*Alward: Forever the "ken" Debate?

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

 Joe Alward:
 
 I don't think anyone wants to hear anything more about "ken". I hope Till
will just concede the "ken" question to you so that we can move on to more
substantive matters in the blood plague story; then, perhaps, we can talk
about the other plagues. 
 
 M.BELL
 I'm sure those like yourself who are just discussing matters for
entertaintment
 purposes don't want to hear any more about 'ken', however for those of us to
 whom such actually means something it doesn't matter whether we want to be
 continuing such or not, the issue needs to be taken to a conclusion one way
or
 another. I would almost be disappointed if Farrell just conceded the point
;),
 something I am sure he has no intention of doing. As for discussing the other
plague I for one, don't see that happening anytime in the near future. 

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

Bell is like the lone sniper in the village who holds back a battalion of
soldiers.  It sounds like Bell is willing to go to his grave arguing about
"ken" against Till, if Till will let him.  Errantists should realize-and I
think most of them do--that inerrantists believe they must "contend for the
faith" by defending every INCH of ground.  

By tying up a leading errantist and others in a protracted debate over an
insignificant mote of exegetical esoterica, Bell will have accomplished far
more for his faith then Till will have for the skeptics.  If Till's reluctance
to concede any ground to any inerrantists cause causes him to be drawn deeply
into the "ken" debate once again, nobody but the inerrantists will profit.
Concede the point, Farrell, please, so we can talk about something meaningful,
such as, Where did all that blood go, and, Why didn't the Egyptians die of
thirst?

• Previous message: *Alward:Re: [ccbe] Re: Development on the 'ken' debate.
• Next message: Development on the 'ken' debate. (ACC)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]