Restoring the Original Bible - by Ernest L. Martin

[Richard Amiel McGough]

First,
You have not refuted any of Martin's statements, except with your opinions to protect the "Bible Wheel".

That is not correct. I have refuted many statements that Martin made. For example, I have proven that Jerome did not introduce a "new and radical" placement of Paul before the catholic epistles. You have not refuted that fact, so my point stands. Why do you refuse to admit the obvious? I have repeated this fact a dozen times in our conversation, yet you continue to repeat the obvious falsehood that I have failed to refute "any of Martin's statements."

Furthermore, I have shown that many of Martin's statements have no foundation in fact. For example, Martin claimed that the order of the modern Tanakh was the "original" order. I have shown that there is no evidence for that, and that it contradicts ALL the evidence we have for the precise order of the Tanakh. You have not refuted these facts, so my claim stands.

Second, you have not and cannot refute yet Paul's statement of who is the keeper of the Oracles.

What is there to refute? Paul did not say a single word about the Jews having the authority to establish the order of the books. And besides that, you and Martin contradict yourselves when you first claim that the Jews have the sole authority to determine the Scriptures and then you reject their judgment that their Tanakh has 24 books. I have repeated this point a dozen times, and you have never refuted it, so my point continues to stand as tall and true as it was the first time I stated it.

As long as you hold on to the LXx you hold on to a claim totally opposite to the statement of Paul.

That is an absurd statement. Paul quoted the LXX!!! This is common knowledge amongst all biblical scholars.

You have not, and will not, and cannot, agree to the basic statements I started on what books we can agree on.

Which statements are those? If you want to discuss something, it would be best if you stated precisely what it is you want to discuss.

The reason you you cannot and will not agree to them is because you know that if you do, then the next step and the next after that will lead to the conclusion that the only thing left is Martin's statement that Joshua and Judges were one book.

That is not correct. There are many other aspects of Martin's modern order that are not substantiated by the historical record. The oldest existing copy of a complete Tanakh has MANY differences from the order that Martin prefered.

Here is the bottom line: I have PROVEN that the precise pattern of Martin's modern order has ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL WITNESS!!! There is not a single known record anywhere on planet Earth that exactly matches the pattern that Martin invented. NOT ONE. The closest is the modern Jewish Tanakh, but even that does not match because he counts the books in a way that the Jews never did. Therefore, I have PROVEN that his claim to having "restored" the "original" order has absolutely no basis in fact. This is the truth that you need to refute if you want to maintain that Martin is correct.

You cannot afford to agree on a step by step basis, and because you hang on to the totally pagan order of the books, and NOT the order or number of 22, to which many "Fathers" admitted to, including Jerome. And you have NOT refuted Josephus who described the books as 22, admitted to by Jerome and others. You cannot afford to admit to those statements, and try, as the critics who do not believe the Scriptures, try, to offer some modern psychological reason for the number 24, which as Martin states, are only guesses.

Yes, we all know that there are many ancient statements about the Jews having 22 books. But what is the ORDER and the CONTENT of those 22 books? There is not a single historical record that matches Martin's precise pattern. Not one. This means that Martin's entire book has absolutely no foundation in historical fact. I have utterly refuted his book, and you have not found any error in my refutation as yet.

Prove Paul wrong and you can win the whole tamale. But, my friend, you cannot unless you reject the Scriptures for a manmade guess.

First, it doesn't matter if Paul meant what you think he meant because if that's what he meant then you are wrong about the 24 books not being 24 books as stated by the "keepers of the oracles." But that's a moot point since Paul didn't mean what you think he meant anyway.

Sorry, but you stand only on your opinion which is a guess based on the guesses of modern day critics who are only guessing also.

The history is clear.

You are absolutely correct that "history is clear." History is PERFECT CLEAR that there is not a SINGLE RECORD of any Bible that followed the precise pattern that Martin claimed to be the "original" order. NOT ONE. Don't you get it? THERE IS NOT A SINGLE HISTORICAL RECORD prior to the middle ages that supports the precise order of books that Martin claimed to be the original order, and not a single known record from any point of history on this planet that matches his unique way of counting them! NOT ONE! And not only that, but the best records that we do have directly contradict his claims! Both coming and going, Martin is refuted by the historical record. How many times do I have to repeat this FACT before you will admit to the truth? What is stopping you from receiving the plain truth?

