As yet, the sun has not set, and an immortal prophet is still reading a catalog. A huff and a puff over the edge of the mesa catches his attention. Mattchu hauls his wounded carcass over the edge, panting. He has band aids everywhere. Eidolon puts down his magazine and stares a little wistfully.
EIDOLON: You have returned, little beast?
(Mattchu snorts. He says nothing.)
EIDOLON: What wouldst thou discuss now?
MATTCHU: Apologeticccssses!!!
EIDOLON: I thought so.
MATTCHU: [H]ere's a good question- why do believers need edification? If believers in Christ believe that their initial conviction by the "Holy Spirit" was enough to bring them to repent, have faith in the gospel, and be baptized, then why is apologetics really necessary?
EIDOLON: Sir Holding agrees.
MATTCHU (looks up, startled): HUHHH???
EIDOLON: Sir Holding's research on the matter leads him to the conclusion that the role of the Spirit in conversion -- he whom we of Hearthstone call the Sacred Fire -- is minimal. Perhaps at most offering gentle persuasion, or a clearing of cobwebs, if you will. Of course, I, as a prophet, have a deeper relationship with the Sacred Fire; but that is beside the point. Really, little beast, had you read Sir Holding's material on the artifact of Calvinism, thou wouldst know this. Thou dost not know him well, for one who professes to expose his error.
MATTCHU: .....
EIDOLON: Any more questions?
MATTCHU: Yesss! [W]hy does the Bible need defending? If the Bible is the word of God, then why do believers need to see it defended in order to edify their faith?
EIDOLON (winces): Oh, come now, little beast. That's a foolish question. What propeties of the Word of God are such that it could not be misread and misunderstood?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...........
EIDOLON: Precisely. You can name none. There are none. Thine question is the equivalance of asking if a stone exists so heavy that the One cannot lift it. In any event, Sir Holding doth agree somewhat that, as you say, the matter is that there is a lack of knowledge among those who believe. And surely thou cannot deny that such ignorance exists, for thou seekest to correct it after thine own fashion and beliefs.
MATTCHU: .....uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....
EIDOLON (turning with a flourish of his cape): Little beast, it is tiresome to hear your contstant vain whinings of accusation against Sir Holding, and of placing the responsibility to "differentiate between a legitimate explanation and an illegitimate one" upon those whom it is not the burden to bear. It is time for you to grow up and cease your childish behavior. (Glances back over shoulder.) What is the subject of thine complaint to-day?
MATTCHU: Errr...ahhh.......there are some problems which have been unsolved for years, and even centuries. The problem arises when a solution is finally found because what it means is that prior to the solution, no one was justified in really believing that no difficulty really did exist prior to the discovery of the supposed solution. This is what I have termed the "New Apologetics". This is relying on future studies and research to shed light on old, difficult problems.
EIDOLON: I see. And the problem with this is what, exactly?
MATTCHU: ..........uhhhhhh............
EIDOLON: It was my perception that one of the premier foundations of scholarship is that ever newly-discovered information allows the investigator to modify conclusions and improve upon them. Is this not so?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhhhhhhhhaahhhhhhhhhhh.....
EIDOLON: May I ask what your concern is with respect to this...this...
MATTCHU: Neo-apologeticsssssses!!!
EIDOLON: Yes. In terms of Sir Holding.
MATTCHU: BAH! I givessss you zample! Hosssssea 1:4 versssses 2 Kingssss 10:30-31!
EIDOLON: Yes, I know of Sir Holding's answer to this. What of it, please?
MATTCHU: BAHHHR! Holdingssses usssses ansswer from McComissssky!
EIDOLON: Yes....go on.
MATTCHU: Holdingssses considers the solution offered by McComisky to be a matter of new research!
EIDOLON (sighs): Yes, I know this. And?
MATTCHU: So all of the translations prior to the research of folks like McComisky didn't carry this meaning because the detailed work of folks like McComisky on how to best translate Hosea 1:4 hadn't been done yet!
EIDOLON (claps hand to forehead): All of this I know. What of it? Do you disagree with the findings of this scholar?
MATTCHU (snorts): I have no beef with the work of McComisky and others as a matter of textual criticism. I have no problem agreeing that McComisky and others who have worked on this problem might be right about the Hebrew word for "paqad".
EIDOLON: So then, what, may I ask, is the problem, little beast?
