A Challenge to Farrell Till
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:15:27 -0000 (00918166527, 19990204161733937.AAA461@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
<snip>
>>>Farrell Till
>>>Do you want me to suggest the subject? You said that "any"
>>>would do. I propose that you affirm this. RESOLVED: Jesus
>>>of Nazareth was born of a virgin, i.e., a woman who had never
>>>had sexual intercourse with a male.
>>
>>Matthew Bell
>>I said, '...any other matter of alleged errancy you wish to discuss.
>
>TILL
>Yes, you did, and the proposition that I proposed is another matter of
>alleged errancy that I would like to discuss. Did you mean it when you
>said "any other matter of alleged errancy" or has the backpedaling
>already begun?
Matthew Bell
Yes, I meant what I said. The above was simply clarifying that I did not say,
'any' subject, but 'any' subject of 'alleged errancy'.
===================
>>Matthew Bell
>> Perhaps you could clarify a few matters on your proposal:
>>
>>1. How it relates to Biblical Errancy?
>
>Farrell Till
>The NT claims that Jesus was born of a virgin. If this claim is not true,
>then the Bible is not inerrant. Let me know if you need further clarification.
Matthew Bell
I won't need further clarification.
======================
>>Matthew Bell
>>2. How one is supposed to affirm a miraculous happening
>>without first ascertaining whether miracles are possible or
>>not?
>
>TILL
>That's your problem. You are the one who said that you would
>debate "any other matter of alleged errancy" that I "wish to
>discuss," and I wish to see you give reasonable evidence that
>the NT's claim of a virgin birth is true. Perhaps you can prove
>your position on this in the same way that you can prove such
>claims as inerrancy in the original autographs or the existence
>of demons or changing water that doesn't exist into blood.
Matthew Bell
I'm not so sure it is a problem, it just changes the focus of the debate as we
would need to first address the possibility/impossibility of miracles occurring
before dealing with any alleged miracle claim.
===================
>>Matthew Bell
>>
>>3. How one is supposed to affirm any event in the Bible
>>without begging the question of the event to be affirmed?
>>
>
>TILL
>Please don't bother me with your problems. You are the one
>who has proposed a debate on any matter of "alleged errancy"
>that I wish to discuss, so you will have to work your way around
>the problems.
Matthew Bell
Again, they are not so much problems, as diversions from the main proposition.
I am merely highlighting these for your consideration.
====================
>>Matthew Bell
>>Apologies for the questions, but I have never engaged in a formal
>>debate and want to make sure that I fully understand the conditions
>>the debate is to be carried out before committing myself to it. Your
>>patience would be appreciated in consideration of this.
>>
>
> Farrell Till
> In a formal debate, the affirmant defends a precisely worded proposition,
> and the negative attempts to refute it. Since you are claiming inerrancy
> and the Bible claims that Jesus was born of a virgin, the proposition I have
> proposed is legitimate. As for "conditions," I assume that you are
> referring to rules and format. We can discuss those later.
Matthew Bell
I don't doubt that it is 'legitimate', only that it is meaningful. However, the
subject is of your choosing. I accept the proposition and ask you to outline
the conditions of the debate.
>
> >>Farrell Till
> >>By the way, we are going to miss you on the list.
> >
> >Matthew Bell
> >I am touched ;)
>
>TILL
>Where?
Matthew Bell
Why, the innermost depths of my soul of course!
Thanks
M.Bell