*Alward: All or Nothing (to Till)
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:29:54 -0800 (00910960194, 2.2.32.19981113062954.0089cbdc@midwest.net)
At 03:58 PM 11/12/98 EST, JAlw@aol.com wrote:
>Joe Alward:
>
>As far as I can see, Till, shows conclusively that some writers on some
>occasions did have God's words put in their mouths.
>
TILL
Correction, Joe! I have shown only that some writers SAID that God had put
his words into their mouths. The fact that they said this did not make it
so, and I certainly don't believe it is so. Inerrantists, however, believe
that it is so, and that forms the basis for the premise on which they base
their belief in inerrancy. That's the central issue that you for some
strange reason seem unable to grasp.
ALWARD
>Till presents ample evidence that Yahweh literally put words in the mouth of
>Isaiah and Jeremiah, and other evidence that they, along with Ezekiel, Jonah,
>Hosea, Micah, and Joel, said that the word of God "came to them". He further
>shows that there are hundreds of OT references to "the word of Yahweh" coming
>to the writer. Moses, too, said he wrote down the words of Yahweh. Thus,
>Till makes a convincing case that ". . . the OT writers thought that they were
>speaking and writing the very words of Yahweh." It is clear, then, that some
>passages in the OT were dictated by Yahweh.
>
>But, what about the other passages? If Till's analysis is as thorough as we've
>all come to expect (I'll assume that it is), then there does not seem to exist
>any evidence that these writers did not also write other things which which
>were not God's very words. If this evidence does not exist, it would seem
>that errantists cannot make a strong case that inerrantists are compelled to
>believe every word in the bible came straight from the lips of god. If
>inerrantists don't HAVE to believe that every word came straight from god,
>then they have the right to suppose that certain verses might not have been
>perfectly communications from god.
TILL
I have carefully delineated the arguments that inerrantists use to reach
their conclusion that the Bible is completely inerrant in EVERYTHING,
including history, geography, science, etc., as well as matters of faith and
practice. That conclusion is based on the premise of verbal inspiration. I
have often asked so-called inerrantists who reject the premise of biblical
inerrancy to present a logical argument for inerrancy that resulted from
something less than VERBAL guidance and direction by a divine entity, but I
have yet to see anyone present a sensible logical argument that would
justify that conclusion.
Perhaps you have an argument that you can present to show us why it would be
reasonable to believe that the Bible is inerrant even though God inspired
only the thoughts or ideas of the Bible and left the choice of words to the
writers. If so, please present it. That will give us some means of trying
to evaluate whatever it is that you are trying to accomplish.
>TILL
>
>The entire series on verbal inspiration, which I haven't even completed yet,
>present arguments to justify the inerrantist view of verbal inspiration and
>its consequent doctrine of biblical inerrancy. You can't refute this
>position by a smorgasbord, pick-and-choose method of commenting on one or
>two points that you think are weak in the overall position, so either take
>the postings one by one and answer them point by point or else you will go
>back into my killfile. My postings show that I at least understand the
>biblical inerrancy doctrine. Your postings continually show that you don't
>have a clue about what this doctrine is or why it was ever formulated.
>==================
>Joe Alward:
>
>Till has made it a habit lately of ignoring postings from me he can't answer
>by claiming that it is beneath his dignity to speak to someone who has had too
>little experience in errancy to have a good opinion about any of the
>outstanding issues of errancy/inerrancy. He did this with the murrain-hail
>problem, and refuses even to look at my suggestion that my blood plague
>"harmonization" is better than Bell's and that he's wasting his time debating
>an inferior position.
>
TILL
You have presented postings that I can't answer? That's news to me. I have
ignored your postings because you have proven yourself to be a colossal time
waster, and I have more things to do. You present so-called
"harmonizations" that are more absurd than anything that real inerrantists
post, and whenever flaws are exposed in them, you post back that you are
revising such and such an essay on your web site to remove the problem. I
just don't have the time to waste on this kind of activity. You see the
number of postings on this list (especially those from the CCBE) that are
directed at me, and you have seen the thoroughness that I put into replying
to them. That takes time--lots of it--and then I have to see to the
publication of TSR and the mail that it generates from both the hard-copy
edition and its web site. You have no idea how many demands are made on my
time, yet you expect me to take the time to reply to dozens of postings that
are sent in by a rank amateur who just wants to "play the Devil's advocate."
