Genesis 2:19
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:24:31 -0800 (00917835871, 2.2.32.19990131202431.00884784@midwest.net)
At 10:26 PM 1/30/99 -0800, Brian Malcolm wrote:
>
>Ray:
>This response by Turkrel is schoolboyish nonsense. There is nothing to his
>arguments but hot air. Just as a for instance, he opens by claiming he will
>show it is liely that G1 and G2 were written by the same person and never
>even addresses the facts that point to its being from two sources, something
>that essentially every biblical scholar accepts. He first claims that G2 is
>not rally a creation account and then thinks that because he can come up
>with an outline/subject listing that he think fits both stories this proves
>they were written by the same author!
>
>POOBAH
>Turkel's argument seems to hinge on a lawyerly reading of the text that
>involves "plants of the earth" meaning something different than "plants of
>the field," and the fact that cattle aren't specifically mentioned as
>created in Gen2:18-20, but are brought before Adam which indicates that Gen2
>isn't really a creation account. *shrug*.
>
>[Crass generalizations to follow]
>My experience is that one approach inerrantists take in dealing with
>potential contradictions is to come up with a solution, ANY solution, and
>consider their job done. Typically little or no consideration is given to
>counter-arguments, and the relative probability of the competing arguments
>is rarely considered. The conclusion one seems to hear is, "Well you can
>either look at it my way or your way, but since you're a skeptic you have a
>bias that prevents you from seeing it my way."
>
>Which, if nothing else, is a good defense mechanism to avoid cognitive
>dissonance.
>
>(If my generalizations are incorrect, I would be genuinely happy to be
>corrected).
>
>As you noted, Turkel does nothing to refute the facts that point to two
>sources, and makes no mention of the weight of scholarly opinion that
>disagrees with him. In my opinion, this either shows ignorance or
>dishonesty, but I don't know which. Of course, there may be another
>explanation, and I would be happy to hear it. His ad hominem attacks against
>"Till-thralls" might have some merit if the two-text reading of Genesis was
>something that this group came up with on its own, but as it stands, it just
>seems like a childish attack to me (I should know after my "Force" posts).
>
>I think we've taken this issue as far as it will take us; as far as I'm
>concerned the readers can decide where the weight of evidence rests.
>
>What topic will you tackle next, Mr. Carter? I for one am interested in the
>specific question of how if the worldwide Flood didn't happen how the Bible
>can be inerrant, and as a general topic how a book with errors (such as the
>previous) can be considered inerrant, and how that text can then be
>distinguished from other obviously errant texts like, say, the Book of
>Mormon or the Koran (my apologies to those that consider those books to be
>inerrant).
TILL
Let's not let Carter off so quickly. As I've said before, I believe that
when I have an opponent on the ropes, I should keep him there to dramatize
to the debate audience the problems he is having defending his position. In
this case, Carter has apparently taken the position that Turkel is to be
considered the final authority in the matter of Genesis 2. I have asked him
several times to use his influence on his apologetic hero to get him to
engage in a debate in an open forum that will put a damper on Turkel's
"smorgasbord" approach that he uses on his private web site. I will repeat
that challenge to Carter. Let him trot his hero out to this list, or
another one, to take his stand. If he won't do that, then that will speak
volumes about how secure Turkel is in his position, but I am not about to
put days and days into writing a point-by-point reply to Turkel's article
only to have him hide behind another article on his web page that relied on
selectively quoting as his primary means of responding.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net