JoeWallack
July 28, 2004, 07:51 AM
JW:
Glenn Miller of http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ appears to be the go-to-goy for many Internet apologists right now. JP Holding and Jews for Jesus, who hordes of missionaries quote from, both often refer to Miller's articles. In my opinion, Miller's apologetic technique is very good. He takes a long time to respond to questions and if a question is too tough (like my asking him how the Temple at Luzor could have pictures on the walls of an Annunciation, Miraculous Birth, Nativity and Adoration over a thousand years before the Christian era) he will claim that he is still researching it (ad Nazorean). He utilizes the classic apologetic technique of making the length of his response proportional to the difficulties he is facing. Through the course of an extremely long article he will weave in peripheral issues where he thinks his position is strongest and then while largely ignoring the primary issues will claim victory due to his "solving" of a peripheral issue or two. Just like in music where you have to watch for the key change, watch for the issue change with Miller.
I was skimming an article of his regarding the proper translation
of "almah" and found the following gem:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html
“In verse 14, the Hebrew translated 'a virgin' (NIV et. al) is actually the 'almah' word, WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (e.g. 'the' in English). The significance of this for our understanding of the passage can be found in the standard Hebrew grammars. In Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (as updated by Kautzsch and Cowley) this passage is discussed in 126q:
"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used."
The import for our passage is that 'the virgin' is SOMEONE 'unknown' to either Ahaz or Isaiah, and hence could NOT refer to Isaiah's wife (the Prophetess of 8.3) or Ahaz' royal court virgins (as many commentators argue for). This reference is left nebulous before Ahaz...a 'floating' referent, as it were...�
Every commentator I've ever seen, Jewish, Christian, or Other, agrees that the use of the definite article before "almah" indicates that the woman was KNOWN. Miller is saying here that the definite article in Hebrew is the indefinite article. From a scholarly standpoint, it would be impossible for Miller to have a more contradictory conclusion and it's also very economical of Miller to base such a conclusion on the opinion of one Christian Biblical Hebrew grammar "expert" from the 19th century and telling that Apologists such as Miller think 20th century new editions that preserve this landmark effort in Bible scholarship from the 19th century should be used instead of 20th century editions of 20th century work. From an entertainment standpoint though, let's see if we can figure out how Miller got himself into this situation.
The problem for Christian apologists like Miller is that it's very
difficult to find Christians who are fluent in Hebrew, let alone
Biblical Hebrew. Miller is not fluent in Hebrew so he has to rely on someone else for Hebrew grammar analysis. There are plenty of experts in Hebrew grammar but the problem for Miller is that they are Hebrews. Miller doesn't trust a book on Hebrew grammar written by Hebrews. He wants one written by Christians.
In the nineteenth century Dr. William Gesenius, as Christian as you get, starting to write about Biblical Hebrew grammar. After reading part of the Tanakh and writing a book about Biblical Hebrew grammar Christian apologists now had an "expert" in Biblical Hebrew grammar. Miller likely doesn't even know enough Hebrew to read Gesenius' books directly so he may have had to rely on the reviews of other Christians who had read Gesenius' books.
When Miller quoted above,
"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a
single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and
therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used."
The sentence in parentheses may be the comment of the updaters and
not Gesenius (as Yogi Berra said, "sounds like Deja-Jew all over
again). The phrase "as being present to the mind under given
circumstances" contradicts the conclusion that use of the definite
article meant that the woman was unknown. Gesenius is giving a conclusion that the NIV translation of "a" is correct which isn't even supported by Gesenius' own explanation! Miller is spiritually blind to the flaw in Gesenius' reasoning, he just likes Gesenius' conclusion.
Apparently, real Hebrew Biblical grammar experts subsequently were
able to convince Gesenius that the definite article means the
definite article and not the indefinite article. In the updated
Gesenius Hebrew grammar book, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker, 1979, which Miller had no reason to check since he had already found the conclusion he wanted, Gesenius writes on page 211,
"the definite article, the, ...The question has been raised...whether the definite article can ever be used for the indefinite. To this it must be replied, that the definite article can never rightly be said to be used for the indefinite;"
Gesenius goes on to explain the source of Miller's confusion as
follows (page 212):
"After these remarks it is needless to state that there is no noun, which has the article, which both cannot and even not to be taken definitely. As to the instances which I formerly brought forward in contradiction to this they may be explained as follows:"
The translation is that, Gesenius the translator, is incapable of
translating "I was wrong" into English.