There's nothing wrong with you that couldn't be cured by ridding yourself of
the exaggerated sense of importance that you have.
As for your wonderful murrain-hail "harmonization," I posted a response to
it that you applied your "smorgasbord" approach to and called a rebuttal,
but you left the heart of the rebuttal untouched. I don't consider it
beneath my dignity to speak to anyone who is uninformed in inerrancy issues,
but that is not what led me to ignore you. You are not only not well
informed on the subject, you seem intent on getting attention drawn to you
and your amateurish web site by opposing me for no other reason except to
get attention. I said it before, and I'll say it again: I would prefer to
have a hundred Matt Bells on this list to one of you. The Bells are at
least sincere in what they are doing and are making an effort to defend what
they really believe. You, on the other hand, are obviously out to get
attention at the expense of the purpose for which this list was established.
I tolerate you on the list as I have tolerated people like "Dick Jones," but
I don't have to waste my time on you when there are hundreds of messages and
letters that I need to answer. Even now I am kicking myself for again
allowing you to draw me into a futile discussion with you. If you don't
produce a serious attempt this time to answer the arguments in my postings
that have presented the reasoning that inerrantists use to support their
belief, I assure you that I won't make the mistake again of thinking that it
is possible to reason with you. If you want attention, you'll have to get
it from someone else besides me.
ALWARD
>Readers will note that Till made no effort to address my point above (which I
>hope Till won't snip when and if he responds to this). He thinks he can hide
>behind his reputation and that he can drag a succession of red herrings across
>my path by demanding that I rebut his four very long posts line by line.
>Well, I have nothing to rebut, Farrell. I've read your posts, and I don't
>think you've said ANYTHING that I disagree with; surely that shouldn't
>disappoint you.
>
TILL
Yeah, right! Since these are the very arguments that inerrantists use to
defend their belief in biblical inerrancy, what you are saying is that there
is nothing in their arguments that needs rebuttal, yet from the other corner
of your mouth you defend them and try to "play the devil's advocate" on
their behalf. So either take their arguments one at a time (which I have
presented in my postings) and show that there are logical reasons to believe
in biblical inerrancy without espousing the verbal inspiration doctrine, or
else go waste someone else's time. I have not demanded a line-by-line
response, but I do expect a point-by-point or argument-by-argument rebuttal.
That's a reasonable request.
As for hiding behind reputations, it's too bad that you don't have a
reputation to hide behind. I might add that if I have a reputation to hide
behind, that reputation was earned by detailed, point-by-point rebuttals of
inerrantist arguments. This is apparently an ability that you do not have,
or else you realize that outside of the doctrine of verbal inspiration,
there is no logical way to defend the view that the Bible is the inerrant,
authoritative word of God, but are too stubborn to admit it. If there is
such a way, then present it to us.
ALWARD
>My comments in the post reprinted at the top do not criticize anything you
>said in any of your posts; they have only to do with what you did NOT say.
>You did not say that the bible makes it clear that every verse written by
>every author of every book in the bible was dictated, word-for-word, by God.
>I don't fault you for not saying that, because you've already admitted that
>the bible contains no such statement.
>
TILL
For pity's sake, Alward, are you so stupid that you can't even read and
understand plain English. I said the following in reply to an earlier
demand from you to quote the passage that says the Bible in its entirety was
verbally inspired:
> There is no such passage in the Bible, but I contend that this conclusion is
> logically necessary from the arguments that I presented in my postings.
> That's why I'm challenging you to respond to them point by point and show
> that my arguments are fallacious.
So I have NEVER said that the Bible makes any such claim. What I have
claimed is that on the basis of what the Bible does say about how God guided
and directed those who were allegedly chosen to be his spokesman, it can be
logically inferred from those statements that verbal inspiration was the
method that he used in all cases of inspiration. Did you not read the
following comment that I made?
> Did you by chance see my argument that a deity who would put his very words
> into the mouths of apostles that were brought before kings and rulers would
> surely do no less than this in guiding them when they wrote what was
> allegedly the "word of God" intended to guide mankind throughout the
> Christian era? If not, you may want to go back and read it and then give us
> a logical explanation for why "God" would have put his very words into the
> mouths of the apostles when they spoke before tribunals but wouldn't have
> bothered to so direct them when they were writing books intended to guide
> Christians through the entire Christian era.
