Monday, March 17, 2014

Exegesis Avoids Abusing Scripture

In his typical tunnel-vision fashion, Alex Haiken, a Jewish homosexual who mistakenly thinks himself to be a Christian, sent me the following quote:
“Exegesis does not take a quote from the Bible to prove the Bible. It scientifically scrutinizes the text according to historical context, cultural context, literary context and usage, multiple languages that might have been used, archeological finds, etc. A good way to support your thesis is to ignore all evidence to the contrary.”
—Manfred T. Brauch, Abusing Scripture: The
Consequences of Misreading the Bible
, 293
Once again, Alex is talking the talk without walking the walk. He quotes all these people with regard to exegesis but fails to apply what he reads to his own work. He is continuously guilty of doing the very thing his quotes inform him not to do. To make our case, we will examine Alex's eisegetical interpretation of both Leviticus passages once again. Alex asserts that these passages have to do with religious idolatry or cult prostitution.
Leviticus 18
Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that uncovering the nakedness of your father or your mother (18:7), of your father's wife (18:8), of your sister (18:9), of your son's daughter (18:10), of your father's wife's daughter (18:11), of your father's sister (18:12), of your mother's sister (18:13), of your father's brother (18:14), of your daughter-in-law (18:15), of your brother's wife (18:16), or any other blood relatives (18:17) has anything to do with religious idolatry or cult prostitution? Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that having intimacy with a woman during her menstrual cycle (18:19) or having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20) has anything to do with religious idolatry or cult prostitution? Alex would do well to try and retain the context. The only verse that has anything to do with the practices of religious idolatry is verse 21, which is borne out through the entirety of Scripture. The heathen nations would sacrifice their children to their various gods. Nothing else in this chapter has to do with idolatrous practices, nor with cult prostitution.

By what great exegetical miracle does Alex expect to convince us that having sex with animals was religious idolatry (18:23)? People were doing it when God decided to flood the world, and they are still doing it today without the slightest trace of religion attached to it. The passage does not connect it with idolatrous practice whatsoever. It condemns it entirely, just as it does with homosexual behaviour (18:22). If Alex paid close attention to verse 21, he would notice that "nor shall you profane the name of your God" has nothing to do with practices of religious idolatry or cult prostitution either. This is the third commandment reiterated. It is not connected with the first half of verse 21. Alex would do well to be reminded that the chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the original Hebrew and Greek. He should try and remember that when considering what context truly is and what it consists of.

Leviticus 20
If Alex paid attention to the context, he would see that the verses speaking of the practices of religious idolatry again address child sacrifice (20:2-5). None of the rest of this chapter has anything to do with religious idolatry or cult prostitution. A person could try and argue that verse 6 does, but he/she would be in error. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that cursing one's father or mother (20:9), or committing adultery with another man's wife (20:10), or lying with one's father's wife (20:11), or lying with one's daughter-in-law (20:12), or marrying a woman and her mother (20:14), or having sex with an animal (20:15-16), or discovering one's sister's nakedness (20:17), or having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle (20:18), etc., etc., etc., has anything to do with religious idolatry or cult prostitution? Alex is reaching yet again, as all the evidence is against him.
You see, dear Reader, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have nothing to do with religious idolatry or cult prostitution. Alex is reading this into the text, which is called eisegesis. Everything in these chapters are prohibitions set by God. The behaviour of homosexuality is prohibited by God and condemned as an abominable perversion of both human and sexual nature. So as you can see, dear Reader, Alex manipulates, maligns, and twists these passages to say what he wants them to say, when a clear study of the context reveals otherwise. So, once again, Alex Haiken provides a quote that supports my position and condemns his own.