times.
7. Both participants agree to reply to all points in his opponent's articles. Each participant agrees to reply immediately to any point that has been overlooked when it is called to his attention. Both participants agree to refrain from [sic].
8. Both participants agree that any satisfactory solution to a discrepancy must be consistent with all biblical passages.
In rule #7, Mr. Kabis failed to say what both participants agree to refrain from, so this must be left to the readers' imagination. Number 6 above is typical of biblical inerrantists, who seem to think that if they quote a book that agrees with their postiion, they have made their case. I will remind readers each time that Mr. Kabis did this in his "solution."
In our initial correspondence, which was exchanged about three weeks before Mr. Kabis posted his article, I pointed out the logical fallacy in his insistence on adding to his rules that a participant would "quit his position and accede to his opponent's position" if he violated the guidelines to which this stipulation was affixed. I tried to point out to him that logical mistakes on the part of a debater in no way prove the correctness of his opponent's position. I could call Mr. Kabis every derogatory name in the book, for example, but that would in no way prove my position in this matter to be incorrect. It would prove me to be impolite, but it would not prove that Kabis's position is the correct one. Likewise, if I failed to answer "each and every point" in Kabis's article, that would prove only that I failed to answer some of his points. It would in no way mean that I had "quit my position" and "acceded" to his. I find it almost incomprehensible that someone with no better grasp of logic than what Mr. Kabis indicated in his set of guidelines would presume to present himself as a competent debater. By the way, I will point out the times when Kabis failed to reply "directly" to some of my own points, so by his own set of guidelines, he has already lost this debate. I, however, will not hold him to his own stipulation in this matter, because I know that it has no basis at all in logic.
With this background before us, I can now begin my point-by-point reply.
Kabis:
Who I am: a 55 year old white male, a scientist and engineer by
vocation, a believer in
the saving grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who was wholly
God, came to earth and
became wholly man to die on the cross as the last and complete blood
sacrifice for all sin
for all man for all time.
Till:
I had to wonder about the relevance of this information. Mr. Kabis's
age, race, vocation,
and profession of belief in Jesus and God in no way establish that his
position in the
matter of Paul's first trip to Jerusalem is the correct one. I am
mentioning this only to
point out to readers that Mr. Kabis violated his own guidelines in the
very first sentences
of his "rebuttal" of my article. His first guideline above emphatically
stated that there
must be a "single focus" in this debate, so any biographical
information about him would be
irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with whether there is
consistency in "Luke"s" and
Paul's accounts of when Paul first went to Jerusalem after his
conversion.
Mr. Kabis's paragraph above signaled the beginning of something that I saw throughout his article: he simply rehashes unsupported doctrinal assertions that he has no doubt heard in sermons and Bible classes. It is quite common, for example, to hear Christians assert that Jesus was wholly god and wholly man. Whenever I hear this, I respond by saying that this claim reminds me of my favorite shirt, which is wholly cotton and wholly wool. Any reasonable person can see that such a claim is irrational, and the same is true of the theological claim that Jesus was wholly god and wholly man. I would be interested in seeing Mr. Kabis prove how such a thing would be possible. He was the one who brought this up, so I trust he won't say that I have strayed from the "single focus" of this debate.
Kabis:
I believe in the inerrancy of the bible,
Till:
And this proves what? Exactly how does Mr. Kabis's belief in biblical
inerrancy prove that
there is no discrepancy in Luke's and Paul's statements about when Paul
first went to
Jerusalem after his conversion? If I said that I believe in the errancy
of the Bible would
that prove that I am right in the matter in dispute? Anyway, I am happy
to hear that Mr.
Kabis believes in biblical inerrancy, because I have two forums (this
one and
Errancy@iierrancy.com) that will give him ample opportunity to
demonstrate that his belief
is correct.
Kabis:
God’s Holy Word set down in 66 books by more than 43 different authors
over a period of more
than 1200 years.
Till:
Yes, yes, I have heard this all before. I even used to preach it from
the pulpit. The point
that Kabis is trying to make here is expanded in his next statement,
which I interrupted in
order to make a point. Mr. Kabis is arguing by unsupported assertion
here, and that is a
violation of rule #3 in his guidelines quoted above. It is easy to
assert that the Bible is
"God"s Holy Word," but I challenge Mr. Kabis to prove that it is. I
think that he will find
that proving this assertion frequently heard in Christian circles won't
be quite so easy.
Kabis:
The provision of these numbers as an approximation rather than an
exactitude is due to the
broad area of understanding and knowledge among secular and biblical
scholars. The numbers
offered are “generally” accepted as a good compromise in an effort to
pinpoint some common
reference area.
Till:
In other words, Mr. Kabis has asserted something that is simply
speculation. He cannot prove
the assertion.
Kabis:
However, the sheer probability of this many authors, writing this many
books, over such a
broad time span and all complimenting [sic] each other so
exactly gives ample evidence
in and of itself of an intelligence and design on a much grander scale
than any mortal mind
could conceive or comprehend.
Till:
I am sure that Mr. Kabis meant that these 66 books all complemented
each other, but I
suspect that much of this "complementing" is in the minds of those who
believe that the Bible
is "God's Holy Word." There are, of course, some complementary themes
in the Bible, but
the presence of complementary subjects in the different books of the
Bible would certainly be
no mystery. After all, they were selected by people who had a set of
beliefs, so it is
unlikely that the selectors would have chosen books that did not
complement those beliefs
in some way.
He once again argued by assertion (in violation of guideline #3 above) when he said that the 66 books of the Bible complemented so exactly that they give "ample evidence in and of itself of an intelligence and design on a much grander scale than any mortal mind could conceive or comprehend." If he would care to present arguments that he thinks will prove this baldfaced assertion, I will be glad to answer it. I have, in fact, replied to this assertion many times. Those who want to see one of my replies to it can go to Chapter One of The Jury Is In, a detailed chapter-by-chapter reply to Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict, published by the Internet Infidels. In this chapter, I replied in detail to McDowell's claim that the Bible is unique in its continuity; its circulation, translation, and survival; its teachings; and its influence. In the section about continuity, McDowell parroted the same claim that Kabis repeated above, only McDowell claimed that the Bible was written over a period of 1500 years, by 40 different writers, in different languages and countries, etc., etc., etc. but was unified in theme from beginning to end. My reply to this claim shows that these claims are exaggerations and that the claim of perfect unity just isn't so, but no matter how often this claim is shown to be false, inerrantists keep repeating it.
Kabis:
Without putting words in his mouth, and surmising from what he has
condescended to tell me
of his history and background, that it is likely Mr. Till has read one
of the works
published by Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), who considered Acts
to be a product of
the second century.
Till:
This is a poorly structured sentence. In fact, it isn't even a sentence
but just a sentence
fragment, but I think I understood what Kabis meant. He seems to think
that I have been
influenced by Ferdinand Christian Baur, who thought that Acts was
written in the second
century. I hate to disappoint Mr. Kabis, but I don't remember ever
having read anything
by Baur, so Kabis has surmised a bit too much about my background.
Kabis:
Baur held that the purpose of its composition was to clear up the
conflict between Pauline
and Petrine Christianity that supposedly controlled the thought of the
early church. They
pointed to the so-called errors in Acts and concluded that the author
was careless and not
familiar with the specific geography of the first century.
Till:
Well, since I have not read Baur's works on this subject, there is
nothing for me to reply to
here. I will say, however, that if Baur concluded that the author of
Acts was careless, I
agree with him, but I don't agree that the author of Acts was
unfamiliar with "the specific
geography of the first century." I will be showing later, however, that
the author's
familiarity with geography doesn't in any way prove inerrancy. I will
also show that errors
in Acts are not just "so-called errors."
Kabis:
However, William Ramsay (1851-1939), a biblical scholar and ordained
minister who was brought
up under this school of thought, had a change of mind after finding
Luke to be a first-class
historian. "You may press the words of Luke," wrote Ramsay, "in a
degree beyond any other
historian's, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest
treatment....".[sic]
Till:
Ah, yes, the old Sir-William-Ramsay-was-a-first-class-historian
assertion. It seems that
inerrantists never tire of parroting this discredited claim. In January
2002, an inerrantist
who called himself "Sherman" recycled this same claim on the Errancy
list by asserting that
Luke had made 800 references to geography, events, and people and that
none of them has been
proven false "through modern archaeological efforts." In reply to this,
I simply quoted a
post that I had sent to another inerrantist named "Otsen," who had made
the same claim a year
earlier in which he had recycled the fundamentalist claim that Sir
William Ramsay was a
first-rate historian.
