1b CCBE Response (7)
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:57:12 -0700 (00908081832, 2.2.32.19981010235712.008b76c0@midwest.net)
>>>CCBE
>>>Our conclusion from this is that you have failed to prove your argument
>>TILL
>>Well, that's a big surprise that you would actually conclude that I have
>> failed to prove my argument. I don't suppose my conclusion that you have
>> failed to explain away the problem in this story would faze you in the
>> least, would it? That may give you an idea of just how deep my concern is
>> that your conclusion is that I have failed to prove my argument.
>CCBE
>On what has transpired so far on this thread we are confident that our position
>is strong and that:
>a) your eisegisis of a 'logistical impossibility' in the text has been refuted
>(using exegesis).
TILL
Oh, it has? Let's see, you have accused me of "eisegesis" (you still don't
know how to spell it) because I have analyzed the word "ken" as the Exodus
writer used it and shown that he was using it in the sense of meaning "the
same," and so from that analysis, I concluded (by deduction) that when the
writer said that the magicians did "the same" [ken] after Aaron and Moses
had changed all the water of Egypt into blood, he meant to convey that they
had done the same. So would you mind explaining to us why that this
constitutes eisegesis. Let me use a variation of my lottery argument.
John Doe won 10 millions dollars in the state lottery, and Joe Smith did the
same.
Now here is a question for you. According to what this statement says, how
much money did Joe Smith win in the lottery? How do you know? And you
won't forget to respond to these questions, will you?
As for your claim of "exegesis" that you used to refute my analysis of
"ken," I'm afraid that you will have to run your "exegesis" by us again,
because some of us completely missed where you determined ONLY by what the
text says that "ken" didn't mean "the same" in Exodus 7:22, and therefore
the writer didn't mean to convey that the magicians didn't do the same as
what Aaron and Moses had done.
CCBE
b) your attempt to support your argument with the use of the hebrew word 'ken'
has been refuted as taking the usage of the word in 7:22 out of context.
TILL
Out of context? Context was what I depended on entirely. I never once left
the context of Exodus 7 in analyzing the writer's usage of "ken," so please
explain to us how I took the word out of context.
CCBE
The onus is on you and other errantists to demonstrate that your position is
not fallacious as we have claimed and further, that our argument is not
textually sound.
TILL
I'm sorry, Matt, but in a debate, it is the duty of an opponent to prove
that his opponent's arguments are fallacious. Needless to say, you have not
done that. I have responded to all of your quibbles, and I have shown that
the intention of the Exodus writer was to convey that the magicians did what
Aaron and Moses did, and I have certainly shown that your "argument" is not
textually sound, because it depends on the assumption of inerrancy. Please
explain to us why you think that you are entitled to argue from this
assumption. If you think you have this right, do I have the right to argue
from the assumption of errancy?
I have spent several hours today walking through another lengthy posting
that you claim I did not respond to, and I have shown that this charge is
without basis. I have also shown that in your postings, you think you are
entitled to say that you have responded to such and such elsewhere. If you
are entitled to do that, then why should I not be entitled to respond to
your points elsewhere than in the very postings in which you made the
points? My contention is that every rebuttal point that you have offered
has been responded to, some of them several times. If you disagree with
this, you may post 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. whatever points you think I have evaded,
and I will respond to them. However, I don't intend to spend another entire
day (as I almost have for two days in a row) going line by line through two
more postings that you think I haven't responded to. It is your duty to
point out the specific points that you think I haven't answered. If you
don't do that, we will know beyond doubt (as if we didn't already) who the
real evader is.
>>> CCBE
>>> and indeed have provided an unintentional clarification of our
>>> argument that doing the same does not not necessarily refer
>>> to the extent of the original act.
>>TILL
>> Just where did I provide "an unintentional clarification" of your argument?
>> If as you said each magician "exactly duplicated Aaron's feat," that would
>> merely confirm my claim that "ken" in Hebrew signified duplication.
>CCBE
>Our argument from a previous post was that 'in like manner' did not necessarily
>mean to the same extent.
TILL
Your argument from a previous post? Pardon me, Matt, but I must remind you
again that you are the one who has claimed that I am not entitled to respond
to your points in this way, so if this is a restriction that I must abide
by, you will too. So please show us what your argument was in a "previous
post" that shows that "in like manner" didn't necessarily mean to the same
extent. I recall that you asserted this, but I recall that I also ask you
for textual evidence to support this assertion. If you provided the
evidence, I missed it.
CCBE
>The above demonstrates how this is textually sound in
>that where there is no textual restriction both nature and extent are
>applicable, but where there is a textual restriction as with 7:22, the extent
>can be considerably reduced, the same still being done as to the nature of the
>event.
TILL
And I have rebutted this "textual-restriction" argument time and time again,
so to finished my reply to this lengthy posting, I will simply cut and paste
the rebuttal again. Once more, I will warn readers who have already
recognized Matt's quibbling to stop at this point, because I'm just going to
paste again my rebuttal from an earlier reply.
***************
>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 that 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
"implicitly 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.
**********************
TILL
So once again, we can see that this part of a posting that Bell claims I
never answered didn't evade anything and merely plows the same ground that I
have covered again and again and again and again. My latest coverage of all
of these points was in my seven-part reply. If Bell claims that I have
evaded anything, then why doesn't he just list those points 1, 2, 3, 4,
etc.? Does anyone doubt that he doesn't do this because he wants to hide
behind long repostings of material that he claims I have not answered, but
he couldn't hide if he just listed my alleged evasions 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
Anyway, I am keeping the replies short by breaking them into small postings,
so it should be easy for Bell to take this posting and point out what he
thinks I evaded in this section of a posting that he claims I have not
replied to.
In going over Part 2 of the postings that I sent yesterday in response to
this same information, I saw that I added the following points. Now maybe
Bell would like to respond to them, or does he think I'm the only one
obligated to respond to arguments?
****************************
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.
******************
TILL
There's enough material here to keep you and every one of your CCBE cohorts
busy for a month, Matt, so why don't you get busy and actually try to rebut
an argument instead of just asserting that you have?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net