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.
TILL
Gee, Matthew, go back and read my postings in which I analyzed the Genesis
46 reference to the sons that Zilhah "bore." I clearly said that the word
as used here was not intended to mean that Zilhah had literally given birth
to all of the people named but that the CONTEXT contains information that
shows this is true. At times, Matthew, I wonder why I'm even bothering
posting responses to you.
MATTHEW
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.
TILL
In point of fact, I have not always maintained this. If I have to, I will
go back, find my postings, and send them to the list again.
MATTHEW
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
Perhaps the problem is that we are arguing over semantics. If the primary
meaning of "yahlah" was "to give birth to" and "to sire," then using it to
mean "engendering a lineage" would be a secondary or figurative meaning of
the word. If you don't like the terms literal and figurative, then think in
terms of primary and secondary. My position is that a basic rule of
interpretation is that words should be interpreted in their literal or
primary sense unless compelling reasons require figurative or secondary
meaning to be assigned. In the matter at hand, my position is that "yahlah"
was used in its primary sense in the genealogies in dispute, because there
are no compelling reasons to assign figurative or secondary meaning to the
word, and certainly there is no contextual reason to assign figurative or
secondary meaning.
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.
TILL
I know you don't give a diddly squat about hermeneutics and rules of
literary interpretation. Has the discussion of Isaiah 45:7 in any way
modified your unconcern for hermeneutics?
MATTHEW
The use of questionable sources to prove a contradiction in the Bible is
unacceptable to me.
TILL
There is nothing at all questionable about the works of Josephus and
Jubilees in the sense that they are the works of early Jewish writers. As
others have tried to point out to you, I didn't cite these works in order to
argue that Josephus and the writer of Jubilees thought that "yahlah" was
used in its primary sense in Genesis 11; therefore, it is true that "yahlah"
was used in its primary sense in Genesis 11. I cited these references
simply to show that back when flood chronology was not an issue and, hence,
Jewish writers had no inerrancy axes to grind in this matter, they
understood that the biblical writer was using "yahlah" in its primary sense.
You have ignored a question, but I will ask it again. Can you honestly say
that if the chronology factor didn't exist, you would read Genesis 11 and
understand that when it said that so and so lived so many years and begot
whoever, this meant that so and so lived so many years and became the
ancestor of whoever? Now don't forget to answer that question.
I'll also present a challenge to you. To do this, we would have to be
together to conduct the experiment, but I'm willing to travel to wherever
you live so that we could work together on it. We will go together to a
university campus or some place where we could survey people, and we will
show them the Genesis 11 genealogy and ask them to tell us what they think
it means when it says that Arphaxad lived 35 years and begot Shelah, that
Shelah lived 30 years and begot Eber, etc. Or we could get a neutral party
somewhere to conduct the survey (without letting him/her know what its
purpose was). Are you willing to do this? If so, what do you think the
results would be? Also if you say in answer to the question in the above
paragraph that your desire to harmonize biblical discrepancies has nothing
to do with your interpretation of Genesis 11, would you be willing to submit
to a polygraph test? I wouldn't hesitate to submit to one to show that what
I am saying in this matter is what I honestly think about the meaning of the
text. I have serious doubts, though, that you are being truthful. I
encounter a lot of face-saving in biblical inerrantists when they are backed
against the wall, so I can never be sure of what they really think.
MATTHEW
<Lewis's comment snipped>
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.
TILL
Well, as a matter of fact, I do have a problem with C.S. Lewis's
credentials. My personal opinion is that he couldn't have reasoned his way
out of a wet paper bag.
MATTHEW
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.
TILL
But you completely ignore my supporting evidence and wave it aside with
"Josephsus doesn't have much credibility," or "these sources don't prove
anything." But they do prove something. They prove exactly what I quoted
them for, i.e., early Jewish writers understood that the genealogies in
question used "yahlah" in its primary sense. These writers put us back to
four to six centuries after the genealogy was written, and so that is better
evidence of how the word was being used than the commentary of a
contemporary inerrantist who approaches the text with an awareness that a
primary interpretation will result in biblical discrepancy. That approach
is crass intellectual dishonesty, but Josephus felt no need to prove
anything. He was writing only what he understood his source text to mean.
<more evasion and repetition snipped>
>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.
TILL
At last! Now you need to show why (and you may cite some literary sources
if you wish) this is a valid method of literary interpretation.
MATTHEW
This often calls for going deeper into the understanding of what the Bible
says.
TILL
No, what it is actually calling for is a distortion of probable meaning in
order to maintain a cherished belief. Mormons could do the same with their
book. Muslims could do the same with their book. In fact, they do do the same.
MATTHEW
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
Possible solutions are simply that--possible solutions. If the primary
interpretation of a text results in no absurdity and if there are no other
compelling reasons to assign figurative or secondary meaning to the languge,
then any figurative or secondary interpretation of the language is simply a
hypothesis, but hypotheses, must be tested and proven before reasonable
people are going to accept them. Inerrantists tests their hypotheses in
inerrancy matters by simply declaring that the text does mean what they want
it to mean. That is no proof at all.
>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?
TILL
No, because I never had any students who flatly argued that universally
recognized rules of literary interpretation were wrong.
MATTHEW
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.
TILL
No one will ever prove a biblical discrepancy to you, Matthew, because your
allegiance to biblical inerrancy simply will not allow it, no matter how
foolish you must make yourself look to others in order to maintain your
inerrancy position. For the past 30 minutes, I have been sitting here
wondering why I have wasted so much time arguing with a fence post. I
posted my evidence in detail, and you ignored it. Now either go back and
discuss the information that I posted from Josephus and Jubilees and give
contextual evidence from these sources OR CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE FROM GENESIS
11 to show that these writers grossly misunderstood the intention of the
Genesis writer or else consider this matter over. I can't waste hours of
each day answering and answering and answering your same old quibbles when
you refuse to analyze my arguments and show where they erred.
MATTHEW
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.
TILL
Okay, why don't you get the ball to rolling? Take my "Basic Hermeneutic
Lesson" postings and forward them to the list along with your responses.
Then when responses come in, forward them to me. If I can possibly find
time, I will respond to them. However, I hope you know that I understand
perfectly that Xians on a Xian list are going to disagree with about
anything I say. That was evident when I was on the list for about two weeks.
If you want the discussion to continue here, you are going to have to
analyze my material from extrabiblical sources and my comparison of the
Genesis 10, 11, and 1Chronicles 1 genealogies and show specifically where I
erred in my reasoning.
I'm weary of your evasion of my arguments and repetition of your arguments
that I have answered.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.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.