As we have already noted in brief responses to Otsen, the information that he sent to us is "old hat" that has been answered so many times that one would think inerrantists would be embarrassed to keep wagging it out, but it is remarkable how would-be biblical apologists keep rehashing arguments that have been discredited over and over. In reading Otsen's post, I get the distinct impression that he thought that he was sending us information that would bowl us over and leave us speechless. The information below is what I sent to Jerry McDonald's list in response to the same hackneyed information about Sir William Ramsay that Bill Carrell (a former member of this list) posted in an attempt to establish that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Perhaps Otsen would like to respond to it. If so, I will gladly post it on the list, since he seems unwilling to join us.
Bill Carrell had said that Luke was recognized as a historian "par excellent [sic]" to which I made the following response.Oh, he is? By whom? I suppose now that we can expect to hear Carrell tell us all about Sir William Ramsay, who was converted from a skeptical view of the New Testament after extensive research into Near-Eastern history, which included studies in the book of Acts. Ramsay said that the writer Luke demonstrated "authority for topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor." In my debate on the resurrection at Columbus College, Dr. Norman Geisler ascribed this quotation to Ramsay: "It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth." Geisler then claimed that "(a)s a result, Ramsay discovered that Luke was a first-rate historian," which, I suppose, would be equivalent to saying that Luke was a "historian par excellent" [sic], as Carrell is now claiming. Geisler's own conclusion from Ramsay's evaluation of Luke's writing was this: "In Luke's references to 32 countries, to 44 cities, and nine islands, there were no errors. This being the case, Luke's prior narration of Christ's death and resurrection (which are integral parts of his Gospel) should be accepted as authentic as well. And since it is in accord with that of the other Gospels on the basic facts about the death and resurrection of Christ we have here an archaeological confirmation of the basic historicity of these documents on these essential facts" (excerpted from Geisler's first speech, Columbus College, Columbus, GA, March 1994, transcript by Apologetics Press, Inc.).Of course, we can't hold Carrell responsible for what Geisler may think, but I suspect that Carrell's reasons for thinking that Luke was a "historian par excellent" [sic] are similar to Geisler's. So let's look at what we have here. If Geisler quoted Ramsay correctly, Ramsay was impressed with the accuracy of Luke in "topography, antiquities, and the sociology of Asia Minor." I have heard fundamentalists cite Sir William Ramsay's opinion of Luke many times, but I have yet to hear any of them refer to any supernatural event that Luke recorded in either Acts or his gospel that has been confirmed by extrabiblical historians or documents convincingly enough to give credibility to the many extraordinary, supernatural claims that Luke recorded in either Acts or his gospel. To the contrary, these praises about Luke's accuracy as a historian always concern topography or his descriptions of social life or such like, all of which are very ordinary matters that in no way involve the extraordinary or supernatural. So if Luke was such an amazingly accurate historian, I would think that this opinion of him would also be based on convincing confirmation of at least some of the supernatural claims that we find in his works. Maybe Bill Carrell will tell us, then, which of the following extraordinary claims in the book of Acts have been extrabiblically confirmed convincingly enough to establish Luke's credentials as a "historian par excellent" [sic]?
Was it the ascension of Jesus recorded in Acts 1:6-11? Was it the baptism of the apostles in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (2:1-4)? Was it the apostles' speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost (2:4)? Was it Peter's healing of the lame man at a door of the temple (3:2-10)? Was it Peter's striking Ananias and Sapphira dead (5:1-11)? Was it the laying on of the apostles' hands that impressed Simon the Sorcerer so much that he offered the apostles money for the same gift (8:14-18)? Was it Paul's vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9, 22, 26)? Was it Peter's raising Dorcas from the dead (9:39-41)? Was it the vision in which Cornelius saw an angel telling him to send men to Joppa to bring Peter to him (10:1-8)? Was it the trance that Peter fell into on his housetop in which he saw a vision of the great sheet containing animals of all kinds (10:9-16)? Was it the "Spirit" telling Peter that he should go with the men who had been sent by Cornelius (10:19)? Was it the incident where the chains fell off Peter's hands while he was in prison and an angel led him by all the guards without being seen and finally to the gate that opened of its own accord (12:5-10)? Was it the incident where an angel of the Lord struck Herod, who was then eaten of worms and "gave up the ghost" (12:22-23)? Was it the Holy Spirit speaking to the prophets and teachers at the church in Antioch to tell them to separate Paul and Barnabas for the work that the Holy Spirit had called them into (13:1-3)? Was it Paul's striking Elymas the sorcerer blind (13:4-12)? Was it Paul's healing the lame man at Lystra (14:8-10)? Was it the vision of the Macedonia call that Paul received (16:9-10)? Was it Paul's casting out the spirit of divination from the woman in Philippi (16:16-18)? Was it the earthquake that shook all the doors of the prison open when Paul and Silas were in jail at Philippi (16:25-26)? Was it the special miracles that God worked through Paul so that the sick who carried away from his body handkerchiefs or aprons were cured of their diseases and the evil spirits went out of them (19:11)? Was it the case of the man possessed of the evil spirit that leaped upon the sons of Sceva and mastered them when they tried to cast the spirit out of the man (19:13-15)? Was it Paul's raising from the dead the young man Eutychus, who went to sleep while Paul was preaching and fell from an upper chamber window and killed himself (20:7-11)? Was it the case of the disciples at Tyre who said to Paul "through the Spirit that he should not set foot in Jerusalem" (21:4)? Was it the case of Philip the evangelist in Caesarea, who had the four daughters who prophesied (21:9)? Was it the case of the angel who appeared to Paul during the storm at sea and told him that there would be no loss of life but only the loss of the ship (27:22-24)? Was it the case of the viper, which Paul shook off without harm when he was shipwrecked (28:3-6)? Now these are all extraordinary claims that Luke made in just the book of Acts. Let Carrell please tell us which one or ones of these have been verified by corroborating evidence. If none have, then on what basis does Carrell say that Luke was a historian "par excellent" [sic]? Is he taking the same position that Geisler and apparently Sir William Ramsay did, that Luke's accuracy in ordinary matters like typography, geography, and contemporary social conditions is reason enough to believe that Luke's narration of extraordinary, supernatural claims "should be accepted as authentic as well"? If so, I would like to hear his rationale for such a bizarre conclusion as this. What he is saying is that not a single extrabiblical writer or document corroborates any of the many extraordinary claims that Luke made in Acts, but we should believe them anyway, because Luke was accurate in his geography. How simplistic can one be?
Now if Carrell wants to stick to his position about Luke's historical accuracy, I will gladly identify some historical claims that Luke made that weren't so accurate.
Carrell dropped this subject like a hot potato, and I suspect that Otsen will too. However, I will send to the list a reposting of some of the historical errors that have been identified in Luke's writings.
I later posted some examples of historical errors in the writings of Luke, but in the interest of respecting the readers' patience, I will quote just one example that I posted in reply to an inerrantist named "Walid," who also tried to prove the often parroted claim that Luke was a first-rate historian.
As for Luke's historical accuracy in ordinary historical matters, I will cite just one example that gives us reason to doubt this frequently made claim. In Acts 5:35-37, Luke had Gamaliel, a Pharisee and "doctor of the law," saying this to the Sanhedrin as they deliberated on what to do to the apostles for continuing to preach the resurrection of Jesus: "You men of Israel, take heed to yourselves as touching these men, what you are about to do. For before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves, who was slain and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed and came to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrollment, and drew away some of the people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad."
In this speech, Luke had Gamaliel putting the revolt of Theudas before the one led by Judas of Galilee. Luke's Gamaliel dated Judas's uprising at the time of the "enrollment," which is a probable reference to the enrollment that Luke mention in his gospel (2:2). Luke alleged that this enrollment occurred when Quirinius was govenor of Syria (2:2), and in Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus referred to the "sons of Judas of Galilee," who had been slain in a revolt when Cyrenius [Quirinius] came to take an account of the estates of the Jews" (20:5.2). In 20.5.1, however, Josephus said that the revolt of Theudas happened when Fadus was "procurator of Judea," and this would have had to have been between A. D. 44-46, since that was when Fadus was procurator of Judea. Quirinius was governor of Syria 40 years earlier, so we have Luke disagreeing with Josephus as to the proper sequence of these two revolts. Luke said that the revolt of Theudas happened before Judas of Galilee's; Josephus said the opposite. In fact, if the revolt of Theudas occurred during the administration of Fadus, then Luke has Gamaliel talking about a revolt that hadn't even happened yet. (Gamaliel's speech was allegedly made about two months after the alleged resurrection in about A. D. 29; Fadus was procurator of Judea in A. D. 44-45.)
