A Challenge to Farrell Till
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:33:10 -0000 (00918444790, 19990207213633421.AAA703@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
<snip>
>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
It is a matter of errancy as you defined below. The question is whether it is a
matter of errancy on which a meaningful debate can be engaged in, however, the
subject of debate is your choosing, not mine.
>>>>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
There is no 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
No, my point is valid. The proposed debate subject involves a miracle, hence
one needs to show miracles are possible to properly affirm the proposition,
something which is a debate in itself.
>
> >>>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
Yes, I can see that fine well, but as you said, that is 'my problem'.
>
> >>>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.
Matthew Bell
I look forward to your suggestions, at which time I will post my input.
>
> >> >>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.
Matthew Bell
Well, I suppose you could include such, '....with all your heart, soul and
mind....stuff.'
Thanks
M.Bell