Contrived Gospel stories

[Kris]

Just a out of curiousity Robin. I am soon going to have a degree in history incidentally assuming you have a degree what is it in??

[Hugh Slaman]

"Remember Hugh only a single one, no matter how insignificant needs to hold up. Look through this list and tell me when your ready to discuss it."

I agree with that Kris. But I hope to convince you that it is not nearly as easy to find a contradiction in the Koran as you seem to think.

I've seen that list of alleged internal contradictions, as well as the "Answering Islam" website, many times before. It used to be run by a Christian named Jochen Katz. I haven't examined every contradiction on that list, but I am looking forward to enhancing my knowledge in this area.

Since we've been asked to move this discussion elsewhere, I'm now going to start up a new thread in "Religion 101", called "Koran Contradictions?" I'll see you there!

Best,

Hugh

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you Hugh!

[AVmetro]

As is typical, I just caught the tail end of everything...:argh:

[jpholding]

Robin,

I have seldom seen so many arguments that make me salivate! If I weren't pressed for time on a trip I'm about to take I'd write a novel in response.

But if it's going on a new thread, great! Mods, is it already there? Directions please for a scrambling man, so that I may return with full throttle on Thursday?

[Robin Goodfellow]

charis humin:
I think Kris was only bringing up Alex for comparison. Of course no one doubts Alex ruled the Eastern Mediterranean until 321 BCE, but the fact is we have little extant data from the generations immediate to his lifetime.

I’m not saying that’s untrue. But I would like to see credible evidence for it.

charis humin:
On the other hand, we have many documents (primarily the NT, but a scattering of others as well) that directly tell of or allude to Jesus of Nazareth all written within the first 100 years of his life. The fact is, ancient figures do not get much more attestion than Jesus.

I do think Jesus existed as a historical person, though I haven’t looked into it. But I’m not sure I’d accept your comparative evaluation without better documentation.

For one thing, early extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus is thin gruel indeed. Scott Oser reviews it here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

Briefly, Tacitus’ _Annals_ contains one sentence about Jesus, but there’s reason to think Tacitus' information was based on Christian belief rather than Roman imperial records. Suetonius mentions someone named “Chrestus,” but there are several reasons to conclude this was probably not Jesus. Someone about whom we know virtually nothing except the name “Thallus” may or may not have written about Jesus sometime prior to 180 CE.

Aside from the Testimonium Flavianum, there is passing mention of Jesus in Josephus’s _Antiquities_, but all that scholars can say with confidence is that the words might have been in Josephus’s original or they might have been added by a later Christian scribe. (Two reasons for skepticism are the passage's brevity and the implications of the Testimonium Flavianum.)

That brings us, finally, to the Testimonium Flavianum itself. Till himself outlines reasons to doubt its authenticity here:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/till_prophecy.html


Farrell Till:
1. Is it reasonable to think that Josephus would not have converted to Christianity if he really believed what this passage says, i.e., Jesus was the Christ, he showed himself alive after his crucifixion, and he fulfilled ten thousand wonderful things that the prophets had foretold about him?

2. This paragraph was missing in early versions of Josephus. Church fathers often quoted Josephus in support of their arguments for Christianity, but none of them ever referred to this statement. In *Origen Contra Celsum,* Origen defended Christianity against the attacks of Celsus, and in doing so, he quoted Josephus at times but never quoted this passage, the very one that would have best supported his case if it were genuine and had been in the version of *Antiquities* that Origen had at the time.

3. This paragraph was first quoted in the 4th century by Eusebius. How reasonable is it to believe that four centuries of apologetic efforts by church fathers went by before this passage was discovered?

4. The phrase "to this day" at the end of the statement indicates that the perspective of the writer was someone writing long after the events referred to in the statement (the crucifixion, the resurrection, etc.). Josephus was too close to these events to make it believable that he would have used the expression.

5. If Josephus really believed that Jesus had fulfilled predictions of Jewish prophets, he would surely have devoted much more space to him than this one short passage.

After some discussion, Oser provides what seems a fair assessment: “The Testimonium Flavianum preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion.”

In short, reasonably solid documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the New Testament is non-existent.

Within the NT, the Gospels and Acts are anonymous, hearsay accounts that weren’t written until 35-70 years after the crucifixion. I haven’t delved into the status of other parts of the NT as evidence for Jesus’ existence, so I’ll have to leave them out of the equation for now. (Obviously, Paul’s testimony was hearsay and visionary.)

Keep in mind that I’m not questioning the historicity of Jesus. I believe he was a real person. I’m only addressing the question of whether there’s more compelling historical evidence for his existence than for that of other ancient luminaries.

