While I realize that Baptists traditionally have cherished the right to interpret the Bible according to what they perceive as the leading of the Holy Spirit, from time to time issues of questionable interpretation or exegesis come up which make me wonder. On a now-closed thread, Michelle replied (thank you!) to a demand that she provide an explanation regarding the apparent contradiction concerning the number of Gerasene/Gadarene/Gergesene demoniacs. I commend Michelle for giving her explanation, but it does raise issues of interpretation, and I am not sure that this is strictly KJV related, although I see from the KJV quotes what might have triggered her interpretation. To summarize: Mt 8:28 “there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.” Mk 5:2 “there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit” Lk 8:27 “there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.” Michelle makes a specific point regarding the Matthean account: “(Notice, this does not say two men)”, and then proceeds to interpret Matthew as actually supporting the concept that it was only a *single* demon-possessed person that confronted Jesus on that occasion. She justifies this by interpreting the “two possessed with devils” as a *single* person, and claiming (with no further proof) that “It seems to be that God separated the man from the unclean spirit and considered them separate from one another explaining the ‘two’ being referred to in Matthew”. This is further clarified in Michelle’s interpretation by the statements: “Jesus was addressing the unclean spirit called Legion, who was many, but not the man” and “So the two being spoken of in Matthew was the man, and the unclean spirit called Legion”. Her summary thus is “No contradiction, and no need for a history lesson to understand this.” My question: is this “advanced revelation”, Michelle? The reason I ask is because I have *never* heard anyone attempt such a convoluted explanation of this passage. Some interpreters (e.g. Dake) claim a simpler solution: two different occasions and locations, with different numbers of demoniacs present. Other interpreters (probably most) simply claim that Mk and Lk chose to focus on one particular demoniac rather than both, as did Matthew, much the same as with the one or two blind men outside of Jericho. John Gill's comment on the Matthean demoniac is typical (Gill, it must be remembered, was writing only 150 years after the KJV and used the KJV exclusively): “Both Mark and Luke mention but one, which is no contradiction to Matthew; for they do not say that there was only one; and perhaps the reason why they only take notice of him is, because he was the fiercest, had a legion of devils in him, and was the principal one....”). Seems to me that either of those two solutions is better than a questionable suggestion that Matthew was separating the demon(s) from the one possessed. Does anyone else hold the same interpretation as Michelle on this point? Does Ruckman attempt such an answer in his "Problem Texts"? Or is this just some convoluted spin to try to support KJVOism? (I ask this seriously).