JP Holding, probably the best known Internet Apologist, has a link to Glenn Miller’s referenced article above at:
http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html
Holding does have a disclaimer at the top of this page saying:
“Links to other sites do not constitute endorsement of all that is found on that site or even on that page; sift things critically!�
but I told Holding over a year ago about Miller’s comical error above which Holding publicly acknowledged. Apparently being made aware that the “expert� Holding refers to maybe more than anyone else, argued for perhaps the most famous verse in the history of polemics, that the Hebrew definite article was proof that the indefinite article was meant and therefore Isaiah, while making one of the most important prophecies of all time didn’t know what he was saying, and publicly acknowledging such error, was insufficient motivation for Holding to delete the link or better yet get Miller to correct his error.
Yet it remains as a hilarious testimonial to the bias of theologians masquerading as Bible scholars who are primarily interested in finding support for pre-existing conclusions as opposed to determining conclusions based on an objective analysis of the evidence and Internet Apologists who uncritically accept as Gospel what these theologians say and lack the motivation to correct even when they are aware of the necessary correction.
Of course just because Miller made a comical error here and Holding linked to it doesn’t mean that either wouldn’t have relevant and even convincing arguments on any other subject and Holding has a further defense here of the Apologetic technique whereby upon bringing the arguments of those who support his position into a discussion he tries to shift the focus from determining whether or not there is error in the Christian Bible to whether or not there is error in the argument of someone who supports a part of Holding’s defense. But there is a simplistic beauty here in illustrating someone so desperate to try and support a pre-existing conclusion that they would argue that use of the definite article meant that the indefinite article was meant.
Joseph
SOPHISTRY, n.
The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling. This method is that of the later Sophists, a Grecian sect of philosophers who began by teaching wisdom, prudence, science, art and, in brief, whatever men ought to know, but lost themselves in a maze of quibbles and a fog of words.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660
http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html
Glenn Miller of http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ appears to be the go-to-goy for many Internet apologists right now. JP Holding and Jews for Jesus, who hordes of missionaries quote from, both often refer to Miller's articles. In my opinion, Miller's apologetic technique is very good. He takes a long time to respond to questions and if a question is too tough (like my asking him how the Temple at Luzor could have pictures on the walls of an Annunciation, Miraculous Birth, Nativity and Adoration over a thousand years before the Christian era) he will claim that he is still researching it (ad Nazorean). He utilizes the classic apologetic technique of making the length of his response proportional to the difficulties he is facing. Through the course of an extremely long article he will weave in peripheral issues where he thinks his position is strongest and then while largely ignoring the primary issues will claim victory due to his "solving" of a peripheral issue or two. Just like in music where you have to watch for the key change, watch for the issue change with Miller.
I was skimming an article of his regarding the proper translation
of "almah" and found the following gem:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html
“In verse 14, the Hebrew translated 'a virgin' (NIV et. al) is actually the 'almah' word, WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (e.g. 'the' in English). The significance of this for our understanding of the passage can be found in the standard Hebrew grammars. In Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (as updated by Kautzsch and Cowley) this passage is discussed in 126q:
"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used."
The import for our passage is that 'the virgin' is SOMEONE 'unknown' to either Ahaz or Isaiah, and hence could NOT refer to Isaiah's wife (the Prophetess of 8.3) or Ahaz' royal court virgins (as many commentators argue for). This reference is left nebulous before Ahaz...a 'floating' referent, as it were...�
Every commentator I've ever seen, Jewish, Christian, or Other, agrees that the use of the definite article before "almah" indicates that the woman was KNOWN. Miller is saying here that the definite article in Hebrew is the indefinite article. From a scholarly standpoint, it would be impossible for Miller to have a more contradictory conclusion and it's also very economical of Miller to base such a conclusion on the opinion of one Christian Biblical Hebrew grammar "expert" from the 19th century and telling that Apologists such as Miller think 20th century new editions that preserve this landmark effort in Bible scholarship from the 19th century should be used instead of 20th century editions of 20th century work. From an entertainment standpoint though, let's see if we can figure out how Miller got himself into this situation.
