>In the following message "9:37 AM, 7/9/96, titled: Notice Till stated: "For
>example, I am still waiting for you to show that my analysis of Deuteronomy
>7:2 (the one that substituted the antecedent for "them" and "their"
>throughout the text). You went around it by simply saying that you are not
>a linguist (just as you claim that you aren't a paleontologist, geologist,
>etc. when you find yourself in a bind). And you wonder why your postings
>receive ridicule.
>
>My response was "I do believe I gave you a response to this, to the effect
>that I believe that the words "them," and "their" applied to the human
>Canaanites, and not to the animal Canaanites. The Israelites were not to
>marry the human Canaanites, but to keep their blood line pure. NOTICE: Your
>ridicule is just your way to demonstrate your utter ignorance of the Bible."
>
TILL 12/4
Yes, you said this, but when I later posted my pronoun analysis of the
passage, which was similar to the re-created one that I posted today, you
refused to point out where my error in reasoning was. Please notice that
all of the nations listed in Deuteronomy 7:2 are singular: the Hittite (not
Hittites), the Girgashite (not Girgashites), the Amorite (not Amorites),
etc. Thus, when "Moses" used the pronoun "them" as the text continued, he
could not have been referring just to "the Canaanite," because that would be
a pronoun-antecedent agreement error of having a plural pronoun refer to a
singular antecedent. The antecedent of the "theys" and "thems" and "theirs"
in this next has to be "the seven mighty nations." If not, Baker needs to
explain why not. What principle of language will he use to justify his
assertion that seven nations were listed in singular form but the plural
pronouns "they" and "them" and "their," which followed in the text referred
back to just one of the SINGULAR seven nations?
As I said, Baker, you never attempted to address this problem.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net