Christians sometimes compare the evidence of Jesus’ existence to that of Caesar’s. Till’s Usenet message on that topic can be seen here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=36518fd8.75340061%40news.idt.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

(Till’s information came courtesy of retired Latin teacher Nancy Todd.)

Nancy Todd:
Some contemporaneous sources that provide evidence for the historicity of Julius Caesar:

* C. Julius Caesar's _Commentarii de bello Gallico_ and _de bello civili_

* letters: from Caesar to Balbus; from Caesar to Oppius; from Balbus to Cicero; from Caesar to Cicero; from Cicero to Caesar; from Caelius to Cicero; from Cicero to Basilius; from Cicero to Atticus; from Cicero to Matius; from Matius to Cicero; from Antonius to Cicero; from Cicero to his wife, daughter, mother, and sister; from Vatinius to Cicero; from Asinius to Cicero

* speeches: Cicero's eulogy of Caesar's conquest of Gaul; _Second Phillipics_

* Sallust _Bellum Catalinae_

* Cornelius Nepos _Life of Atticus_

* poems: Catullus _Carmina_; Ovid _Metamorphoses_; Vergil _Aeneid_

* portrait busts; coins

And that is just the contemporaneous evidence I found in the few books I have here at home.

This is part of the reason I’m hesitant to accept unsupported assertions about the lack of contemporaneous evidence for Alexander, although the 300 years between Alexander and Caesar could be important here.

But look for a moment at Jordan’s original claim: “In contrast, historical documentation for Alexander the Great’s existence appeared nearly 400 years after his death.” It’s not clear whether he’s saying that our earliest copies were from more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, although the originals were written during his lifetime, or that the originals themselves weren’t written until 400 years later. It makes a huge difference, and the fact that Jordan doesn’t even seem aware of the distinction hardly inspires confidence in him.

A final point. The strength of historical evidence often requires sophisticated evaluation. It’s not a simple matter of the number of documents and the number of years after the event. It can involve a careful weighing of likelihood’s and possible alternative explanations. It might be that we have 400-year-later copies of official government records from many countries affected by Alexander’s conquests. That would be utterly unexplainable by any sort of urban-legend hypothesis. It would instead require a massive conspiracy, of either ancient or modern historians, to doctor the evidence. By contrast, we know of nothing during Jesus’ lifetime that would rule out the legend hypothesis. The New Testament could be explained by either a very small conspiracy or an accumulation of legends requiring no conspiracy at all. This consideration alone makes me strongly suspect that the historical evidence for Alexander’s existence (whatever it is, and as an academically-trained history researcher perhaps Kris could find out for us) will turn out to be far more compelling than that for the existence of Jesus.

charis humin:
Speculations about what caused the empty tomb story to arise abound, but I see a trend in scholarship today to back away from a priori judgments about the disciples' claims that Jesus rose from the dead.

Can you provide evidence for this?

charis humin:
Why? People who knew Jesus during his lifetime were going throughout Palestine and the Roman Empire made that very claim, that he appeared to them. In contrast to a legend, where its genesis begins: "somebody told somebody who told my friend we who told me that..."
One evangelist was Paul, who had only a vision. Others could have had visions, or convinced themselves, perhaps after the fact, that some stranger they’d met was the risen Jesus. How many of those who knew Jesus actually did go out to spread the word, Charis?

Has new evidence surfaced on the activities Jesus’ intimates? It seems a little odd that information from Acts would be creating a trend in Bible scholarship after all this time. Did scholars not notice these passages until now? Can you give a source documenting this trend?

Robin

[Robin Goodfellow]

Kris:
Just a out of curiousity Robin. I am soon going to have a degree in history incidentally assuming you have a degree what is it in??

I have a bachelor's in liberal arts. Why do you ask?

[Robin Goodfellow]

Kris:
May not be aware!!! my area of expertise is Roman History

I apologize, Kris. I didn't mean to sell you short.

Robin

[Robin Goodfellow]

jpholding:
Robin,

I have seldom seen so many arguments that make me salivate! If I weren't pressed for time on a trip I'm about to take I'd write a novel in response.

I guess you mean you've seldom seen so many weak arguments, ripe for the plucking.

See you when you get back. :)

Robin

[charis humin]

Robin,

I realize that most of what I said was more assertion than actual argument. Like JP my time is a little short the early part of this week, but I want to discuss the points you've raised but probably won't be able to do it until the latter part of this week. Till then, take care.

[Robin Goodfellow]

charis humin:
Robin,

I realize that most of what I said was more assertion than actual argument. Like JP my time is a little short the early part of this week, but I want to discuss the points you've raised but probably won't be able to do it until the latter part of this week. Till then, take care.
Thanks, Charis. You do the same.

