DAR
How is it that you pretend to know Balaam's intentions? You
have invented it entirely out of whole cloth.
Walt Jr.
Once again Michael does what he does so well...SPECULATE
SPECULATE SPECULATE!>>
DAR
Actually it is you who is speculating about mysterious,
unknown, Balaam "intentions". Can you not see that you have no
scriptural support for supposing (or should I say pre-supposing
in your case) ill intentions upon Balaam? It is simply not there.
If it was there you would have posted it already.
Walt Jr.
Once again Michael, this theory [two source-dar] of YOURS
(since you could give no references of scholars who hold to this)
is simply your 'ace in the hole.' Pull it out whenever you need
it.>>
DAR
Michael doesn't NEED this. You do! He was trying to give
you a possible explanation for why this obvious contradiction
exists. As Michael would readily admit, if this two source
explanation is entirely incorrect it in no way makes the
contradiction go away. It might even make it more glaring.
WALT Jr.
It's the old, I can't explain the text at fact value >>
DAR
The face value explanation of the text is that there is a blatant
contradiction. I like how Farrell concisely laid this out best:
"Verse 21 says, "So Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his
donkey, and went with the officials of Moab."
Then verse 22 says, "God's anger was kindled BECAUSE HE
WAS GOING, and the angel of Yahweh took his stand in the
road as his adversary."
If you can't see that this passage says that Balaam did what
Yahweh told him and then Yahweh's anger was kindled because
Balaam did what Yahweh told him, there is something wrong
with your comprehension skills." --Till
Walt Jr.
Michael, it is you with your unproven speculative two-source
theory, your hypothesis of how the text could have been pieced
together, etc...that has no objective validation.>>
DAR
Michael doesn't need to prove his speculative two-source
theory. Either way the contradiction stands.
WALT Jr.
I thought you were much better than this...oh well, as I said
before, time truly tells all. >>
DAR
How could Michael do "much better than this"? He is kicking
your ass! The rubble is bouncing. Head for the bunker Walt Jr.!
Enjoy the extra copy of this response too.
Would it be too much to ask for you to edit out some of the pages and
pages
unnecessary copied material in your responses? No biggie. Thanks.
cheers,
Darrel
-----------------------
Walt Sr. to Walt Jr.
"You invariably steer our talks to presuppositions, objective
morality, invariant laws, etc., and away from inerrancy. While all
this is interesting cocktail talk, that's all it is; neatly
sophisticated argument to trap the unwary/un-knowledgeable.
While you seem well endowed with word and logic, you have
never presented one iota of EVIDENCE for any "proof" that you
have ever offered. The reason for this is abundantly clear. You
have none." --Walt Sr., errancy-l, 4/15