Resurrection (Alward rebuts Carter)

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

>>>CARTER

>>>Ok, next project is a description of the Elohim/Yaweh

>>>usage. And thank you for recognizing that I have won

>>>the argument concerning the existence of a

>>>contradiction in Gen 1 and 2:19.



>>TILL

>>Did I miss something?  When has this been recognized?

>>I've been seeing several responses to Turkel's pathetic

>>effort to cut-and-paste and plagiarize his way through an

>>"explanation" of this problem.  Until you answer those

>>rebuttals, how do you think you have "won." or are you

>>ignorant of a debater's responsibility to answer an

>>opponent's counterarguments.

>>

>>Have you had any luck getting Turkel to come out of

>>hiding?  Are you going to accept my challenge to serve

>>as a stand-in for him?  If so, I'll start my point-by-point

>>reply to his article next week.  Before I start it, however,

>>I want your assurance that you will reply point-by-point.



>CARTER

>Well Till, you haven't really offered any rebutals have you?

>The basic point, which you CANNOT refute, unless you

>are a complete imbecile (in the psychological definition

>of the term), is that the WAW consec. can be EITHER be

>translated as a pluperfect, OR the passage could be

>referencing a special creation for the purpose of naming

>the animals. I'm sorry, but since I have shown other verses

>which are translated as pluperfect with the WAW, I have

>refuted the contradiction, and you have lost.

>

>NOTE TO LURKERS: Notice how Till CANNOT admit he

>has lost an argument, even when the evidence is against

>him. This only supports the claim that the skeptical

>position is more of a spiritual problem (in this case

>massive ego) than an mental one.



|rainwater|

Actually, Jason, Till didn't ask you to reply to any rebuttals
he's made (which is especially clear since he has promised
*not* to rebut until he knows he won't be wasting his time).
He was merely referring to the rebuttals made by Nancy
and Achilles.  To be honest, I thought that Turkel (or Holding,
whatever his freaking name is) made some good points
on his page, but after reading Nancy's and Archilles'
rebuttals, I would at least think you should point out where
they are in error, especially since they have responded in
such polite and scholarly manners.  Frankly, I don't care
much if there is a discrepancy in this particular part of
Genesis or not.  It would not shake my faith, nor does it
really strengthen my skepticism (though the players in
this debate definitely have an effect on me).  Yet, I do not
think you have completely slaughtered the more adamant
skeptics on here, though you try to paint those who still
object to some of Turkel's sources and arguments as
being mentally retarded in some way.

--
aaron rainwater

"And isn't sanity really just a one trick pony anyway?
I mean, all you get is one trick!  Rational thinking.
But when you're good and crazy, oooh!! The sky's the
limit!"  -- The Tick

• Previous message: Resurrection (Alward rebuts Carter)
• Next message: Resurrection (Alward rebuts Carter)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]