"Two Birds" so far...

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

From: Paul Smith
To: inerrancy@egroups.com
 errancyn@softhome.net
ps5900424@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 5:10 AM
Subject: [inerrancy] "Two Birds" so far...

Till has produced 9 postings totaling about 84k
that were, IMO, a colossal waste of his time
to write, and my time to read.  Since we are in
the middle of a debate about a very singular
and specific issue, I will submit MY examples and
definitions of "Red Herrings", "Smokescreens"
and "Diversions" as currently employed in
Till's last 84k of typing on this matter.

Despite this, the current topic remains the
following, and nothing but the following:
"Yahweh's land promise could not be both
conditional and not conditional".  I maintain my
claim that the promise never was unconditional
as Till asserts, and reject Till's claim that he
has shown otherwise.

The current issues under contention are these:

A) I maintain my claim that Genesis 17:4-17
     lists a SINGLE covenant with multiple
     terms, including both circumcision within
     a specified period of time and the land deal,
     and...
B) I maintain that the author of Deuteronomy 9
     did not share Till's understanding of unconditionality,
     and...
C) I maintain that Till's use of the phrase "behavioral
     matter" is NOT equivalent to Deuteronomy 9's
    author's use of the term "because of your righteousness",
    and...
D) I maintain that Till's use of the phrase "regardless of"
    is NOT equivalent to Deuteronomy 9's author's use
    of the phrase "not because of"

Given the topic and issues above, (which are much
detailed and hashed over in my posts entitled
"Till's Failed Rebuttal Promises (1 & 2)", at
http://www.egroups.com/group/errancyn/6741.html  and
http://www.egroups.com/group/errancyn/6742.html  ,
I will expect this debate to continue somewhere beyond
my introductory comments to those posts, which is where
the last batch of Till replies has left off commentary.

In fairness, I must grant that I threw a couple
ad-hominum barbs Till's way regarding his mis-
understanding of the direction of my circumcision
arguments (to the tune of 180°), and whether or not
this bore witness to his understanding of Biblical
texts.

Regardless of the reader's take on that issue,
posting reams of rebuttals to that issue is hardly
a quid-pro-quo, and I refuse to devote that much
time to what we agree is a side issue.  I do *not* claim
to be the final authority on all things hermeneutical,
but I have said my piece for now on why I don't trust
*Till* to be this final authority for me, either. I tossed my
barb in, he lobbed his rebuttal back, so the rabbit trail
ends here on that issue as far as my willingness to
waste time on it is concerned.

Now as for issues which I see as red-herrings and
smokescreens employed by Till, I include the following
from his last 84k (and 9 posts) worth of attempts to
advance his arguments.  Since none of these address the
topic nor issues under contention as outlined above (and
as argued in my last two posts referenced above), I will
not prolong the sidelining of this debate by answering
them, for reasons given below.  Consider the following
my list of "impertinents" that I will not devote further
space to in this thread:

1) Requests for comforting explanations or
    moral justifications of Yahweh's punitive
    measures, which did indeed include death.

    For the purposes of getting back to THIS
    debate, my only comment will be that
    IF we are created by a God for his own
    pleasure, then human life is his to do with as
    he pleases, and how you deal with it is not
    my problem.  If we are NOT created by a
    God, then what's the difference... none of
    the actions attributed to Yahweh in the OT
    can be brought to bear against the character
    of a Person who does not in fact exist, and
    since Till does not accept that he does in
    fact exist, the point is moot for the purposes
    of quelling any emotional distress in Farrell
    Till over a few Israelite deaths.

    Thus, I maintain that I snipped several KB
    of such impertinent examples from his posting
    the first time for damn good reason, and no
    matter how many times Till reposts these
    examples they will not become any more
    relevant to the topic or issues under contention
    above.

2) Requests for me to expand on theological
    abstractions relating to circumcision.  If I
    need to defend an abstract significance of
    the mark of circumcision at any time because
    it becomes essential to my case, I will do so.
    As it stands, I do not.

3) Requests for me to show that circumcision
    was not an absolute requirement, with death
    being the penalty for those un-cut "members"
    of Jewish society.  Till and I agree that it was,
    so bandwidth spent pointing out examples of
    it being so is pointless.

4) Requests for me to "pick up where Sparrow
    left off" on Uzziel/Exodus chronology (or any
    other) arguments.
    If I encounter passages which lead me to suspect
    that Till erred in previous postings, I will say
    so, but I will not take time away from the main
    debate to comment on every quibble between
    Till and other debaters (or even myself) in another
    thread.  When *that* thread becomes the subject of
    attention again, I assure Farrell Till that those
    issues which haven't already been addressed
    will, and those that have will be pointed out again.

5) Requests for me to answer the second half of
    this debate ("ALL the land" vs. "NOT ALL the
    land" in Joshua) while the first half is still being
    debated.  I stated in advance that I would handle
    this subject as two separate issues, and all the
    reposting in the world of arguments pertaining to
    "issue 2" will not get me off "issue 1" until it has
    been addressed adequately.

6) Requests for answers to "why didn't Yahweh
    just say...X"? questions.  How Farrell Till deals
    with what the text tells us and what it leaves
    us to figure out on our own is not my problem,
    and he has given no indication that he would
    take the advice of a Christian theist were it given.
    I remain concerned with whether or not what we
    ARE told in the text agrees with Till's "Failed
    Land Promises" theory or not.

7) Requests for answers to OTHER errancy issues
    before continuing on with the issues currently
    under the microscope.  Whether Till's time-wasting
    tactic involves repeated postings on a single issue, or
    instead involves repeatedly posting other-issue after
    other-issue prior to a clear analysis of the first issue
    is really immaterial to me; time-wasting tactics are
    time-wasting tactics, and I'm not inclined to cooperate
    with them.

-Paul Smith
ps5900424@hotmail.com

Click Here!
subscribe:  inerrancy-subscribe@egroups.com
post: inerrancy@egroups.com
list: http://www.egroups.com/list/inerrancy

• Previous message: "Land Promise" debate [reference confirms Till is right]
• Next message: "Two Birds" so far...
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]