A Word from Mr. Lim: Forwarded from CCBE
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sun, 07 Feb 1999 18:43:50 -0800 (00918463430, 2.2.32.19990208024350.00875248@midwest.net)
At 09:16 PM 2/7/99 -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:
>> >> D.Lim:
>> >> It seems that Mr Till has backed out from the list challenge, not having
>> >> reply with anything new or satisfactory for months.
>> >>
>> >> I do not detect any new topic fixed yet for this challenge.
>> >> Which part of the bible are we referring to this time?
>> >> Lets see how Mr Till is not begging for question for errancy in the first
>> >> place.
>> >
>> >Matthew Bell
>> >So why don't you get on with it and give CCBE your 'in-depth' analysis of
>'ken'
>> >which will clearly show the two Hebrew sources presented to you to be
>> >erroneous?
>> >
>>
>> TILL
>> Matt, you have surely seen the traffic on this list. I have this project in
>> the works, but there have been more coming in on the list directed at me
>> than I can cope with. How do you expect me to deal with all the tangents
>> that Carter leads us into and take care of this and other matters too? You
>> have no idea how many postings are in my in-box that I haven't been able to
>> get to.
>
>Matthew Bell
>Please don't bother me with your problems. You are the one
>who has proposed that you can provide evidence that 'ken' does
>not mean what we claimed all along and for which there now exists
>two sources of support on the meaning of the word. I guess you will
>just have to work your way around the problems.
>
TILL
Well, well, well, just look at the hypocrisy of the king of the dodge.
Perhaps it would be more practical for me to go back into the files and post
the points that you have dodged. Everyone who has been on this list for any
time at all knows your tactic. When you find yourself in a bind, you run
off and hide until you think the heat is off, and then you come back
spouting nonsense about other topics as if you think that everyone will have
forgotten what you couldn't answer. I have already figured you out on this
one. You are hoping to goad me into reviving this thread so that it may
draw attention away from your recent debate challenge, but it isn't going to
work. Go ahead and say what you want to about me and accuse me of dodging
issues, but when you do it, I will know that you are just trying to save
face, because you have been around long enough to know that that's not my
style. Remember when I was accused of being afraid to reply to an article
about me that Turkel had posted on his web site? During all of the
accusations, I was patiently working on the reply as time permitted, and
finally almost a year later, I posted it in 28 parts. I will do the same in
the "ken" matter, but I won't do it until you have met your promise to
affirm that the virgin birth of Jesus is a historical fact.
>> Matthew Bell
>> By the way, if you will go back to what I posted on this subject earlier,
>> you will see that I said my investigation of the word "ken" had uncovered at
>> least one example where the word "ken" meant similar. When I get back to
>> this project, I will include that in my posting and show that the context in
>> which the word was used is such that there can be no denial that it meant
>> only similar and not EXACTLY the same. Your problem is going to be that you
>> can make no such claim for that kind of textual clarity in Exodus 7.
>
>Matthew Bell
>Nothing like moving the goalposts!! CCBE don't need to show that it can only
>mean similar and not exactly in the passage, only that the meaning we have
>taking is possible. You would be wasting your time and effort if you took that
>line, indeed any line which does not counter the two Hebrew scholars who
>support out understanding of the meaning of 'ken'.
>
TILL
Please stick to the position that any possible explanation is a satisfactory
one, because that's a position that you will have to retreat from when you
see its consequences. You'll see why when the time comes. Until then I'm
going to pigeon hole this posting in a special box so that I can easily find
it when the discussion resumes.
As for the two Hebrew "scholars," I don't believe that you established that
Yudith is a Hebrew scholar. She apparently speaks Hebrew, but that doesn't
make her a Hebrew scholar anymore than someone who speaks English but
doesn't know when to use "me" instead of "myself" would be an English
scholar. At any rate, I would think you would have seen in my statement
above that I am admitting that "ken" could carry the sense of "like" or
"similar" but that when it conveyed that sense (which was apparently
relatively rare), the context made it obvious. Needless to say, you don't
have the context on your side in Exodus 7.
We'll get to all of this after the debate on the virgin birth. Later this
week, I'll be sending you a posting that gives my suggestions about the
format and rules.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net