Contrary to David Barton in an appearance on an episode of Kenneth Copeland's broadcast, it does not necessarily follow that, because an idea cannot be linguistically expressed in Hebrew, it is not conceptually valid.
For example, Barton went on to insist that the concept of adolescence does not exist because it cannot be articulated in Biblical Hebrew.
In that culture, one was considered an adult around 13 or 14 years of age deemed ready to assume the status as such.
The increasing number of ministers that cannot seem to keep their hands of the underaged are going to love that little nugget of supposed exegesis.
In terms of that philosophical highpoint, Barton's loosening grip on reality becomes even more tenuous.
According to Barton, the concept of rights do not exist in Hebrew.
He insinuates that these ought to be downplayed in the American system with responsibilities instead emphasized.
So when SWAT teams begin raiding churches for failing to solemnize gay marriages, on what grounds does he raise a fuss in defense of those punished for non-compliance?
Do some of these professional religionists contemplate the implications of what they articulate or do they simply spew that which postures them in the most pious light possible?
By Frederick Meekins