*Alward: Answer to Farrell (to Bones Bach)

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

Farrell Till to Joe Alward:

I would rather see you first respond to my postings "Understanding Biblical
Inerrancy," refute the inerrantist arguments for verbal inspiration and
biblical inerrancy and then follow your rebuttal with a logical argument that
would give good reasons for thinking that an unverbally inspired Bible could
be inerrant and authoritative.  That's the real issue between us.
=================
Joe Alward:

Below is my response to Till's challenge to address the question of inerrancy
and verbal inspiration.

Farrell's five posting on this subject are at 

http://members.aol.com/JAlw/farrell_till_on_inerrancy.html

<snip>
=============
Bach:

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 Alward:

That's silly.  I reprinted Till's posts under his name, just as you're
reprinting my posts now in your response.  My site provides a more convenient
way of accessing someone's posts.  Also, I've already told the list that I
would be happy to remove Till's essays if he wishes.  Do you think Jeff Epler
has secured permission from every member of this list to place in his archive
all of the postings from me and anyone else?  I don't think any of us has to
ask another if we can place his posts to the lists in a more accessible
location, do you?  You're over-reacting, looking for anything to criticize,
following Till's example.  Why don't you concentrate of things of substance
instead of wasting your time on things of no consequence to anyone?

And why would anyone object that I give the address of Till's essays?  The
alternative would have been to reprint all of them, or parts of them, in my
email response, so that other members would have them for reference, so that
they might know what I'm responding to.  Do you really think I was not doing
the readers a service by showing them where they might find and read Till's
five long posts, all collected together in one spot? 

Again, I say, why do you waste time sniping at me over such trivial matters
when you could be finding errors of substance in my rebuttals or in my
articles; I assure you, those errors most surely do exist, I just don't know
what they are yet.  Start looking; I would value your input.
============
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.

===
Bones:

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.
==
Joe Alward:

No.  When I referred to "some inerrantists" above, that's what I meant to say.
If you had read further, you would have seen that I speak of two kinds of
"inerrantists", the ones who believe every word in the bible came straight
from god, and the other kind which Till does not care to debate.
========
Joe Alward:

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?
===========
Bach:

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


_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.
==============
Joe Alward:

"Hundreds" could mean "all of the verses", so I used "some" to signal that the
reader would soon read about "other" verses that  were not necessarily
straight from god.  I wasn't trying to minimize Till's evidence.  I had
already said that he had make a fine case for the belief in total verbal
inspiration.  I think you're trying too hard to find small things to
criticize, following Till's example.  I think you are making a mistake in
judgement.
============
Bach:

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.  
==============
Joe Alward:

Ahah.  I'm not JUST interested in making concise arguments from the "errantist
point of view". You evidently misunderstand my purpose.  I'm trying to create
an archive of concise arguments from errrantists AND inerrantists. Also, I
don't MAKE the arguments, as a rule; I COLLECT them from others.  I'm only an
errantist in the sense that I believe most of the errantist arguments are
superior to those of the inerrantists.  But, I have no qualms about standing
in the middle and making what I hope are objective appraisals of the strengths
of each side's argument.
=================
Bach:

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.
====================
Joe Alward:

I talk in person to inerrantists more often than does Till, I suspect.  Three
or four times   a day, every day, a particular inerrantist student comes to my
office to argue (in a very friendly manner) with me, ten or fifteen minutes at
a time, between classes; I have discussions less often with other students.  I
spend about one hour per day, on the average, face to face with true
believers.  
=======================
Bach:

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.  
=========================
Joe Alward:

Well, of course the links are the best part!  Do you think I think my articles
are in any way comparable to those of the great thinkers--including
Till--which are linked on my site?  If they are, it is only because I COPIED
their ideas.  That's what I do, for the most part; I don't do original
thinking; I don't have the time.  I collect ideas from others who do have the
time, or had the time, to do the research.  I put my articles on my site so
that some sympathetic readers will have the opportunity to suggest changes.
That happens several times a week.  If you find a problem with any of my
articles, then please let me know and I will make the necessary corrections
and give you credit. Mine are but drafts of my thinking, still in a state of
improvement; a convenient location, easily accessible by me and also by anyone
who wishes to add some thoughts or make some correction.   

Thanks for the input; I look forward to more.

• Previous message: Copyright laws?
• Next message: *Alward: Till's Comments on My Web Page
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]