Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> >> > CCBE

> >> > However, we can demonstrate how your contention is one of poor, and

> >> > indeed according to your own earlier post, invalid eisegisis. 

> >> >

> 

> >> F.TILL

> >> Eisegesis (I even know how to spell it) is a fallacious interpretation

> >> method that reads INTO the text information that is not there.  My

> >> contention throughout has been that the text says only that (1) Aaron and

> >> Moses changed all of the water throughout all the land of Egypt into

> >> blood, (2) the fish died, (3) the river became foul, (4) the Egyptians 

> >> could not drink from the river, (5) the magicians did in like manner with

> >> their enchantments, and (6) pharaoh hardened his heart, turned, and

> >> went into his house.  So since the text specifically states all of these

> >> things, just where is the eisegesis occurring?

> >

> >CCBE

> >The eisegesis is point (1). You have stated elsewhere:

> >

> >1. 'If Aaron had changed all of the water throughout the whole land of 

> >Egypt into blood, including even the water in stone and wooden 

> >vessels, there would have been no water available for pharaoh's 

> >magicians to show their stuff and duplicate the feat.  I would  think 

> >that even Mr. Moffitt should be able to see this, but if he can't, 

> >perhaps he can at least explain to us how the magicians were able

> >to pull off this remarkable stunt.  At any rate, we have to score one

> >for pharaoh and the bad guys this time. Moses and Aaron merely

> >changed all the water there was into blood; pharaoh's magicians

> >changed all the water there wasn't into blood.  They were some 

> >magicians, to say the least'.

> >

> > 2. 'The problem is really simple enough that even Matt Bell should see it. 

> > No one, regardless of what kind of powers he may have possessed, could

> > have changed water that didn't exist into blood'.

> >

> 

> >From this it is obvious that you consider 'all of the water', to be 

> >absolute. We showed how this is poor eisegesis in our response:

> >

> >'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.

> 

> TILL

> I've never claimed that the text does not SAY that the magicians did

> likewise with their enchantments, and that is the whole point.  My argument

> is that the text had to be in error in making this claim, because it is a

> logistically impossible claim.  If we grant that Aaron and Moses changed

> all of the water in Egypt into blood, an act that would have been possible if

> there were any such thing as an omnipotent god working on their behalf, but

> even if there were such an entity as this, it would not have been possible

> for the magicians to do the same thing that Aaron and Moses did, because

> all the water in Egypt had already been changed into blood.  So the argument

> is not about whether the text SAYS that the magicians did the same as 

> Aaron and Moses but whether the text could be accurate in saying that

> they did. If something is logically impossible, then it couldn't have 

> happened. That's the issue that Bell and the CCBE keep evading.


CCBE
At this point we see no textual reason to  'grant that Aaron and Moses changed
ALL of the water in Egypt into blood'. What we do agree with is that Moses and
Aaron changed all of the water in Egypt into blood that is categorised in the
text. ANY water not categorised in the text immediatley sinks your whole
argument. Please textually demonstrate your assertion that 'ALL', as in 
absolutely no exceptions, of the water in Egypt was turned to blood? A failure
to do so from the text invalidates your argument of logistically impossible.
******************************************************************

> >CCBE

> >We derive from this (the text) that to have done so they would have water

> >to use. 

> 

> TILL

> No, you're not deriving anything; you are begging the question of biblical

> inerrancy by arguing that if the Bible says that the magicians did the same

> as Aaron and Moses, then it has to be true that the magicians did the same

> as Aaron and Moses.  The fact that it was logistically impossible for the

> magicians to have done the same as Aaron and Moses (if we assume that A & M

> changed all of the water in Egypt into blood) requires us to conclude that

> the text erred in making this statement.  If, for example, the text had

> said that the magicians of Egypt had made square triangles, we would know

> that the text erred in making this claim, because it is logically impossible 

> for anyone, even an omnipotent god, to make square triangles.  Logical

> impossibility is the issue in this matter.  Why won't Bell and the CCBE

> confront it?


CCBE
We have confronted it, and have done so from the text, through exegesis. Your
whole argument is a matter of invalid eisegesis, that there was absolutely no
water in existence for the feat to be repeated. We do not consider that you
have, nor can support this from the text. If you cannot then you have no
logistic impossibility and therefore the exegesis of the passage that the
magicians performed the same feat is textually valid.
*************************************************************

> > CCBE

> > That the text does not specify where or how they obtained this water does

> > not mean that there was none in existence.

> 

> TILL

> The fact that the text claims a logical impossibility requires the

> conclusion that the text erred in claiming that the magicians performed the

> logically impossible.  Furthermore, if "all the magicians" in 7:24 had to

> mean ALL of the magicians, as the CCBE claims, then why would all the water

> in Egypt not have to mean all the water in Egypt?


CCBE
You mean of course that, if all the *egyptians  in 7:24 etc. There are several
reasons which we would suggest:

1. That the phrase 'all the egyptians' is textually based whereas the phrase
'all the water in Egypt' is not, being your eisegesis of the passage.

2. That the water, 'througout all the land of Egypt' is specifically
categorised and contrary to your thinking is not all-inclusive. No such
specifics are given with who comprised, 'all the Egyptians'.

You first point has already been answered more than once.
*******************************************************************

> > CCBE

> > To claim such is to argue from that which the text does not say

> > (eisegisis), and go against what it does say (exegisis). 

> >

> 

> TILL

> To claim that the text makes a logically impossible claim would not be

> eisegesis (please learn how to spell it, Matt).  If a text declared that

> Matt Bell made square circles, no eisegesis would be involved if I

> concluded that the text had made an erroneous statement, because I

> would not be reading anything into the text.  Instead, I would be 

> deriving a logical conclusion from what the text clearly says.


CCBE
We have demonstrated that your logistic impossibility is not textually based
and hence invalid eisegesis by yourself. Hence we stand by our valid exegesis
of the passage, that in stating the Egyptians did likewise the existence of
water to use is asserted.

<snip>

Thanks
CCBE

• Previous message: Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)
• Next message: Blood, Water and Magicians (1b)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]