I've read several articles that show that subliminal "education" never even
gets into the brain. Nope, don't know where they are either - but since
we're not arguing that subliminal messaging works, guess it doesn't matter!
>
> Regarding Till's "knowledge" of the Bible. It appears to me that
> Till is best at recounting passages that he believes contain
> absurdities, moral atrocities attributed to God, or contradictions.
> He can type this accounts up in various version/translations. Then
> he recounts the account in his own words, emphasizing the particulars
> points he calls in question using wording guaranteed to bring forth a
> knee jerk reaction. It is actually a non-exegesis. He does it on the
> list, he does it in his publication, The Skeptical Review. He is
> smooth and does what he does well, however I don't think that what he
> does show off a great deal of skill in Biblical knowledge. Most
> individuals can do the same thing with nearly any document without
> hardly any knowledge of it.
It wouldn't matter to me if Farrell didn't know John 3:16 and had to look
up every single verse he uses. The real point (aside from my quip) is
that, using the bible, Farrell can tie you inerrantists up in knots. And,
if this WORD OF GOD is literally true, then it shouldn't matter which
translation (or - lations) one uses - the answers should still be the same,
no? If Farrell has no skill in showing errancy (and ludicrousness,
actually) using the bible, then why do the inerrantists spend so much time
arguing about non-bible stuff, and constantly avoid dealing with the
problems he poses?
>
> By the same token, and to be fair, I doubt that Till would consider
> what he would refer to as my "what if and could-have-been" scenarios
> in response to him (or others) as being overwhelming Biblical
> "knowledge" either.
>
Ah, but your "what if" scenarios are so far from reality that even YOU
wouldn't accept them if anyone else used it to try and convince you that
the Mormon or Muslim or Hindu sacred works were innerrant!
> Anyway we could get into this big thing of what constitutes
> knowledge, but my point was that merely being able to recite
> something does not imply knowledge. After my bad example of
> "osmosis," which isn't osmosis :), let me recount another example.
>
> Michael P. Hughes
> http://www.odd.net/ozarks/churches/cchrist/camdenton/index.htm
I do agree with you that memorization is not knowledge. It was a quip,
after all. Farrell may not have any of it memorized, but he sure as hell
has the knowledge. And I wait patiently (usually in lurker's mode - for
obviously good reasons <G>) for EVEN ONE of you to show me that that's not
true!
April