Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:16:55 +0100 (00907186615, 19980930152049968.AAA444@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
> > >
> > > F.TILL
> > > Perhaps you or someone in your CCBE group can explain to
> > > us how the magicians were able to pull off this remarkable
> > > stunt'
> >
> > CCBE
> > No, we cannot, as the text does not indicate how the feat was
> > accomplished, only that it was.
> >
> F.TILL
> You have already admitted this, so why don't you now turn your attention to
> proving that the text was historically accurate in its claim that the
> magicians, in some unknown way, duplicated Aaron's and Moses' feat? How
> would you go about doing that without just assuming the accuracy of the
> biblical text, but the accuracy of the biblical text is what we are
> debating, so if you are just going to assume the truth of what you are
> affirming, you will be reasoning in a circle. I would think that even you
> would know that this is fallacious reasoning.
>
CCBE
We have the Biblical record claiming the occurrence of both the initial act by
Moses/Aaron and that of the duplication by the magicians. Why ask us to
demonstrate the historical accuracy of one and not the other? Why are you
moving the goalposts of the original matter under discussion, i.e. whether
there is a matter of errancy in the recording of the events. In asking such of
us it appeared that, for the sake of argument you were taking an
if-these-events-occurred-then etc, approach. If you required validation of the
historical relaibility of the events then that should have been your first
question.
Except for the biblical record itself we know of no other unbiased validation
that
the events occured. If you consider there is contrary evidence then please
present it, though we would request that this is withheld until the present
matter
of the text is concluded.
> >
> > CCBE
> > However, we can demonstrate how your contention is one of poor, and
> > indeed according to your own earlier post, invalid eisegisis.
> >
> F.TILL
> Eisegesis (I even know how to spell it) is a fallacious interpretation
> method that reads INTO the text information that is not there. My
> contention throughout has been that the text says only that (1) Aaron and
> Moses changed all of the water throughout all the land of Egypt into blood,
> (2) the fish died, (3) the river became foul, (4) the Egyptians could not
> drink from the river, (5) the magicians did in like manner with their
> enchantments, and (6) pharaoh hardened his heart, turned, and went into his
> house. So since the text specifically states all of these things, just
> where is the eisegesis occurring?
CCBE
The eisegesis is point (1). You have stated elsewhere:
1. 'If Aaron had changed all of the water throughout the whole land of Egypt
into blood, including even the water in stone and wooden vessels, there
would have been no water available for pharaoh's magicians to show
their stuff and duplicate the feat. I would think that even Mr. Moffitt
should be able to see this, but if he can't, perhaps he can at least explain
to us how the magicians were able to pull off this remarkable stunt. At
any rate, we have to score one for pharaoh and the bad guys this time.
Moses and Aaron merely changed all the water there was into blood;
pharaoh's magicians changed all the water there wasn't into blood. They
were some magicians, to say the least'.
2. 'The problem is really simple enough that even Matt Bell should see it. No
one, regardless of what kind of powers he may have possessed, could have
changed water that didn't exist into blood'.
>From this it is obvious that you consider 'all of the water', to be absolute.
We showed how this is poor eisegesis in our response:
'It states nowhere in the text that absolutely no water existed for the
magicians to perform their feat. Indeed if one uses the principle of exegesis
(defined by F.Till as,'"exegesis" means to derive from the text the meaning of
the language used within it), then one would come to the opposite conclusion
that F.Till does. The text states that the magicians did likewise. We derive
from this (the text) that to have done so they would have water to use. That
the text does not specify where or how they obtained this water does not mean
that there was none in existence.To claim such is to argue from that which the
text does not say (eisegisis), and go against what it does say (exegisis).
You did not respond to this point in your reply.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> >
> > CCBE
> > Your contention is that the feat was logistically impossible. This is based
> > on what the text does not implicitly state, i.e. that in the magicians
> > doing like-wise, what is meant is that they performed the same feat to the
> > same extent as had done Moses and Aaron. Please show from the text
> > that this is the only valid understanding one can take from the passage?
> >
> F.TILL
> Well, okay, let's look at what various translations say, and then base our
> decision on what the text actually says and not what you would like for it
> to say. Literal translations such as Young's and Hendrickson's say, "And
> the magicians did so with their magic arts." [Young's uses the word
> "flashings" for secret arts but otherwise agrees with Hendrickson's.] The
> translation of the Jewish Publication Society says, "And when the Egyptian
> magicians DID THE SAME with their spells, Pharaoh's heart stiffened...." So
> here are Jews who translated their own scriptures, and they rendered this
> expression as "did the same," so this is again a good indication that those
> who know Hebrew understand that "doing in like manner with their
> enchantments" meant that the magicians had duplicated the feat. But let's
> look at what other translations say:
>
> KJV: And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments.
