Last time we were dealing with, and responding to, the arguments of Ken Gilmore who wrote a blog titled "Evolutionary Creationism: A Christadelphian Perspective." His argument was over an alternative way to interpret Exodus 20:11, but his methods were eisegetical in nature, and he propose that external interpretations of the evidence as a way of overturning the clear meaning of Scripture. However, as we'd demonstrated, this is not sound exegesis. In addition to that he failed to give any evidence for what he was claiming, although he certainly asserted it. We will see if he presents any evidence this time around.
As usual, his comments will be in red and my comments will be in black. At the end of this post I will provide a conclusion, also in black. At the end of the last part I will provide my overall conclusion to his argument. The link to the full article is above. Against the backdrop of proper exegesis, sound criticisms, and the evidence we'll see just how his arguments this time around will fair.
Gilmore: The first thing that we see when we examine Ex 20:11 in context is that it is not the only explanation for the Sabbath. Deuteronomy 5 also gives an aetiology [sic] for the Sabbath, and it makes zero mention of creation in six days being the reason for the sanctification of the Sabbath: [he gives a verse-by-verse comparison of Ex. 20:11 and Deut. 5.]
Brian: As we can see Gilmore is not off to a good start. Although you should always use Scripture to interpret Scripture, but Deuteronomy was written many years after Exodus (Deuteronomy was written before Moses' death and before the Jews crossed into the Promise Land, and Exodus was written shortly following the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai), and Ex. 20:11 is given the justification for the Sabbath Day which finds its justification in God resting from his works following him creating everything in six days. Deuteronomy 5 intends to recount Creation but without the need to justify the work week like Moses was doing in Ex. 20:11. They were both written by Moses, but Gilmore is arguing from silence with Deut. 5. The fact that Moses doesn't mention God didn't create in six days doesn't mean that's not what he intended to write.
In addition to that, it is noteworthy that Gilmore is trying to use Deut. 5's context to reinterpret Ex. 20:11's context. However, you don't use one passage's context unless the verse is unclear, or ambiguous. However, Ex. 20:11 is neither unclear nor is it possessing ambiguity. The verse is very straightforward. It seems he is hoping by showing the reference's absence from Deut. 5 that he make you question the verse's clarity and straightforward meaning, but you should always interpret clear passages by the weight of their respected contexts. You cannot take the context of one passage, and use it to interpret another passage, unless the verse's meaning is unclear from both the text or the context, but the passage's meaning is very clear, and the context is just as clear. This strikes me as an act of desperation.
Gilmore: In Deut 5, Moses makes no reference to the Sabbath being commissioned to commemorate creation in six literal days.
Brian: This is true, but irrelevant. Once again, how does this mean that Ex. 20:11 doesn't mean that creation was made in six days, or falsifies the previous text? Again, he appears to be arguing from silence.
Gilmore: Rather, it was to remind Israel of their deliverance from slavery in Egypt.
Brian: How is it that telling them that God made the heavens and the earth in six literal days reminding them about the deliverance from evil. Also, if this is the case, both passages mentions a reminder of the Jews' deliverance from Egypt (Ex. 20:2; and Deut. 5:15), but chapter 5 lacks the earth being created in six days, as he had mentioned, but Exodus 20:11 reference of God creating in six days has nothing to do with their deliverance from Egypt.
In addition to this, one would have to wonder what's his point here. At best, this provides God a motive for giving the Law when He did, but what it wouldn't do is reinterpret Ex. 20:11, falsify the statement, nor cause the passages in question to be figurative, anymore than it would illegitimatize the Law of Moses if this was God's reasons for giving it, or saying what He said. If I remind someone what God did on the cross, I could have the motivation of steering one on the right track, but this doesn't make what I have to say false, nor would it mean that I have a hidden meaning. Apparently, Gilmore hopes to make his readers question the clear statement of Genesis 20:11 if he makes them question God's motivation in the source, but this is the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, and it's deceptive.
