A Challenge to Farrell Till
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Thu, 04 Feb 1999 13:25:02 -0800 (00918185102, 2.2.32.19990204212502.0088e434@midwest.net)
At 04:15 PM 2/4/99 -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:
><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'.
TILL
You mean then that the issue of the virgin birth is not a matter of "alleged
errancy"? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
>>>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.
TILL
Okay, then what's the problem?
>>>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.
TILL
You're missing the point. If I had said that I wanted you to affirm that
Herod's massacre of the children in and around Bethlehem was a historical
fact, we wouldn't have to address the possibility/impossibility of miracles,
because no miracle would have had to occur in order for an event like this
to happen.
>>>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.
TILL
Can't you see that I could propose hundreds of propositions that you could
not defend without begging the question of events concerned with what you
are affirming?
>>>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.
>>
TILL
These, of course, are always negotiable, so you should have the right of
input. If you don't mind, I will wait until next week to send my
suggestions, because, as I have explained, I'm working to get TSR set up for
delivery to the print shop.
>> >>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!
>
TILL
Oh, good, for a moment I thought it might be your head.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net