[Fwd: ] Errancy e-mail problems?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> Matthew Bell

> Such a suggestion is laughable, and close to affirming what J.Alward said

> about Farrell Till being paranoid. I ain't planning on leaving this list

> any time soon, and certainly if I did, it wouldn't be by sneaking of under

> some false pretence like email problems. If I ever leave the list, people

> will know the reasons.

>

> Thanks

> M.Bell

>

David F:
Gee, Bell, you wouldn't leave with unrefuted errancy arguments still
outstanding
would you? You would at least make an attempt, foredoomed to failure as it
would
be, to refute unanswered arguments? Or is this too much to expect from
someone
who has submitted themselves to the mightiest Intellect of them all?

POOBAH
Well I don't know about leaving, but he sure seems to be ignoring the last
"errant" posts I sent him on the BoM thread. I asked him to explain why in
his mind, eyewitnesses to the BoM aren't compelling, but the presence of the
early Christian Church is (and presumably the early Mormon Church isn't).
I'm also still waiting for him to explain on what basis he engages in pick &
choose archeology (he accepts archeology when it supports his position -
like when archeologists claim to find denarii, and rejects it when it
doesn't, such as the lack of evidence & contra-evidence for the Exodus), and
how Genesis can possibly be interpreted in any way except as supporting a
young earth model, and why we are to assume historical accuracy in the Bible
is evidence of the miraculous claims therein, but historical accuracy in
other texts would not be evidence of the miraculous claims therein.

I even resent them to him privately. Oh poor me. He seems to be more
interested in talking about the relative merits of the morality of each
book, and why his late composite reading should be preferred over ancient
readings.

What's a poor skeptic to conclude from the silence? Surely it can't be that
he has no answer, and realizes that his arguments are nothing more than ad
hoc special pleading appeals to authority? Perhaps not, as we saw from Till
this week, people do get busy. So just in case Matt has an answer, here're
the posts in question again:

=================================================================
POOBAH
Matt, I'm trying to make sense out of the following two statements. Help me
out.
Matthew Bell
That their is firsthand testimony to an event does not make it true.
Matthew Bell
The early church gives ample testimony to the Scriptures.
POOBAH
So first hand testimony doesn't make an event true, but believers decades &
centuries after the alleged fact do? And you still find LDS Church lacking?
Could you give me a rational harmonization for this please?