Gilmore: Given the existence of two different reasons for the commemoration of the Sabbath, it is more than probable that the compilers [bold in the original] of the Pentateuch were more concerned with emphasizing the importance of commemorating the Sabbath, and as such, these words represent a later tradition.
Brian: This statement borders on heresy. Is he claiming that what was said in Exodus 20:11 was made up? It seems like it. Here, he assumes that God had "two different reasons for commemoration of the Sabbath" but offers no evidence of this, but rather Deut. 5 just mentions the reminder, but it doesn't claim that the Sabbath was done for this reason. What's worse is that Ex. 20:11 doesn't mention any "reminders" but does mention this reminder in v. 2. There is no "second reminder" listed in Ex. 20:11. This turns his statement into speculation which he is taking and assuming is fact, but has not demonstrated yet.
His reference to a "later tradition" and "compilers" is also more speculations. Although he doesn't specify, it seems he is assuming what is known as The Documentary Hypothesis, which is hypothesis containing to the authorship of the Pentateuch. However, most scholars have abandoned this view because it is highly speculative, and often ignores historical and cultural information. In addition to this, this view assumes that multiple names of God existed at different times, which no evidence exist that would show this to be true. It claims that four documents had existed at different times (the most popular version of the view, known as the four-source theory), and then was spliced together later by an unknown editor. However, there is no evidence for these documents, not even a hint of them in any historical source nor any archaeological inscription, nor any other evidences, has ever verified these alleged documents. Also, there is too much things within the Pentateuch that indicates that it was written during the 1400s by someone who had lived in Egypt. The earliest Jewish tradition, which is universal, said Moses wrote it. Someone writing during the intertestamental period would not have know the facts about Egypt that the writer knew.
Some theistic evolutionists, like Dr. William Lane Craig, takes this position or similar, but I don't think he would've taken it as far as this guy. He thinks by reference alternate motives he can make you question the clear reference of Ex. 20:11, opening the door to him speculating about this being a "later tradition", but this does no such thing. This is a statement that would require justification through evidence, but he hasn't provided any yet. Even if God had two different motives, of which he has not demonstrated yet, how would that question what God has said, or what the original writer had written? It doesn't. Gilmore's attempt at making everyone question the text has failed. He is going to need to provide some evidence soon. So far he has just assumed his conclusion, and made a lot of speculations.
Gilmore: Furthermore, if one pays close attention to the personal pronouns in Ex 20, it becomes apparent that there are three shifts from first person (God speaking) to third person (compiler adding explanatory notes) in verses 7, 11, and 12: [cites verses.]
Brian: Clearly, Gilmore lacks knowledge of ancient history. This is an ancient practice called illeism which one speaks of themselves in the third person, although they are clearly speaking of themselves. There are lots of examples, both in the Bible, and out of it, of people and writers speaking in the third person, although they are speaking of themselves. Jesus does it often in the Gospels. For example, Jesus said, "And Jesus said to him, 'Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head'" (Matt. 8:20, ESV). However, an even more explicit reference can be found in the Gospel of Mark (Mk. 14:61-64). In the first six chapters of the book of Daniel, Daniel refers to himself in the third person, but switches to first person perspective in 7:1 and then continue throughout the book in the same perspective. Paul even does it. In 2 Corinthians, Paul tells us:
I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses—though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor. 12:1-10, ESV, underline and bold added for emphasis).
Paul tells a story in the third person, although it is clearly Paul of which he is referring. He begins to identify the part of himself that cannot boast, but then goes to that of what he can boast in, namely, Christ. Also, it is not just biblical writers, and persons within the biblical narrative that did this, there is even historical examples outside of Scripture for this. For example, the Gallic Wars was written by Julius Caesar, of which he is the main character, but its entirely in the third person. Xenophon write a work called Anabasis which in Ana. 3:1 he refers to himself in the third person, and does so several other times within Anabasis (Ana. 4:1, 4:2, 5:1 and all throughout Anabasis). Thucydides changes from third person to first person in mid sentence after going halfway down his preference to The History of the Peloponnesian War (Thucid. History Pel. War, 1:1).
