*Alward: The "ken" Question (to Bach)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Joe Alward:

In the lice plague story, the magicians "did so" (ken) after Aaron waved his
rod and brought up lice. Since they didn't bring up lice, it's clear that
"ken" just referred to the magicians waving their rod, as did Aaron; it did
not mean, of course, that the magicians did exactly what Aaron did in bringing
up the lice.

In the frogs plague story, Aaron waved his hand over the waters and brought up
frogs.  The magicians "did so" (ken); the word "ken" in this story, as in the
lice story, only tells us that the magicians waved their hands over the
waters, nothing more.  The text then tells us that the magicians accomplished
the same thing as did Aaron.

In the blood plague, Aaron touched the waters with his rod and turned it to
blood, and the magicians "did so" (ken); as in the other two stories, "ken"
means only that the magicians touched the waters with their rods.  This time,
we're not told whether the magicians failed as in the lice plague, or
succeeded as in the frogs plague.  Since we're not told whether any water was
converted, or even IF any water was converted, why do some skeptics insist
that the author is telling us that the magicians converted ALL the waters of
Egypt into blood, and why does Bell bother debating whether "ken" could mean
"same in kind, but not in extent", when it's evident that "ken" refers only to
the act of waving the hand or the rod, and not to the results--if any--of that
act?

Can anyone explain this to me?  Jeff?  Matt?  Anyone?

==================
 from Bach
 Joe,
 Isn't this whole water to blood discussion more about whether it could
 possibly have happened in the first place than about sloppy story telling or
 the exact meanings of all the words?
 I view it the same way I see the flood myth.....if such a thing had ever
 actually happened, there would be much evidence....extra-biblical accounts,
 archaelogical and geological data, etc.  Much has been posted by experts on
 this list to indicate that there is no such evidence and that none is
 forthcoming.
 Why not question when God got around to turning the Nile back into water.
 Exodus 7:25 says that 7 days passed, but where does the bible story ever say
 that the blood was turned back into water?  Why isn't it still blood today?
 Why wouldn't this be sufficient to prove errancy?  The OT contains yet
 another story of an event that, like the global flood account, never
 happened and could not have happened. If it never happened, the story isn't
 true.  If something isn't true, it's false, and/or a lie. If the bible
 contains a lie, or something false stated as truth, then it's errant.  If
 God cannot lie, then the bible was not inspired by God.....or if the bible
 was inspired by God, then God is a liar.  Take your pick.
 What the magicians did or did not do in these myths is no longer important
 to me.  I am convinced that Moses and Aaron did not do and could not have
 done what the bible says they did.
 This would be my 90 second argument with any inerrantist who brought up this
 topic on my front porch.  That's what you're looking for, right?
 Bones Bach
 thebachs@fgi.net
======================
Joe Alward:

I'm looking for two things:  the best argument in support of the blood plague
story, and the best rebuttal.  I also want to rebut Farrell Till's contention
that there exists a logistical impossibility within the blood plague story:
Till assumes that the first conversion occurred (for the sake of argument),
but that the second could not have occurred because there would have been no
blood.  

The best argument in support of the story, in my opinion, is based on the
assumption that the author chose not to tell us that each set of contestants
reversed their "magic" trick within hours, leaving only dead fish.  This
answers almost all questions, I think, except one important one: Why didn't
the author tell us?  Thus, this is not a bullet-proof argument.  You may wish
to take a look at the full argument; it's at
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/water_blood.html

You say, " I am convinced that Moses and Aaron did not do and could not have
 done what the bible says they did.", but this seems to be based on the belief
that there must have remained substantial evidence of all that blood.  But, if
the conversion was reversed, that argument evaporates.  If you wish to say
that you're convinced the conversion didn't take place, you'll have to base it
on the assumption that Aaron could not have reversed it because the author
would have told us about it.  That's one argument, but it assumes that the
bible authors never leave out information that a clever reader would be able
to infer.  Remember Jesus' parables.

• Previous message: FWD: Outrageous fees
• Next message: *Alward: The "ken" Question (to Bach)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]