Blood, etc. 1b ([how is this a]CCBE Response[?])

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

Matt,

     First question:  Since, in the last four days, the only direct
response to this thread in your CCBE Archives were a pair of posts by
the same author, how is this a CCBE response?  Unless you're doing
most of your business off-list, you can't possibly be waiting to get a
majority consensus before you post these articles.  Wouldn't it be
more correct to say this was a Matt Bell post that received input from
some of the members of the CCBE list?  (Very little input, by the way.
 I noticed that the brainiac who wrote the two posts took umbrage at
Till's assertion that before water could be changed to blood, water
had to exist.  He chided Till for trying to put limits on omnipotence.)

     Well, on with the post from Matt Bell!

---Matthew Bell <mbkbell@aapi.co.uk> wrote:

[snip "How we got here"]


> CCBE

> The killing of the livestock with hail is not the immediate matter

under

> discussion, hence we will not be dealing with that matter at present. 

> 

> We have pointed out in our response that your misunderstanding that

the feat of

> the magicians was logistically impossible is due to the invalid use of

> eisegesis, and an out of context reading of the passage related to

the use of

> the Hebrew word 'ken'. We will reiterate these in replying to your

recently

> sent responses.  


BRYCE
     
     I presume you mean you'll do this in a later post.  There's no
evidence in this post that Till took the "ken" passages out of context.


> > > CCBE

> > > Why are you moving the goalposts of the original matter under

discussion,

> > > i.e. whether there is a matter of errancy in the recording of

the events.

> > > In asking such >of us it appeared that, for the sake of argument

you were

> > > taking an if-these-events-occurred-then etc, approach?

> > 

> > TILL

> > No, you are only partially right.  If my position is that it would

have

> > been logistically impossible for even an omnipotent god to change

> > into blood water that didn't exist, then certainly I couldn't have 

> > been taking an if-these-events-occurred approach. My approach

> > was a simple request for you to explain how that even if A (Aaron's

> > miracle of changing all the water of Egypt into blood) had happened,

> > B (the magicians of Egypt doing the same with their enchantments)

> > could have happened.  The problem is simple.  Aaron and Moses

> > allegedly changed all the water that existed in Egypt into blood,

and

> > the magicians then allegedly changed all the water that DIDN'T exist

> > in Egypt into blood.  If the first event happened, how could the

second

> > one have happened.  That's the problem, and we are still waiting for

> > an explanation.

> 

> CCBE

> The explanation is even simpler than the problem and has been

presented twice

> to you. To repeat it a third time:

> 

> ''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.

We derive

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

use. That

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

not mean

> that there was none in existence.To claim such is to argue from that

which the

> text does not say (eisegisis), and go against what it does say

(exegisis). 

BRYCE
     I'm getting a distinct feeling of deja vu here.  Haven't we had
this argument several times already?

MATT (um. . . er. . . I mean "CCBE")
 

> We note that you have made a response to this and will reply more

fully to it

> when dealing with that.



> > >

> > > CCBE

> > > If you required validation of the historical relaibility of the

events then

> > > that should have been your first question. 

> > 

> > TILL

> > See the above and then try to explain to us how that if A

happened, B could

> > have happened.

> 

> CCBE

> Well since A happened only through your invalid use of eisegesis

(pointed out

> above), and not in the text, you have your explanation.

> ******************************


[snip CCBE-induced "distraction" about whether the Bible should be
considered an unbiased source of historical information.]


> > >

> > > CCBE

> > > If you consider there is contrary evidence then please present

it, though

> > > we would request that this is withheld until the present matter

of the 

> > > text is concluded.

> > > 

> > 

> > TILL

> > My evidence to the contrary is simple logic.  If ALL of the water

> > throughout all the land of Egypt had been changed into blood,

> > then it would have been logically impossible for the magicians

> > to have done the same with their enchantments. So until you

> > can explain how that such would be possible, why is it not

> > reasonable to see the logistic impossibility as "contrary

> > evidence"?  As for the "present matter of the text," what is there

> > to conclude?  You have admitted that the text does not say how

> > the Egyptians managed to do the same with their enchantments,

> > and you just stated (above) that other than for the biblical record

> > you know of no "other unbiased validation" of the event.  So why

> > wouldn't the "present matter of the text" already be concluded?

> 

> CCBE

> Your logic is correct, your premises faulty, i.e. based on the

invalid use of

> eisegesis demonstrated above. For your premise to be sound you need

to show

> exegetically that absolutely no water existed for the magicians to

perform

> their feat. As for the present matter of the text, we are far from

convinced

> that the matter is concluded and are quietly confident that we will

be able to

> demonstrate to your satisfaction that there is in the text no matter

of

> errancy. 

> 

> Thanks

> CCBE


BRYCE
     Even if you are correct in asserting that the "all" in question
didn't really mean "all," you aren't out of the woods.  Until you can
show that "ken" doesn't mean "in like manner" but "substantially
similar, though a trillion times smaller in scope" you haven't proven
anything.

     I would be interested in knowing what was going on in the head of
this anonymous Pharoah.  Moses comes in, zaps the water, making it
undrinkable (though high in protein and possibly good for crops),
kills all the fish in the Nile, and claims that his awesome display of
divine power was in retribution for the Israelite captivity.  But the
priests dig up a few jars of water, pull off some shenanigans
involving red dye, and the pharoah decides that, collapsing
civilization or not, this is enough to prove that his gods are strong
enough to battle Yahweh (I'm sure that Matt will argue that the
magicians really did turn the water into blood, as though he could
make that determination four thousand years later).

     Now, Matt, why are we supposed to believe that such a pathetic
display of the magicians' powers would be enough to convince a ruler
that (in spite of the fact that the curse had not been lifted) his
country was safe?  Oh, I forgot.  It was the LORD who hardened the
pharoah's heart, and with Him, all things are possible.

     Oh, I'd like to take a moment to announce the formation of my new
E-mail group, the ACC (Atheists Combatting CCBE).  Membership will be
limited to atheists who think as I do, know of CCBE and their
activities, and share my utter devotion to my goal of watching every
episode of "Xena: Warrior Princess."  In short, I will be the only
member.  I will forward messages from both the Errancy and CCBE lists
to myself on a daily basis, then get together with me to discuss
possible solutions and responses (as well as IMpossible ones) to the
problems claimed therein.  I feel that, since in alternate universes,
I am an expert in the subjects of geology, linguistics, archaeology,
and physics, the formation of this group will allow many of the best
errantist minds an opportunity to meet and improve the level of
discourse here on Errancy.  

     The most immediate effects of this action should be felt soon. 
You will notice that I will often refer to myself in the third person,
and get huffy when responses to ACC posts are addressed to Bryce and
vice versa.  Until then, on behalf of the ACC, Hasta la vista!

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Previous message: Trying my darndest to get barred from CCBE archives.
• Next message: Blood, etc. 1b ([how is this a]CCBE Response[?])
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]