BOUNCE errancy@infidels.org:
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Tue, 02 Mar 1999 21:53:52 -0800 (00920462032, 2.2.32.19990303055352.008a73d4@midwest.net)
>
>>>>TILL
>>>>The issue of "ken" was put on hold because of heavy traffic on the
>errancy
>>>>list concerning other matters. Now that the great debate between Matt
>Bell
>>>>and me seems to be fizzling out with Bell unable to defend Ezekiel's
>>>>prophecy against Egypt, I have time to resume the "ken" thread. Those
>who
>>>>thought that the discussion of this subject was carried on too long may
>>>wish
>>>>to skip this posting.
>>>
>>>Matthew Bell
>>>An interesting way of reasoning:
>>>
>>>Matt Bell committed to post on the Ezekiel prophecy debate on, or before
>the
>>>8th of March 1999.
>>>I, Farrell Till, because I am upset at comments he has made on another
>>>unrelated thread insist he post immediately, rather than take as much time
>>>as he wants as I first stated.
>>>Matt Bell remains committed to his initial date.
>>>Matt Bell is unable to defend Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt.
>>>
>>>I'm sure Jeff Epler and Michael Fisher would have a field day with such
>>>logic!!!
>>>
>>
>>TILL
>>I think I explained my reasoning well enough that even you should be able
>to
>>understand it. I first told you to take as much time as you felt that you
>>needed in order to get ready for the Ezekiel debate, but you then resorted
>>to your old trick of accusing me of putting off my reply to something you
>>wanted me to reply to immediately, and so I considered it only fair to ask
>>that you meet the same standard you demanded of me. When you complain
>>about my delays in responding, you insinuate that I can't reply or am
>afraid
>>to reply, and so I am just applying the same standard to you. You have had
>>several weeks to begin your defense of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt, so
>>since you haven't begun it yet, why am I not (according to your logic)
>>justified in assuming that the debate is fizzling out with you unable to
>>defend the prophecy?
>
>Matthew Bell
>It is hardly surprising that you are prone to such illogical assumptions
>considering you don't appear to be able to read what people write. I have
>already stated that my reason for forwarding to CCBE and commenting on your
>comments on the 'other' water/blood harmonisation was that I considered it
>inappropriate for you to present an argument on which your understanding had
>been questioned and you had (at that time) not given a response to.
TILL
Go back over the postings on this thread, Matt, and you will see that I had
presented counterarguments to all of your quibbles. Essentially, I have
presented nothing new except for a far more detailed analysis of how "ken"
was used in the OT. I considered it appropriate to reply to the posting
that had argued that only the water in the Nile and tributaries and ponds
connected to it were changed to blood. That quibble had never been
presented to the list, and so I considered it appropriate to reply to it.
The purpose of that posting was not to debate what the word "ken" meant.
BELL
> It had nothing to do with 'complaining' about the time you were taking on
the >'ken' issue, indeed if such were the case I would have been
'complaining' a long
>time ago. I do not intend to waste any further time on this matter, and
>reiterate once more to you that I will either post my first argument on
>Ezekiel on, or before the 8th of March or forfeit the debate.
>>
>>><snip>
TILL
The following has been cut from the posting in which your complained.
>TILL
>> To me, the most obvious problem in this very strained interpretation is the
>> fact that the "context" states that "all the Egyptians" dug along the river
>> for water to drink, but if the only water that had been changed into blood
>> was the water in the river and streams and pools that connected to it, why
>> didn't they just go away from the river and get water from an uncontaminated
>> source? I'm also wondering how that a pool and pond could be a body of
>> water that was connected to a river.
>>
>> Furthermore, this explanation doesn't solve the problem of how the magicians
>> did in like manner with their enchantments, because if all the water in the
>> river had been changed into blood by Aaron and Moses, the magicians couldn't
>> very well have changed all the water in the river into blood, because all
>> the water in the river had already been changed into blood. This matter is
>> as simple as if the story should have claimed that Aaron changed Pharaoh's
>> scepter into stone. If Aaron had changed the scepter into stone, then the
>> magicians couldn't have done likewise with their enchantments, because the
>> scepter would already be stone.
>
>Matthew Bell
>One would think from the above that Farrell had already refuted the evidence
>presented to him on the meaning of the word 'ken'. Maybe one day he will share
>the information he possesses which soundly refutes our understanding of it
>which is supported by Hebrew scholars. I guess until the above can be put down
>to a short memory.
>
TILL
The issue of what "ken" means didn't even figure in my reply to the new
quibble. I made two points: (1) The fact that the text states that all the
Egyptians dug along the river for water would clearly imply the writer's
understanding that there were no uncontaminated bodies of water away from
the river where they could get water. (2) If the magicians changed
"unconnected" bodies of water into blood, this would not have constituted
doing in like manner as Aaron and Moses, because they changed the Nile river
into blood (according to the story); disconnected lakes and ponds would not
have been the "same" as the river.
>>>Matthew Bell
>>>I will get round to formulating a response to your 'rebuttal' when time
>>>allows and after I have concluded my defense of the Ezekiel prophecies.
>>>CCBE members are of course welcome to submit draft responses meantime.
>>>
>>
>>TILL
>>That's not good enough. If you insist that I should answer you
>immediately,
>>then I have the right to insist that you meet the same standard. So your
>>failure to begin the Ezekiel debate now must mean that you think that you
>>can't adequately defend it, and so you are frantically groping around for
>>help on what to say. Who knows? Maybe you have started a secret list
>>called LFHIDEP (looking for help in defending Ezekiel's prophecies).
>>
>>I also remind you that I have made two new postings on the "ken" thread, so
>>I will expect you to reply to these immediately too. Any delay will
>>indicate to me that you are hiding away somewhere dining on chicken livers.
>
>
>Matthew Bell
>It is as good as you are going to get. I will respond to both matters as
>laid out above.
>
TILL
Well, okay, when you finally post your first argument on March 8th, I will
announce that I will plan to reply to it whenever I can find time, possibly
on June 14th. I wonder what your reaction to that will be. I suspect you
will accuse me of evasion, so that's what I'm accusing you of. If you will
ever learn to keep your mouth shut about the time that I take to reply to
some of your postings, disputes like this can be avoided, but as long as you
insist on a rigid standard from me, I'm going to demand the same from you.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net