TILL
Jerry, this is an example of the type of misrepresentation that we so often
find Bible fundamentalists resorting to in their efforts to defend their
untenable position. Matson's article that you quoted was entitled "A Very
Great City." It begins on page 8 of the Spring 1992 issue and extends
through page 11. In this article, Matson established a discrepancy in the
book of Jonah, where it was said that Nineveh was "an exceedingly great city
of three days' journey" (3:3). Matson went into great detail to show that
this was a statement that obviously exaggerated the size of Nineveh. His
purpose was clearly to establish a point of error in the Bible. It wasn't
until the conclusion of the article that Matson made the statement you
quoted and even then he was merely making the statement that biblical
inerrantists can't defend their inerrancy doctrine by claiming that God
wrote the Bible and so it has to be inerrant. All he did was briefly
explain why this is a fallaciously defense of inerrancy and then state, "No
shortcuts here." You have been a subscriber to *The Skeptical Review* from
its beginning, so the fact that you had to lift this statement out of
context pretty well establishes that in TSR I try to limit discussion to
inerrancy.
McDONALD
However, if discussions on such topics are going to cause dissention on the
list,
then I will cease from any further writings concerning evolution vs.
creation, the existence of God or anything but the inerrancy of the
Bible.
TILL
I do wish that not just you but the other biblicists on the list would
strive to stick to the topic of inerrancy. Occasional side excursions are
going to happen, and that is understandable. As long as these excursions are
occasional, I won't complain; however, it has seemed to be a policy of
biblicists for the past several months to lead the discussion off onto
wranglings about abstract philosophical matters. Because of my experience
with you, I don't think you do this because you feel unprepared to discuss
inerrancy, but I'm convinced that this is exactly the motives of some. They
know that they can't defend inerrancy, and so they set up philosophical
straw men and beat around on them. Abstract philosophy gives plenty of
hiding room.
McDONALD
However, when I do I don't want anyone arguing that we can't
prove the inerrancy of the Bible based upon the fact that we haven't
proven God's existence first.
TILL
Jerry, several of us have even said that we will concede, for the sake of
argument, the existence of the Christian god in order to get the discussions
centered on inerrancy, but these offers have been ignored.
McDONALD
Jason and all others who would respond to my lastest post on evolution let
me suggest that you join my list which is where I will continue my
discussion on this subject. If you wish to join my list send a message to
jerry@cwent.com, type
Challenge in as the subject and simply type subscribe in the body of
the message. That will place you on the list and you will be able to
continue this discussion. I have no intentions of leaving this list,
I will remain here and discuss nothing more than the inerrancy of the
Bible. Farrell, if you want to discuss my lastest post concerning
your 14 points of morality, you will have to join my list to do that.
I grow tired of the griping and complaining, so this is what I am
going to have to do from now on.
TILL
Jerry, if I can find the time, I will join your list, but I think you can
see the demands that this list makes on my time. I think that you too are
going to find out that you have bitten off a chunk that is going to make
VERY heavy demands on your time, especially since you have indicated that
you are going to monitor everything before you allow it to be posted. I
predict that your activity on this list will decrease more and more, because
I don't think you can handle both.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net