1b CCBE Response (6)
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:57:05 -0700 (00908081825, 2.2.32.19981010235705.008b18f4@midwest.net)
>>>CCBE
>>>So we have no argument that 'ken' means to do the same,
>> TILL
>> But I had an argument that "ken" meant to do the same, and I presented it.
>> Apparently, you can't refute it.
TILL
Here "CCBE" injected the following comment.
>CCBE
>Unless you can produce anything more than what you already have your
>presented argument has been comprehensively refuted.
TILL
It has? Well, you could have fooled me. Would you mind showing us just
where you have "comprehensively refuted" my argument that "ken" was used
throughout Exodus 7 to signify doing "the same"? I somehow missed it, and I
suspect that a lot of other members of the list did too.
>> > CCBE
> >>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.
> >
>> TILL
>> Once again you are trying to argue from the assumption that the text was
>> accurate in everything it said, or in other words, you are trying to prove
>> inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. In evaluating a text, there are always
>> two possibilities: (1) The text is factually accurate in what it says. (2)
>> The text is errant in what it says. I would never try to argue from
assumption
>> number 2, and if I should try to do so, I suspect that you would spot the
>> fallacy in the blink of an eye. Yet you expect everyone to allow you to
>> argue from assumption number 1. You are contending that if the text says
>> that the magicians did "so" or in "like manner" with their enchantments,
>> then this must be factually correct, and so you search around for innovative
>> interpretations that can make this statement true even though the actual
>> language of the text supports the view that the writer thoughtlessly made a
>> logistically impossible claim. Therefore, you cannot talk about
>> "restrictions or limitations that the passage" puts on the claim that the
>> magicians did in like manner with their enchantments, because the writer
>> could easily have been unaware of what he was actually claiming. In view
>> of the way that he used "ken" throughout Exodus 7, this is a more reasonable
>> approach to the text than your desperate attempt to find some way--just any
>> way--to salvage the text.
>>
TILL
At this point, "CCBE" injected the following comment.
>CCBE
>We disagree with your above analysis. We have shown in our other posts that
>there is no logistical impossibility, at least not in the text. We have also
>comprehensively refuted from the text your out of context use of ken.
TILL
You have a lot of assertions here but no line of argumentation to support
them, so which of your assertions to you expect me to respond to, and why
should I even bother to respond to mere assertions? This is about the third
time you have asserted that you have "comprehensively refuted" my argument
that "ken" in Exodus 7 was used to convey the sense of "the same," so please
show us exactly where you have refuted that. You have asserted that "ken"
couldn't mean "the same" in 7:22 because of "textual restrictions," but this
assertion assumes that the text couldn't possibly contain error. Would you
mind explaining to us just how you can know that? More than that, would you
mind responding to my arguments on this point, which were posted in both
yesterday's and today's replies?
CCBE
>We assert that there is no matter of errancy in the recording of this
passage and >that your attempts to demontrate there is have failed.
TILL
I'm glad you were honest enough to admit that this is just something you
have asserted, because you certainly haven't proven it. Would you mind
explaining to us why you expect anyone to respond to mere assertions?
CCBE
>The evidence for our assertion is in the record of the thread.
>
TILL
Wait, wait, wait! When I say that I have rebutted your points, you send
post after post to the list saying that I have to reply to the specific
postings in which you made those points or else I am obviously evading them,
yet you seem to think that you can just say that "the evidence for our
assertion is in the record of the thread" and that is sufficient to prove
your case. Would you mind explaining to us the reason for the double
standard? According to the standard you have set, referring to responses
that you may have posted elsewhere can't be allowed. You have to put the
rebuttal material into a response to the very posting in which your opponent
stated his arguments. I'm sorry, Matt, but you're the one who insisted on this.
CCBE
>Unless you can produce better than what you have on this matter then we
rest >our case on these two points.
TILL
Well, two can play the assertion game, Matt. My postings in today's and
yesterday's replies to your incessant quibbling shows that I have clearly
nailed your hide to the wall, so now we would like to see reciprocity on
your part. When can we expect to see you take my series of postings
paragraph by paragraph and respond to my rebuttals of your points? If you
don't do this, will we be entitled to assume that you are evading the issue?
If you delay in responding, will we be entitled to assume that you are evading?
CCBE
<snip irrelevant material>
TILL
Time out again! Why don't we just take a look at the "irrelevant material"
that Bell snipped here?
> > To show you the predicament you are in, let's consider your agreement that
> > individually the magicians of Egypt did exactly what Aaron did, i. e., each
> > person cast his rod down and each person's rod became a serpent, just as
> > Aaron's rod had become a serpent. We can see, then, how that the writer's
> > claim that the magicians did "in like manner" [ken] with their enchantments
> > was intended to be understood that the magicians did exactly what Aaron had
> > done and nothing less. As the story is told, Aaron's serpent saved the day
> > by swallowing the magicians' serpents. Now let's suppose that after
> > relating this incident, the writer had said, "but the magicians of Egypt
> > did in like manner with their enchantments, and their serpents swallowed
> > Aaron's serpent." In that case, would you not be able to see that the
writer
> > had made a colossal boo-boo? He would be claiming that the magicians'
>> serpents did something that was logistically impossible, because we cannot
> > see how that serpents that had already been swallowed by another serpent
> > could have swallowed the serpent that had swallowed them. This, in
effect, is > > the problem that you have in the story of the first plague.
The accomplishment
> > of Aaron's and Moses's feat in changing all of the water of Egypt into blood
> > made it impossible for the magicians to do "so" [ken] or in like manner
> > with their enchantments.
> >
So will Bell please explain to us why this is "irrelevant material." It
presented an argument by analogy, which showed how that logistic
impossibilty could have been written into the part of the story that claimed
the Egyptians did "in like manner with their enchantments" when they changed
their rods into serpents, and I am entitled to have Bell's response to this.
Or am I the only one who is obligated to respond to an opponent's arguments?
What kind of howl would we hear from Bell if I snipped any part of his
posting (which he says I never responded to) and labeled the snipped part as
"irrelevant material"?
> > CCBE
> > >Our conclusion from this is that you have failed to prove your argument
> >
TILL
That's your conclusion, but where are your rebuttal arguments that show that
I have failed to prove my argument. Aside from that, I think you are the
one who is asserting textual inerrancy in this matter. All I have done is
present reasons why the text can't be considered inerrant, and if you have
rebutted those reasons, I missed it somewhere along the way.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net