This explanation of the problem posed by Genesis 38 and the age of Joseph (revealed elsewhere in the book of Genesis) takes no note of the *very first statement* in Genesis 38: "It came to pass at THAT time that Judah departed from his brothers...." (Then the story of Judah's marriage to the Canaanite woman, the birth of their children, the incidents involving Tamar, etc. follow.) My article pointed out that "it came to pass at THAT time" is a transitional marker of time; it dates the beginning of the events. Since the selling of Joseph into Egypt was the event that finished Chapter 37, the "that time" referred to in the beginning of the next chapter would necessarily be the time that Joseph's brothers sold him into Egypt. If not, let Schmehl explain why not. Furthermore, it Schmehl could somehow establish that he is right and that Genesis 38 is an example of "Parecbasis or Digression," this would leave the problem of why an omniscient, omnipotent deity would have verbally inspired the Genesis writer to "digress" in a way that leaves readers with the impression that he is writing chronologically.
Perhaps Schmehl would like to address that problem too.
Paul Schmehl said that <<The events recorded in Genesis 38 are in a figure of speech called a Parecbasis or Digression. It is a temporary turning aside from the main story to address another subject,>> but he gave no evidence of that aside from his mere assertion and a quotation from a book published by Baker House. (We can imagine what position a book by this publisher could be expected to take on the inerrancy issue.) I would like to see Schmehl defend his assertion against the transitional marker of time that I discussed above.
I am sending Schmehl a copy of this post to request his attention to the matter. I would also ask him to explain how that the following statement he made would prove anything about whether my position in this matter is true or erroneous.
<<The title alone [*The Skeptical Review*] tells you all you need to know about this gentleman. What kind of a person would devote their life to "proving" the Bible was wrong?>>
I gave detailed reasons for my position. Schmehl simply swept them aside with one stroke of his broom. Is this how he treats all alleged Bible contradictions that he invites people to send to him? If so, why bother? All he is going to do is just say, "Hey, it ain't so!" Now if he will promise responses that go into as much detail in rebutting as mine will in affirming contradiction, I will be happy to send him several examples of contradiction.
As for his question about "(w)hat kind of a person would devote their [sic] life to 'proving' the Bible was wrong," the answer is this: "Someone who is interested in helping people see that they have been sold a bill of goods in this claim of the Bible being the inspired word of God." So I will turn the question back on him. Since the Bible is a book that presents a primitive, barbaric, bloody, superstitious view of God that was believed by a bunch of prescientific desert nomads who believed that the creator of the universe lived in a tent that they carried around with them, what kind of person would devote his life to defending their rantings as the "word of God"?
Farrell Till, Editor The Skeptical Review