Gilmore is making the same faulty assumption as Bart Ehrman. The fact that something is written in the third person doesn't mean someone else wrote, nor does it mean that someone else is speaking for that person within the narrative. This is certainly the case more so with historical sources. What Gilmore is trying to do was insert a modern perception of how people speak back into the text, but this makes his argument historically unsound.
One of those last references, "(compiler adding explanatory notes) in verses 7, 11, and 12" seems to suggest that he is arguing that if someone is "adding notes" or "making commentary" then the reference is false, but this is not true. Even if that is the case, and it's not, this is still being recorded in the inspired, inerrant Word of God, so it would've been inspired of God any how, and placed as apart of what Scripture indicates as "God-breathed" (1 Tim. 3:16). So whether or not it is "commentary" when it comes down to the Word of God becomes irrelevant. As we should see Gilmore believes in "inspiration" but he seems, like everything else, to possess a faulty understanding of it.
Even if it was the case, it would not invalidate the text nor the context. John's Gospel often have interpretive paraphrases in it, and commentary on the narration of events, but it wouldn't invalidate those events. In fact, John does it so much that scholars dispute over where Jesus' words stop and John's commentary begins. An example of this is found in John chapter 3. However, in some cases John's commentary following Jesus' words is very clear, as is the case with Peter's martyrdom in Jn. 21:18-19. John's "commentary" on Peter's martyrdom is an inspired commentary, so his commentary does not invalidate what John has claimed nor take anything away from the text or the context. So, even if this is the case, and it's not, it couldn't be used against the passage the way that he is doing.
Gilmore: In all three passages, we see a switch from first person to third person, providing commentary on the perils of blasphemy, the reason for the Sabbath day, and the benefits accruing from obeying one's parents. None of these reflect the original words of God, but are additions to the text made by compilers, under inspiration.
Brian: Again, this was a common technique in the ancient world, and we often see "switches" like this from first person perspective to third person perspective, and vise versa. As I've said, we have examples of this both inside and outside the Bible. We see Jesus doing it a lot in the Gospels, and Daniel does it in the first six chapters of Daniel before switching to first person in Dan. 7:1 and continuing on in first person throughout the rest of the book. Paul even does this in 2 Cor. 12:1-10. Thucydides does third person perspective halfway down his preface for The History of the Peloponnesian War before switching to first person perspective in midsentence. Xenophon does it throughout Anabasis including in Anabasis 3.1. Julia Cesar does the entire Gallic Wars in the third person although he is the main character within the story. There is just lots of examples of this. Gilmore is showing himself unknowledgeable about history by assuming that God speaking of himself in the third person automatically invalidates God as the one actually talking. In that day illeism was so common place both the writer and the readers of the work would've had no doubt that it was God who was speaking. Even though we don't do this style of speaking and writing today, even today, most people have no doubt that it is God who is speaking.
Here, again, he claims that the text was made by "compilers" but offers us no evidence of this. His statement is nothing more than a speculation. He may assumed that this is the case, but where is his evidence for this? However, it gets worse. This is actually a double conjecture. Not only is he speculating about the text being "compiled" by others, but he is speculating about this text being compiled later on. Again, where is his evidence for this?
This last clause is a bit odd, and it may expose his faulty understanding of "inspiration." He admits he thinks this is an inspired text, but he thinks this passage was made up later by people compiling the text together. How can the text be both inspired of God and made up at the same time without accusing God of some kind of deception? He is treating the word "inspiration" as if he can argue against the veracity of the text without theological consequences, but this would not be the case, so his admission here makes little sense and exposes his lack of understanding of the doctrine of Inspiration.
Gilmore: It is surely worth noting that if God really wanted to declare that the physical creation took place in six literal days 6000 years ago, the text would have reflected an unambiguous first person declaration in both Ex 20 and Deut. 5. But we don't see that. Instead, we see a third person commentary in Ex 20:11, and nothing in Deut. 5.
