TILL 12/3
What is ambiguous about a statement that says, "And Amram took him Jochebed,
his father's sister to wife, and she bare him Aaron and Moses" (Ex. 6:20)?
Principles of hermeneutics and literary interpretation state that the
language of a text should be interpreted literally unless there are
compelling reasons to assign figurative meaning. So what compelling reasons
are there in this statement to assign figurative meaning? There are none,
and so application of sound hermeneutics will require a reader to understand
that (1) Amram took a wife, (2) his wife's name was Jochebed, (3) Jochebed
was his father's sister, (4) number 3 would have made Jochebed Amram's aunt,
(5) Jochebed bore to Amram Aaron and Moses, (6) if Jochebed was the sister
of Amram's father, then she was a female, . and (7) if she bore children to
Amram, then Amram was the father of those children. Hence, Amram was the
literal father of Aaron and Moses, and Jochebed was the literal mother of
Aaron and Moses. Please point out specifically what there is in the text of
this statement that would indicate that any of the seven points of
interpretation above are incorrect.
This interpretation of Exodus 6:20 is reinforced all the more when compared
to Numbers 26:59, which says, "And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed,
the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt, and she bore unto him
Aaron and Moses, and Miriam his sister." This information meshes perfectly
with Exodus 6:20 and also supplies an additional fact: Jochebed was the
daughter of Levi. The statement that Jochebed was the daughter of Levi
confirms the statement in Exodus 6:20, which says that Amram married
Jochebed, HIS FATHER'S SISTER. Exodus 6:18 says that the sons of Kohath
were Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, so the principle of hermeneutics
under discussion requires a reader to understand that Kohath was the literal
father of Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, unless there are compelling
reasons to assign figurative meaning to the word "sons." Is there a
compelling reason to do this? To the contrary, there are compelling reasons
NOT to assign figurative meaning. All relevant texts indicate that the word
"sons" was being used literally, because (1) Levi was the father of Kohath
[Ex. 6:16], (2) Kohath was the father of Amram [v:18], and (3) Jochebed was
the sister of Amram's father [v:20]. So if Jochebed was the sister of
Amram's father, then (A) she was the sister of Kohath, who was Amram's
father, and (B) she would have had to be the daughter of Levi, who was the
father of Kohath, in order to be the sister of Amram's father [Kohath]. So
the statement in Numbers 26:59 that Jochebed was the daughter of Levi
harmonizes perfectly with the statement in Exodus 6:20 that Amram married
the sister of his father. I have let scripture interpret scripture without
asking anyone to stretch imagination.
To reach any other conclusion would require one to argue that a whole string
of figurative expressions exist in the Exodus 6 and Numbers 26 text. Words
like "sons," "father," "sister," "daughter," and "bore" would all have to
have figurative meanings in order for Matthew's position to be correct. But
what are the compelling reasons to assign figurative meanings to any of
these terms? There are none, because it is never literarily legitimate for
one to assign figurative meaning to a text just to make it mean what one
wants it to mean. In other words, the desire to have inerrancy in the Bible
is not a compelling reason to assign figurative meanings to words when there
is nothing in the context to indicate that figurative meaning was intended.
MATTHEW
Only reviewing the context can a determination be made concerning the
immediacy of relationships,
TILL 11/3
By all means, Matthew. I'm glad to see you finally agreeing to what I have
been saying all along. I have repeatedly (the last time just above)
analyzed the context of Exodus 6 and Numbers 26 to show that the context
requires readers to understand that biblical writers thought that (1) Levi
was the literal father of Kohath, (2) Kohath was the literal father of
Amram, (3) Amram married a woman named Jochebed, (4) this woman Jochebed was
the sister of Amram's father, hence, (5) she was the sister of Kohath,
hence, (6) she was the daughter of Levi, and (7) she bore or gave birth to
Aaron and Moses.
Now this is an analysis of the context. Let's see you analyze it to show
that there are compelling reasons not to understand that "sons," "father,"
"sister," "daughter," and "bore" were intended literally.
MATTHEW
and even then it is only an interpretation.