Prove Paul wrong, then we can go on to agree with other manmade opinions.

I don't need to "prove Paul wrong" because Paul wasn't wrong. It is your interpretation of Paul that is wrong. Paul said NOTHING about any "authority" of the UNBELIEVING JEWS over the order of the books of God's Word. It seems to me that such a suggestion is manifestly absurd on multiple levels. But if you really think it has some merit, then you should have no problem quoting two or three unbiased scholars who would agree with Martin's idea that unbelieving Jews are the "keepers of the Oracles" and that they have the AUTHORITY to declare the proper order (thought strangely, not the correct number) of the books in the Old Testament.

As far as I can tell, the four fundamental errors that I have exposed in Martin's work remain unrefuted. If you disagree, please state your refutation with precision.

Good chatting student.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

By the way, you also have not clarified or answered the question about the fact that the Messiah showed clearly that the OT was in THREE sections, which you seem to reject, and that He made statements that clearly show which of the sections were first middle and last, and that the LAST book of the OT was chronicles, not Malachi.

That is false. I wrote an article about that, and gave you the link. It appears you didn't bother to read it. Here it is again.

The Christian OT and the Jewish Tanakh

Note also that I have NEVER said that I "reject" the threefold division of the Jewish Tanakh. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated that the evidence suggests that there were two competing orders of the OT amongst the first century Jews that are the source of the two orders we have today. And I gave quotes from modern scholars who support this understanding. I explained all this in previous posts. Didn't you read them?

Also, you have not substantiated the false assumption that the story of Elijah "proves" the LXX order, which is definitely does not.

What is there to "substantiate"? You never attempted any refutation of my argument. All you said was "that's a big stretch" which is nothing but an empty assertion.

The internal evidence destroys your opinions, you know.

That is absurd. I have proven that the internal evidence proves the Chrisitan order, and you have never even attempted to refute my proof. Therefore, my proof stands.

And, his research in this case, is quite accurate in spite of critics who don't wish to look at the situation from a "non-predisposition" toward pagan orders and numbering of the books.

That is not correct. I have proven him wrong on many points, and you have not successfully refuted my criticism as yet.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I was researching other reviews of other books by Martin and found that folks made essentially identical observations as those I made in my review. Here is an example of a review of Martin's "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot":

These seemingly irrational statements, offered without supporting archeological evidence of any kind, are repeated throughout the book. With these few words, Martin sweeps away the life work of archeologists who have spent their entire professional careers studying precisely those remains that he claims not to exist in the city of Jerusalem, or even the area around it. Entire books, filled with beautiful photographic illustrations that meticulously document the discoveries of Second Temple Jerusalem, Martin proclaims for naught. Wiped out by his statements are the poignant discovery of the Burnt House, the elegant Herodian Quarter with its stately mansions, the impressive Hippicus Tower (still standing to a height of about 50 feet), the foundations of the Western City Wall (the so-called First Wall), the Essene Gate, the Third Wall (on the north side of the city), the Struthion Pool, the Sheep Pools of Bezetha, the splendid aqueducts that brought water into the city, and a multitude of other discoveries that are seen every day by the thousands of tourists that visit the city. For most knowledgeable readers, and certainly for those who have ever visited Jerusalem, such preposterous claims will be the end of the story, and Martin's book closed for good.

For comparison, here are some comments from my review of his book "Restoring the Original Bible" which remain unrefuted:

Given the overwhelming evidence that the actual historical documents exhibit nothing like the uniform sequence that Martin suggested in his second paragraph, we could wonder if he was simply ignorant of the evidence, or if perhaps his zeal had caused him to accidentally overstate his case in that one instance. Unfortunately, neither provides a viable solution to the enigma of his error. We know he did not "accidentally" overstate his case because the thesis of his entire book is that the order he advocates is the one and only "proper manuscript order." Indeed, he uses the phrase "proper manuscript order" or its equivalent ten times in chapter one to refer to his prefered sequence.