>
The postings in which I presented the inerrantist case for biblical
inerrancy also presented the line of argumentation that is used to arrive at
the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. My position is that IF there is an
omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omni-everything deity who VERBALLY
inspired the Bible, then by logical necessity the Bible would have to be
completely inerrant in EVERYTHING it said in the original autographs,
including matters of history, geography, science, etc., as well as matters
of faith and practice. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to (1)
refute this argument, and (2) then present your own logical basis for
thinking that there is another way besides verbal inspiration to guarantee
the total inerrancy of a book as extensive in scope as the Bible.
ALWARD
>All Farrell has done is build an extremely strong case for the rare
>inerrantist who wishes to find reason to believe that every word in the bible
>came from the lips of god. However, for other inerrantists who wish to rebut
>the claim that all inerrantists MUST believe that every word came from the
>god, they may point to Farrell's analysis and say, Look, *some* of the writers
>used gods words exactly, *some* of the time; but what about all the other
>authors, and the other times?
>
TILL
Look, you hardheaded nitwit, I own this list. I was the one who set it up,
so I should certainly know what its purpose was, and its purpose from the
beginning was to discuss the Bible from the point of view of the biblical
inerrancy doctrine. Its purpose has NEVER been to discuss the Bible from
the view of those who think that it is errant but yet in someway is still
the "word of God." This was the same reason why I started *The Skeptical
Review,* and the very first editorial article in January 1990 stated very
clearly that the paper was being establish as a forum for debating biblical
inerrancy. You obviously don't like this policy, so if you don't like the
policy, then why don't you organize your own list to discuss whatever
aspects of the Bible you want to discuss or to discuss the watered down view
of biblical inerrancy that you evidently see yourself as an expert in? I'll
tell you one thing: I have operated Skepticism, Inc., for 10 years now and
have singlehandedly built it into a successful enterprise, and that success
came from my policy of focusing on the traditional biblical inerrancy
doctrine. I'm not going to change that policy because Joe Alward suddenly
comes along and tells me that he doesn't like what I have been doing and
thinks that the policy should be changed.
ALWARD
>If Farrell wishes to rebut this point, he should do so, not do what he usually
>does, which is to say that it is a point not worth addressing, or a point that
>he's already covered in his many postings, and that he won't take the time to
>rebut what he claims he's already rebutted. He has NOT rebutted it. Farrell
>will either not respond to this post, or else he will say once again that he
>is going to trash every from me until I get off my high horse.
>
TILL
What point is there to rebut? I had a purpose in organizing this list,
which is the same purpose that I had in beginning TSR, and I am going to
stick to that purpose. If you find Bible believers who are not traditional
inerrantists, that is no great surprise, because I have had contacts with
many of them myself. The problem here is not that I have something that I
need to "rebut" but that you have the obligation to rebut the traditional
arguments for verbal inspiration and its consequent doctrine of biblical
inerrancy and THEN proceed to show that there is a sound logical basis for
thinking that a Bible that was NOT verbally inspired could nevertheless be
inerrant and authoritative. If you would just climb down from your high
horse for just a moment, you might actually see what the real issue is, but
you are so wrapped up in yourself that I doubt if you will ever be able to
do this.
ALWARD
>Here are the current outstanding differences of opinions between Till and
>myself:
>
TILL
Did you mean to say "differences of opinions between Till and ME"?
ALWARD
>1. Till asserts that it would have been impossible for the hail to have
>killed any of the Egyptians cattle since the murrain plague had already killed
>all of the cattle, and there wasn't enough time to acquire any cattle. I
>strongly disagreed, and Till stopped talking to me.
>
TILL
I analyzed the plague stories to show that the Exodus writer obviously
intended his readers to understand that they were of short duration and
followed one after the other. Alward simply waved at this posting in
passing and called it a rebuttal. Perhaps his problem is that he doesn't
really know how to take an opponent's arguments and answer them one by one
in DETAIL.
ALWARD
>2. I claim that Bell's position on the blood plague is ridiculously
>untenable, that Farrell knows it, and further knows that there is a better
>harmonization. Rather than rebut the better one, Farrell insists on torturing
>Bell, drawing out his agony (putting Kornform and others--including
>me--through "hell"). Read my harmonization, Farrell, and tell everyone why
>you think it is inferior to Bell's, if you can.
