1b CCBE Response (1)
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:56:35 -0700 (00908081795, 2.2.32.19981010235635.008a73f4@midwest.net)
TILL
Okay, Bell has claimed that my seven-part posting was sent in response to a
posting that the CCBE had already responded to, and it seems that I misread
his introduction to this posting, because he was actually saying that the
posting below his introduction was one that he had already answered. Why he
would choose to respond in such a confusing way as this is anyone's guess,
because it would have been simpler for him just to list the points (as I
requested) that he thinks I have evaded. Anyway, he has sent me another
posting in which he claims that this is a "post from the archieves of our
response which you have not answered." I will now walk through it to show
that his allegation is not true. I would ask readers to notice that this
posting is the very posting that I went over in my seven-part response
except that it is evidently a reply to it in which he made a few scattered
comments, but I have answered the points that he made in those comments. I
will show that this seven-part posting and other postings that I have sent
to the list have covered all of the quibbles that Bell claims I have not
answered.
*************************************
At 10:29 AM 10/10/98 +0100, Matthew Bell wrote:
>POST FROM THE ARCHIVES OF OUR RESPONSE WHICH YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED.
>
>Blood, Water and Magicians (1b CCBE Response)
<headers snipped>
>> > CCBE
>> > Your contention is that the feat was logistically impossible. This is
>> > based on what the text does not implicitly state, i.e. that in the
>> > magicians doing like-wise, what is meant is that they performed
>> > the same feat to the same extent as had done Moses and Aaron.
>> > Please show from the text that this is the only valid understanding
>> > one can take from the passage?
>
>> F.TILL
>> Well, okay, let's look at what various translations say, and then base our
>> decision on what the text actually says and not what you would like for it
>> to say. Literal translations such as Young's and Hendrickson's say, "And
>> the magicians did so with their magic arts." [Young's uses the word
>> "flashings" for secret arts but otherwise agrees with Hendrickson's.] The
>> translation of the Jewish Publication Society says, "And when the Egyptian
>> magicians DID THE SAME with their spells, Pharaoh's heart stiffened...."
>> So here are Jews who translated their own scriptures, and they rendered
>> this expression as "did the same," so this is again a good indication that
>> those who know Hebrew understand that "doing in like manner with their
>> enchantments" meant that the magicians had duplicated the feat. But let's
>> look at what other translations say:
>
>> KJV: And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments.
>> NKJV: Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments.
>> The word translated "so" in this verse was "ken" in Hebrew, and it was a
>> word that meant "so" in the sense of "in the like or same manner." It so
>> happens that the word was used four other times in Exodus 6, so let's look
>> at how the writer used it in these other places.
>>CCBE
>>It is Exodus 7, not 6.
>>
> TILL
> So I made a mistake. Go back over my postings and see how many times I
>have referred to Exodus 7 in this discussion. After all, the 6 and 7 keys are
> side by side on a keyboard.
>
>>> F.TILL
>>> 6 And Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded them, SO [ken] did
>>> they. Prior to this Yahweh had commanded Aaron and Moses to speak to
>>> Pharaoh to demand that he let Yahweh's people to go, and "Moses and
Aaron >>> did as the LORD commanded them." Does this not mean that Moses
and >>> Aaron did exactly what Yahweh had commanded them. If so, then in
the last >>> part of the verse "SO [ken] did they" would mean that what
Moses and Aaron >>> had done was an exact duplication of what Yahweh had
commanded them. If >>> not, why not?
>>CCBE
>>Yes, Moses and Aaron did exactly as the LORD commanded them. We have >>no
difficulty in accepting that, however we would point out to you that there is
>>no restrictions indicated in the passage that would have made itimpossible
>>for them to do so. If you think there is please point them out?
>>
>> TILL
>> Did I say or imply that there was such a restriction? The point of this
>> posting was to show that "ken" in Hebrew was used to signifying doing the
>> same. If the word "ken" in the expression "so [ken] did they" meant that
>> Aaron and Moses had done the same as what Yahweh had commanded them, >>
then why wouldn't the statement that the magicians of Egypt did "so" (or in like
>> manner) with their enchantments mean that the writer was claiming that what
>> Aaron and Moses did was what the magicians did? That's the issue, so why
>> don't you confront it instead of engaging in petty quibbling like this?