To "resolve" this problem, biblical inerrantists have argued that the Theudas that Josephus referred to was not the same Theudas that Luke's Gamaliel referred to, and some have simply said that Luke was right and Josephus wrong. At any rate, this one example is enough to cast doubt on the frequently heard fundamentalist claim that Luke has been shown to be a remarkably accurate historian.
I could stretch this point out indefinitely by citing and then explicating other historical inaccuracies in the writings of Luke, but to save space, I am going to refer readers to a an article by Richard Carrier in which he shattered all allusions that Luke was a first-class historian. The article is very long, but "The Problems of Luke's Methods as an Historian" can be accessed in chapter 7.3 of this work. Among many other points that Carrier discussed here, he pointed out these two conspiculous problems in Luke's work.
Carrier then proceeded to analyze Luke's introduction to his gospel to show that it does not conform to recognized standards of critical historiology. He contrasted Luke with the ancient historian Suetonius to show that Luke, unlike Suetonius, never mentioned the existence of conflicting accounts in any of the events that Luke was recording. He pointed out that Suetonius, unlike Luke, often mentioned the sources of his information and would often critically analyze the information to show why he considered some sources reliable and others unreliable. For those who would like to prepare themselves to discuss intelligently the claim that Luke was a first-rate historian, which inerrantists will undoubtedly keep recycling, should read at least all of chapter 7.3 in Carrier's article.
The inerrantist "argument" that Luke was a first-rate historian only because he made accurate references to persons, places, and countries is incredibly simplistic. I live in Fulton County, Illinois, which is where Edgar Lee Masters, the author of Spoon River Anthology, grew up. After moving here in 1965, I have often reread sections of this American Classic. When I read it now, I recognize just how familiar Masters was with the geography of this area. He mentioned every little burg in the county and surrounding area, yet I would be incredibly naive if I used his geographical accuracy to argue that Masters was inspired of God when he was writing this work.
Why can't biblical inerrantists see through the fallacies in their reasoning?
Kabis:
I have begun my defense of God’s Word with a restatement of the rules
of this debate,
Till:
And in so doing Mr. Kabis begged the question of whether the Bible is
"God's word." By his
own debating standards quoted above, he should now "quit" his position
and "accede" to mine.
Kabis:
the fundamental issue to be debated, and a surmisement [sic] of
from where Mr. Till’s
issue arises. I will now provide a contextual setting for the biblical
writings involved, and
a short background of the authors of each passage that is the focus of
the debate. As often
as I can, I will footnote and provide authority for my writings and
will most often provide
biblical references (biblical references will not be footnoted). I use
both the Authorized
King James (circa 1634) bible as well as the Geneva (circa
1560) bible. I
scrupulously avoid newer “versions” of the bible because of the
tendency of contemporary
revisionists to change a word here and there, thereby changing the
entire meaning of a
passage.
Till:
I can't help wondering what Mr. Kabis's linguistic characteristics are
to paint "newer
versions" of the Bible with such a broad brush. To say that they have a
"tendency... to
change a word here and there" doesn't prove a thing until that
assertion is supported with
evidence. Does Kabis mean by this that the KJV and Geneva translators
didn't "change a word
here and there" but scrupulously translated every word? If so, I would
like to see his
reasons for believing this. I don't intend to deny that "newer
versions" of the Bible
contain mistranslations in some places, but the same could be said of
the KJV. If Mr. Kabis
would care to deny this, I would be glad to debate it, but I won't
address that matter here
lest Mr. Kabis, who has made off-topic comments throughout his article,
make an issue over it.
For the record, I will say here that I use the American Standard Version in my personal studies of the Bible, and I am more than prepared to defend the accuracy of this version against the KJV.
Before I leave this point, I will say that Mr. Kabis's personal messages to me and other posts on the Errancy list and Feedback section of this website clearly show that he lacks the linguistic credentials to speak with any credibility on the accuracy of Bible versions, unless, of course, he expects us to think that someone who has trouble communicating in his own native language nevertheless has managed to master biblical languages. Here is an example of a message he posted in the Feedback section. I will mark his mistakes with "sics."
Farrell Till is a wifinpoof [sic] who cannot defend his pretext.
More to the point, he won't defend his pretext because all he can do to support it is throw his discourse and discussion off=point [sic], or debase and deride his opponent and then claim he [sic] right by winning the debate. He isn't right by winning the debate, he has merely defeated a lesser debating opponent!!! Winning the debate does not make you correct!!! Moreover, declaring yourself to be the winner only pufs [sic] up your own self opinion [sic] and still doesn't make you any more correct in your position that ot [sic] the outset of the debate.
I have taken the time to carefully provide either direct, or paraphrased quotes from the Bible itself, and from well know [sic] and respected authors, researchers, and arghaeologists [sic] and scholors [sic] to bolster my answer to Till's allegation. It has been two weeks since I sent him my challenge, and he is still quiet on the matter.
Before leaving this point, I might add that the paragraph above was well written compared to some of the messages Mr. Kabis has sent to me, so I am not at all impressed with any opinions he may have about which translations are better than others.
I will also add that I had been silent because I wasn't even aware of Mr. Kabis's post on the Feedback section (as I explained above), but I am not silent now. We will soon have the opportunity to see if Kabis plays as good a game as he talks.
Kabis:
Authorship of the Book of Acts of the Apostles:
The author of the Acts of the Apostles is the same author of the Gospel of Luke.
Till:
That is a debatable proposition, but in the interest of getting to the
central issue in this
debate, I will let it slide here.
Kabis:
Luke is often viewed as the historian of the apostolic age.
Till:
I punctured that illusion in comments above, so I won't rehash them
here. Mr. Kabis would
have been more accurate had he said that biblical inerrantists
generally view Luke as the
historian of the apostolic age. Many mainline "scholars," however, have
recognized serious
flaws in Luke's writings. If Mr. Kabis doubts this, he should read
the
section of
Richard Carrier's article cited above. I have been greatly
disappointed to see that
Mr. Kabis has been able to do little more than recycle fundamentalist
claims that have been
repeatedly discredited.
Kabis:
The name Luke is only mentioned three times in the New Testament.
Till:
And none of these references were made by Luke himself. That is
significant, because, as
Carrier pointed out in the article cited above, reliable ancient
historians identified
themselves and often discussed their qualifications to write. Luke did
neither.
Kabis:
From these three occurrences, it is evident that Luke was a physician
(Col 4:14)
and a companion
of Paul (2
Tim 4:11;
Philem 1:24).
Till:
The Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy, as well as the other pastoral
epistles, is doubtful,
but I will let this point slide too, because Paul did seem to
acknowledge twice that Luke
was a co-worker.
Kabis:
It is more than likely that Luke was a Gentile, but he was not
necessarily a Greek.
Till:
And the relevance of this is what? In rule #1, quoted above, Kabis
emphasized that there
should be a "single focus" in this debate, but he has filled his
article with comments that
have nothing to do with whether Acts and Galatians contradict
themselves on when the apostle
Paul first went to Jerusalem after his conversion. I wonder if Mr.
Kabis intends to "quit"
his position and "accede" to mine.
Kabis:
It also seems as if Luke had some degree of association with Judaism
because of his knowledge
of the Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Till:
I fail to see the relevance of this. Most New Testament writers quoted
the Septuagint version
rather than the Masoretic, so familiarity with this translation was
commonplace among New
Testament writers. If Luke did indeed travel with Paul, who also quoted
the
Septuagint when referring to the Old Testament, that could account for
his familiarity with
the Septuagint. More likely, Luke could have been one of the
uncircumcised Greeks who
worshiped in the synagogues (Acts
17:1-4, 10-12), but what do Luke's nationality and familiarity with
the Septuagint have
to do with whether he accurately reported when Paul first went to
Jerusalem after his
conversion.
Kabis:
Not only did Luke compose the longest Gospel, but he also wrote more
than any other New
Testament writer. This is remarkable considering the amount of
attention he gets in
comparison to John and Paul.
Till:
Whether the gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same person is,
as I noted above,
debatable. There are good reasons to doubt that one person wrote both
books, but to try to
get the debate on target, I will assume, for the sake of argument, that
Luke did write Acts.
I cannot see that this would make Luke the author of more content of
the New Testament than
any other writer. In my ASV, Luke and Acts fill 63 pages, but the
epistles of Paul fill 67
pages. The point is irrelevant, however, because the quantity of Luke's
writings would not
prove that his account of when Paul first went to Jerusalem after his
conversion is consistent
with Paul's own version.
Kabis:
Both the purpose of the Gospel and its audience can be found in the
prologue
(1:1-4).
Till:
And that purpose and audience do what to prove that Luke's account of
Paul's first trip to
Jerusalem after his conversion was consistent with Paul's own account
of that trip?
Didn't Mr. Kabis say something in rule #1, quoted above, about a "single focus"?