Robin

[Farrell Till]

Jaltus:
I teach at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Jaltus, I appreciate very much your effort to reply to the Mary Magdalene problem. You have been a breath of fresh air in a forum where evasion and straw men seem to be the standards of others. I apologize for the delay in replying to you, but except for a couple of ten-minute stints, I have been away from my office for the entire weekend because of a series of emergencies. You have heard the old adage that says when it rains, it pours. I found this to be true this weekend. Friday afternoon, I received notification that temporarily unoccupied property that I own in a nearby town was vandalized and items on the inside stolen, so most of my weekend was taken up by police investigations, reports to my insurance company, and work on repairs and installation of security locks and alarms to reduce the chances of it happening again. If this were not enough, my wife received word that her sister's husband was in the hospital following surgery to repair ruptured blood vessels in his brain suffered from a fall in his home. His condition could very well require another out-of-state trip for us.

Besides all of this, it seems as if my tenure in this forum is coming to an end because of Ms. Warren's demand that I use [edited] phony name. The reasons why I refuse to do this are too long and detailed to discuss here, but I am sure that I will be removed as soon as I post my refusal along with this message.

I am sending what will probably be a final reply to you to ask if you would contact me by e-mail at jftill@theramp.net so that we could continue to discuss your "aroist resolution" to the Mary Magdalene problem. If you would agree to do this, I would cross-post them to my II_Errancy list, so you would have the assurances that you would not be writing to just an audience of one.

I appreciate the fact that you have a Ph. D. and that you teach Greek, but my research since this matter came up has clearly indicated that you are compromising your background in Greek for the sake of solving the Mary Magdalene Problem so that you can retain your belief in biblical inerrancy.

Now this is not just a skeptic who studied Greek 50 years ago speaking. It is the opinion of some very reputable professors of Greek at major seminaries. Before I received news of the vandalism to my out-of-town property, I had sent inquiries to several major seminaries to get the opinions of those who teach Greek at these institutions. So far, I have received five replies, and none of them agrees with you. When I say that I am contacting experts, I mean exactly that. I assume that you know of James H. Charlesworth of Princeton Theological School, who is a leading expert in pseudepigrapha. To my surprise, he answered, and his answer did not agree with yours.

To give you an example of the information I am receiving, I will quote one of my sources, who teaches Greek at a conservative theological university. He received his Ph. D. from the University of Oxford (England). I am going to quote him because he sent me the most comprehensive reply, in which he quoted a reference work by Dr. Daniel Wallace, who is a professor of Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary.



I appreciate your interest in Greek! I think your instincts are right -- the aorist tense cannot be boiled down simply to "completed action." The aorist fits the perfect tense more.

I'll quote Daniel Wallace (Basic of NT Syntax), who has a pretty good way of explaining it:

"The aorist tense 'presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence' (Fanning, Verbal aspect). This contrasts with the present and imperfect, which portray the action as an ongoing process. It may be helpful to think of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the imperfect (like the present) takes a motion picture, portraying the action as it unfolds."

A snapshot may not always tell you how long the action has been going on, or even whether there was preceding action; it may not tell you what will happen next, if anything. It's just a freeze-frame. That is what the aorist tends to do (indeed, a-orist means, "without definition"). So, in a sense, from the vantage point of the speaker or writer using the aorist, the action is viewed as a whole (just like a snapshot is a whole picture), but you cannot draw too many implications about the nature of the action from the aorist.

In the indicative mood, the aorist is nearly always a past action, and therefore typically a "completed" action, as past actions tend to be. Outside the indicative mood however, time is irrelevant, and this is why the aorist tense occurs so much in the New testament in non-indicative moods -- since the aorist is "undefined," you're not making any special points by using it. If you want to make a special point about the nature of the action, use a different tense (e.g. imperfect, present, or perfect, etc.).

As Wallace says, the two dangers in dealing with the aorist are the dangers of saying too little and saying too much. The aorist has a significance, of course, and that should not be forgotten. However, to say that it always means "once-for-all action" is to say way too much. As with all language phenomena, context determines the meaning of specific terms, or specific grammar (e.g. tense).

As you can see from what this source said about the aorist indicative, it "almost always" indicates completed action, but the aorist in Matthew 28:8 is not in the indicative mood. According to this source, then, "time is irrelevant" in the way that the aorist was used here. You are trying to make a very definite point about the use of the aorist in Matthew 28:8, but the professor quoted above says that "outside the indicative mood," the aorist made no specific points about the nature of the action. Since four other professors of Greek I have contacted all agree with this one, why should I discard their opinions for yours, since you obviously are trying to defend a very emotionally important belief?

As noted above, after I am gone from this forum, I would like to continue this discussion with you, because the responses I have already received to my inquiries that were sent as the weekend was beginning tell me that I should receive many more.

