1b CCBE Response (4)
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:56:57 -0700 (00908081817, 2.2.32.19981010235657.008be8bc@midwest.net)
> CCBE
> 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.
>
> TILL
> Where does the text speak of the magicians' having done "the same in nature
> as Moses/Aaron"? The text says that they did SO [ken] or "in like manner"
> with their enchantments, so the text is saying that what Moses and Aaron
> did the magicians also did. If not, why not?
>
TILL
At this point in his "reply," Bell injected the following comment.
>CCBE
>Yes, the text is saying that what Moses and Aaron did the magicians also did.
>We have no problem with that. However, the text also places a restriction on
>the extent of this duplicated feat because of what Moses and Aaron had
>previously done. So they did the same (in nature) as Moses and Aaron, but not
>in extent.
TILL
As I asked before, where does the text say that Aaron and Moses did "the
same (in nature)?
CCBE
>Your own argument that it was a 'logistical impossibily' admits of a
>restriction placed on the magicians, the only difference between our position
>being that through the invalid use of eisegesis you make this restriction
>absolute, whereas through exegeting the passage we make the restriction
>thorough but not absolute. We have addressed your invalid eisegesis in the
>other posts.
TILL
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! What are you doing here, Matt? What is this about
addressing my "invalid eisegesis" in "other posts"? You are the one who is
upset because I addressed your points in other posts besides the very one in
which you made them, so now I insist that you abide by the standards that
you have established and go through this entire posting paragraph by
paragraph, as I have done, and when you reach this particular point, address
my "invalid eisegesis." If you fail to do this or if you even delay in
doing it, we will see this as evasion on your part.
At any rate, I have shown that it is not "invalid eisegesis" when an
interpretation includes that which is a necessary deduction from the text.
To refresh your memory, I will cut and paste it below.
>At any rate, I have replied to Bell's quibble above, and to prove it, I
will quote what I have said in other postings in response to it. This
statement is from Part One of my reply yesterday:
>
>>So just who is doing the dodging here? The CCBE (read Bell) said that my
claim of logistic impossibility was based on what the text does not
"implicitly state" but that "what is meant [in the text] is that they
performed the same feat to the same extent as had done Moses and Aaron." To
rebut that, I posted the paragraphs above to show that what the text
actually meant was that the magicians did the SAME thing that Aaron and
Moses had done. And what was the CCBE response to that? "It is Exodus 7,
not 6." What kind of rebuttal is that? I will state again that the
intention of the text, as shown by both linguistic analysis and comparison
of translations, was to convey that the magicians did the SAME thing that
Aaron and Moses did. If this is the meaning of the text, then it isn't true
that my claim of logistic impossibility is based on what the text does not
"implicitly state." If the text claims that the magicians did the SAME as
Aaron and Moses, then the conclusion that the Exodus writer made a
logistically impossible claim is a simple matter of deduction based on what
the writer did "explicitly" say. Therefore, Bell's claim that I have
resorted to eisegesis is without foundation, because a necessary conclusion
derived from what a text DOES state is not reading into the text what is not
there.
>>
TILL
You can check yesterday's Part One if you doubt that I included the
paragraph above. So now please explain to us why you say that I am evading
your "arguments."
In Part Three of my replies yesterday, I made the following statement.
******************
TILL
Obviously, I didn't engage in evasion here, but to prevent any charge that I
am trying to evade something, I will cut and paste below my reply to the
same quibble that Bell resorted to just before the end of Part 2 of my reply.
>What did I dodge here? I agreed with Bell that in relating this particular
"event," the text in question did not contain restrictions that could be
considered limitations on the meaning of the word "ken." Therefore, we have
every reason to think that the writer meant for his readers to understand
from the word "so" [ken] that he was claiming that Aaron and Moses did
EXACTLY the SAME as what Yahweh had commanded. If that was what the word
"ken" meant in Hebrew, then it would have been erroneous for the writer to
have used "ken" in Exodus 7:22 if he understood that there were
"restrictions" that prevented the magicians from doing "likewise" or "in
like manner" or the SAME as Aaron and Moses. This should be as obvious as
if the following text should be written in English.
>
>John Doe won 10 million dollars on the state lottery, and Joe Smith did the
SAME.
>
>If the grand prize were only two million dollars when Joe Smith won it,
then it would have been incorrect to use the word "same" in comparing what
Smith did to what Doe did, because anyone reading this would assume that
what Doe did (win 10 million dollars) was what Smith did. If not, why not?
So if Bell and his CCBE cohorts want to talk about "limitations" that
prevented the magicians from doing "in like manner as" or the SAME as Aaron
and Moses, they should begin by explaining to us why the writer used a word
that conveyed the idea of likeness or sameness.
>
>Bell hasn't done that, so once again, we can see who is really doing the
evading.
>
So I will again remind Bell and his CCBE cohorts that if he is claiming
there were "limitations" that prevented "ken" from meaning the SAME in 7:22,
he needs to explain why the writer used a word that conveyed that sense.
Would that not in itself be an error?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net