*Alward: Inserting Miracles (to Kornform)
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:54:49 -0000 (00910227289, 19981104190625125.AAA528@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
----------
> From: JAlw@aol.com
> To: errancy@infidels.org
> Subject: *Alward: Inserting Miracles (to Kornform)
> Date: 04 November 1998 17:21
>
> In a message dated 98-11-04 07:53:20 EST, you write:
>
> << In the
> blood problem you insert an arbitrary miracle to "solve" the problem of the
> magicians performing a like act when it was theretofore impossible to do so.
> In the Judas problem an arbitrary miracle can be inserted (in like manner
> :-))
> to "solve" the second theretofore impossible death of Judas.
>
> Can't you see the exact similarity of ad hoc reasoning in both cases? >>
> ===================
> Joe Alward:
>
> I DO insert a miracle, but it is not as "arbitrary" as you may think. In
> saying that the author didn't tell us that Aaron reversed his trick--although
> context of the plague stories makes it clear that he would have HAD to have
> done so, I am not presenting a new, unprecedented act; Aaron had performed
the
> same miracle a minute before.
>
> If, as Bell apparently is thinking of doing, we were to claim that God just
> reversed the blood back to water at the end of Exodus 7:25, then that would
be
> truly ARBITRARY. With that kind of reasoning, almost ANY problem story could
> be harmonized. Thus, my "miracle" is more consistent with context, and is not
> a new type of miracle; it does not come as a complete surprise, as would
> Bell's.
M.BELL
Don't presume to understand my or CCBE's thinking. We have not postulated that
God reversed the blood back to water at the end of 7:25. There are many points
of the passage which have not yet been fully considered. I suggest you await
such rather than presuming knowledge of what that will be.
>
> I've said before that the weakest part of my harmonization is the failure of
> the author to tell us that each contestant reversed his trick. However, as
> far as I can tell, my harmonization removes all questions. Bell's not only
has
> the problem of introducing a miracle which was not only not mentioned by the
> author, but which was also completely arbitrary; furthermore, it still leaves
> the unanswered the question of where the magicians found water to convert.
Do
> you think Bell's explanation is superior to mine? If not, then shouldn't
> errantists' attention shift toward mine?