Adminstration Note - This post was edited only to remove the reference to jpholding's real name

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:

First of all, I extend my sympathies to you for the trials you have expressed above.


Besides all of this, it seems as if my tenure in this forum is coming to an end because of Ms. Warren's demand that I use Robert Turkel's phony name. The reasons why I refuse to do this are too long and detailed to discuss here, but I am sure that I will be removed as soon as I post my refusal along with this message.


Absolutely not Farrell, and you know better as I posted very clearly that such an infraction would not result in removal, but rather in order to balance competing desires, I would simply edit out the references to JP's name from your posts. You seem to be setting yourself up as a martyr, which you will not get from this forum. You will not be banned, and we want you to stay. I am willing to dedicate the time to edit your posts if your reasons will not allow you to voluntarily comply. In all honesty, I think you are looking for a way out, and this is a convenient excuse. I am giving you no such excuse.

Also, others have engaged your point, so your characterization that they have not besides Jaltus (who did as well) is unfair. You may disagree with their explanation, but explanations and argumentation has in fact been given.

Again, on behalf of Leadership of TWeb, you have my assurance that your refusal to cease from using JP's name will not result in any banishment, simply editing of that portion only. This is quite reasonable. I also invite you to debate the reasons why you feel this compulsion to use his name.

I find this withdrawal very telling indeed. Now if indeed this is your last post here, I wish you well, and though you may not want me to, I will pray for you Farrell, and I sincerely do want you to stay.

[Farrell Till]

Dear Farrell:

quote:

[edited]:
I hereby formally request that you refer to me hereafter by some permutation of my pseudonym such as JPH, Holding, etc.

Ms. Warren:
We respectfully ask now that JP has made a clear request, that you refrain from using his real name in any form on this forum. We do not want to have to delete any posts or overreact; thus, please be on notice that if future posts do not refrain from using his real name, I will have to go in and edit such references our without further warning. I am willing to spend the time to do this to avoid having to take more drastic measures, but I would sincerely ask that you just please honor this request.

If you would like to debate on the rights or wrongs of being able to use someone's real name, or whether or not people should be allowed to use pseudonyms, I invite you to the Podium area of this Forum.

Thank you for your consideration.

I'm sorry, Ms. Warren, but I will not do this. I have said before that the people in this forum who are making an issue of this have no idea what is really involved in this name dispute with [edited]l. During some of my early contacts with him, he justified his phony name on the grounds that he worked at a prison and was afraid that some of the inmates would look him up after they were released and harm him in some way.

Now, just think logically for a moment, Ms. Warren. I realize that this may be hard for you to do, but just try at least once. [Edited] worked at a prison where he was known to the inmates by his real name, [edited], but he was afraid that if he wrote articles on the internet under this name, which articles prison inmates would not likely see, some of them might come after him when they were released. Well, duh, Ms. Warren, if the prison inmates already knew him as [edited], how would using a phony name for internet articles keep them from coming after the [edited] they knew after they were released.

Think, Dee Dee, think!

When [edited] hatched up this excuse, he didn't know that he was talking to a teacher who worked for a college that provided educational services for a local prison and that I had had contacts with prisoners under my real name, as had many of my teaching colleagues. None of us had ever received any threats or had been murdered in our homes by released convicts. When a prison inmate in Huntsville, Texas, read about [edited] excuse for using a phony name on his articles, the inmate wrote to tell me that he did in fact know prison employees who used pseudonyms on the job but that [edited] was the only prison employee he had ever heard of who used his real name on the job but a phony name when he was off the job.

For pity's sake, Dee Dee, the mayor of the town I live in is a security guard at the local prison. His name and picture are often in the local paper, but I have never heard of any kind of threat against him from released inmates. Was [edited] afraid that prison inmates would see those articles, or was he afraid that prison administrators would see them?

I have in my possession a copy of an e-mail messages that [edited] sent at 10:34 AM on 8/7/2001, which was incidentally my wife's birthday, and in it he said that he didn't care if his real name was used.



I don't even care if you use my real name anymore -- had you kept up with my updates, you would know that that is no longer an issue for me.

So on August 7, 2001, [edited] said that his real name wasn't an issue, but now suddenly it is an issue, and I don't think that it is any coincidence that he made it an issue in a forum where his admirers were seeing me keep his feet to the fire on the Mary Magdalene Problem. If I had been allowed to keep it up much longer, some of you may have actually begun to wonder why he was evading it. You needed an excuse to get rid of me, so you said, "Till isn't calling [edited] by his phony name, so Till has to go."

So you will have to kick me off, Ms. Warren, because I don't intend to pander to [edited] desire to hide behind a phony name that he was writing articles under when he was employed by a state prison. If some of you would think, you would probably figure out that [edited] wasn't writing all of those articles on his lunch hour, nights, and weekends.