Brian: Gilmore tries to psycho-analyze what he thinks God would do if he wanted to claim that the Earth was 6,000 years old. First, you cannot psycho-analyze what an omniscient being would do. It is hard enough to anticipate the actions of other human beings, let alone an all-powerful, all-knowing God would do. Secondly, this is a strawman argument. No one claims that Ex. 20:11 has God claiming the world was 6,000 years old. We have other passages for that, but it does claim that God created in six literal days. Thirdly, Gilmore is assuming that God would only speak in the first person, but this is ahistorical since God would've communicated in a way that the ancient world would've understood him, and they would've understood him in either first or third person perspective as God talking about himself. He is showing his lack of knowledge of history by keep claiming this argument.
The way in which Gilmore says that "we see a third person commentary" suggest that he thinks this, if the case, makes this untrue or untrustworthy, but as I have shown, that's not the case, or would Gilmore take the same hermeneutical stance with John in his Gospel? I doubt it. Also, lastly, he tries to argue from silence once more from Deut. 5. He is implying its lack of reference in Deut. 5 means God must've not said it, but this specious reasoning. Deut. 5 is a bit more compressed account, and Ex. 20:11 is trying to show justification for the work week, where Deut. 5 is not. There is no reason to expect it in Deut. 5.
Gilmore: This shift from first person to third person is also seen in Deuteronomy 5. In verse six, Moses begins by recalling the words of God: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." In fact, we see in Deut. 5 a shift from first person to third person at exactly the same places (warning against blaspheming the name of YHWH, reason for sabbath, and the need to honor parents) providing further evidence that the original words of God did not contain the aetiologias for these three points that Ex 20 and Deut. 5 provide: [Cites Deut. 5 again.]
Brian: Gilmore's argument is now self-refuting. First, he had argued that Ex. 20:11 statement about Creation must've been made up by a later tradition because God speaks in the third person, but now he admits the same references are in Deut. 5. We would expect Deut. to have a lot of the third and first person references since it is essentially a recap of the passages in Ex. 20 of the giving of the Ten Commandments, but on Deut. 5 God is not trying to make a justification for the work week like He is doing in Ex. 20:11. All someone would have to do is take this passage in context, moving back to v. 8, to see God is doing this. This is like someone arguing that the women must've not been among the witnesses of the Resurrection since 1 Cor. 15 do not mention them, and this even seems to basically follow the most significant Resurrection appearances of the Gospels and Acts!
Also, again, shifts between third person and first person, and vise versa, was commonplace in the ancient world. Gilmore is obviously continuing his ahistorical argument without ever bothering to check out this with other ancient sources, including ones in the Bible itself. Gilmore's argument is like one denying that Jesus said the statement, "the son of man has no place to lay his head" (Matt. 8:20) just because he was speaking in the third person.
Further more, he claims that these "switches" in perspectives provides evidence that the original words of God is lacking in the passage, but this is false. This does not provide evidence of this anymore than Jesus must've not spoken of Himself in the third person. This was so common place I know of no known examples where this happened and the person had to explain to his readers what he was doing. Everyone would've understood that it was God who was speaking. Also, it does not provide evidence that God must've not uttered the passage in Ex. 20:11 since God could've spoken of Himself in the third person. According to Ex. 31:18 and Deut. 9:10 these were etched on tablets of stone by the very "finger of God." So, this God speaking, even though at times he does so in the third person.
Furthermore, there are other cases of God clearly speaking of Himself in the third person in Scripture. There are several examples found in Deuteronomy. For example:
"Then we turned and journeyed into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea, as the Lord told me. And for many days we traveled around Mount Seir. Then the Lord said to me, ‘You have been traveling around this mountain country long enough. Turn northward and command the people, “You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful. Do not contend with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession. You shall purchase food from them with money, that you may eat, and you shall also buy water from them with money, that you may drink. For the Lord your God has blessed you in all the work of your hands. He knows your going through this great wilderness. These forty years the Lord your God has been with you. You have lacked nothing.”’ So we went on, away from our brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir, away from the Arabah road from Elath and Ezion-geber (Deut. 2:1-8, ESV, underline added for emphasis).