>
> NKJV: Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments.
>
> The word translated "so" in this verse was "ken" in Hebrew, and it was a
> word that meant "so" in the sense of "in the like or same manner." It so
> happens that the word was used four other times in Exodus 6, so let's look
> at how the writer used it in these other places.
>
CCBE
It is Exodus 7, not 6.
>
> F.TILL
> 6 And Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded them, SO [ken] did they.
>
> Prior to this Yahweh had commanded Aaron and Moses to speak to Pharaoh to
> demand that he let Yahweh's people to go, and "Moses and Aaron did as the
> LORD commanded them." Does this not mean that Moses and Aaron did exactly
> what Yahweh had commanded them. If so, then in the last part of the verse
> "SO [ken] did they" would mean that what Moses and Aaron had done was an
> exact duplication of what Yahweh had commanded them. If not, why not?
CCBE
Yes, Moses and Aaron did exactly as the LORD commanded them. We have no
difficulty in accepting that, however we would point out to you that there is
no restrictions indicated in the passage that would have made it impossible for
them to do so. If you think there is please point them out?
>
> F.TILL
> 7 And Moses was fourscore years old, and Aaron fourscore and three years
> old, when they spake unto Pharaoh.
> 8 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
> 9 When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Show a miracle for you: then
> thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it
> shall become a serpent.
> 10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did SO [ken] as the
> LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before
> his servants, and it became a serpent.
>
> Would not "ken" in verse 10 mean that what Yahweh had commanded Aaron and
> Moses to do was exactly what they did?
CCBE
Again we have no difficulty in accepting this, but would reiterate that there
is no restrictions indicated in the passage which would have made doing so
impossible? If you consider there is please point it out?
>
> F.TILL
> 19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and
> stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon
> their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that
> they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land
> of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.
> 20 And Moses and Aaron did SO [ken], as the LORD commanded; and he lifted
> up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of
> Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in
> the river were turned to blood.
>
> Again the word "ken" (v:20) was clearly intended to show that what Yahweh
> told Moses and Aaron to do was exactly what they did, so in verse 22, which
> says that the magicians did SO [ken] with their enchantments, why would this
> not mean that what Moses and Aaron did was exactly what the magicians did.
CCBE
We again concur with you that Moses and Aaron did exactly what was commanded of
them, there being no restriction that we can see indicated in the passage which
would have prevented them from doing so. The reason why the same would not
apply with the magicians is because there was a restriction in them exactly
duplicating the feat, i.e. Moses/Aaron previous act. In light of this it would
not have been possible for them to do exactly the same in extent as
Moses/Aaron, but there would be nothing to prevent them doing exactly the same
in nature as Moses/Aaron.
>
> F.TILL
> I have shown three of the other places where "ken" was used in Exodus 7, so
> where was the fourth place? That was in a verse where the KJV did not
> translate "ken" with the English word "so."
>
> 11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the
> magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner [KEN] with their
enchantments.
> 12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents....
>
> So here is clear evidence that the writer of this text was using the Hebrew
> word "ken" in the sense of "so" or "in duplication of." Aaron threw his rod
> down, and it became a serpent. The magicians did SO or IN LIKE MANNER,
> threw their rods down, and they became serpents. What Aaron did the
> magicians did.
>
> Here is the textual evidence that the CCBE requested, but if this isn't
> sufficient, I can walk them through various translations to show that in the
> opinion of the translators "ken" meant to do the same. To show that this is
> so, let's juxtapose Exodus 7:11 (changing the rods to serpents) with Exodus
> 7:22 (changing the water into blood) as the two verses are rendered in the
> version of the Jewish Publication Society:
>
> 7:11, And the Egyptian magicians, in turn, DID THE SAME with their spells.
>
> 7:22, But when the Egyptian magicians DID THE SAME with their spells....
CCBE
We ask you to note that in your last reference although it could be argued that
'every man' exactly duplicated the feat of Aaron, the collective result
exceeded that of the initial feat which involved one rod and one serpent, in
contrast to the rods/serpents the magicians worked with. This of course
necessitated a further demonstration of the superiority of Moses/Aaron's God.
We also point out that as with the other quotes you provided there is
absolutely nothing in the passage restricting the magicians from duplicating,
indeed exceeding, the initial feat. So we have no argument that 'ken' means to
do the same, but would suggest to you that this needs to be considered in the
context of the passage and in consideration of any restrictions or limitations
that the passage puts upon this. Our conclusion from this is that you have
failed to prove your argument and indeed have provided an unintentional
clarification of our argument that doing the same does not not necessarily
refer to the extent of the original act.
<snip>
Thanks
CCBE