The sheer hypocrisy of you on this issue is appalling. I registered under my real name, Farrell Till, but you have never said anything to [edited] about calling me John or Johnny or McTill and so on, but I have to pander to a phony name that he started using for dishonest purposes. As far as I'm concerned [edited] or you or anyone else can call me anything you wish. Who cares?

Well, go take a flying leap, Ms. Warren. If I stay here, I will continue to call him by his real name, which is so commonly known by now that it should never have become an issue.

Besides, didn't he say that it is no longer an issue with him? Did he lie when he said this? If he did, it wouldn't be the first time.

Administrator Note - Edited to remove references to jpholding's real name

[Blake Reas]

Mr. Till

Don't leave I find what you are saying to start some much needed debate! Also I would like to see Jaltus' replies to your post from the people from princenton. I also wonder why the Princenton Professor did not discuss the scripture in question!
I am no expert in Greek what so ever but I would have liked to see what he said about the VERSE! Also Farrell why don't you explain to us in full why you won't stay on here? Until you explain in a complete fashion I am going to take it as you, chickening out from Jaltus and Holding!
If you are so good at "debunking" the bible why don't you stay on here? Just curious! Thanks for your posts.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:

His reasons for not wanting his name used here or anywhere are no concern of mine. It is also no concern of mine if he once gave permission and has now withdrawn it. He has made a request that it not be used here, and we will honor that request. As I stated before, you are free to stay and post, and you will not be banned for your stand that you believe is on principle. And if you request that no one refers to you by John or similars, I will do the same for you, and enforce your request just as readily. If that is what you want, please tell me and I will do it. Try me and see.


You needed an excuse to get rid of me, so you said, "Till isn't calling Turkel by his phony name, so Till has to go."

Please block and copy where I allegedly said that. I went out of my way to tell you that you are welcome here, and that we would try to accomodate your stand and our need to honor a request for real names not to be used. I would appreciate it if you would fairly represent me.

[Farrell Till]

Blake Reas:
Mr. Till

Don't leave I find what you are saying to start some much needed debate! Also I would like to see Jaltus' replies to your post from the people from princenton. I also wonder why the Princenton Professor did not discuss the scripture in question!
I am no expert in Greek what so ever but I would have liked to see what he said about the VERSE! Also Farrell why don't you explain to us in full why you won't stay on here? Until you explain in a complete fashion I am going to take it as you, chickening out from Jaltus and Holding!
If you are so good at "debunking" the bible why don't you stay on here? Just curious! Thanks for your posts.

TILL
It's hard to get a busy professor to take the time to comment on the analysis of a specific text, but I am going to try to get those who gave more than just one- or two-line answers to comment on Matthew 28:8. Anyway, can't you see that what was said in the source that I quoted is in direct conflict with what Jaltus is claiming?

I indicated that I was leaving only because I had interpreted Dee Dee Warren's post to mean that if I didn't refer to [edited] by his phony name, I wouldn't be allowed to stay. She has since said that this is was not what she meant, so I don't intend to leave.

If I post arguments that debunk biblical inerrancy, will you reply to them and not set up straw men as so many others have been doing? Jaltus is the only one who has seriously tried to explain the Mary M problem.

Administrator Note - Post edited to remove references to jpholding's real name

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:

I am glad that is cleared up though honestly I do not know how you ever got that mistaken. Oh well, moving on.....

FYI - it is not accurate that Jaltus is the only one who has tried to interact on this subject. The very fact that this thread exists is due to the fact the JP interacted with this subject. Now you may reject his statements and explanations but he has dealt with your issue. You are not going to gain credibility by such overstatements.

[Jaltus]

Till,

What I find strange is that Wallace follows Verbal Aspect Theory, at least to some degree, since he is quoting Fanning and using the definition for the aorist that I gave.

Also, you are quite wrong about the aorist NOT being in the indicative mood, it very much IS in the indicative mood, though there is an infinitive also.

One small correction: I do not have my Ph D, I am currently working on my Ph D. However, I already have two degrees in Greek to my name, so I am no slouch, hehe. After all, I do teach it.

While Princeton is a worthy place for Greek (perhaps top 2-3 in the US), I'd look outside the US for true Koine studies. Most seminaries in the US are worried about theology more than grammar (actually, so is mine, but the "star" of the department, D.A. Carson, is a leading advocate of VAT, so the issue comes up).

I also hope that you stay, as you are a fun person to debate with.

