A Free Subscription for Matt?
Matthew Bell by way of Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 16:01:11 -0700 (00908164871, 2.2.32.19981011230111.008acdc4@midwest.net)
> >F.TILL
> >> If you think that I have published only those things that presented me as
a
> >> winner, why don't you cite an example of something I have refused to
> >> publish? In *The Skeptical Review,* I have maintained an open-door policy
> >> on the subject of biblical inerrancy, and I have given thousands of
dollars
> >> of free publishing space to biblical inerrantists. This has included
> >> articles by Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. James D. Price, Dr. Gleason Archer, and
> >> various other inerrantists. I have indeed refused articles that did not
> >> relate to the subject of biblical inerrancy, but these refusals were in
> >> keeping with the editorial policy that I announced on the front page of
the
> >> first issue of TSR in January 1990, which was that this paper would
confine
> >> itself to the debating of biblical inerrancy. On the errancy list, I
posted
> >> a series of 28 responses to RobertTurkel (known to Christians as James
> >> Patrick Holding), and in these responses, I cut NOTHING from his article
> >> (about me) that I was responding to.
> >
> >M.BELL
> >Did you notice something about those 28 posts? I did. They were originated
in a
> >point of eisegesis by JPS?
>
> TILL
> No, I didn't notice this, but I did notice that you failed to identify what
> you are talking about. After all, there were 28 postings. How do you
> expect me to figure out what you perceive as a "point of eisegesis,"
> especially since I know you as a person who perceives eisegesis in just
> about every skeptical argument but can't seem to see it in his own work.
M.BELL
Well, I guess I gave you the credit of knowing what the word 'originated'
meant. I took the point of eisegesis from your reply no.2,
'TILL
As I showed in my other responses to Turkel, Jehu was commissioned to do to
the house of Ahab what had been done to the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha
(2 Kings 9:7-10). The Bible claims that the destruction of these "houses" was
so extensive and so complete that the instructions to Jehu would have
allowed him to kill almost anyone without "exceeding" his commission. I
have clearly demonstrated this, but Turkel continues to quibble his way
around this problem in his "explanation." Although my arguments were
detailed and inclusive of enough evidence to convince any open-minded
reader, I will expand them when I address Turkel's quibbles point by point
in making my way through his rebuttal by personal tirade.
At this point, I will note that Turkel's and Miller's claim (which is really
only an inerrantist claim that they are parroting) that Jehu exceeded "the
command to destroy only the house of Ahab" is a claim that they should but
cannot sustain. In the first place, they cannot find the word "only" in the
command that was given to Jehu in 2 Kings 9:7-10. As I will show again,,
the instructions were sufficiently inclusive to include almost anyone who
had been even remotely connected to Ahab, Jezebel, and Joram, but I will
have more to say about this as I respond to Turkel's quibbles and point out
details in my arguments that he conveniently left unanswered. In other
words, I will show that his silence about my arguments that he didn't
address is very suggestive of a recognition that they cannot be rebutted.'
You don't see any eisegesis in Turkel positing Jehu went beyond what was
commanded? I do, and am curious about an individual who states such as invalid
posting 28 response based on what they regard as invalid. I guess you don't or
will have a suitable get out clause which excepts this!!
>
> BELL
> > I thought such was invalid by your standard?
>
> TILL
> Does the question mark mean that you aren't sure that this (whatever it was)
> was invalid? At any rate, Turkel has chickened out of a face-to-face
> internet debate on the Jehu issue. Would you care to step in for him?
M.BELL
No thanks, I am presently engaged with the Blood, Water and Magicians thread.
>
> BELL
> >How many standards do you have?
>
> TILL
> Since I don't even know what you are talking about, I can't answer your
> question. Anyway, let's wait to see if the CCBE replies to my latest
> postings comply to the rigid standards that you demanded of me, and then we
> can talk about standards.
>
> BELL
> >I am perusing intently all of the articles in TSR from volume One through
> to the >present.
>
> TILL
> You're perusing all of these articles intently? Hmmm, you must think that I
> merit more attention than your postings for the benefit of your CCBE members
> indicate.
> "Peruse," by the way, means to study or examine with great care or intensity.
>
> BELL
> >My free subscription of course has expired so I now need to wait until they
> are >put on the web. Would this be an appropriate juncture to request that
> you >continue to send me spare copies free of charge, as I prevented by my
> faith from >contributing financially to your work?
>
>
> TILL
> No, I can't continue to send you free copies. It costs $1.32 to mail a copy
> to England, so this amounts to $7.92 per year just for postage. The $9 fee
> for foreign subscriptions doesn't even begin to cover the cost. I might add
> that I understand your reluctance to pay for a subscription. I refuse to
> support religious causes, and so when church groups come by my house selling
> candy, raffle tickets, and such like, or even openly soliciting
> contributions, I tell them that I will not give any support to religious
> groups. However, I consider literature to be different, and I spend many
> dollars on subscriptions to religious papers and the purchase of religious
> reference books. I look upon this as merely paying for a product, and I
> have several fundamentalists who apparently see my paper in the same way.
> They pay their money, and they get a product in exchange that they must
> consider important enough for them to have. I can't see why you could not
> look on this in the same way, but I can't make an exception for you.
>
> I do, however, have a policy of giving a free lifetime subscription to
> everyone whose articles I publish, so if you want to write a defense of
> inerrancy or refute any arguments against inerrancy, submit your article.
> If it is competently written, I will publish it. If I publish it, you will
> then be put on my list of free subscriptions.
> >
> > F.TILL
> >> All of these responses have been
> >> posted to the secular web, so I have given Turkel an audience of several
> >> hundred readers. He, however, will not reciprocate, because he publishes
> >> only articles in which he selectively quotes me, and he has refused to
> >> engage in a debate on the internet in which the two of us will meet face
to
> >> face in a format that will let readers see everything that both of us have
> >> to say.
> >
> >M.BELL
> >I thought he had reciprocated through a web page?
> >
>
> TILL
> Try to notice what I said. He publishes articles about me on his web page,
> but he "selectively quotes me." This means that his readers will see in my
> writings only what he wants them to see. On the other hand, I didn't cut
> anything from his article that I answered. My readers saw everything he
> said, and I wouldn't have it any other way. So many of his points are
> ridiculous and the others are so easy to answer that I want everyone to see
> everything. I'm convinced that he won't agree to a face-to-face,
> point-by-point debate with me on the internet, because he knows that he
> would not be able to control the information that the readers would see.
>
>
>
> Farrell Till
> Skepticism, Inc.
> jftill@midwest.net