*Alward: Alward Debates Till
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:25:57 -0800 (00910970757, 2.2.32.19981113092557.00899a54@midwest.net)
At 01:06 AM 11/13/98 EST, JAlw@aol.com wrote:
>Joe Alward:
>
>This post does not contain a response to Farrell's challenge to debate the
>inerrancy question, and it's not even a signal that my views are as othogonal
>to his as he seems to believe.
>
>In a another post to another correspondent, Till wrote: " I am determined not
>to spend any more time on Alward until he indicates that he is going to
>address the central issue in his dispute with me, which is the longstanding
>purpose of this list, i.e., to debate the Bible in accordance with the
>doctrine of biblical inerrancy that was derived from the doctrine of verbal
>inspiration."
>
>
>I will be happy to address whatever issue Farrell cares to raise, but our
>correspondence will be more productive, I think, if he would spell out in just
>a few sentences what it is he affirms, what it is he thinks I believe that is
>contrary to his view, and which specific points he wants me to address. Then,
>I will do that. In return, perhaps he would agree to discuss the murrain-hail
>dispute and tell me in greater detail why he thinks Bell's "harmonization" is
>more viable than mine. But, those can come after we discuss inerrancy. I
>will wait for a brief statement from Till.
>
TILL
Here is clear evidence that Alward doesn't even read my postings. I have
"spelled out" what I affirm in the "Understanding Biblical Inerrancy" series
and restated it in my 21K response to him earlier tonight. In that posting,
I also explained why I thought that Bell's harmonization is better than his.
Now he wants me to do this in "greater detail." In other words, he wants me
to waste more time on him when I have already wasted far too much time on
him. It also strikes me as ironic that he complains about the details in my
other postings, but when I explained what was wrong with his "harmonization"
of the first plague, he asks for "greater detail."
Joe, either rise to the occasion and answer my postings on inerrancy with an
effort comparable to what I put into them and then give us a logical basis
for thinking that an unverbally inspired Bible could be inerrant and
authoritative, or get lost. I sincerely hope you will do the latter. Nancy
Todd described you as a pain in the ass, but that is an expression that is
far too complimentary.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net