God bless (even if you don't believe in Him),

- Jaltus

EDIT: spelling error

[jpholding]

Farrell Till:


When [edited] hatched up this excuse, he didn't know that he was talking to a teacher who worked for a college that provided educational services for a local prison and that I had had contacts with prisoners under my real name, as had many of my teaching colleagues. None of us had ever received any threats or had been murdered in our homes by released convicts. When a prison inmate in Huntsville, Texas, read about [edited] excuse for using a phony name on his articles, the inmate wrote to tell me that he did in fact know prison employees who used pseudonyms on the job but that [edited] was the only prison employee he had ever heard of who used his real name on the job but a phony name when he was off the job.
[i]

Your work of that sort is a mere piddly-pointing compared to working behind the gate. FT, if you were behind the gate you'd be either fired or some inmate's "duck" within six weeks.

And if you were a capable thinker you would see that the TX policy is basically an allowance to do the same thing I'm doing.

Ah. The fresh air of one who assumes expertise in all areas.

Now that the emergencies are over, when are we going to start talking ostriches and donations, FT, to say nothing of you answering all the previous points I (and Guy) brought up?

[AVmetro]

Evangelion? Evangelion? Evangelion? :sarcasm:

[AVmetro]

On what page was the "Mary contradiction" explicitly stated. I've only been able to skim the majority of this thread [late start] and have managed to lose track of things.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear AV... I cannot really say.. but it is in the first ten pages that the subject was pretty much discussed. But if you read the link in the opening post which contains jpholding's offsite rebuttal to the issue you can see what the contention and dispute is.

[Dee Dee Warren]

AVmetro:
Evangelion? Evangelion? Evangelion? :sarcasm:

What are you doing? Conjuring up his spirit? LOL.

[Robin Goodfellow]

AVmetro:
On what page was the "Mary contradiction" explicitly stated. I've only been able to skim the majority of this thread [late start] and have managed to lose track of things.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=3651#post3651

[Dee Dee Warren]

And this was Holding's response:

http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html

Jaltus has added an additional factor to the mix, and I brought up also a textual variant upon which Till is placing weight, which in addition to Jaltus' point is interesting.

there is a post here in which someone (and drat I cannot remember who) sliced through the baloney and succintly stated what the problem was, what the solution was, and what Till's problem with the solution was.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Was it this one, Dee Dee?


J. J. Ramsey:
From what I've understood, Holding's argument is as follows:

[list=1]
Matthew has limited space in which to write his gospel because the scroll is only so long.
Matthew wants to include the polemic (Matthew 28:11-15) against the story that the disciples stole the body.
To make room for the polemic, Matthew collapses the resurrection account a bit, with the end result being that the reference to "the women" in Matt. 28:5 does not include "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" from 28:1.
Since this collapsing only affects incidental details that neither Matthew nor the readers of Matthew's gospel would be expected to care about, it does not constitute an error. It was an imprecision allowed by the standards of the time.
[/list=1]

From what I gather, it is the last point with which Mr. Till has trouble.
If so, there are two problems I can see with it. First, it requires admitting that there is an error there. Second it requires belief in a God awesome enough to create the entire universe, but not quite awesome enough to provide Matthew with a slightly longer scroll.

Folks back then didn't care? Maybe not. But are we to believe God couldn't foresee that the Bible would still be His Word to humankind 2000 years later? And that inerrancy would be an issue?

Robin

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robin:

Yes that is the post, and I thank you for locating it.


But.... I am sorry but your objections are inane. I might as well object that God could have written the Gospel in the sky and done away with scrolls alogether or have babies born with it tatooed on their bellies. If you want to anachronize and force what you perceive to our obviously superior modern sensibilities unto an ancient text, I suppose that is your business. However, that is not proper interpretation or evaluation of any ancient text.

[Dee Dee Warren]

But AV... those are the main points.. I do expect Jaltus to be back and maybe he can summarize what his take was that he was focusing on, and I can once again tie that in with the textual variation that I alluded to.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Robin:

Yes that is the post, and I thank you for locating it.

But.... I am sorry but your objections are inane.

I have to admit I'd hoped we might disagree a bit more respectfully.:bawl:

Dee Dee Warren:
I might as well object that God could have written the Gospel in the sky and done away with scrolls alogether or have babies born with it tatooed on their bellies.

Not a bad point, actually. What’s the counter to it?

Dee Dee Warren:
If you want to anachronize and force what you perceive to our obviously superior modern sensibilities unto an ancient text, I suppose that is your business. However, that is not proper interpretation or evaluation of any ancient text.
But the Bible isn’t just any ancient text, is it? Isn’t it actually God’s Word, and the means by which He wants us to know what life is really about? Doesn’t that make it rather unique among ancient texts? And isn’t one of it’s unique properties that it wasn’t written merely for ancient minds, but modern ones as well?

Unlike you, Holding, and Till, I’m more interested in mutually respectful discussion than sharp-tongued debate. I wouldn’t label your evaluation inane or improper.