MATTCHU: BAHHH! [T]o use this solution as an apologetic is absurd, if one is defending biblical inerrancy. The reason shouldn't be too hard to comprehend. What this means is that prior to the work of people like McComisky in the years spanning 1991 to 1998, without a specialized knowledge of Hebrew, no one was really in a position to believe that a harmony between Hosea 1:4 and 2 Kings 10: 30-31 really did exist!
(Mattchu starts to dance and sing incomprehensibly. Eidolon simply bows into his hand, shaking his head. He waits a few moments, then speaks.)
EIDOLON: Little beast.
MATTCHU: Haaaa haaaa! Holdingsssess sssucksss! Haaaaaa hhaaaaa haaaa!
EIDOLON: Little beast, I am asking you a QUESTION. (At this, Eidolon mutters a few words, and points his finger, freezing Mattchu in ice up to his neck. He then walks to the spot to which Mattchu is frozen.) That is better. Now may I ask, please, why this is an absurd thing as you say?
MATTCHU: Sssssss.... toldssss you!
EIDOLON (shaking head): No, you did not. You simply said that the implication to the work of McComiskey is that others prior did not have an adequate answer. That is not true, of course -- Sir Holding merely presented it as one option among many. But I asked you if this was not the normal process of scholarship, to seek more and better answers. Why is this absurd simply because it is within the context of inerrancy? The process is the same -- some matter exists to which a solution is sought.
MATTCHU: GAH! What this means is that for some reason, Yahweh, had hidden the best meaning of "paqad" from English readers until the works of folks like Thomas McComisky, and, only then did God reveal the solution to the problem!
EIDOLON: So?
MATTCHU: .................
EIDOLON: "Hidden," little beast? Nothing was hidden; the sources used by McComisky were available to all who would seek. Moreover, if he is correct, the answer was known -- not hidden -- but lost. It seems thou hast an urge, yet again, to blame others for thine own ignorance and incompetencies. Why is this so?
MATTCHU: Grar! Are readers really to suppose that the correct understanding was somehow lost or even hidden by God all the years after the Hebrew was translated into other languages until finally Yahweh inspired Thomas McComisky and others to do the necessary research to bring the real solution out?
EIDOLON: Lost? Yes, why not? Surely thou willst not argue that much has not been lost from your history about such things. Why is the One responsible for holding the hands of mankind? What obligation hath He to prevent thine own ignorance when it is so readily corrected, or humility so readily available? And why must the One have inspired the scholar? Sir Holding would maintain no such thing. How foolish to say so.
MATTCHU: How, then, can readers be faulted for thinking, then, that Hosea 1:4 conflicted with 2 Kings 10: 30-31 and that the Bible was not the inerrant word of any god?
EIDOLON (shrugs): It matters not, little beast. It is not so that the faith of all who believe rides upon the tails of an inerrant record. It certainly doth not with Sir Holding, or others among his allies, such as the one called Bede. The answer is one you have been told before. The proper response -- and I daresay this applies as well to other writings -- is to humbly confess that a solution may be forthcoming, and raise doubts only as proven appropriate. It is the same rule with ALL documents. May I ask, upon what basis doth the faith derived from what you call the New Testament, depend upon this issue?
MATTCHU: .............uhhhhhhh...............
EIDOLON (sternly): Precisely. It doth not.
MATTCHU: Grah! [W]hat does it say about any deity who desires to have his message believed by all mankind if men will just be honest and attempt to educate themselves on the relevant material and resources necessary for understanding his supposed revelation?
EIDOLON (more sternly): It sayeth that the One seeketh earnest disciples, not crybabies, as thou ist.
MATTCHU: I don't and wouldn't fault readers of the Bible like Farrell Till or any other people who have read these passages and have gotten the impression that a discrepancy really existed.
EIDOLON: Nor wouldst Sir Holding. He faulteth the likes of John Till, rather, for failing to seek resolution, but rather posting answers within their limited reading in the English langauge and proceeding no further until confronted; and then, creating invalid excuses when confronted. Dost thou understand the difference?
MATTCHU: ...............
EIDOLON: It seems, then, that you cannot answer the argument at all. Is that so? Canst thou refute McComiskey?
MATTCHU: Brrrrrrrr.........
EIDOLON: Then I will hear no more of thine whinings on the matter. Hast thou anything else to say?
MATTCHU: GAHHH!!! Yesss! I has thisss to sssaay on the Egypt Sojourn Problem...Holdingssses ssssaysss...