The problem for Christian apologists like Miller is that it's very
difficult to find Christians who are fluent in Hebrew, let alone
Biblical Hebrew. Miller is not fluent in Hebrew so he has to rely on someone else for Hebrew grammar analysis. There are plenty of experts in Hebrew grammar but the problem for Miller is that they are Hebrews. Miller doesn't trust a book on Hebrew grammar written by Hebrews. He wants one written by Christians.
In the nineteenth century Dr. William Gesenius, as Christian as you get, starting to write about Biblical Hebrew grammar. After reading part of the Tanakh and writing a book about Biblical Hebrew grammar Christian apologists now had an "expert" in Biblical Hebrew grammar. Miller likely doesn't even know enough Hebrew to read Gesenius' books directly so he may have had to rely on the reviews of other Christians who had read Gesenius' books.
When Miller quoted above,
"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a
single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and
therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used."
The sentence in parentheses may be the comment of the updaters and
not Gesenius (as Yogi Berra said, "sounds like Deja-Jew all over
again). The phrase "as being present to the mind under given
circumstances" contradicts the conclusion that use of the definite
article meant that the woman was unknown. Gesenius is giving a conclusion that the NIV translation of "a" is correct which isn't even supported by Gesenius' own explanation! Miller is spiritually blind to the flaw in Gesenius' reasoning, he just likes Gesenius' conclusion.
Apparently, real Hebrew Biblical grammar experts subsequently were
able to convince Gesenius that the definite article means the
definite article and not the indefinite article. In the updated
Gesenius Hebrew grammar book, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker, 1979, which Miller had no reason to check since he had already found the conclusion he wanted, Gesenius writes on page 211,
"the definite article, the, ...The question has been raised...whether the definite article can ever be used for the indefinite. To this it must be replied, that the definite article can never rightly be said to be used for the indefinite;"
Gesenius goes on to explain the source of Miller's confusion as
follows (page 212):
"After these remarks it is needless to state that there is no noun, which has the article, which both cannot and even not to be taken definitely. As to the instances which I formerly brought forward in contradiction to this they may be explained as follows:"
The translation is that, Gesenius the translator, is incapable of
translating "I was wrong" into English.
JP Holding, probably the best known Internet Apologist, has a link to Glenn Miller’s referenced article above at:
http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html
Holding does have a disclaimer at the top of this page saying:
“Links to other sites do not constitute endorsement of all that is found on that site or even on that page; sift things critically!�
but I told Holding over a year ago about Miller’s comical error above which Holding publicly acknowledged. Apparently being made aware that the “expert� Holding refers to maybe more than anyone else, argued for perhaps the most famous verse in the history of polemics, that the Hebrew definite article was proof that the indefinite article was meant and therefore Isaiah, while making one of the most important prophecies of all time didn’t know what he was saying, and publicly acknowledging such error, was insufficient motivation for Holding to delete the link or better yet get Miller to correct his error.
Yet it remains as a hilarious testimonial to the bias of theologians masquerading as Bible scholars who are primarily interested in finding support for pre-existing conclusions as opposed to determining conclusions based on an objective analysis of the evidence and Internet Apologists who uncritically accept as Gospel what these theologians say and lack the motivation to correct even when they are aware of the necessary correction.
Of course just because Miller made a comical error here and Holding linked to it doesn’t mean that either wouldn’t have relevant and even convincing arguments on any other subject and Holding has a further defense here of the Apologetic technique whereby upon bringing the arguments of those who support his position into a discussion he tries to shift the focus from determining whether or not there is error in the Christian Bible to whether or not there is error in the argument of someone who supports a part of Holding’s defense. But there is a simplistic beauty here in illustrating someone so desperate to try and support a pre-existing conclusion that they would argue that use of the definite article meant that the indefinite article was meant.
Joseph
SOPHISTRY, n.
The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling. This method is that of the later Sophists, a Grecian sect of philosophers who began by teaching wisdom, prudence, science, art and, in brief, whatever men ought to know, but lost themselves in a maze of quibbles and a fog of words.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660
http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html