TILL
Of course, it is a matter of interpretation, Matthew. The explanation of
any written statement is a matter of interpretation. Any statement spoken
or written must be interpreted in order to be understood. Every person,
each day of his/her life, is confronted with hundreds of statements (spoken
or written) that have to be interpreted. There is no such thing as a
statement that is not subject to interpretation. People, however, have
developed recognized guidelines by which they make interpretations;
otherwise, nobody would be able to communicate anything. I have presented
to you a recognized guideline by which statements should be interpreted, and
I have analyzed Exodus 6 and Numbers 26 to show that concluding that
Jochebed was literally Aaron's and Moses' mother is necessitated by that
guideline. Your task is not to say arbitrarily that I haven't proven
anything but to show exactly where my application of the guideline has erred.
>MATTHEW 12/1
> I want those attacking the arguments that I
>>present to at least have to consider what they write, as they know that I
>>will expose them if they go too far.
>
>TILL 12/2
>Well, I don't know about the others on the list, but I'm very glad to know
>that Matthew will "expose" us if we attack the arguments that he presents.
>(I can't resist asking, "What arguments?") Now if this is a new leaf he has
>turned over, perhaps he will take the Uzziel-Jochebed matters and "expose"
>the errors in my reasoning there and show us just a little bit more than an
>arbitrary assertion that the arguments don't prove anything.
>
>Matthew 12/3
>I have answered this endlessly, showing the flaw in the argument since
>Jochebed cannot be proved to be Moses physical mother and by showing other
>data that the Ex. 6 genealogies have missing generations in them.
TILL 12/3
No, Matthew, that is precisely what you have NOT done. You have an
opportunity to show the flaw in my argument, because I have laid it before
you again (above). You have the chance to rip it apart and show the
fallacies in my interpretation methods. Will you accept the challenge to do it?
As for your "showing other data that [proves] that the Exodus 6 genalogies
having missing generations in them," you have done no such thing. You have
simply cited the census of Amramites, Uzzielites, Izharites, and Hebronites
in Numbers as "proof" that generations were skipped in Exodus 6, but here is
the fallacy in your reasoning. And please notice that I am not just going
to declare arbitrarily that there is a fallacy in your reasoning; I am going
to show exactly what that fallacy is. You are arguing from an assumption
that the entire Bible is inerrant, so you assume that whatever was said in
Exodus 6 and whatever was said in Numbers 3 must both be inerrant. Thus,
when you read in Numbers 3:28 that there were 8,600 Kohathites distributed
among the Amramites, Uzzielites, Izharites, and Hebronites, you assume that
this statement has to be correct, and from that assumption, you assume that
generations must have been skipped in the Exodus 6 genealogy, because just 3
generations would not have been enough time for four men to have had 8,600
direct descendants. You refuse even to consider the possibility that
whoever wrote this text, whom scholars are sure was a different person from
the author of the Exodus-6 genealogy, was simply unaware of the
chronological problem, and so he gave a census count here that was simply
inconsistent with the information in the Exodus-6 genealogy. Or you refuse
to acknowledge the possibility that the writer of Exodus 6 honestly thought
that Aaron and Moses were the grandsons of Kohath but was just mistaken, and
so he put a chronological discrepancy into the biblical text. So rather
than the Kohathite census in Numbers 3 confirming your position, it merely
poses another problem that inerrantists need to explain. Why would one
writer say something in Numbers 3 that so obviously contradicts very clear
language in the book of Exodus?
There is much more that I could say on this point, and if you insist I will.
However, you have complained about "convoluted arguments," so I will stop
here on this point. However, if you like, I could show you how that 8,600
Kohathites would have been numerically possible AND consistent with the
genealogy in Exodus 6. Hint: please notice that Aaron and Moses actually
appear in the middle of the genealogy, which extends on for other
generations. Hint: Aaron was 84 and Moses 80 (Ex. 7:7) at the time of the
exodus. How many generations younger than they could have existed at this
time in the lineage of Kohath. Hint: Numbers 3 gives no indication of the
ages of the 8,600 Kohathites.
Other comments from Matthew are being snipped, because this posting is
already too long.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net