“And I commanded you at that time, saying, ‘The Lord your God has given you this land to possess. All your men of valor shall cross over armed before your brothers, the people of Israel. Only your wives, your little ones, and your livestock (I know that you have much livestock) shall remain in the cities that I have given you... (Deut. 3:18-19).
In the above one God switches from third person starting out to third person perspective. It is not just in Deuteronomy that God does this, but even in Exodus:
Three times in the year you shall keep a feast to me. You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. None shall appear before me empty-handed.16 You shall keep the Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor. Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God (Ex. 23:14-17, ESV, underline added for emphasis).
This would mean Gilmore is cherry picking. He doesn't seem to realize there a lot of examples of both God using a third person perspective, as well switching from first person perspective to third person perspective. This does not invalidate the words of God which are written by his own finger on tablets of stone.
Gilmore: In fact, given that the aetiology [sic] for the Sabbath is reported in Deut 5:14 as coming directly from Moses rather than an anonymous compiler (as is the case in Ex 20:11) one could make an excellent case that the explanation in Deut 5:15 has primacy.
Brian: Now Gilmore is trying to depict one verse against another. In exegesis, this is another hermeneutical no-no. Both verses are part of the Word of God so both texts are equally true, divinely inspired, and authoritative. One verse of the Bible does not hold more authority than another verse of the Bible. With that said, how would an earlier verse be less persuasive them a later verse? He claims that Ex. 20:11 is the result of a "later compiler" but now he's arguing in a circle. He is assuming that's the case whether than demonstrating it. He has no evidence of this, and produces no evidence of this. This is just him continuing his speculations as he moves forward.
Also, he's continuing his argument from silence of Deut. 5:14, but the absence of a passage in a recap doesn't prove that it wasn't said. In Acts 7 Stephen jumps around in Jewish history, but this doesn't prove that things that Stephen doesn't mentioned didn't happen. Deut. 5:15 does not hold "primacy" over Ex. 20:11 they have equal authority and weight, and are both true. However, Ex. 20:11 just gives us more information on what God had said. So far, despite his efforts and claims otherwise, he has not provided any actual justification for his assertions. He just keeps assuming his position whether than proving it.
Gilmore: Certainly, for those inclined to argue typologically, one could argue that we too were also 'slaves in the land of Egypt' until redeemed by Christ. A similar typological interpretation of Ex 20:11 is difficult at best to achieve.
Brian: Gilmore is making a another strawman argument. We don't hold to an interpretive framework that claims rigorousness of language. We understand that people will speak like people speak, and we understand that certain things stated does not always apply to us, but we don't think the Bible is some kind of hidden code that needs to be speculated about or puzzled over. If a text is straightforward, and is stating a fact, not isolated situational as it is in his above example, then we take the text for what it says, taking into account things like literary genre, context, language, word study, background, etc. However, what he is supposing is something far more than just not treat every Bible verse as if it was talking to you. Gilmore is proposing that one assumes another meaning, a hidden one, that is beyond what the text says, and outside of its obvious context. This is what we object.
It's possible he may be doing a red herring with this. The dispute is over the proper interpretation of Ex. 20:11, especially in relationship to Genesis 1. However, he made it sound as of we were arguing as if ever Bible verse was applied to us, but this is not the case.
Why does he think a "typology" is difficult to make work? The context of his statement sounds as if he is suggesting this because he thinks we are arguing in favor of the rigidness of language, but as I have pointed out, we are not. We do think this is a typology for the work week, which God uses the Creation week as a way of supporting the timeframe of the work week (work six days and rest one day). This is also supported by the context of Ex. 20:8-11). It is possible he conflated two different arguments, one of which we are not actually making. However, from here he seems to change the subject back to what he was originally arguing.
Well, that's all for now. We still have a descent way to go to finish off the article. So far, his arguments has fallacious, filled with factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and he seems to lack knowledge in historical sources and rhetoric. He seems to fail at every turn. So far, he has provided us any evidence, only assertions. We also have yet to see how he interprets Ex. 20:11, which he has not presented to us. If I am not mistaken, he will be trying to present his argument in this next sitting, and I will be evaluating his interpretation on this regard on my next post.
Comentários