EIDOLON: No, actually, he does not. Didst thou read the authorial credits?
MATTCHU: ..........??
EIDOLON: If thou werest not so busy seeking place against Sir Holding, thou wouldst have seen that Sir Holding was NOT the author of that article. Twas' by one of his guests, one named Eric Vestrup. So thine complaints of Sir Holding's lack of consistency with his own solutions tis misguided. Thou shouldst pay closer attention. Indeed (Eidolon laughs a bit, and dabs at a tear forming at the corner of his eye) thou hast provided a far more elegant refutation of thine own foolishness than even Sir Holding could provide.
MATTCHU: WHAAAAAAAT!???
EIDOLON: See, little beast: The authorial attribution hath all the properties of the Word of God thou desirest. Tis' clear, and tis' obvious. It is also without error. And yet, thou hast erred in the matter it speaks of. (pauses) I should note as well, that Sir Vestrup had penned that item prior to Sir Holding's discovery of such authors as Rihbany. He has not altered Sir Vestrup's item as a courtesy.
MATTCHU: AGGGH! Why didn't Yahweh simply inspire the Septuagint and have the author of Deuteronomy 10: 22 have 75 in the original autographs?
EIDOLON: Sir Holding hath addressed this matter before, little beast, but of what matter is it to thou? Ist thou insensate to the practice of a disciple as a learner? Dost thou have a great deal of television to watch? Dost thou demand all to thee on a silver platter?
MATTCHU: Yessssss!!! Because I'ssss sssspecial!!!!
(Eidolon stares in shock for a moment. Then he reaches into a pocket in his cape and withdraws what is clearly: a silver platter. He heads for Mattchu, who can only tremble in his ice prison.)
MATTCHU: HEyyyy! What sssstupid magic cape guy doing?
EIDOLON: Thou wisheth for all on a silver platter? (He places the platter on the ground, then hefts Mattchu's frozen form onto it.) Then that is what thou shall have!
(At this, Eidolon gives the platter a hard shove with his foot. The platter slides along the meltwater from Matthchu's body, and he slips over the edge of the mesa, cursing and screaming all the way. Eidolon does not watch, buit retuns to his magazine with a sigh.)
EIDOLON: Such a foolish little beast. However, I understand now why he sports a target upon his posterior.
Mattchu rolls all the way to the bottom of the cliff yet again. It is a very long way down. He becomes very intimately acquainted with several hunks of granite as he proceeds. Finally he rolls to a stop at the bottom, panting. A shadow appears next to him. He turns, painfully, to see a short, green, lizard-like creature with a very strange eye. No, not an eye -- some sort of mechanical implant. With its one organic eye, the creature stares at him, his head shaking sadly.
Mattchu: Grah! Who you is, freaky dwarf??
Beamer: Name's B'mer. I'm a scientist, actually.
Mattchu: Sssssss!!! Isss you one of those loathesomes young-earth creationistsss?
Beamer(shrugs): That's kind of a moot point on this world. We know its very old. If you mean Earth, though, that's another matter. But I see once again, you abuse an opponent, while all the time complaining about the same sort of actions from them.
Mattchu (sitting up, rubbing head): I toldsssss ssstupid rabbitsses: I allowed to be inconsistent.
Beamer: Uh HUH. But anyway, that prophet guy called me for some science thing you had a bug in your shorts over. What seems to be the problem?
Mattchu: What's the points, green shrimp? Why doess thissss Bible needs defending anywayss?
Beamer: Uhhhh...maybe because it's being attacked!
Mattchu:Believers in Bibless are simple idiotttses! If theysssse dessssperately hurts for answers, it's their own ssssstinking faultsses. They should follow my Preciousss.
Beamer: So we should never rescue people when they are hurting?
Mattchu: No, it just gives Holdingses something to do! The alleged Holyss Spiritss should just give believerss answers so they wouldn't have to sstruggle with faith at all.
Beamer: First of
all, 'just giving the answers' is often not as educational as letting students
working it out for themselves. Second,
how would you
Mattchu: Baah, but you've overlooked dissstant starlightss. Marcel de Serres argued in 1843 that light must have been traveling for much longer than 6000 years because stars were more than 6000 light years away. Apologistss like Russsssell Humphreyssss claim that relativity is the solution, but that wasn't invented till 1905. Why your God wait so long before inspiring Humphreysss with the anssswer?
