Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)

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

At 04:16 PM 9/30/98 +0100, Matthew Bell wrote:


>> > CCBE

>> > However, we can demonstrate how your contention is one of poor, and

>> > indeed according to your own earlier post, invalid eisegisis. 

>> >



>> F.TILL

>> Eisegesis (I even know how to spell it) is a fallacious interpretation

>> method that reads INTO the text information that is not there.  My

>> contention throughout has been that the text says only that (1) Aaron and

>> Moses changed all of the water throughout all the land of Egypt into blood,

>> (2) the fish died, (3) the river became foul, (4) the Egyptians could not

>> drink from the river, (5) the magicians did in like manner with their

>> enchantments, and (6) pharaoh hardened his heart, turned, and went into his

>> house.  So since the text specifically states all of these things, just

>> where is the eisegesis occurring?

>

>CCBE

>The eisegesis is point (1). You have stated elsewhere:

>

>1. 'If Aaron had changed all of the water throughout the whole land of Egypt 

>into blood, including even the water in stone and wooden vessels, there 

>would have been no water available for pharaoh's magicians to show 

>their stuff and duplicate the feat.  I would  think that even Mr. Moffitt 

>should be able to see this, but if he can't, perhaps he can at least explain 

>to us how the magicians were able to pull off this remarkable stunt.  At 

>any rate, we have to score one for pharaoh and the bad guys this time. 

>Moses and Aaron merely changed all the water there was into blood; 

>pharaoh's magicians changed all the water there wasn't into blood.  They 

>were some magicians, to say the least'.

>

>2. 'The problem is really simple enough that even Matt Bell should see it.  No

>one, regardless of what kind of powers he may have possessed, could have

>changed water that didn't exist into blood'.

>



>>From this it is obvious that you consider 'all of the water', to be absolute.

>We showed how this is poor eisegesis in our response:

>

>'It states nowhere in the text that absolutely no water existed for the

>magicians to perform their feat. Indeed if one uses the principle of exegesis

>(defined by F.Till as,'"exegesis" means to derive from the text the meaning of

>the language used within it), then one would come to the opposite conclusion

>that F.Till does. The text states that the magicians did likewise.


TILL
I've never claimed that the text does not SAY that the magicians did
likewise with their enchantments, and that is the whole point.  My argument
is that the text had to be in error in making this claim, because it is a
logistically impossible claim.  If we grant that Aaron and Moses changed all
of the water in Egypt into blood, an act that would have been possible if
there were any such thing as an omnipotent god working on their behalf, but
even if there were such an entity as this, it would not have been possible
for the magicians to do the same thing that Aaron and Moses did, because all
the water in Egypt had already been changed into blood.  So the argument is
not about whether the text SAYS that the magicians did the same as Aaron and
Moses but whether the text could be accurate in saying that they did. If
something is logically impossible, then it couldn't have happened.  That's
the issue that Bell and the CCBE keep evading.

CCBE

>We derive from this (the text) that to have done so they would have water

to use. 

TILL
No, you're not deriving anything; you are begging the question of biblical
inerrancy by arguing that if the Bible says that the magicians did the same
as Aaron and Moses, then it has to be true that the magicians did the same
as Aaron and Moses.  The fact that it was logistically impossible for the
magicians to have done the same as Aaron and Moses (if we assume that A & M
changed all of the water in Egypt into blood) requires us to conclude that
the text erred in making this statement.  If, for example, the text had said
that the magicians of Egypt had made square triangles, we would know that
the text erred in making this claim, because it is logically impossible for
anyone, even an omnipotent god, to make square triangles.  Logical
impossibility is the issue in this matter.  Why won't Bell and the CCBE
confront it?

CCBE

>That the text does not specify where or how they obtained this water does

not >mean that there was none in existence.

TILL
The fact that the text claims a logical impossibility requires the
conclusion that the text erred in claiming that the magicians performed the
logically impossible.  Furthermore, if "all the magicians" in 7:24 had to
mean ALL of the magicians, as the CCBE claims, then why would all the water
in Egypt not have to mean all the water in Egypt?

CCBE

>To claim such is to argue from that which the text does not say

(eisegisis), and >go against what it does say (exegisis). 

>


TILL
To claim that the text makes a logically impossible claim would not be
eisegesis (please learn how to spell it, Matt).  If a text declared that
Matt Bell made square circles, no eisegesis would be involved if I concluded
that the text had made an erroneous statement, because I would not be
reading anything into the text.  Instead, I would be deriving a logical
conclusion from what the text clearly says.

CCBE

>You did not respond to this point in your reply.


TILL
If you check, I think you will find that I did, but if by chance, I didn't,
I have now responded to it.  Shall I send a posting that points out the
arguments that you have not responded to?

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)
• Next message: Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]