Development on the 'ken' debate. (ACC)
Bryce Anderson bryce_anderson@yahoo.com
Sun, 15 Nov 1998 19:41:10 -0800 (PST) (00911209270, 19981116034110.10974.rocketmail@send104.yahoomail.com)
---Matthew Bell <mbkbell@aapi.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > In light of the above, CCBE's argument on the use of 'ken' has been
> validated
> > by two independant sources and unless the errantists provide
*compelling*
> > contrary evidence to both the scholar and the Lexicon it will be
taken from
> > this point forward that we have substantiated our argument and
the matter
> has
> > now been decided in our favour.
> >
> > ====================
> > Joe Alward:
> >
> > Now, hold on there, Matt. Just because "ken" can be interpreted
to mean
> "same
> > in kind, but not in extent", doesn't mean that you've won the
blood-plague
> > debate. Even without the "ken" definition Till was partially
relying upon,
> > Till's position is vastly stronger than yours, in my opinion.
It's clear
> that
> > you've won the sub-debate about "ken" which occupied so much of
the energies
> > of you and Farrell over so many days (weeks?),
>
> M.BELL
> All CCBE is stating is that the issue of 'ken' has been decided in
our favour
> unless the errantists can provide *compelling* contrary evidence for
their
> argument. It is not a claim to victory in the whole debate which has
a long way
> to go.
ACC
While it may make the CCBE/Matt hybrid feel all warm and fuzzy to
know that 'ken' doesn't mean 'exactly the same in all particulars,
down to the minutest detail, with no variance in either nature or
extent,' I do hope he realizes that not even all Christians will be
comfortable with his harmonization. After all, turning millions of
gallons of water into blood can only be seen as 'similar' to
transforming a few gallons if you're willing to stretch your credulity
pretty near the snapping point.
> J.ALWARD
> > but you need to do six things
> > to win the debate, it seems:
> >
> > You need to explain
> >
> > (1) Where the magicians found water to convert to blood.
> > (2) Why the author didn't tell us how and where they found this
water
> > (3) Why the frogs which were still in the river seven days later
hadn't
> died.
> > (4) Why lack of water wouldn't have killed almost all of the
first-born
> which
> > were to fall victim to the plague of the first born at least TEN
DAYS LATER.
> > (5) Why most Egyptians didn't die of thirst.
> > (6) What happened to all that BLOOD.
> >
0> > Unless you assert that the author clumsily failed to tell us that
each set of
> > contestants reversed their tricks, there's no way to answer all of
the
> > questions above, in my opinion.
>
>
> M.BELL
> CCBE will proceed with their arguments in due course.
>
> Thanks
> M.Bell
ACC
Matt, is "in due course" anything like "nigh at hand?"
==
Bryce Anderson
http://members.tripod.com/~Idafab/index.html
Justify the existence of your local Highway Patrol. GUN IT!
When you lose the Holy Spirit, you become stupid.
-a friend of mine
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com