Kabis:
Luke first mentions that many others before him have made an account of
the things that
have been fulfilled as they were handed down from the first generation.
Till:
And Luke named none of those sources. There is no need to keep beating
a dead horse. To see
the doubt that this omission casts on Luke's reliability as a critical
historian, see
the
section of
Richard Carrier's article that I cited above.
Kabis:
He also says that he cautiously examined everything from the beginning
and this led him to
write an organized account to Theophilus so that he might know the
certainty of what he has
been taught.
Till:
I will refer readers to Carrier's article just cited above. Luke's
reliability as a historian
is very much in doubt.
Kabis:
It is obvious that Luke wrote to Theophilus, but who was Theophilus?
There have been many
theories trying to answer this question. First of all, the name
Theophilus means, "lover
of God," or "friend of God." It is unclear whether he was already a
Christian, or if he
was considering becoming one. Luke
(1:3) refers
to Theophilus using
the words "most excellent" (kratistoV). Since this seems to
refer to nobility, most
of the theories on Theophilus state that he was either a government
official or an
influential citizen. It is likely that Theophilus was Luke's patron and
helped him to
publish Luke-Acts.
Till:
And what does any of this do to prove consistency in Luke's and Paul's
accounts of when Paul
first went to Jerusalem after his conversion?
Didn't Mr. Kabis say something about a "single focus" in his rule #1?
Kabis:
Both Luke and Acts are addressed to Theophilus, and the latter (Acts)
refers to the former
(Luke).
Till:
And the reference in Acts to Theophilus and a "former treatise" in no
way proves that the
same person wrote both books. Acts, as well as all New Testament books,
was written in a
time when forgeries were quite common, so I assume that Mr. Kabis
understands how easy it
would have been for someone to write Acts and begin it in a way that
would leave the
impression that its author was the same person who had written the
gospel of Luke. Besides
this problem is the fact that Carrier pointed out in his article linked
to above:
Neither the author of Luke nor the author of Acts identified himself by
name in a time
when it was common for writers to do so. The epistles of Paul, for
example, begin with
statements that identified Paul as their author.
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God....
1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God....
2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God....
Galatians 1:1 Paul an apostle--sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father....
I could continue, but these examples are sufficient to make the point: Paul always identified himself by name at the beginning of his epistles. Even the epistles of Peter, which many scholars believe were forgeries attributed to Peter, began with statements that identified the writer as "Peter," but neither the author of Luke nor the author of Acts identified himself, so Mr. Kabis is merely relying on popular opinion when he says that Luke wrote Acts. He cannot prove with certitude that Luke was the author.
Kabis:
Luke the Physician was the author of Luke-Acts.
Till:
Possibly so, but as I just noted, this cannot be established with
certitude.
Kabis:
As for when it was written, any date between AD 60 and 100 is
reasonable as Conzelmann
points out; however, a more precise date is between AD 62 and 63. The
ending of Acts plays
an important role in route of determining the book's date. The Book of
Acts ends with Paul
in house arrest waiting to present his case before Caesar.
Till:
So how do the date and authorship of Acts prove consistency in the
Luke/Paul matter. Mr.
Kabis didn't bother to say. As he so often did in his article, he
simply asserted and then
went on his merry way. I am sure that as traditional as Mr. Kabis is in
his beliefs, he is
just recycling the popular belief that since Paul was still alive at
the end of Acts, that
must mean that the book was written before Paul's death, but that is an
assumption that
biblicists who want an early date of authorship cannot prove. If, for
example, the book was
written as late as AD 100, which Mr. Kabis just conceded was a
possibility, that would have
been long after the death of Paul, so the writer could have omitted
references to Paul's
death simply because he wanted readers to think that the book had been
written much earlier
than it actually had been. One must also consider that Acts was not
written to be a
biography of the apostle Paul but rather was intended to be a history
of the preaching of
the gospel from Jerusalem to the far-reaches of the world; hence, when
Paul took the gospel
to Rome, the author of Acts, whose concept of the world as it actually
is would have been
limited, could have thought that God's central purpose for the gospel
had been reached. In
other words, the death of Paul cannot be used to date the book of Acts
with any degree of
certitude.
Besides that, some passages in Acts imply that the author knew of Paul's death.
Acts 20:22 And now, as a captive to the Spirit, I [Paul] am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and persecutions are waiting for me. 24 But I do not count my life of any value to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of God's grace. 25 "And now I know that none of you, among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom, will ever see my face again.
Acts 21:10 While we were staying there [in Philip's house in Caesarea] for several days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 He came to us and took Paul's belt, bound his own feet and hands with it, and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.'" 12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."
Besides all this, there is another problem that Mr. Kabis has apparently not considered. Primarily on the basis of the introduction to Acts, he believes that Acts was written by Luke, but if it was, it was written after the gospel of Luke, because the author's tribute to Theophilus refers to the "former treatise" that the author had written to him, but Luke was written well after the death of Paul. Scholarship generally fixes the death of Paul at some time between AD 62 and 64, but the gospel of Luke is dated after AD 80. If Kabis would care to pursue this subject futher, I would be happy to do so, but at this point, I just want readers to see that the death of Paul cannot be appealed to in dating the book of Acts, because if Acts were written after the gospel of Luke and if Luke was written well after the death of Paul, as most reliable scholarship thinks, then Acts was written after the death of Paul even though this book makes no direct mention of Paul's death.
Kabis:
To qualify Luke as an historical writer, William Ramsey (1851-1939),
whose contributions
include helping to validate Luke's references to geography and
historical facts.
Till:
I showed above that Sir William Ramsay's assessment of Luke's
qualifications as a historian
was simplistically flawed, so there is no need for me to rehash that
information here. Mr.
Kabis is just recycling fundamentalist propaganda, which he has
probably never critically
examined. Those who have examined it have no difficulty seeing that it
is without merit.
Kabis:
As of today, there is no reason not to accept the Book of Acts as
historically accurate.
Till:
I also showed above good reasons to question the historical accuracy of
Luke, so I will just
refer readers to that section again.
Chapter
7:3 in
Richard Carrier's article cited above, which irreparably dismantles the
fundamentalist claim
that Luke was a first-rate historian.
Kabis:
Moreover, since Luke was a companion of Paul
(2 Tim 4:11;
Philem 1:24),
it is unlikely
that he could, or would have purposefully or by error of omission,
written that which was not
true or historically correct where it came to Paul’s ministry because
he was with Paul, on
the missionary team!
Till:
Mr. Kabis is overrating the importance of personal relationships. Even
if Luke had been a
companion of Paul on the missionary journeys attributed to him in Acts,
he could certainly not
have recalled word for word the various speeches that this book
attributed to Paul. After all,
if Paul died by AD 64 and if the gospel of Luke wasn't written until
after AD 80, as
scholarship generally accepts, and if Acts were written after the
gospel of Luke, some two
decades would have passed between Paul's missionary journeys and
"Luke"s" record of them. I
had conversations with a friend in a downtown restaurant just this
morning. I recall the
essence of what my friend said, but if I were asked to record word for
word what he said, I
couldn't do it. Certainly, I would not be able to recall even the
general essence of
conversations that I was involved in two decades ago. How, then, can
Mr. Kabis say that
"Luke" would not have made any errors of omission or historical
inaccuracies in what he wrote
decades after the fact? This is the kind of shallow thinking that we
see repeatedly in
inerrantist "apologetics."
Kabis:
Purpose of Luke’s Writings:
Luke wrote to convince Theophilus, probably a Gentile official, of the “certainty of those things, wherein thou has been instructed” (Luke 1:4); and to provide the historical events that underlie his Christian faith and practice.
Till:
And this does what to prove that the writings of "Luke" were inerrant
or even fundamentally
accurate?
Kabis:
This doesn’t mean that Luke intended to present a faithful,
account-by-account and
chronological history of the development of the early church.
Till:
It doesn't? Mr. Kabis is apparently unaware of the meaning of the word kathexes
in
Luke 1:4. Kabis's beloved KJV renders the verse like this: "It seemed
good to me also, having
had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write
unto thee in order,
most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of
those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed." Most people reading this think that
Luke was saying that
he was writing to Theophilus so that he would know the certainty of
those things wherein he
had been instructed, but the word kathexes translated in
order here actually
meant "consecutively" (Strong's #2517). Arndat and Gingrich define the
word like this:
"in order, one after the other of sequence in time, space, or logic."
They cited Luke 1:3 as
an example of how the word was used to mean to "write someth[ing] for
someone in correct
chronological order" (a Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament,
1952, p. 389).
Hence, Luke's purpose was to do exactly what Mr. Kabis said that he
didn't intend to do. His
stated purpose was to write about the life of Jesus in chronological
order.
