I’ve finished Thom Stark’s response to Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Compromiser? A Critical Review. I have to say, given how polite Stark can be around the blogosphere, it’s nice to see him take the gloves off in his professional work.
I particular like seeing him get snarky. For example, Copan asserts that the phrase “men and women” is just a stock phrase that means “everybody.” So when you read “men and women” in the Bible, it can actually mean just male soldiers with no civilians present. That’s bad enough, but then he takes it farther:
Particularly ludicrous is this claim, that “men and women, young and old” is a stock phrase that can be used for the “inhabitants” of a town, “without predisposing the reader to assume any-thing further about their ages or even their genders.” Anything further than what? Anything further than that they are identified as children, adults, or elderly? Anything further than that they are identified as male and female? So, I take this to mean that the reader would not have had the freedom to interpret any of the victims as ageless (immortal) or hermaphrodites. So when it says that they killed “young and old, male and female,” we should not take this to mean that they killed transvestite vampires, because we’re not supposed to take it to mean “anything further” about their ages or genders.
This may be the first time that the phrase “transvestite vampires” was used in a work of biblical history. I’m glad I’m alive to see it.
While the term ‘transvestite’ is a little misused, I will let it slide when referring to vampires. Especially because I assume they are from Transsexual, Transylvania.
I was going for the aesthetic, not the accuracy. :)
well, in context, I find it aesthetically pleasing!
:)
“Transvestite vampires”! Hooray! Recognition at last!
There are people . . . who believe “men and women” can mean “only soldiers”? Man. I thought *I* grew up naive and . . .
what’s that thing where you make excuses for things that don’t make any sense?
That.
Was there no Hebrew word that meant “everybody” and could be used to mean exactly that?
Yeah, kol means “all.” But they say because “men and women, young and old” is accompanied by the word kol, then they must just be synonymous. They have no basis for the claim, nor could there be any.
Thank you. So, it seems that once again the unfathomable accuracy of the bible is denied by those who confess it.
Indeed. As I’ve argued in the past, inerrantists are rarely literalists; that’s how they’re able to remain inerrantists.
The bible would be much more entertaining with more transvestite vampires. Then again, most books would I guess.
Just a query here. You say how great it is to take the gloves off against religion. Would you feel the same about taking the gloves off against atheism?
He didn’t say that; moreover, I haven’t taken my gloves off against religion. I’m not against religion, nor am I an atheist.
Ahem.
” I have to say, given how polite Stark can be around the blogosphere, it’s nice to see him take the gloves off in his professional work.”
Just wanted to check for double standard.
Ahem.
“It’s nice to see him take the gloves off . . . ” [against religion.]
No, he never said that. Those were your words.
Point I’m making is if you think “yes we are happy to attack religion but religion better not dare attack us” then you’d be a hypocrite. You claim you don’t though, so no harm no foul.