*Alward: Answer to Farrell

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

from Bach

-----Original Message-----
From: JAlw@aol.com <JAlw@aol.com>
To: errancy@infidels.org <errancy@infidels.org>
Date: Friday, November 13, 1998 7:37 PM
Subject: *Alward: Answer to Farrell





>clipping Alward's usual self-promotion<


BTW, Joe, do you ever, even as a courtesy, secure permission from Till
before republishing his original work on your site?  I don't know all the
rules of the Internet yet, but in previous times, you would be in litigation
city about now!


>Joe.......

>Till presents below 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 inerrantists can show that some passages in the OT were dictated

by

>Yahweh.


I think you meant to say "errantists" above, no?  I regard Farrell as an
errantist, and this is at least the second time, that I am aware of, that
you have used these terms back ass-wards.  True inerrantists think _every_
passage was dictated/verbally inspired by Yahweh! That is what the doctrine
of biblical inerrancy is all about, as I understand it.


>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. But, how is this possible, skeptics ask?

>Can one believe in  "inerrancy" at the same time one accepts that some

verses

>are not perfect communications from God?



>snipped the rest, quite frankly, without even reading it<


from Bach
_Some_ verses?  Till said "hundreds".  One minute you are the college-level
physicist arguing the precise value of Pi, as in the Solomon's bathtub
discussion......the next, you're saying "hundreds" equal "some".  I'm
starting to feel like Will Rogers.....I don't have to make up the funny
stuff, I just observe and report on what is going on.
When, Joe, will you start actually doing what you say you are all
about....creating those concise, quick, neatly-packaged arguments from the
errantist point of view that you claim to hold....instead of second guessing
every possible argument that an inerrantist might offer as rebuttal?  Why
not let inerrantists come up with their own arguments, if and when they can?
Why do they need your help....and don't give me that "they're on my porch
all the time and if I can't hit 'em where it hurts in the first 90
seconds,etc."  baloney.  When was the last time you actually talked biblical
inerrancy, errancy, whatever....with somebody other than the people on this
list?  I really don't see where you could find the time between splitting
every hair on Till's head and developing/promoting your own web site.

I've hit your site a few times, Joe, BTW and IMHO, the best part of it is
_not_ what _you_ have written.....it's the links information that you
provide.  You don't have to take up space just because you can, y'know?
Bones Bach
thebachs@fgi.net

• Previous message: *Alward: Answer to Farrell
• Next message: *Alward: Answer to Farrell
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]