So much for Mr. Kabis's linguistic credentials.
Kabis:
Virtually nothing is recorded for large segments of time (e.g.,
A.D. 35-44); he only
focuses on certain spiritual and meaningful events that give efficacy
to the epistles
(letters) of Paul.
Till:
Exactly how did Mr. Kabis know that "Luke's" purpose in writing Acts
was to "focus on certain
spiritual and meaningful events that give efficacy to the epistles
(letters) of Paul"? He
didn't say; he just said it and moved on, so he is again arguing by
assertion,
which was expressly forbidden in the rules that he posted (quoted
above): " Keep in mind, that
both opponents must remain "on topic" and cannot use argumentation by
assertion, special
pleading, or question begging" (rule 3).
I wonder if this means that Mr. Kabis has "quit his position and acceded to mine."
Kabis:
In addition, Luke’s writings were intended to provide a cohesive unity
between the teachings
of Jesus Christ and the labors of the apostles after Christ’s ascension.
Till:
This is still more argumentation by assertion, so I have no obligation
to try to disprove
flagrantly unsupported claims.
Kabis:
Theophilus’s church (circa A.D. 60) was teaching the brethren
things that were vastly
different from Luke’s gospel, due to a creeping in of an apostasy, the
perversion of the true
Word of Jesus Christ.
Till:
Now just how does Mr. Kabis know this? In the first place, the identity
of "Theophilus" is
unknown. Here is what Eerdmans Bible Dictionary says about
Theophilus.
A person (rather than as some suggest, a symbolic "friend of God") to whom Luke dedicated his gospel (Luke 1:3) and its sequel, the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:1). Theophilus may have been a member of the equestrian class, though the honorific title "most excellent" (Gk. krtistos; Luke 1:3) is used both in addressing Roman officials, notably procurators (e. g., Acts 23:26; 24:2; 26:25) and as a common courteous address Josephus (Vita 76 [430]; Ap. i1[1]). Since a fruitful reading of the third gospel and Acts requires some acquaintance with Judaism and, in the case of the gospel, the topography of Palestine, Theophilus was most likely a Gentile "God-fearer" in need of an "orderly account" of the gospel, about which he may have had some knowledge (1987, pp. 997-998).
Readers who consult other biblical reference works and commentaries will see that the identity of Theophilus is unknown, but now along comes Mr. Kabis to tell us that "Theophilus’s church... was teaching the brethren things that were vastly different from Luke’s gospel." I would really like to see Mr. Kabis tell us how he came to know what was being taught in the church of an unknown person.
In his rule # 1, Mr. Kabis insisted on a "single focus" for this debate, but we have come this far, and he has yet to say one word that focuses on the harmonization of "Luke's" and Paul's account of when the latter first went to Jerusalem after his conversion. We must now wade through a section in which Kabis tells us all about what Paul's purpose was in writing the book of Galatians.
Kabis:
Authorship and Purpose of the Book of Galatians:
One only need read the salutation in this “letter” (epistle) to the Galatians to see that it was written by Paul (Saul) [Galatians 1:1]. It was written “unto the churches of Galatia” [Galatians 1:2]. The letter was written to these churches that Paul and his missionary team had planted during his second missionary trip; it was written either in Ephesus (A.D. 54) or in Macedonia (A.D.55)
Till:
And all this does what to prove the consistency of "Luke's" and Paul's
account of the
latter's first trip to Jerusalem after his conversion? Didn't Mr. Kabis
say something about
a "single focus"?
Kabis:
The central feature and focus of this letter is not one of historical
context, but to remind
those churches that justification comes through God’s grace and not
through Jewish ritual,
sacrifice, or other works. The occasion of its writing after [Paul?]
had planted the church
(Galatians
3:1) was due to
the infiltration and teachings of certain Jewish teachers (rabbis) who
were attempting to
introduce Heresies into the doctrine of these new churches of Christ
(Galatians
5:7). Paul seeks
in this letter to expose the error of those Rabbis and their false
gospel and expose their
impure motives (Galatians
6:12,13).
Till:
Let's just assume that everything Mr. Kabis said here is true. How
would it in any way
prove consistency in "Luke's" and Paul's accounts of the latter's first
trip to Jerusalem
after his conversion? All Mr. Kabis is doing here is playing a familiar
game of recycling
information he has read in books in order to try to impress his
readers, but the only
impression that I got when I first read his article was to wonder if he
was ever going to
get around to analyzing the relevant biblical texts to show that they
were all consistent.
We have come this far, and he has yet even to touch what is supposed to
be the "single focus"
of this debate.
Does this mean that he will "quit his position and accede to mine"?
Kabis:
Some Definitions:
Definition:
Till:
Yes, he just said that immediately above, didn't he?
Kabis:
"With regard to the Bible, inspiration denotes the doctrine that the
human authors and
editors of canonical scripture were led or influenced by the Deity with
the result that
their writings many be designated in some sense the word of God."
Till:
Yes, I am well aware of this doctrine. I used to preach it myself, so
now I defy Mr. Kabis
to prove that the Bible was so inspired. He cannot do that; nobody can
do it.
Kabis:
Archeological data: In his book The new evidence that demands a
verdict, Josh
McDowell quotes a number of archaeologists who maintain that biblical
accounts are in total
agreement with the archeological record:
McDowell and others make that point that it is inconceivable that a book covering thousands of years of history could be this free of error unless it was written under the inspiration of God.
Till:
These are familiar claims. Inerrantists have been recycling them for
years. The only problem
is that they aren't true. Early archaeologists used a maximist approach
to analyzing their
discoveries, so they allowed the Bible to interpret what they found in
their excavations. If,
for example, collapsed walls were found at the site of ancient Jericho,
the archaeologists
concluded that the collapse had happened as a result of the seven-day
march around the city
as recorded in Joshua
6.
Possibilities that the walls had collapsed for other reasons, say, an
earthquake, were not
even considered. Archaeologists of that time saw the presence of the
collapsed walls as
vindication of the Bible. This maximist approach to archaeology has now
lost much of its
popularity. I have written several articles on this subject, one of
which was published in
the March/April
1998 edition of The Skeptical Review. Although I have
linked to it, the article
is short enough to quote in its entirety.
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all of the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in 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 (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
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 work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.
Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.
I could bury Mr. Kabis under a mountain of evidence that disputes the outdated and, in the cases of Nelson Glueck and Josh McDowell, biased sources that Kabis quoted above, but in the interest of brevity, I am just going to reference other materials on this subject that readers can consult to see just how wrong Kabis is. In "The Old Logic," I also addressed archaeological evidence that disputes the claim that Kabis is trying to recycle to unsuspecting readers. The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman exposes many Old Testament stories, such as Joshua's conquest of Canaan, to be nothing but fictionalized history that was written to give Israel a glorious past. Anyone willing to put time into uncritical research can find tons of information that clearly contradict the claim that archaeology has completely confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Kabis:
Refutation of Till's Allegation:
In one sentence (v:25), Luke had Paul in Damascus but then in Jerusalem in the very next sentence (v:26). This disagrees with Paul's own account of when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion.
Till:
At long last, Mr. Kabis has finally tried to show that I have
misinterpreted the biblical
passages relevant to this issue. I will ask readers to notice carefully
what I said in the
statement that Kabis quoted immediately above, and then watch to see if
at any time he tried
to show that it wasn't true that Luke had Paul in Damascus in one
sentence and then in
Jerusalem in the very next sentence. Kabis never ever tried to show
that this was not so, and that was probably because he thinks that the
unmentioned three years can be found seven
verses earlier, where it says that after Ananias came to him, Paul
"arose and was baptized and then took food" (vs:18-19).
Kabis
has to lean way over backwards to find three years here, but I
will wait until he
presents his scenario before I show the absurdity of it.
As we will soon see, Kabis quoted a lengthy section of Acts 9, which clearly shows that "Luke's" account in this chapter had Paul in Damascus in verse 25 and then in Jerusalem in the very next sentence. Please read that passage carefully to see if there are any linguistic reasons to think that Luke intended his readers to understand that three years had passed between verses 25 and 26. Since most inerrantists think that the three unmentioned years can be found here, I intend to expose the absurdity of that position as well as Mr. Kabis's claim that the three years are to be found seven verses earlier. That way I will kill two birds with one stone and help readers to be prepared to address intelligently whichever theory inerrantists may resort to in trying to resolve this discrepancy.
Kabis:
I would first like to point out that Mr. Till is pulling his text out
of context to make
his allegation.
Till:
I urge everyone to watch carefully to see if Mr. Kabis's quotation of
what he calls the
"context" of verses 25 and 26 in Acts 9 does anything to show that
three years passed between
these two verses or that the missing years can be found in verses
18-19. You will see that it doesn't.
