Matthew 1/16
Please provide information where you have ever agreed that "bore" can have
the range of the Hebrew's underlying meaning of providing lineage
transcending one generation.
In point of fact, you have always maintained that it cannot have this
meaning until now (and perhaps also in the Dating the Flood thread). Your
statement above is not true. If you disagree, please show the evidence that
you did agree earlier with this statement.
What you have stated is that "bore" was used figuratively in Gen. 46, but
that was not its underlying meaning. As I have supplied data to show, this
is not a figurative meaning but one of its possible underlying meanings.
Till 1/15
>Now let's
>hope he will give us some sensible reason by the primary hermeneutic
>principle that I have already discussed at length should be ignored in
>interepreting the verses in questions.
>
Matthew 1/16
As I have stated before, let me now state more clearly: I do not give
"diddily squat" about your literary criticism hermeneutic. It does not
necessarily prove anything. The use of questionable sources to prove a
contradiction in the Bible is unacceptable to me.
You are probably aware of C. S. Lewis's comment on this kind of literary
criticism for determining the meaning of the Bible and thereby condemn it.
I do not have the reference in front of me, but he speaks in his book
"Christian Reflections" of how these methods were applied to his own
writings, and how they had never been right, not even once, in the
speculation that they presented concerning his own writings, regardless of
how sure the critic was. Again, not even once.
While you can slam me in this area, I assume that you will not have problems
with C.S. Lewis's credentials. Indeed, he is not even an inerrantist. Like
Gareth, however, it is apparent in his writings that he loves the Bible.
I think that this demonstrates the problem. You do not accept my
hermeneutics of interpreting Scripture with Scripture for the entire Bible.
I do not accept your literary hermeneutic as sufficient proof to prove a
contradiction. We are probably going to have a hard time agreeing.
>MATTHEW 1/15
>Before we can discuss the Jochebed situation, we need to agree or disagree
>on the meaning of "bore." Then, we might be able to discuss the difference
>in interpreting the relevant verses concerning Jochebed and Moses, but
>unless we agree here, proceeding to other questions is a waste of time.
>Clearly my 1/14 did not try to present any data concerning Jochebed and
>Moses, per se.
>
>TILL 1/15
>I have given my reasons why the word "bore" should be understood in its
>primary sense in the passages in question, but you have never given any
>reasons why the word should be assigned meaning other than its primary one.
Matthew 1/16
Again, not true. See above.
>TILL 1/15
>No, the question is, "Will you again evade the issue and dodge your
>responsibility to support your position with contextual evidence"?
>
Matthew 1/16
The question that I agreed to answer is: "If it did not lead to a
contradiction, would I interpret the Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59 the way I am?
As I have told you before, I probably would not. However, once a possible
contradiction is sited, then one deals with it. This often calls for going
deeper into the understanding of what the Bible says. For example, in the
last words of Christ thread, a rather superficial understanding of the text
shows what might be a discrepancy; analyzing it further we see how it can be
reconciled better and understand a little more about Jesus's suffering on
the cross. In this case, Ex. 6 and Ex. 12:40 show a possible contradiction;
there are various solutions to it (Note: Num. 26:58 show that the editors of
the NIV accept a different solution, empoying yalad differently than I
have); I have only explored one possible solution; there are others; given
the limited data, we cannot be sure which is correct.
>TILL 1/15
>I've answered your question. The word "bore" CAN have the meaning you are
>claiming, but because it CAN have that meaning does not mean that it DID
>have that meaning. You have to establish your case with contextual
>evidence. Gee, Matthew, don't ever take a college literature course. You
>will flunk it.
Matthew 1/16
Of course, this is not a college literature course, and I do not accept your
methods for "criticizing" the Bible. BTW, did you browbeat your students
the same way that you browbeat everyone who writes on this system who
disagrees with you?
My claim on this system is that you cannot prove a contradiction. I am not
suggesting that you cannot show with some probability or some evidence that
a contradiction exists. In these cases, you might suggest that the
probability is high; I might suggest that it is low. Yet, it does not really
matter because you have not proved it.
If you disagree with me, then I have a challenge for you. You threatened to
bring this "contradiction" on the apologetics system before you left to show
how you "slaugthered" me. I replied there, "Yes, please bring it on."
Therefore, I would challenge to come to that forum and let's re-present all
the evidence and get the comments from those folks for their comments. If
you are too busy to receive all those E-mails, then I would suggest the
"Countering Contradictions" website. Note: This one is on the web and not an
E-mail-based system. Therefore, you do not need to comment on anything
other than the thread that you wish to address. While lots of
contradictions are not being discussed there now, many have been in the
past, and as such, this web site would be another choice for the discussion.
Certainly this discussion would be relevant to its charter.
Otherwise, I am not sure of the value to me or you or the rest here by
regurgitating all the evidence. We will only choose to disagree in the end
based on the reasons that I have included in this note.
In Christ,
Matthew
burdette@net2.netacc.net
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.