After reading more of Martin's writings, I have found many examples of similar unfounded assertions that are simply stated as fact. It seems to me that this fundamental error is ubiquitous throughout his written works.

Richard

[student1]

This is utter nonsense:

RAM said: First, it doesn't matter if Paul meant what you think he meant because if that's what he meant then you are wrong about the 24 books not being 24 books as stated by the "keepers of the oracles." But that's a moot point since Paul didn't mean what you think he meant anyway."

You seem to have real trouble RAM with the fact that Martin argues that the ORIGINAL number, and oldest statement was 22 books set way before your medieval claim for the 24 books.

The canon was not set by the Jews that late. Martin is talking about the original canon of 22 books set before the first century. I know you can't get that.

It is also utter nonsense to deny what Paul wrote about the Jews and the Oracles. Your attempt to take my paraphrase as "keepers" as your excuse is typical. What did Paul say? Well, it reads like this:

"What pre-eminence or advantage is there therefore which the Jew possesses? Or, what profit is there in circumcision? Much every way, for, first of all, because they were entrusted with the divine utterances of God." Wuest

"Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." KJV They were not committed or entrusted to anyone else.

"3:2 'Chiefly' is proton, 'first'. 'Polu 'much' points back to perisson. So it means that the overplus of the Jew is much from every angle' (Robertson). Paul does not enumerate more. He has given the chief vantage which the Jew enjoyed over the Gentiles. God had made him the depository of His oracles. 'Oracles' is logia, defined by Denney as 'the contents of the revelation having God as their author.' At the time Paul was writing, these comprised the Old Testament." Romans in the Gk NT.

"who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" Acts 7:35

Nowhere is there any other Scripture showing the church was given the oracles, or committed to it, or made it the depository of the OT period.

Your argument to the contrary is false.

Frankly, your continued false argument over not accepting the 24 shows clearly you do not know at all what Martin says about this, and thus you have not read his book closely as you claim, or you would understand exactly why he does not teach the original order and approved order was 24. It was 22. A simple analogy would be simply this, the State of Maine wrote in its law that 25 miles per hour was the speed limit. And, then later a state legislator is stopped by the trooper for speeding, but the legislator says, hey, wait a minute I'm a "lawmaker" and I say the speed limit is 27 miles an hour. This is the same thing you are talking about when you try to claim that Martin and I don't follow the Jews and Paul when the claim is that the Jews changed to 24 books. The canon of Ezra, etc. was official at 22. The 24 simply is not.

As to posting everything from the web I've mentioned? Why should I do all the work for everyone. When I do that, then it is not the discovery of the reader. When they do their homework and find out themselves then it is their baby, not mine.

Just google Jerome folks and you can find the whole thing for yourselves. And, you will find, for one thing, that Jerome's Vulgate was not even accepted at the time he did it, and that that came much later, much later. His peers knew that. It was the later generation who accepted him in order to defend their position against the other translations coming along.

[student1]

Here is Dr. Martin's original outline before writing the book. I think it gives a good look at what he really taught and why.

Dr. Martin's main belief is that the Bible itself gives us the history and points of its canonization. This is a part of the picture that the modern critics do not look at because in reality they do not put much stock in the accuracy of the Book and must rely on their human reasoning. Anyone reading Dr. Martin's book closely will find that he relies on the Scriptures first, which should be the proper process in understanding this question of canonization.

Anyway, if you want to look at the outline and download it here is the link:

http://64prn.org/category/asides/

You will find also, that Dr. Martin does not make his work into a condemnation of others if they don't agree. Or, even if they do, he believed that the information only supported the veracity of the Scriptures that much more, and those who believe in the Scriptures.

Have fun and enjoy the outline. If given honest and close attention I think many of RAM's arguments will be found to not be such after all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This is utter nonsense:

RAM said: First, it doesn't matter if Paul meant what you think he meant because if that's what he meant then you are wrong about the 24 books not being 24 books as stated by the "keepers of the oracles." But that's a moot point since Paul didn't mean what you think he meant anyway."

You seem to have real trouble RAM with the fact that Martin argues that the ORIGINAL number, and oldest statement was 22 books set way before your medieval claim for the 24 books.