Kabis:
Blackwell a professor of the languages at Oxford University makes a
specific point of, and
in fact devotes an entire chapter to the well-settled axiom that text
taken from context
becomes a pretext.
Till:
Well, I certainly would not dispute that. After all, I taught college
English and American
literature for 30 years, so I think I know something about the
importance of interpreting
literary statements within their contexts. What I want readers to see,
however, is that Mr.
Kabis's quotation of a lengthy section of Acts 9 did nothing to resolve
the problem, because
what I said still remains true: Paul was in Demascus in verse 25
and then in Jerusalem
in the very next verse. How does quoting the larger context of these
two verses show that
three years had passed between them? Mr. Kabis never even attempted to
show that the larger
context gives linguistic reasons to know that this many years had
passed between the two
verses, and likewise his quotation of the larger context did nothing to
find the three
years in verses 18-19.
Kabis:
So I will endeavor to put Luke’s account back in perspective, in order
to show that there is
no disagreement or error between the two accounts of Paul’s whereabouts
after his encounter
on the road to Damascus. In fact, the entire first half of chapter 9 of
Acts (verses 1
through 30) is devoted to Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus and
to Paul’s early
ministry.
Till:
Immediately below, Kabis began his quotation of the larger context,
presumably to "put Luke's
account back in perspective." I want everyone to notice carefully that
quoting this entire
section never put anything back into perspective, because I had never
taken anything out of
perspective. After the long, drawn-out quotation of the larger context
that Kabis subjected
us to, it still remains true that Luke's account had Paul in Damascus
in verse 25 and then in
Jerusalem in the very next verse. Please notice that Kabis said
absolutely nothing that would
show that Luke intended his readers to understand that three years had
passed between these
two verses or between verse 18 and 19.
Kabis:
Saul Encounters Jesus on the way to Damascus:
Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2: And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3: And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5: And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6: And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8: And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9: And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. 10: And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11: And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12: And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13: Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15: But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17: And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18: And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Saul Testifies in Damascus:
19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. 20: And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God. 21: But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? 22: But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Saul Escapes to Jerusalem:
23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: 24: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25: Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. 26: And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27: But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28: And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
What I have shown so far is that Luke has accounted for Saul (not yet called Paul) on the road to Damascus, then after his encounter with Jesus, that his companions took him to Damascus where he received back his sight after the ministering of one Ananias. Immediately then, he went and was baptized; but where did he go to be baptized?
Till:
What does it matter where he was baptized? Paul's baptism is not an
issue. The issue is
whether three years passed at some point in this larger context. Did
anyone see anything that Kabis said that would show that Luke intended
his readers to understand that three years had passed between verses 18
and 19 or between verses 25 and 26? If so, please point it out to me,
because I didn't see anything that even hinted of such an implication.
As I have already mentioned, we will see below that Kabis tried to spin Acts 9:18-19 to mean that Paul went into Arabia to be baptized and then returned to Damascus and stayed there for three years, but when we get there, we will see this far-fetched how-it-could-have-been scenario backfire in his face.
Kabis:
The answer to this question can only be answered by knowing the custom
of baptism of the
followers of “the Way” (early Christians).
Till:
Baptism at this time was an immersion in water. That is what the word baptizo
meant,
to dip, plunge, or immerse, but what is the relevance of this? The
manner of Paul's baptism
has nothing to do with the issue we are supposed to be debating. Did
three years pass between
Acts 9:18 and Acts 9:19 or between verses 25 and 26? That is the issue,
and Kabis is dodging it.
We will see him speculating that even though a major river cut through Damascus, Paul for some reason went into Arabia to be baptized and then returned to Damascus for three years, but we will also see that there is no scriptural basis at all for this spin on Acts 9 but that this theory instead is in direct conflict with other New Testament passages.
Kabis:
Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
Till:
And quoting this passage does what to prove that "Luke" meant for his
readers to understand
that three unmentioned years had passed somewhere in the "larger
context" of Acts 9?
Kabis:
Paul, when he was not yet called Paul, but Saul, would have
energetically given his full
account to Luke, who was a companion on Paul’s mission trips with him.
Till:
This is speculative at best, but for the sake of argument, let's just
assume that it is true.
If Paul had "energetically given his full account [of his conversion]
to Luke" in, say, AD
64, how accurate would Luke's memory of that have been two decades
later when he wrote the
book of Acts. After all, as I pointed out above, scholarship dates the
gospel of Luke at
about AD 80, and probably even later, so if the gospel of Luke was the
"former treatise" to
Theophilus that was mentioned in
Acts 1:1,
this would mean that Acts
was written after Luke, some decades after Paul "had energetically give
his full account to
Luke." Can Kabis remember minute details of conversations that he had
with people, even
those who were his close associates, twenty or more years ago?
Kabis:
Luke, who is known to be a good historian,
Till:
I showed above that this just isn't true, so I won't rehash that
information here.
Kabis:
[Luke, who is known to be a good historian,] would have been able to
provide an accurate,
moment by moment, day-by-day, year-by-year account of Paul’s ministry
including his
whereabouts during the time period in question.
Till:
Even after 20 years? How could Kabis possibly know that Luke's memory
was that sharp?
Wouldn't a writer as outstanding as Kabis is trying to make Luke have
known to put a simple
time transition between Acts 9:25 and 9:26 [or between verses 18 and
19] so that readers
would have known that three year had passed? After all, such
transitions aren't at all
uncommon in the book of Acts. Here are just a few of them.
I could quote many other examples, but these are sufficient to show that the author of Acts routinely used specific chronological markers to signal how much time had passed between or within the events he had narrated, but Mr. Kabis expects us to believe that this author, for some unexplained reason, didn't use any time transitions to signal to readers that three years had passed between Acts 9:25, where Paul was lowered over the wall of Damascus in a basket, and the very next verse, which told of his arrival in Jerusalem or between verse 18, which told of Paul's rising to be baptized, and the next verse, which told of his taking food. Inerrantists have to resort to this kind of foolishness in order to keep from admitting that the Bible has errors in it. Does any reasonable person reading this think that Kabis would argue that three unmentioned years passed between Acts 9:25 and 9:26 [or verses 18 and 19] if the apostle Paul had not said in Galatians 1 that he didn't go to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion?
Kabis:
It is likely that he did not do this in Acts, because Paul, in his
letter to the Galatians
almost 10 years earlier, already accounted for the time between the
encounter with Jesus on
the road to Damascus, and Paul’s return to Jerusalem.
Till:
Yeah, right, "Luke" didn't mention how much time passed between Acts
9:25 and Acts 9:26 [or
between verse 18 and 19] because he thought that readers would know
from having read Galatians
that three years had separated the escape from Damascus and the return
to Jerusalem. To hear
Kabis, one would think that bound volumes of the New Testament were in
every Christian's home
back then, and so everyone had read Galatians. The fact is that scrolls
of New Testament
books were rare at that time, so many Christians outside of Galatia
probably lived and died
without ever seeing that epistle. Even today, when New Testaments can
be found in practically
every home, I doubt that the average Christian could tell you what is
in the book of Galatians
or the book of Acts. There seems to be no end to how far a biblical
inerrantist is willing to
go to protect his precious inerrancy belief. If Mr. Kabis is going to
make an assertion like
this, he has an obligation to support it. I challenge him to explain to
us just how he was
able to know that "Luke" left out three years in Acts 9 because he knew
that his readers
would have been familiar enough with Galatians to fill in the gap.
Mr. Kabis is playing a familiar inerrantist game. He is trying to prove inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. He believes that there are no errors in the Bible, and so he seeks to solve the Luke/Paul inconsistency by asserting that the Bible can't contradict itself; therefore, Luke must have meant that three years had passed between Acts 9:25 and Acts 9:26 [or between verse 18 and 19], but I am here to challenge him to prove that they did.
Kabis:
So, according to Saul (not yet Paul), right after he encountered Jesus,
he “immediately
conferred not with flesh and blood”
[Gal 1:16]
which means he
didn’t talk to anyone;
Till:
But "Luke" disagreed with this too. Look at what "Luke" clearly said in
Acts 9:19 that
Paul did after his baptism mentioned in the preceding verse.
19 (A)nd after taking some food, he [Paul] regained his strength. For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus....
Even right here in the broader context that Kabis quoted above, we see that "Luke" used a time transition to state that Paul was in Damascus for some time [several days] after his conversion, but Kabis expects us to believe that "Luke" let three years in the verse just quoted go completely unmentioned.
