Commentators of All Stripes
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:23:43 -0700 (00908879023, 2.2.32.19981020052343.008796f8@midwest.net)
At 11:21 PM 10/19/98 +0100, Matthew Bell wrote:
><snip>
>
>F.TILL
>> On another internet list, however, Turkel completely ridiculed
>> the notion that quoting sources gives support to one's views. An
>> inerrantist member of my Errancy list founded a list of his own, which he
>> called CCBE (Christians Combating Biblical Errancy), for the avowed purpose
>> of forming a closed forum where biblical inerrantists could consider in
>> secrecy the arguments of Dennis McKinsey and me and then post collective
>> replies. The list was closed to all who did not profess to be Christians,
>> and the owner of the list became very upset when some of his members
>> forwarded to me some materials that had been posted on CCBE. It so
>> happened that one of the postings forwarded to me had been submitted by
>Turkel.
>
>M.BELL
>Interesting how you omit to inform people you cc this to that one of those
>members was Adnan, the moderator of Errancyn, who joined the originally closed
>Christian list under false pretences, blatantly lied when providing information
>requested of him on two seperate occassions on the validity of his
>subscription, and forwarded what you and he now claim was but one or two posts
>(?) from the list. Of course all we have to validate this is his and your
>word!!! I guess it is information like this the secular web won't be posting?
>I wonder why?
>
TILL
Your allegation about Adnan is incorrect. He was not the one who forwarded
to me the posting that Turkel sent to your CCBE list. The fact is that
there were about five different people--I'd have to check to be sure--who
were forwarding postings to me, and the one from Turkel was forwarded by
someone else. I'm very sure of this, because I had to do a search-and-find
procedure this afternoon to locate the posting so that I could cut Turkel's
statement about Philo Judaeus from it, so I remember who the person was who
forwarded it to me. When are you going to give up complaining about how
your secret list backfired on you? I never asked anyone to forward CCBE
postings to me. It was the sheer absurdity of the information in these
postings that led some of your own people to get fed up and start forwarding
them to me.
>F.TILL
>> The issue concerned the claim in Exodus that after Aaron and Moses had
>> changed all of the water throughout all the land of Egypt into blood,
>> pharaoh's magicians did "so" or "in like manner" with their enchantments.
>> Inerrantists were asked to explain how that the magicians could have changed
>> all of the water in Egypt into blood after Aaron and Moses had already
>> changed all of the water in Egypt into blood. The collective response of
>> the CCBE was that "all didn't mean all" and that the magicians had dug along
>> the bank of the Nile, found water, filled some pots, and changed this into
>> blood. This quibble was based on the claim in Exodus 7:24 that the
>> Egyptians did dig along the river for water TO DRINK, and so the CCBE
>> reasoned that this was how the magicians obtained water with which to do
>> "likewise with their enchantments."
>>
>> In responding to this "rebuttal," I noted that the text refers to digging
>> for water TO DRINK after it says that he magicians had done likewise with
>> their enchantments, and I also quoted Philo Judaeus, a first-century
>> contemporary of Jesus, who claimed that "every particle of water in Egypt"
>> had been changed into blood and that when the Egyptians tried to dig for
>> water, they found that it too was blood. This was where Turkel came to the
>> rescue of the struggling CCBE members with the following statement:
>>
>> >That's nice, but Philo is simply reading into the text what is not there.
>> >So if I find a Jewish commentator of equal worth that says the opposite, is
>> >it a draw? If I find two, do I win? Remember that Philo is trying to
>> >promote Moses and Aaron here and would maximize their feat to the
>> >greatest extent possible.
>>
>> Here Turkel took the position that quoting commentators proves nothing, so
>> if I applied his line of reasoning to his reliance on the opinion of
>> McComiskey concerning the meaning of "paqad" in Hosea 1:4, all I would have
>> to do is quote another commentator who disagreed with McComiskey, and then
>> we would have a draw rather than the overwhelming victory that Turkel
>> claimed throughout his article on the grounds that his view represented
>> "commentators of all stripes." To find a commentator whom I could quote
>> would be simple, because McComiskey did that himself in noting that Andersen
>> and Freedman say that Hosea 1:4 clearly meant that the house of Jehu would
>> be punished for murder. However, since Andersen and Freedman would be two
>> commentators, that means that by Turkel's own logic, I win two to one.
>> Furthermore, since McComiskey identified three other commentators (Mays,
>> Wolff, and Wood) who have different views, then it becomes five commentators
>> against one, so I really have won (according to Turkel's logic).
>>
>> Anyway, more will follow as I find the works that Turkel cited and examine
>> them to determine what "stripes" they wear on the inerrancy issue. The next
>> one I expect to receive is Douglas Stuart's commentary on Hosea and Jonah.
>> I noticed in Turkel's endnotes that it was printed by "Word" publishers in
>> Waco, Texas, so I'm betting in advance that this will turn out to be another
>> fundamentalist publishing company. We'll just have to wait to see.
>>
>> I will remind readers too that I have challenged Turkel to debate this issue
>> on an open internet forum that will allow readers to see EVERYTHING that
>> both of us post on the subject. This would eliminate "selective quoting" of
>> an opponent as Turkel has done in his articles that purported to be
>> "replies" to my materials. When readers see EVERYTHING that both sides have
>> to say, they can better evaluate the respective positions. Turkel has
>> declined this challenge.
>
>M.BELL
>You mean the type of selective quoting demonstrated by yourself so aptly in
>relaying the details of those members from CCBE who passed on information to
>you which you gladly received and have used in at least one article the
>'secular web' has posted? Now there is a fine example of selective quoting
>aswell as selective morality.
>
TILL
What it is from those postings that I failed to quote that you believe was
relevant to the point I was making about Turkel's inconsistency on the
importance of using quotations to support a point? And you have yet to
establish that it is immoral for anyone to read unsolicited postings that
are forwarded to him from another list. Why don't you tell us if you have
ever read an unsolicited posting that someone forwarded to you from another
list? I know that you are smarting from all of the shellackings you have
taken on the Errancy list, but this complaint that you have been harping
about for almost a month now is a bit extreme even for you.
I suspect that in this matter you are upset because I am showing that
Turkel's claim to doing in-depth research before he writes his articles is,
to say the least, doubtful. At this point, he appears to be a research
hacker, and I had enough experience with these types in my 30 years of
teaching college writing to suspect when it is happening. At any rate, I
have proposed to Turkel that we debate the issue on an internet forum where
EVERYTHING that both of us say on the subject will be posted for everyone to
see. That would eliminate selective quoting of the opposition and enable
readers to evaluate arguments in the light of what both parties had to say,
but Turkel has refused to do this.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net