>>
TILL
As everyone can see, this is merely the first part of the posting that I
sent seven replies to yesterday. Apparently what Bell is upset about is the
following comment, which was not in the version that I replied to yesterday.
>CCBE
>No, you did not say that there was such a restriction and we will take the
>above as agreement from you that there was none. The reason why the
>statement regarding the magicians does not signify the same as Moses Aaron
is >because of the textual restriction placed on the magicians as a result
of >Moses/Aaron previous act. To spell it out for you, in 7:6 there is no
textual >restriction on Moses and Aaron doing exactly as the LORD commanded
them. In >7:22 there is a textual restriction on the magicians doing
exactly, i.e. nature and >extent as Moses/Aaron has done. Your use of this
verse to support your >argument with 7:22 is fallacious as it ignores the
context of the use of the word >'ken'.
>
TILL
As everyone can also see, this is simply plowing the same ground that has
already been covered in past postings and more recently in my seven-part
reply. Since Bell is so concerned about what he perceives as my evasions, I
wonder when he is going to respond to my argument above, which he evaded
with, "It is Exodus 7, not 6." The argument I presented before this needs a
response, or am I the only one who has an obligation to respond to arguments?
At any rate, I have replied to Bell's quibble above, and to prove it, I will
quote what I have said in other postings in response to it. This statement
is from Part One of my reply yesterday:
>So just who is doing the dodging here? The CCBE (read Bell) said that my
claim of logistic impossibility was based on what the text does not
"implicitly state" but that "what is meant [in the text] is that they
performed the same feat to the same extent as had done Moses and Aaron." To
rebut that, I posted the paragraphs above to show that what the text
actually meant was the the magicians did the SAME thing that Aaron and Moses
had done. And what was the CCBE response to that? "It is Exodus 7, not 6."
What kind of rebuttal is that? I will state again that the intention of the
text, as shown by both linguistic analysis and comparison of translations,
was to convey that the magicians did the SAME thing that Aaron and Moses
did. If this is the meaning of the text, then it isn't true that my claim
of logistic impossibility is based on what the text does not "implicity
state." If the text claims that the magicians did the SAME as Aaron and
Moses, then the conclusion that the Exodus writer made a logistically
impossible claim is a simple matter of deduction based on what the writer
did "explicitly" say. Therefore, Bell's claim that I have resorted to
eisegesis is without foundation, because a necessary conclusion derived from
what a text DOES state is not reading into the text what is not there.
>
This statement should be considered in conjunction with what I said in Part
Two yesterday.
>What did I dodge here? I agreed with Bell that in relating this particular
"event," the text in question did not contain restrictions that could be
considered limitations on the meaning of the word "ken." Therefore, we have
every reason to think that the writer meant for his readers to understand
from the word "so" [ken] that he was claiming that Aaron and Moses did
EXACTLY the SAME as what Yahweh had commanded. If that was what the word
"ken" meant in Hebrew, then it would have been erroneous for the writer to
have used "ken" in Exodus 7:22 if he understood that there were
"restrictions" that prevented the magicians from doing "likewise" or "in
like manner" or the SAME as Aaron and Moses. This should be as obvious as
if the following text should be written in English.
>
>John Doe won 10 million dollars on the state lottery, and Joe Smith did the
SAME.
>
>If the grand prize were only two million dollars when Joe Smith won it,
then it would have been incorrect to use the word "same" in comparing what
Smith did to what Doe did, because anyone reading this would assume that
what Doe did (win 10 million dollars) was what Smith did. If not, why not?
So if Bell and his CCBE cohorts want to talk about "limitations" that
prevented the magicians from doing "in like manner as" or the SAME as Aaron
and Moses, they should begin by explaining to us why the writer used a word
that conveyed the idea of likeness or sameness.
>
>Bell hasn't done that, so once again, we can see who is really doing the
evading.
>
And this should be considered in conjunction with what I said on this
subject in Part Four of yesterday's reply.
>At this point in the posting that Bell claims I have evaded in order to
save face, Bell made no reply to the paragraph above, so I will ask him
again to tell us where the text says that the magicians did "the same in
nature as Moses/Aaron." Where does it say that, Matt? The answer is that
it doesn't say this, yet you are the one accusing me of a resort to
eisegesis. The text says that the magicians did SO [ken] or IN LIKE MANNER
with their enchantments, and my analysis of "ken" as it was used in Exodus 7
shows (as you agreed) that this word meant "the same," and I have even
pointed out that a Jewish translation so renders it in both 7:11 and 7:22.