That aside, I just want readers to notice that Kabis's claim that "Luke" and Paul agreed with each other on how much time had passed before Paul returned to Jerusalem has backfired in his face, because the very text that Kabis quoted in Galatians shows that there was another disagreement. Paul said that he didn't confer with flesh and blood after his conversion but "straightway" went into Arabia (Gal. 1:17), but in the text quoted above, "Luke" said that Paul had spent "several days" with the disciples in Damascus. Kabis is going to claim that the three unmentioned years are in Acts 9:18, so Paul didn't confer with anyone in Damascus until after he had.... Well, you will have to see Kabis's spin on this verse to believe it, so I am going to state it briefly before I dismantle it further along. Here is how Acts 9:18 reads in Kabis's favorite version.
And immediately there fell from his [Paul's] eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Kabis's claim, as we will see, is that Paul arose and went into Arabia before he was baptized; hence, his position is that the verse just quoted should read like this.
And immediately there fell from his [Paul's] eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, [went into Arabia] and was baptized.
Is there any linguistic reason to justify this spin on the verse? No, but since when does a biblical inerrantist need linguistic justification for a how-it-could-have-been scenario that he postulates to "solve" a discrepancy? I will go over this below to show the absurdity of this spin on the verse, but I mentioned it here so that everyone will know where Kabis is going to go to try to find the missing three years.
Kabis:
and according to Luke, Saul was led away to Damascus by his companions
and stayed there
blind for three days without food or drink. Since the Jews are a very
social people, all
talking and conferring is done over meals;
Till:
But Paul said in Galatians that he didn't confer with flesh and blood
after his conversion.
Oh, I forgot, Paul went immediately into Arabia to be baptized and then
came back to
Damascus and conferred with the disciples. Silly me, I keep forgetting.
Kabis:
the Christians did this also and called it fellowship, preferring to
learn more about Jeasus’
[sic] teachings instead of the more common and mundane things of
everyday life.
Till:
So which was it, did Paul confer with the disciples in Damascus after
his conversion or did
he not confer with them. Well, just take a look at how Kabis, in his
own words, tried to get
around this problem.
Kabis:
And since Saul took no food or drink for three days
[Acts 9:9],
the writing suggests
(but does not specifically say) that he stayed alone during that time
and talked to no one.
Till:
I am glad that Kabis was at least honest enough to admit that Acts 9:9
"does not specifically
say" that Paul talked to no one during his three day fast. This is
nothing but an unfounded
surmise on his part, but for the sake of argument, let's just assume
that Paul didn't talk to
anyone during his fast. Verse 19, quoted above, says that Paul "took
food and was
strengthened, after which he spent "several days" with the
disciples. I guess Kabis
will try to find something in this verse that "suggests" that Paul
didn't speak to anyone at
this time either, not even so much as to say, "Pass the bread please,"
when he was taking food
to regain his strength.
Oh, I forgot again. Paul didn't eat until he had returned to Damascus after having taken his jaunt into Arabia to be baptized. We will soon seen how silly this scenario is and just how much it conflicts with other biblical passages.
Kabis:
These two scriptures comport one with the other.
Till:
It doesn't take much to comfort Mr. Kabis, does it?
Kabis:
Next Paul says that he went “straightaway” into Arabia and returned to
Damascus
[Gal 1:17]
for three years
before he went to Jerusalem [Gal
1:18]...
Till:
Uh, no, not exactly. Galatians 1:17 says that Paul went away into
Arabia and returned to
Damascus, and then verse 18 says that "after three years," he went to
Jerusalem. How much of
that time was spent in Arabia and how much in Damascus wasn't stated.
We will see, however,
that Kabis claims that Paul went to Arabia just to be baptized in a
river that flowed
through Damascus, and then he came back right away to Damascus and
spent three years there
before going to Jerusalem.
Kabis:
and Luke gives a longer, more detailed account of what happened to Saul
while he was in
Damascus right after encountering Jesus. Luke’s account has Saul in
Damascus for three days
by himself before Ananias finds him and restores his sight by the power
of Jesus and Luke
tells us that Saul arose after receiving his sight and went out and was
baptized
[Acts 9:18].
Baptism to
the early Christian was done in the way of John the Baptist and
required full immersion in
a river or stream deep enough for such immersion. The river Barada,
according to maps of
the ancient world as it was during Saul’s time, was near Damascus but
was in what was then
called Arabia , so these two pieces of scripture in the time line also
fit.
Till:
Well, let's see where the Barada
River was located, so that I can nip Kabis's pending quibble in the
bud before he has
time to watch it grow.
Barada River: River passing through Damascus. It rises in the Anti-Lebanon mountains and flows southward for 84 km (52 miles) through Damascus to intermittent al-Utaybeh Lake and its marshes. Barada's volume is doubled by the Fijeh Spring (which is used to bring drinking water to Damascus). Throughout history, channels have been cut at different levels parallel to the main branch of the river to divert its flow, thus preventing the wasting of its water. The channels, of Nabataean, Aramaean, Roman and Arab Umayyad origin, irrigate an area of about 375 square km (about 145 square miles). This system has created the Ghoutah Oasis, which consists of extremely fertile orchards surrounding Damascus.
So the Barada river was indeed "near" Damascus. It was so near it that it flowed through it. A map of the ancient Near East shows that Arabia was to the east of Damascus, and a blue line and blue spot shows that a river ran though Damascus and a lake, probably the one mentioned above, was just to the east of the city. Readers should keep all this in mind as we look at the far-fetched how-it-could-have-been scenario that Kabis postulated below to try to find consistency in "Luke's" and Paul's accounts of the latter's first trip to Jerusalem after his conversion.
Kabis:
After Saul was baptized, presumably by Ananias, he “returned again to
Damascus”
[Gal 1:17]
where he ate
(probably for the first time in many days) in fellowship with the
“disciples who were in
Damascus” [Acts
9:19].
Till:
So we see now the spin that Kabis is trying to put on Acts 9. He is
claiming that the
three-year transition period didn't occur between verse 25 and 26 but
between 18 and 19. To
help readers see the absurdity of this completely unfounded
postulation, I am going to insert
into brackets, in boldprint, Kabis's take on Paul's departure from
Damascus to be baptized
in Arabia.
Acts 9:18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his [Paul's] sight was restored. Then he [Paul] got up and [went into Arabia where he] was baptized, 19 and after [returning to Damascus and] taking some food, he regained his strength. For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." 21 All who heard him were amazed and said, "Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?" 22 Saul became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah. 23 After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. 26 When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.
This scenario is so ridiculous that it hardly deserves comment, but Kabis laid his head on the block, so he can't blame me when I chop it off. First of all, there is no reason at all why Paul would have gone into Arabia to be baptized, because, as we noted above, a major river [Barada] flowed through Damascus, and its flow was diverted into irrigation channels that watered fertile orchards around Damascus. Baptism was considered necessary to salvation in New Testament times, and the accounts of conversion recorded in Acts put a supreme importance on it. Indeed, in "Luke's" account of Paul's conversion in Acts 22, when Ananias went to Paul, he said,"And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.'" Notice that Ananias told Paul not to delay but to get up and be baptized to wash his sins away. Kabis, however, would have us believe that Paul delayed his baptism until he could go into Arabia to be baptized when there were suitable places for baptism right in the city of Damascus.
I won't take the time to show that New Testament preachers taught that baptism was essential to salvation and was administered as quickly as possible after belief in Jesus had been expressed, but just a few examples will suffice to illustrate the importance that was attached to baptism in New Testament times.
Baptism was considered serious business in New Testament times, and it was administered as quickly as possible. Kabis's scenario of a delay while Paul went into Arabia to be baptized is not only without scriptural support, it presents a scenario of unnecessary delay that is inconsistent with the New Testament accounts of conversion. Christians believed then that baptism was essential for the "remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), and Ananias certainly indicated this when he told Paul not to delay but to arise and be baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). If sins were remitted or "washed away" in baptism, then Paul's conversion was not complete until he was baptized. Hence, Kabis's scenario would have the conversion of Paul taking place in Arabia rather than Damascus, yet Paul said in Galatians 1:15-17) that when God "called him," he "straightway" conferred not with flesh and blood but went into Arabia, but Kabis is proposing a far-fetched scenario that would having the calling of Paul take place in Arabia. Notice, for example, that when Ananias told Paul to arise and be baptized, he said that in doing this, Paul would be "calling on his name" (Acts 22:16), so Kabis is putting a spin on Galatians 1:15-17) that locates Paul's "calling on his name" somewhere in Arabia.
Now let's look again at an abbreviated passages in Acts 9 that shows other absurdities in Kabis's scenario. I will retain the previously inserted bracketed additions so that readers will be reminded again of Kabis's spin on verses 18 and 19.
