Farrell made several errors in his reply to my article (TSR, Vol. 6, No. 3). Farrell said, "(H)e [Fox] arrived at no firm conclusions about what Deuteronomy 23:2 means." I certainly did arrive at a firm conclusion: "God is not unrighteous in that He does not have any *ex post facto* (retroactive) laws" (p. 2), and "(T)he argument set forth by Farrell Till is unsound. Perez was not a bastard, and all of Farrell's arguments on this matter are moot" (p. 3).
Farrell apparently belongs to the any-objection- will-do school. He claims that I "assert without proof," but I set forth simple and sound arguments to prove my case. It does not always take a book to set forth a sound argument. Farrell admitted that there are more than ten generations between Perez and David. Farrell said, "I'm going to surprise Mr. Fox and admit that if there actually was a person named Perez, who was born at the time claimed in Genesis 38:29, and if King David, who lived in the time claimed in the books of Samuel, was a direct descendant of this Perez, then there surely were more than just ten generations separating Perez and David" (TSR, Vol. 6, No, 3, p. 6). Farrell then retreats to his claim that "even to the tenth generation" means "forever." He retreats by making an accommodative argument: "For the sake of argument, we will concede them [those who argue that the ban ended with David, who was a 10th generation descendant of Perez] the quibble and then ask them to explain why the descendants of Aaron, the first high priest of Israel, were not banned from the assembly" ("No Bastards Allowed," TSR, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 12). Notice how Farrell slides from one objection to another when he cannot sustain his objection. Farrell says, "(S)o this article will focus only on the genealogy of David to show that Israel's most famous king..." (TSR, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 3) and then proceeds to ramble around and discuss Aaron (p. 4).
I am convinced that a rational person would read the Bible and discern that there are more than ten generations from Perez to David. The reader should be honest enough to ask, "Does the Bible use the word 'son' in a different way than we use it today?" I have been called "son" by my grandfather and did not think he was improperly using the word "son." This was a common usage in the Scriptures and is the obvious import of the genealogies. This is the kind of reasoning that Farrell might use to claim that Matthew thought Jesus was the son of David, in a literal sense (Matt. 1:1). It is obvious that the word "son" is used in a broader sense in the very context of the genealogies (Matt. 1:1, 20). The writer of Matthew does not have to tell the reader what is obvious (that Jesus is not the literal son of David, Matthew 1:1). Farrell probably accuses Matthew of equivocating (cf. TSR, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 6) when it is obvious that he used the word "son" to refer to a descendant (whether a son, grandson, etc.).
Farrell should remember that an analogy does not prove anything; it only illustrates. His analogy about John Jones (TSR, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 4) does not prove anything. Why not just get to the point instead of flaying about and diverting the issue from David and Aaron? The analogy used by Farrell causes problems for him. A legal analogy requires that the testimony of a witness be accepted unless it is shown that his claims CANNOT be true. He is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty. But Farrell does not allow the Bible to be right until it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be guilty of having errors.
My article was brief because I was taught to get to the point and say what you mean as briefly as possible. Farrell, being the editor, can ramble as much as he wants, but a good writer will get to the point and deal with the issue. Farrell, quit taking so many side excursions and deal with the issue. In scholarly journals, writers are required to be brief and get to the point. Farrell says, "Although this is technically off subject..." (TSR, Vol. 6., No. 3, p. 5) and admits to having a rambling style.
When Farrell responds to my syllogism (below), he says, "I wish Mr. Fox would tell us what skeptic he knows who would say that the first premise in this syllogism is true" (TSR, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 7).
Farrell used this argument in an accommodative sense in his reply to me. Farrell argued:
I certainly know that skeptics deny the integrity of the Bible.
Farrell misrepresents my position on how I know something is true. Farrell constructs the following syllogism and represents it as my position:
If this was my argument, I would be guilty of "begging the question" or assuming what I was required to prove. My basic argument is:
The conclusion of this syllogism is the basis for believing the first premise of Farrell's syllogism. Christians are required to prove the second premise.
I do not have to know all things to know some things are true. For example, I might sit on a jury and hear unimpeachable witnesses claim they saw a man kill another man, hear testimony from expert witnesses that his fingerprints were on the murder weapon, hear testimony from expert witnesses that some of his tissue was identified under the fingernails of the victim from DNA, and that some hair samples from the body of the victim were from the defendant. The defendant might claim to have been in jail at the time of the murder with the jail record showing that he was in jail but that the jailer had "bed check" two hours before the murder and two hours after the murder. Other jurors might ask me how he got out of jail and back into jail, and I reply, "I do not know, but the evidence is overwhelming that he is guilty." This is the same reason I do not have to know the answer to all objections to know that the Bible is the Word of God. The argument made by Farrell seemed reasonable until I considered it more closely. Perez was not a bastard, and the law of God is not retroactive. I sincerely doubt that he has properly interpreted the word "forever" in this passage but will not deal with this in this treatise.
I have given answers to all of Farrell's arguments that related to Deuteronomy 23:2 and the argument concerning David. I have not followed him on his ramblings. Farrell has committed all the errors I set forth in my first article, in the section entitled "Common Errors Made by Atheists and Agnostics."
(Marion R. Fox, 4004 Twisted Trail, Oklahoma City, OK 73150-
1910.)
