Blood, Water and Magicians 1b (CCBE Response)
Matthew Bell mbkbell@aapi.co.uk
Sun, 4 Oct 1998 22:34:45 +0100 (00907554885, 19981004213905562.AAA108@mbell.aapi.co.uk)
> >> > > F.TILL
> >> > > Perhaps you or someone in your CCBE group can explain to
> >> > > us how the magicians were able to pull off this remarkable
> >> > > stunt'
> >> >
> >> > CCBE
> >> > No, we cannot, as the text does not indicate how the feat was
> >> > accomplished, only that it was.
> >> >
> >> F.TILL
> >> You have already admitted this, so why don't you now turn your attention
> >> to proving that the text was historically accurate in its claim that the
> >> magicians, in some unknown way, duplicated Aaron's and Moses' feat? How
> >> would you go about doing that without just assuming the accuracy of the
> >> biblical text, but the accuracy of the biblical text is what we are
> >> debating, so if you are just going to assume the truth of what you are
> >> affirming, you will be reasoning in a circle. I would think that even
> >> you would know that this is fallacious reasoning.
> >>
> >CCBE
> >We have the Biblical record claiming the occurrence of both the initial
> >act by Moses/Aaron and that of the duplication by the magicians.
> >Why ask us to demonstrate the historical accuracy of one and not
> >the other?
>
> TILL
> Well, I AM asking you to demonstrate the historical accuracy of both.
> Haven't you been reading the postings? We have pointed out that Egyptian
> records make no reference at all to any national catastrophes like the ten
> plagues, and Michael Fisher pointed out that the changing of all of the
> water of Egypt into blood would have necessarily caused the economic
> collapse of Egypt and pollution that would have had effects on the ecology
> outside of Egypt. You have made no attempt to respond to these points.
CCBE
With regard to the above, i.e. the historical accuracy, lack of references in
Egyptian records and the ecological effects of the plague our intent is to
respond to them after we have dealt with the textual matters presently under
discussion. That is where our main focus of attention has been/is and to move
that focus onto other matters outside of, though related to the text would be
distracting.
F.TILL
> In my original posting, which I cut and pasted from a written debate with
> Jerry Moffitt (a Church-of-Christ preacher who chickened out when the going
> got too rough for him), I noted that if we concede the existence of an
> all-powerful deity who was behind the efforts of Aaron and Moses to secure
> the release of the Israelites, then certainly changing rods into serpents
> and water into blood would be recognizably possible, BUT no one, not even
> an omnipotent deity, could change water that didn't exist into blood. Hence,
> my line of argumentation was based on a concession that your god Yahweh
> exists and that he could have enabled Aaron and Moses to perform the
> remarkable miracles in the story of the 10 plagues, but I was also arguing
> that not even this magnificent Yahweh could do that which is logistically
> impossible to do. The changing of water into blood after ALL of the water
> in Egypt has already been changed into blood is logistically impossible,
> and the killing of livestock with hail after ALL of the livestock of Egypt
> had already been killed by the plague of murrain would also have been
> logistically impossible. How could these events have happened?
>
> This is the issue, Matt, so why don't you and your CCBE cohorts get busy
> and solve this problem?
CCBE
The killing of the livestock with hail is not the immediate matter under
discussion, hence we will not be dealing with that matter at present.
We have pointed out in our response that your misunderstanding that the feat of
the magicians was logistically impossible is due to the invalid use of
eisegesis, and an out of context reading of the passage related to the use of
the Hebrew word 'ken'. We will reiterate these in replying to your recently
sent responses.
************
> >
> > CCBE
> > Why are you moving the goalposts of the original matter under discussion,
> > i.e. whether there is a matter of errancy in the recording of the events.
> > In asking such >of us it appeared that, for the sake of argument you were
> > taking an if-these-events-occurred-then etc, approach?
>
> TILL
> No, you are only partially right. If my position is that it would have
> been logistically impossible for even an omnipotent god to change
> into blood water that didn't exist, then certainly I couldn't have
> been taking an if-these-events-occurred approach. My approach
> was a simple request for you to explain how that even if A (Aaron's
> miracle of changing all the water of Egypt into blood) had happened,
> B (the magicians of Egypt doing the same with their enchantments)
> could have happened. The problem is simple. Aaron and Moses
> allegedly changed all the water that existed in Egypt into blood, and
> the magicians then allegedly changed all the water that DIDN'T exist
> in Egypt into blood. If the first event happened, how could the second
> one have happened. That's the problem, and we are still waiting for
> an explanation.
CCBE
The explanation is even simpler than the problem and has been presented twice
to you. To repeat it a third time:
''It states nowhere in the text that absolutely no water existed for the
magicians to perform their feat. Indeed if one uses the principle of exegesis
(defined by F.Till as,'"exegesis" means to derive from the text the meaning of
the language used within it), then one would come to the opposite conclusion
that F.Till does. The text states that the magicians did likewise. We derive
from this (the text) that to have done so they would have water to use. That
the text does not specify where or how they obtained this water does not mean
that there was none in existence.To claim such is to argue from that which the
text does not say (eisegisis), and go against what it does say (exegisis).
We note that you have made a response to this and will reply more fully to it
when dealing with that.
> >
> > CCBE
> > If you required validation of the historical relaibility of the events then
> > that should have been your first question.
>
> TILL
> See the above and then try to explain to us how that if A happened, B could
> have happened.
CCBE
Well since A happened only through your invalid use of eisegesis (pointed out
above), and not in the text, you have your explanation.
******************************
>
> >CCBE
> >Except for the biblical record itself we know of no other unbiased
> >validation that the events occured.
>
> TILL
> No OTHER "unbiased validation"? Are you actually claiming that the
> biblical account is an unbiased record?
CCBE
The matter is a distraction from the matter under discussion. To avoid such
quibbles please read the above as, 'We know of no independant unbiased
validation of the events recorded in the biblical account'.
***********************
> >
> > CCBE
> > If you consider there is contrary evidence then please present it, though
> > we would request that this is withheld until the present matter of the
> > text is concluded.
> >
>
> TILL
> My evidence to the contrary is simple logic. If ALL of the water
> throughout all the land of Egypt had been changed into blood,
> then it would have been logically impossible for the magicians
> to have done the same with their enchantments. So until you
> can explain how that such would be possible, why is it not
> reasonable to see the logistic impossibility as "contrary
> evidence"? As for the "present matter of the text," what is there
> to conclude? You have admitted that the text does not say how
> the Egyptians managed to do the same with their enchantments,
> and you just stated (above) that other than for the biblical record
> you know of no "other unbiased validation" of the event. So why
> wouldn't the "present matter of the text" already be concluded?
CCBE
Your logic is correct, your premises faulty, i.e. based on the invalid use of
eisegesis demonstrated above. For your premise to be sound you need to show
exegetically that absolutely no water existed for the magicians to perform
their feat. As for the present matter of the text, we are far from convinced
that the matter is concluded and are quietly confident that we will be able to
demonstrate to your satisfaction that there is in the text no matter of
errancy.
Thanks
CCBE