=================================================================

POOBAH (past)
For the first of these, I would reply then that you have no evidence that
the coins you have unearthed are really shekels & denarii. If you reject the
theoretical foundations of archeology that both allow us to date Artifacts
and determine the age of the earth, then you cannot say there is
archeological evidence that the coins you have are really of the proper age.
It cuts both ways, you can't pick & choose your evidence.
Matthew Bell
I suggest you take up the above 'argument' with the archeologists whose
spade has affirmed the coinage of the Bible.
POOBAH
No, I'm taking it up with you. I doubt the archeologist has a problem with
an old earth, evolution & no Noah.
Here's an example, which I'm sure you will not agree; more of an analogy, if
you will. I have heard a Christian claim that science has proven the Garden
of Eden. He cites the mitochondrial DNA study that shows we were all
descended from the same woman... about 110,000 years ago. You cannot accept
the conclusion of the common DNA without accepting the conclusion of the
time it takes to account for the variations.
If you are willing to accept the archeologist's expertise that the "coin"
(was it really?) he holds in his hand was really a shekel, and was dug from
the right layer of the city, along with other artifacts that are properly
carbon dated, whose houses were laid out in a particular pattern which
correlates to others thought to be of the same time period, with writing
styles that indicate that same time period, etc. how can you question those
same techniques when applied to discoveries you don't agree with?
POOBAH (past)
For the latter two categories, inerrancy is not a possibility, at least not
an honest one.
Matthew Bell
I think you may find that they would disagree with your assessment. Of
course you have spoken on the subject and that settles it for everybody
right? The omiscience of errantists is amazing.
POOBAH
Does everything have to have IMO for you to realize it is my opinion? If you
really want to show how full of it I am, why don't you show me how inerrancy
can be reconciled with an old earth or theistic evolution?
Why don't you tell us why the flood can be seen "allegorically" or how the
flood story is to be understood in an old-earth creationist or theistic
evolutionary world view?
At some point Genesis must switch from "history" to "allegory" (we can't say
myth) in order to preserve inerrancy, but what point is that? I presume that
you think Abraham was a real character, well we have to anchor him in time
in a fairly small window (c1800BC give or take a couple of centuries - or do
you dispute this?). We have his genealogy from Shem in ch11, complete with
lifespans and times when children were born. This fixes the flood pretty
precisely (2500 BC give or take), except we have no evidence. We have
contra-evidence, extant writings, earlier man-made structures, and the same
sort of archeological digs that turned up your coins.
I take it from your "theistic evolution" leanings that you might then
consider the flood to be "allegory." So at what point in Abram's genealogy
to we move from "history" to "allegory"?
Was his father Terah historical or allegorical?
Was his grandfather Nahor historical or allegorical?
Etc. etc. etc. down to Shem, and from thence we can go to Adam if you like.
In any event, your task will be to show why at some point this genealogy
doesn't really mean what it says, or assign Abraham to "allegory." If you
say that Abraham wasn't a real person, you would be a strange sort of
inerrantist. Please tell us why we shouldn't take Abraham's as a literal
genealogy. If we are to, then the flood cannot have happened. Simple as
that.
Matthew Bell
If a historical document mentions a denarius, and archeologists uncover what
they identify as a denarius then archeology has verified that historical
document on that point.
POOBAH
See above.
Matthew Bell
Nope, such dialogue is fruitless, especially considering my undecided
position on either the young-earth or the theistic evolutionist position.
POOBAH
See above.
POOBAH (past)
And then let's talk about the Exodus. I remember Till recently quoting the
conclusions of an Israeli-sponsored archeological expedition that spent ten
years in the Sinai, who uncovered 6000 year-old campfires from nomads, and
absolutely no evidence of a 40-year sojourn by 2+ million people. These are
hardly "delusionally minded errantists." Till is away, but I'm sure he can
post the cite on Monday. How can you possibly deny this evidence without
resorting to the excuse I gave for the Book of Mormon above?
Matthew Bell
Better minds than mine have responded to Till on his Exodus posts, both on
this list and errancyn.
POOBAH
This is a dodge, Matt. I'm not asking you to critique Till's posts, I am
asking you to deal with the evidence of Israeli archeologists who, after ten
years of looking, have found much older, much smaller signs of human
habitation, but no signs of a forty-year sojourn by millions of people. The
conclusion, while admittedly a provisional one, when combined with the
silence of the Egyptian records, the fact that Jericho, Ai, et al. weren't
available to be conquered at the time period in question, the fact that
there were no Philistines at the time period in question, is inescapable:
there was no exodus. Now you can question the underlying archeology that
results in any of those conclusions, but I'm still left with the question:
if so, how do you know you really have shekels? You're no better off than
the supporters of the BoM at that point.
It looks like your answer, from another post, is this:
Matthew Bell
No, I cannot. Of course I have not claimed that archeology has verified
those events and if you wish to assert that because they have not, they
never will, then go ahead, I will be glad to keep a record of such and post
it to the list if they later do. The fact that archeology has verified a
large part of Bible artifacts, geography etc, gives hope that it will be
possible to do so with that which is presently unverified. The Mormons have
no such hope since little, if any BoM archeology or geography has been
independantly verified.
POOBAH
So you are trying to use the same excuse as the Mormons, but you think
because you have coins you're better off, is that it? Further, you seem to
imply that the only archeological evidence found supports the Bible. Do you
believe that to be the case? If that were the case, it might be reasonable
to assume that future discoveries might shed more light. However, we have
much contra-evidence, some of which was discussed above. In light of that, I
don't see how you can say that you're better off than the supporters of the
BoM (except of course, as you noted, they have the same problem you do wrt
the OT).
POOBAH (past)
Forgive me for saying I don't think you've demonstrated that yet.  But
getting back to this point of historical details; since he gets most of his
historical details right, do you accept the miraculous claims of Josephus?
What about Seutonius? Tacitus? Do you live in a world where Alexander the
Great was born of a virgin, angels came down to escort the soul of Caesar,
where emperors heal blind men by spitting on them, where goats give births
to calves (or is the other way around)? Why or why not?
Matthew Bell
I do not rule out miracles as occurring just because they are reported
outside of the Bible. Each claim, like with the BoM against the Bible, needs
to be judged on its own merits/demetirs. Of course, the skeptic in their
omniscience rule out all of the miraculous, no matter where it occurs.
POOBAH
Another dodge with an ad hominem to boot.
Well, if you don't rule them out, then why don't you tell us which
extra-biblical miracles you find compelling (and which Biblical ones you
don't) , and why. Then we might have some criteria for evaluation; we could
discuss those criteria, and then apply them to Biblical claims and see how
they hold up... Oh, is that why you're dodging this question?
POOBAH (past)
You tell me. I can tell you what won't constitute evidence, and that's
absolutely nothing. And that's what we have for Biblical miracles.
Unless of course you present some.
Matthew Bell
You have nothing, I have faith, which of course to skeptics is equal to
having nothing. Time will decide which is right.
POOBAH
Like your backhanded way of saying that the question is settled in the minds
of everyone but a few inerrantists, is this your backhanded way of admitting
that you have no objective evidence for accepting miraculous claims?

• Previous message: [Fwd: ] Errancy e-mail problems?
• Next message: [Fwd: ] Errancy e-mail problems?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]