Hey there student,

You continue to miss the point. I have never denied that the original OT could have had 22 books, though there is strong evidence that it actually had 24 and that the Jews attempted to force-fit it into the alphabetic pattern. But that's not the point. The point is that nobody knows the exact order and/or content of those "22 books" because history has not preserved a record for us. All the existing records conflict with each other, so all responsible scholars ackowledge that we simply do not know the "original" order, or if there even was one. This is common knowledge amongst all canonical scholars, and this is one of Martin's most fundamental errors. He asserted that the order of the "original" 22 books was exactly identical to the order of the 24 books of the modern Tanakh. There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion, and there is much evidence to contradict it. I have repeatedly posted the evidence, and you have yet to address it, let alone refute it.

The canon was not set by the Jews that late. Martin is talking about the original canon of 22 books set before the first century. I know you can't get that.

I have no trouble "getting that." I know that Martin CLAIMED that the canon of 22 books was set by the Jews very early. And I also know that he failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support that claim. And I also know that all the existing verifiable evidence contradicts his claim. If you want to press this point you will need to do what Martin never did, namely, provide EVIDENCE for the exact order of the "original" 22 book canon. Why don't you do that? If it is the truth, you should have no trouble proving it, right?

Frankly, your continued false argument over not accepting the 24 shows clearly you do not know at all what Martin says about this, and thus you have not read his book closely as you claim, or you would understand exactly why he does not teach the original order and approved order was 24. It was 22. A simple analogy would be simply this, the State of Maine wrote in its law that 25 miles per hour was the speed limit. And, then later a state legislator is stopped by the trooper for speeding, but the legislator says, hey, wait a minute I'm a "lawmaker" and I say the speed limit is 27 miles an hour. This is the same thing you are talking about when you try to claim that Martin and I don't follow the Jews and Paul when the claim is that the Jews changed to 24 books. The canon of Ezra, etc. was official at 22. The 24 simply is not.

I understand your analogy, but you have not provided any evidence that there ever was such a group of "authorized Jews" who had the sole authority to "canonize" the Old Testament, and even assuming such a group existed, you have never produced any evidence that they canonized the "original" OT in the exact form of the modern 24 book Tanakh while counting it as 22 books. Neither have you given any evidence that the modern Jews have lost that authority to justify Martin's rejection of their 24 book canon. There are HUGE holes in your defense of Martin. Until you fill them, Martin's book will remain utterly refuted by the facts that I have presented.

As to posting everything from the web I've mentioned? Why should I do all the work for everyone. When I do that, then it is not the discovery of the reader. When they do their homework and find out themselves then it is their baby, not mine.

That's a pretty lame (and transparent) excuse for not presenting the evidence required to support your case. And I've never asked you to post "everything from the web" that you have mentioned. I've asked for SPECIFIC EVIDENCE and you have not provided it. And I know why you have not. The evidence that you need to support your case simply does not exist. Martin invented a huge amount of unsupportable claims. That's the simple truth. I've already proven it many times over, and as far as I know, you have not yet successfully refuted any one of my statements of his errors.


Richard

[student1]

In case anyone failed to notice the new Bible in the correct order is now being advertised in the Biblical Archeological Review. Check the current issue on page 5.
It was/is being advertised in the Washington Post.

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In case anyone failed to notice the new Bible in the correct order is now being advertised in the Biblical Archeological Review. Check the current issue on page 5.
It was/is being advertised in the Washington Post.

Bob

Hi Bob,

It is good to hear from you. Do you have any links to the ads?

Richard

[student1]

No, as far as I can tell there are no online links to the ads. But, if you visit Border's or Barne's and Nobles you should be able to find the current Jan/Feb copy of the BAR, Biblical Archeology Review. The full color ad is on page 5.

I haven't looked at the Washington Post so don't know which issues the ads are in.

Bob

[student1]

No, as far as I can tell there are no online links to the ads. But, if you visit Border's or Barne's and Nobles you should be able to find the current Jan/Feb copy of the BAR, Biblical Archeology Review. The full color ad is on page 5.

I haven't looked at the Washington Post so don't know which issues the ads are in.

Bob

Oops, sorry, it wasn't the Post but the Washington Times.