my two cents on Turkel

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

http://www.integrityonline15.com/jpholding/tekton/JPH_TWMA4.html

Couldn't sleep so I checked it out. This debate was already in progress when
I subbed, so I may be missing something, but the best I can make out the
relevant part of the work consists of less than a page. If you think I am
missing something please fill me in, for now I will call it as I see it. 

Tons of rhetoric, tons of tangents... one cornerstone on which the issue
hinges. If Till (relying on apr. 2,000 years worth of jewish and xtian
tranlators) is correct then Hosea and Kings disagree and biblical innerancy
is proven wrong, if Turkel (apparently relying on one recent scholar named
McComiskey) is right then Hosea and Kings do not contradict each other and
we only mistakenly think so because people have been misunderstanding it for
millenia. It seems to come down to a simple question of what the correct
translation of Hosea 1:4 is. Turkel maintains, on McComiskey's say so, that
this particular verse has been consistently mistranslated, that what it
really says is that Jehu's house would be punished *in the manner* of the
blood of Jezreel, not *because* of the blood of Jezreel. Till said "Turkel
thinks that I see Hosea 1:4 as a warning that Yahweh would do to the house
of Jehu exactly what Jehu had done at Jezreel, and so Hosea was saying that
the house of Jehu would be brutally massacred, just as Jehu brutally
massacred the royal family of Israel," and Turkel agreed "Yes, Till has
indeed grasped the point of our argument, though he has failed to answer it." 

Does anyone have McComiskey? Has Turkel ever presented the reasoning he used
to determine that the ancient and accepted reading of this verse was wrong?
It seems very unlikely that this would be *consistently* mistranslated for
all these years by both jews and xtians, but I would still like to know what
sort of arguments and evidence McComiskey can martial for such a
proposition. Perhaps McComiskey is demonstrably wrong. If so the
demonstration should be made and the issue put to rest. Perhaps he is
demonstrably right. If so then let's find that out and cross this particular
contradiction off the list and go on - there are plenty left. 

A third possibility exists - McComiskey may not be either obviously wrong or
right - in that case he settles nothing. It's not hard to come up with an
improbable possibility to avoid a conclusion you don't want to accept. If
inerrantists used only one such argument reasonable people might swallow it.
After all, the bible is huge, if all you had to do to believe it was
innerrant was to believe a single far-fetched unprovable scenario to cover a
single contradiction it would be one thing. As the number grows the
plausibility plummets. 

At any rate, as I see it, this issue is the key and all the rest of the
arguments made on both sides can be safely ignored. 

Achilles

"...we are not simply contending in order that my view or that
of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to be
fighting for the truth..."
from Philebus, the Dialogues of Plato 

• Previous message: "Atheistic morality" may be too broad an issue here. . .
• Next message: my two cents on Turkel
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]