But I’m quite comfortable with what I posted.:)

Robin

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robin:

I meant no disrespect, simply an honest evaluation. Please do not read personal insult where none was intended. I am bluntly honest where I feel it is needed. Of course you are free to disagree. I do not feel you are doing me any favors if you play nice if I say something inane, nor would I to you..... And again so that I am perfectly clear... I criticized your argument, not your person.

Thus, I too am quite comfortable with what I posted.:)

[Dee Dee Warren]

And isn’t one of it’s unique properties that it wasn’t written merely for ancient minds, but modern ones as well?

Modern minds that are completely capable of understanding ancient cultural norms if they chose to? Sure.

[Jaltus]

Dee Dee,

You seem to implicitly deny Dual Authorship, as does JPH to some extent. I don't think you mean to, but you sure lean that way.

Assuming God is behind the Bible (that entire inspiration thing), it means that it was written for both then and now, for God (the real one, not the OV one ;) ) knew how these works would be used in the future.

Robin,

I agree with 1, I disagree with 2. Scrolls were standard sized. in order to get a longer one, someone would have to "special order" it ahead of time.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Robin:

I meant no disrespect, simply an honest evaluation. Please do not read personal insult where none was intended. I am bluntly honest where I feel it is needed. Of course you are free to disagree. I do not feel you are doing me any favors if you play nice if I say something inane, nor would I to you..... And again so that I am perfectly clear... I criticized your argument, not your person.

Thus, I too am quite comfortable with what I posted.:)
Well, I think we’re just two very different people, with very different styles. And that’s fine.

Robin

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robin:


Well, I think we’re just two very different people, with very different styles. And that’s fine.

And we are in agreement on that. And hell did not freeze over.

:yipee:

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:


Modern minds that are completely capable of understanding ancient cultural norms if they chose to? Sure.
I don't know, Dee Dee. I think I find Jaltus' position on this a bit more persuasive.

Robin

[Robin Goodfellow]

Jaltus:
Scrolls were standard sized. in order to get a longer one, someone would have to "special order" it ahead of time.
Well beyond even God's capacity?

Hmmm...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jaltus:
Dee Dee,

You seem to implicitly deny Dual Authorship, as does JPH to some extent. I don't think you mean to, but you sure lean that way.

Assuming God is behind the Bible (that entire inspiration thing), it means that it was written for both then and now, for God (the real one, not the OV one ;) ) knew how these works would be used in the future.

I absolutely do not deny dual authorship at all. That does not negate the fact that the text was written at a fixed time, in a fixed cultural section, to a fixed primary audience of whom we are heirs. It is written for men of all time, but that does not mean that it, or even that it is possible to, smooths out all cultural bumps. We are obliged to mine the Bible for what it is worth and take the time to properly understand it. Something that would have been written entirely towards the modern mind would not have carried the same meaning for the ancient mind. Primary audience relevancy and context is key. And the fact that God knew how these works would be used in the future is a red herring here.... is He obligated to cater to every whim of the way humanity will choose to deny His message? No. The very fact that we are aware of the idioms and the norms is testimony to the fact that He will open His truth and Word to the diligent seeker.


I agree with 1, I disagree with 2. Scrolls were standard sized. in order to get a longer one, someone would have to "special order" it ahead of time.

It is even more complex than that... JP deals with this issue here (link posted for general information - http://www.tektonics.org/asilent.html)

[Dee Dee Warren]

And the issue is not God's capacity. God could have chosen a lot of different ways. He has given us plenty of light, and we choose to reject what we already have. Faith (despite some overly emphasized evidentail apologetics claims ala McDowell) is not simply based upon brute evidence. There is a seeking and a genuine desire. God has given us evidence enough to seek Him. If we seek Him on His terms (not ours despite our creaturely temper tantrums), He will give us more. That is the Biblical model. You may think that is unfair. Fine. But I concur then with Paul... Who are you to reply against God? The real issue is not about scrolls or about grammar or about ancient mindsets when we get down to it, the issue is that the light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light. You may take issue with that... in my flesh I take issue with that, but then our argument is not with each other, but with God. His Words, not mine. No matter what God chose to do, sinful man will always find a way to deny if he wants to.

[jpholding]

Jaltus:
What I find strange is that Wallace follows Verbal Aspect Theory, at least to some degree, since he is quoting Fanning and using the definition for the aorist that I gave.


I think it might be a good idea to ask, "What question is it that FT is asking these people he is writing to?" If he is not asking them specifically about VAT and the aorist in light of that it seems to me he's not even asking a relevant question and might in turn be getting irrelevant answers.

[jpholding]

I agree with 1, I disagree with 2. Scrolls were standard sized. in order to get a longer one, someone would have to "special order" it ahead of time.