Acts 9:18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his [Paul's] sight was restored. Then he [Paul] got up and [went into Arabia where he] was baptized, 19 and after [returning to Damascus and] taking some food, he regained his strength. For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God...." 23 After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. 26 When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus.
Kabis is claiming that the unmentioned three-year period occurred where I have inserted the bracketed information above, so he is claiming that even though Paul spent three years in Damascus preaching in the synagogues, when he finally went to Jerusalem after this three-year preaching engagement, not even the apostles in Jerusalem believed that Paul was a disciple. In the three verses that I omitted above, the people of Damascus were amazed when they heard Paul preaching Jesus, because they knew about Paul's previous activities in persecuting the church, yet Kabis expects us to believe that three years were not enough time for word of this persecutor's conversion to get back to Jerusalem. How likely is that?
I have identified serious problems in Mr. Kabis's attempt to find three unmentioned years in Acts 9, but there is still another very serious one that needs to be pointed out. That problem centers on Paul's reason for telling the Galatians that he had not conferred with flesh and blood after his conversion but had gone into Arabia. Why did Paul consider it important to tell the Galatians this? To answer that, we have to look at some other texts in chapter one of Galatians, which give the broader context of the verses that Kabis has quoted from this chapter. We know from what Kabis said above that he believes in considering the complete context of a verse.
Galatians 1:11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
In the verses immediately before these, Paul warned the Galatians not to depart from the gospel he had preached them and issued the often quoted warning that even if an angel from heaven should preach to them a different gospel than his, they should consider him anathema (Gal. 1:9). He considered this warning so important that he repeated it in the very next verse. (I know that Mr. Kabis said below that an omniscient, omnipotent deity wouldn't have one of his inspired writers to repeat information unnecessarily, but this seems to be an exception to Mr. Kabis's rule.) To issue a warning like this and expect it to be obeyed, Paul needed a good reason, and he stated that reason in the passage quoted above: The gospel that he preached didn't come from men, and he wasn't taught it, but it had come to him through revelation of Jesus Christ.
To make that claim convincing, he needed to support it with some kind of evidence, and Paul proceeded to do just that. After telling of his former zeal in the Jews' religion, he went on to tell the Galatians why they could believe that his gospel had come to him by revelation from Jesus.
15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem....
I have no illusions that what I am going to say now will have any effect on Mr. Kabis, but I am sure that other readers will see the significance of this point. Paul was trying to convince the Galatians that he had not been taught his gospel but that he had received it by revelation from Jesus. In support of that claim, he said that after God had called him through his grace, he went away into Arabia at once. This was his way of saying to the Galatians, "How could anyone have taught me my gospel if I left immediately after my conversion and went into Arabia?" He was trying to convince the Galatians that he had not had any exposure at all to anyone who could have taught him the gospel, but if Kabis's strained scenario is true and those reading this thought that Paul was saying only that he had left Damascus and gone into Arabia just to be baptized, after which he had immediately returned to Damascus, they could have said to Paul, "Well, yeah, but you were into Arabia just long enough to be baptized, and then you went back to Damascus and spent three years with disciples there, so how do we know that they didn't teach you the gospel you are preaching?"
Furthermore, if Paul had gone into Arabia just to be baptized, he would necessarily have had somebody with him, because baptism requires a baptizer. A Galatian who understood this chapter the way that Kabis is trying to spin it could have said to Paul that the one who accompanied him to his baptism could have taught him what to say when he preached. In addition to that, we could hardly think that all of the disciples in Damascus, who had known Paul to be a persecutor, would have stayed in Damascus without going along to see his baptism. There is just so much wrong with Kabis's baptism-in-Arabia spin on Acts 9 that no reasonable person can accept it.
In the rules that Kabis stipulated above, number 3 stated that "(t)he individual who does not directly answer each and every point of his opponent's challenge or reply, or who dismiss [sic] such point, or the entire reply as irrelevant quits his position and accedes to his opponents [sic] side of the argument." In my article, which Kabis claims to have answered point by point, I clearly presented the problem of why the disciples in Jerusalem, including even the apostles, wouldn't have known after three years that Saul the persecutor had been converted and was zealously preaching the gospel that he had once persecuted. Instead of linking to it, I will just quote it below so that Kabis cannot say that he didn't see it.
Inerrantists, of course, are going to quibble endlessly that there is no discrepancy in these two accounts. One of their favorite quibbles is that one can correctly report a travel itinerary without listing every single stopping place in the trip. If one should leave St. Louis, for example, go to Denver for a while, then on to Phoenix for a period, and finally to Los Angeles, he would not be incorrect if he later said, "I left St. Louis and went to Los Angeles." This is similar to the commonly heard argument that there is no inconsistency in the resurrection narratives just because the different writers mentioned only some of the women who went to the tomb instead of all of them. Hence, they argue that Paul went from Damascus to Arabia, where he stayed for three years, and then went on to Jerusalem. Luke simply "chose" not to mention the trip into Arabia because it wasn't relevant to the point he was trying to make.
This quibble about Paul's itinerary is technically correct, but it does not explain why the disciples in Jerusalem did not know after an interval of three years that the great persecutor of Christianity had been converted.
Acts 9:26 When he [Paul] had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.
Paul's reputation as a persecutor had preceded him to Damascus, even though the account of his persecutions in Acts indicates that nowhere close to three years had passed since he began his persecutions and the time that he went to Damascus. He was first mentioned in the account of the stoning of Stephen.
Acts 7:55 But filled with the Holy Spirit, he [Stephen] gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 "Look," he said, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!" 57 But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. 58 Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he died.
8:1 And Saul approved of their killing him. That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria.
The rest of chapter 8 tells of the evangelism of Philip in Samaria and his conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch on the road to Gaza. Then the next chapter turned to Paul's persecution of Christians.
Acts 9:1 Meanwhile Saul [Paul] , still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
There doesn't seem to be any time lapse here anywhere close to three years, yet we are told that on the road to Damascus Paul met Jesus and was then baptized after he went into Damascus. He immediately began to preach the gospel to the amazement of the people who had heard of his persecution of Christians.
Acts 9:19 For several days he [Paul] was with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." 21 All who heard him were amazed and said, "Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?"
So within what seems to have been a relatively short time, word of Paul's persecution of the church had traveled from Jerusalem to Damascus, but inerrantists expect us to believe that after three years, not even the inspired apostles believed that Paul had been converted.
Acts 9:26 When he [Paul] had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus.
Word of Paul's persecutions had traveled from Jerusalem to Damascus in what sounds like a relatively short time, but three years was not enough time for news of his conversion to travel from Damascus to Jerusalem. Is that what inerrantists expect us to believe? To make this "solution" even halfway plausible, there are some questions that they will need to answer.
Why would the apostles, who had been baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), not have known after three years that Paul had been converted? The baptism of the Holy Spirit had apparently given the apostles special insights. Peter, for example, was able to recognize that Ananias and Sapphira were lying about the amount of money they had received from selling a piece of property (Acts 5:1-10), yet inerrantists expect us to believe that except for the intervention of Barnabas, this same apostle would not have known that Paul had been converted.
Why did Paul himself, according to speeches that Luke attributed to him, indicate on two separate occasions that he had gone from Damascus to Jerusalem after his conversion?
Acts 22: 12 "A certain Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there, 13 came to me [Paul]; and standing beside me, he said, 'Brother Saul, regain your sight!' In that very hour I regained my sight and saw him. 14 Then he said, 'The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice; 15 for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.' 17 "After I had returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw Jesus saying to me, 'Hurry and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.' 19 And I said, 'Lord, they themselves know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. 20 And while the blood of your witness Stephen was shed, I myself was standing by, approving and keeping the coats of those who killed him.' 21 Then he said to me, 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'"
In verse 16, Paul told of his baptism; then in the very next verse he spoke of his return to Jerusalem. Do we have a "time gap" here too? This is a bit hard to imagine, because this speech confirmed what Luke claimed in Acts 9:26-28. The Christians in Jerusalem did not believe on Paul's first trip there after his conversion that he was one of them. Again I must ask inerrantists to explain why Christians, who were being led by apostles who had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, did not know after a lapse of three years that their persecutor had been converted in a city not even 200 miles away. Who can believe it besides dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalists who are going to believe in biblical inerrancy no matter how compelling the evidence against it may be?
Kabis made no attempt to address this problem, so in accordance with rule #7, quoted above, I will now ask Mr. Kabis to reply to this point that he seems to have overlooked.
I will also quote another problem presented in my article, which Mr. Kabis made no attempt to answer.
There is yet another problem for inerrantists to explain. Luke, as noted above, said that the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem did not believe that Paul was a disciple when he made his first trip there after his conversion, but Paul himself indicated otherw