>
TILL
My honest opinion is that Bell's harmonization is far more believable than
yours, because yours violates widely recognized principles of sound literary
interpretation. One of those principles is that a text must be interpreted
on the basis of what it says and not on the basis of what it does not say.
Your "harmonization" depends on speculations based entirely on what the text
does NOT say. Sound principles of literary interpretation do recognize that
implications are permissible in the interpretation of a text, but these
implications must be inevitable from what the text does say. They can't be
just arbitrary declarations that the text implies them. That is a glaring
problem in the matter of your so-called implications, because your
"harmonization" first assumes that the text is inerrant and from that
assumption concludes that formidable miracles that were NOT expressly stated
by the writer occurred, which only an incredibly incompetent writer would
have omitted had they actually occurred. Incredible writing incompetence is
hardly compatible with divine inspiration. There is no recognized principle
of literary interpretation that I have ever heard of that would legitimize
your approach to finding textual implications, because a much more
reasonable implication would have to take precedence over your unlikely one.
That more reasonable implication is that the writer of the text simply made
a mistake. It happens all the time in writing, so there is nothing at all
far-fetched about concluding that this is what happened in Exodus 7.
ALWARD
>3. Till evidently believes that inerrantists--if they believe the bible--MUST
>hold to the position that every word in the bible was dictated by god. I
>disagree.
>
TILL
This is a flat out misrepresentation of my position. I have studied the
Bible far, far, far more than you have or probably ever will, I was educated
in Bible colleges maintained by biblical inerrantists, I was drilled in the
biblical inerrancy doctrine, and I preached this doctrine myself for 10
years before I finally rejected it and left the ministry two years later. I
KNOW WHAT THE BIBLICAL INERRANCY DOCTRINE IS, but are you stupid enough to
think that I have spent most of my life engaged in studying and researching
the Bible but never learned that there are some believers in biblical
inerrancy who reject the doctrine of VERBAL inspiration. I was aware of this
long before I ever even heard of Joe Alward, so you are flagrantly
misrepresenting me when you say that I believe that "inerrantists-- if they
believe the Bible--MUST hold to the position that every word in the bible
was dictated by god." I do NOT think this, and I have never thought it. My
position is that the doctrine of VERBAL inspiration, although an erroneous
doctrine, nevertheless presents the only reasonable logical basis for
believing that the Bible could be totally and completely inerrant. If you
think that my position on this is wrong, then why don't you accept the
challenge to take the arguments for verbal inspiration and its consequent
doctrine of biblical inerrancy, REFUTE them, and then show us a logical line
of argumentation that would justify believing that a nonverbally inspired
Bible could still be inerrant and authoritative? Furthermore, VERBAL
inspiration does not necessitate "dictation," as anyone informed in the
doctrine of verbal inspiration could tell you if you would ever actually
take the time to research the doctrine and find out what it really is and
what those who adhere to it really believe.
ALWARD
>Will Farrell debate any of these points, or will he hide?
TILL
I think we are going to see very soon who is going to do the hiding. You
may have already sent postings to the list before this one appears, but
after it does appear if you don't take my challenge as stated immediately
above and begin analyzing the "Understanding Biblical Inerrancy" postings
one by one to show the error in inerrantist reasoning (based, of course, on
the assumption that an omniscient, omnipotent deity exists and inspired the
writing of the Bible), it is back to the trash can for your postings. I'm
personally embarrassed by the amount of time that I have spent in answering
this posting to the neglect of other pressing matters that I urgently need
to attend to.
I hate to disillusion you, Joe, but you are not a force to contend with.
You are a nuisance, and one way to deal with nuisances is to ignore them,
and that is what I intend to do unless you immediately show a change in
attitude. You are obviously striving very hard to get me to give attention
to you, but if you want any further attention from me, you are going to have
to earn it by addressing the inerrantist line of argumentation and trying to
refute it and then showing to us a more reasonable line of argumentation
that would support belief in biblical inerrancy. If you think I am bluffing
when I say that your failure to address the heart of the issue between us
will result in my trashing you permanently, then just proceed with your
business as usual, and you will see that I am very serious.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net