Where is your reply to this? Furthermore, as I have pointed out in the two
postings prior to this one, if you are contending that there were
"limitations" or "restrictions" that prevented the writer from meaning that
the magicians did the same as Aaron and Moses, then you need to explain why
he used the word "ken." Keep in mind my analogy concerning the two lotto
winners and tell us if it would be correct to say that Smith did THE SAME as
Doe.
>
All of these statements are merely rehashings of points that I have made in
earlier postings on this subject, and they obviously rebut Bell's claim of
"limitations" in Exodus 7:22 that made "ken" not mean "the same," but I
challenged him in my seven-part reply to explain to us how that limitations
can be put on a word to make it not mean what it means. I illustrated in my
analogy of the two lottery winners that it would be an incorrect usage of
the word "same" to say that John Doe won 10 million dollars in the lottery
and Joe Smith did the same, if it is the case that the jackpot in the
lottery that Smith won had actually been only 2 million dollars. In a case
like this, the limitations in the amount of money in the jackpot cannot make
the word "same" not mean "same." So now it is Bell's time to answer
arguments and stop his evasion. How could "same" not mean "same"?
Prior to my seven-part reply, on 10-8-98, I sent the following to the list
in a posting entitled "Is This What I Am Evading?"
**********************************************
CCBE
>but would suggest to you that this needs to be considered in the
>context of the passage and in consideration of any restrictions or limitations
>that the passage puts upon this.
TILL
Once again you are trying to argue from the assumption that the text was
accurate in everything it said, or in other words, you are trying to prove
inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. In evaluating a text, there are always two
possibilities: (1) The text is factually accurate in what it says. (2) The
text is errant in what it says. I would never try to argue from assumption
number 2, and if I should try to do so, I suspect that you would spot the
fallacy in the blink of an eye. Yet you expect everyone to allow you to
argue from assumption number 1. You are contending that if the text says
that the magicians did "so" or in "like manner" with their enchantments,
then this must be factually correct, and so you search around for innovative
interpretations that can make this statement true even though the actual
language of the text supports the view that the writer thoughtlessly made a
logistically impossible claim. Therefore, you cannot talk about
"restrictions or limitations that the passage" puts on the claim that the
magicians did in like manner with their enchantments, because the writer
could easily have been unaware of what he was actually claiming. In view of
the way that he used "ken" throughout Exodus 7, this is a more reasonable
approach to the text than your desperate attempt to find some way--just any
way--to salvage the text.
To show you the predicament you are in, let's consider your agreement that
individually the magicians of Egypt did exactly what Aaron did, i. e., each
person cast his rod down and each person's rod became a serpent, just as
Aaron's rod had become a serpent. We can see, then, how that the writer's
claim that the magicians did "in like manner" [ken] with their enchantments
was intended to be understood that the magicians did exactly what Aaron had
done and nothing less. As the story is told, Aaron's serpent saved the day
by swallowing the magicians' serpents. Now let's suppose that after
relating this incident, the writer had said, "but the magicians of Egypt did
in like manner with their enchantments, and their serpents swallowed Aaron's
serpent." In that case, would you not be able to see that the writer had
made a colossal boo-boo? He would be claiming that the magicians' serpents
did something that was logistically impossible, because we cannot see how
that serpents that had already been swallowed by another serpent could have
swallowed the serpent that had swallowed them. This, in effect, is the
problem that you have in the story of the first plague. The accomplishment
of Aaron's and Moses's feat in changing all of the water of Egypt into blood
made it impossible for the magicians to do "so" [ken] or in like manner with
their enchantments.
**************************
TILL
And this was the CCBE response to it:
>CCBE
>Our conclusion from this is that you have failed to prove your argument
TILL
So I will ask again why the information in this posting did not constitute a
reply to Bell's quibble that Exodus 7:22 contained limitations that kept
"ken" from meaning "the same." And I will ask those who have had the
patience to follow this discussion to ask themselves just who the evader is
in this issue.
The information I have reposted above clearly shows that I didn't just
respond to it but that I demolished the CCBE claim that "ken" couldn't mean
"the same" in Exodus 7:22 because of "limitations" placed on it.
More will follow as I continue through Bell's latest attempt to divert
attention from the corner that he has painted himself into.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net