Dave Bartosiewicz and his wife posted a new video on the Stick of Joseph:
I actually agree with Dave that Ezek 37 is not about the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I have written about this elsewhere:
They do make a number of mistakes, as always, showing their lack of exegetical abilities. For instance, they repeat the argument that the "sticks" in Ezek 37 are not written records but just "wood." Such an argument is without meaningful support.
Some scholars think עֵץ alludes to “sceptre” in line with the LXX rendering ραβδος (“stick”) which can refer to a sceptre (e.g., Allen 2:193; cf. Zimmerli 2:273). The Hebrew word however also allows for the Targum interpretation as “tablet” (לוחא) The allusion would also be more obvious had a different word been used, such as מַטֶּה as in 7:10, 11; 19:11, 12, 14 (2x) (cf. Num. 17:17ff), or שֵׁבֶט as in 19:11, 14; 20:37 and 21:15, 18 (cf. Gen 49:10) which would make a nice play of words with “tribes of Israel” in 37:19, or מַקֵּל as in 39:9 (cf. Zech. 11:7). Furthermore, the sign act is easier to picture with two tablets rather than two sticks (cf. Maarsingh 3:88). J.W. Mazurel argues that עֵץ in 37:15ff was chosen in view of עֲצָמוֹ in 37:1-14, see “Het Woord עֵץ in Ezechiel 37:16-20,” Amserdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie 12 (1993): 116-21. (Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel [Leiden: Brill: 1999], 114 n. 138)
For a well-thought out article arguing in favour of the traditional interpretation of Ezek 37, see Ronnie Bray’s article, “'Take Thee a Stick': A Consideration of what 'stick' means in this context'"
Premise A: LDS often appeal to Ezek 37 to support the Book of Mormon
Premise B: Ezek 37, in its historical-grammatical context, is not about the Book of Mormon
Conclusion: The Book of Mormon is false.
Anyone wish even a modicum of logical training will see that such is nonsensical. Additionally, if (heaven forbid!) they were consistent, one would have to jettison much of the New Testament in lights of its Old Testament. For instance, in Matt 2:15, we read the following:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
However, when one examines the text Matthew quotes from (Hos 11:1), we find that, contextually, it is not a prophecy about the Messiah and his family, but is about the nation of Israel and how Yahweh rescued them from Egyptian bondage:
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. (Hos 11:1-2)
Evangelical scholar, Robert Gundry, offered the following commentary on Matthew’s use of Hos 11:1:
The formula of fulfillment introducing the quotation from Hos 11:1 reads exactly as 1:22b . . . The preceding mention of Egypt has united with “Son of God” and “Son of the Highest” in the tradition of Jesus’ nativity (Luke 1:32, 35) and with Matthew’s own interest in Jesus’ divine sonship . . . to suggest the statement in Hos 11:1. There, the Lord addresses the nation of Israel as his son. The multiplicity of parallels drawn between the history of Israel and the life of Jesus suggests that Matthew saw that history as both recapitulated and anticipated in the “king of the Jews”; like Israel in the messianic age Jesus receives homage from the Gentiles (2:11); as a son he, like Israel, receives God’s fatherly protection in Egypt (2:15); his oppression brings sorrow as the oppression of Israel brought sorrow (2:17-18); like Israel he is tempted in the wilderness (4:1-10). The messianic reference preceding the statement “God brought him [the Messiah] out of Egypt” in Num 24:7-8 LXX may also have facilitated quotation of the similar statement in Hos 11:1, for Matthew has recently used Numbers 24. (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 33-34)
Even when he is (somewhat) right, Dave proves how utterly ignorant of exegesis and theology he is. For more responses to Dave, see:
Responses to Dave Bartosiewicz