Beamer: But what you're saying is that you would like God to interfere in the free will of skeptics to prevent them from inventing objection until the very moment that an apologist is ready to answer them? You would whinge piteously at such a God, if He did that to you while you were working on your blog.
Mattchu: Graaah, not fair! You attacks my perssonal sssituation — I’s the only one allowed to do that!
Beamer:Also, the delay may be an object lesson to skeptics. I.e. it shows the stupidity of imagining that one’s own age is the epitome of knowledge. We should have learned by now how little we really know in science. And while people of the past were no less intelligent, some of the pronouncements of some of their leading 'intellectuals' look quaint now. So the apparently long delay might be there to teach a lesson to arrogant skeptics so sure of their knowledge.
Also check out JP’s articles God's Prime Directive: God, Star Trek, and Skeptical Inconsistency and Does the Bible Speak of the Brain? They deal with a very similar issue, and a professed expert on Tekton should have known this!
Mattchu: Pffft! Why your God not make sure it was Christian rather than Einssssstein who proposed ssssspecial and general relativity?
>Why? Isn’t God allowed to bless unbelievers?
Mattchu: But even if Humphreyssss' ssssssolution is right, no one was jussstified in believing that the Bible was totally right until Humphreyssss got the idea from general relativity.
Beamer: Actually, there are very good grounds for faith, i.e. loyalty based on proven deeds, e.g. the fact that Jesus of Nazareth conquered death. Otherwise there are at least 17 factors that would have prevented Christianity from getting off the ground, unless there were verifiable evidence of the Resurrection. I guess you plan on addressing that someday when you're done whinging, eh?
Thus the delay in finding a specific answers also teaches patience to believers as well. They DO have plenty of reasons to trust the Bible, and every reason to believe that solutions to apparent difficulties will be forthcoming.
Mattchu: Naaah, not listening. Anyways, what'sss your sssolution, little vile-colored freeeeak? Hahahahah!
Beamer:A promising solution appears to be based on the space-time-velocity metric of Moshe Carmeli solves this problem completely. Dr John Hartnett, a physicist from the University of Western Australia, has papers published in secular astrophysics journals using this metric to solve galaxy rotation curves and cosmic expansion—and these solutions based on fudge factors of dark matter and dark energy. (For a layman's explanation of how dark matter is a fudge factor, and reminiscent of the proposed fudge factor of the planet Vulcan that the new physics of GR, see Has 'dark matter' really been proven?) But applying Carmeli's metric, and ditching the big bang assumption that the universe has no centre—an assumption refuted by actual observation—he finds that starlight would reach us from the outer reaches of the universe in about 6000 years—as measured by Earth clocks.
Mattchu: Graah, what all that mean? My head hurts.
Beamer: You have some work to do then. And I mean, dealing with the specifics, not whinge that God took too long to inspire Carmeli and Hartnett, which I've dealt with.
I also note that you and your fellow unbelievers have no problems in maintaining your materialistic faith in the face of huge problems. One of these is the origin of the first living cell, supposedly by 'chemical evolution'. Another is one that baffled both Darwin and modern researchers: how did the mechanism of the Venus Flytrap evolve?
Still another concerns the distant starlight problem itself that you are so obsessed with. Space is the same temperature everywhere, to within 1 part in 100,000. The only way that could have occurred is if there has been enough time for heat to have traveled from the hot regions to the cold ones since the supposed big bang. Yet the universe is about ten times too large for this to have occurred. So you materialists have your own 'distant starlight' problem, so when you point the finger at Christians, you have three pointed back at you. See a Ph.D. astrophysicist's explanation of this 'horizon problem'.
It’s notable that materialists like John Gribben and Joao Magueijo have proposed ideas like light being much faster in the past, which is no different in principle from Setterfield.
So, Mattchu, why aren’t you whinging at atheists for believing their theory despite the problems, and at atheist apologists for trying to answer them (without success)? Unlike Christians, atheists have a blind faith in atheism.
Mattchu: Nah, my preciousses are smart, you Christians idiotss.
Beamer: Mattchu, there was a time when I prided myself on being a secularist, and thinking that I was the only one looking at the 'evidence'. But my colleague Felicity rebuked me gently but firmly, saying, 'There’s just one other possibility: and that is, everyone else HAS looked at the evidence, and YOU’RE the one being irrational. There's a fine line between reasonable doubt and unreasonable stubbornness. Don’t make the same mistake I did.' In turn, I urge you not to make the same mistake as well.