True enough. But if I were a Matthew I would keep in mind that the many people copying my material in the future (all those fellowships around the oikoumene, and individuals) would also have to "special order" an XL scroll to copy my work...and I would prefer using a standard scroll to make it easier on generations to come. After all Matt knows the gospel is to be spread worldwide...and has no idea that technology is going to improve any.

Just a thought. :)

[jpholding]

Robin Godfellow:

Well beyond even God's capacity?

Hmmm...

If you want God interfering in details as minute as the paper supply, you might want to duck. That means to be conistent God will have to take care of business with you anytime you break one of His rules. Or is it that you only want God around when it is convenient for you? (Should He just leave His cell phone number?)

Nothing like the old "God should have kissed my patoot" argument to show up one's immense self-image, eh? :D You asked for a senile Grampa God. Well, you "have" one. Quit complaining! :p

[jpholding]

Robin Godfellow:

I guess you mean you've seldom seen so many weak arguments, ripe for the plucking.

See you when you get back. :)

Robin

That will be Thursday, full swing. Would you like to start a thread on the secular references to Jesus so that I may summon Batman to put you in the corner? ;) The arguments you use seem to be more the province of the Joker than of the Dark Knight's sidekick.

If you wish to do so just repost the relevant portions in a new thread and send me the notice of it.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Farrell:

His reasons for not wanting his name used here or anywhere are no concern of mine. It is also no concern of mine if he once gave permission and has now withdrawn it. He has made a request that it not be used here, and we will honor that request. As I stated before, you are free to stay and post, and you will not be banned for your stand that you believe is on principle. And if you request that no one refers to you by John or similars, I will do the same for you, and enforce your request just as readily. If that is what you want, please tell me and I will do it. Try me and see.

I really don't care what anyone calls me. You'd be surprised at some of the things I have been called, by "Christians" no less. My name is Farrell Till, and I live at 1045 South Main in Canton, Illinois 61520. I receive my mail at P. O. Box 717 in this same town. I don't try to hide my identity.

I will call edited by his real name. If you change this, you will be editing my posts. Whenever you do this, I will change his phony name back to edited if I have occasion to quote what you have edited.

By the way, John was my grandfather's name and a name shared by uncles and cousins. When I am called that, I consider it far from an insult. I have two cousins who are called Johnny, so that name doesn't offend me either.

Administration Note - Edited to remove references to a jpholding's real name

[Farrell Till]

Kris:
I say your a bad historian if you accept a document as legitimate to disprove something but you accept other parts of it as spurious when it would be a direct refutation of a stated position.

simply put either Mr Till feels that Mark is accurate and he can use it to make a debate point, and if he feels it is accurate then he needs to explain why he does not accept the existance of christ

he does not feel that Mark is accurate, then he certainly shouldnt be using it to make a point against Jesus!!(IT AINT ACCURATE!!)

You cant have your cake and eat it too

Gee, Kris, you really don't understand the issue, do you? If I were going to show that there are errors in, say, the Book of Mormon, I would have to quote text A in this book, then quote text B, and show that what the two texts say is consistent. I could do this even though I believe that the Book of Mormon has no historical basis in fact. In the same way, when I quote Matthew's resurrection account and then quote John's resurrection account to show that there are inconsistencies in the two texts, the historicity of what the texts say isn't even the issue. The issue is internal consistency.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey farrell, seeing your insistence on intruding into others lives brought to mind the following point--
i am single, and am pretty good looking. please tell me of any nieces or granddaughters you have between the ages of 18 and 25, and where they live. my father is wealthy (i have a tennis court in my home), hence i may be at liberty to go there when i so desire.
after all, no one should have any rite to privacy.
thus spake farrell till.

[AVmetro]

I really don't care what anyone calls me. You'd be surprised at some of the things I have been called, by "Christians" no less. My name is Farrell Till, and I live at 1045 South Main in Canton, Illinois 61520. I receive my mail at P. O. Box 717 in this same town. I don't try to hide my identity.


So what, precisely, was your ulterior (or rather obvious) motive in posting JPH's address, number etc,.on a public domain in the first place? Surely you weren't trying to help out with his 'fan mail', were you? :sarcasm: I'm curious to see how you justify this. Inciting threats from others to JP, only serves to demonstrate your bankrupt morality. Or at least what little moral an atheist of your character could possess.

[Piebald]

I'm curious to see how you justify this.

There really can be no justification. As if posting your own adress and real name makes it "okay" for you to willingly defy the precautions another person takes to keep them and their family safe.

If I post someone's Social Security number on a website, can I justify it by posting mine and saying "well, they're just being silly and paranoid!"

[TheFiveSolas]

Mr. Till,
Did you research the harassment statutes in the state in which you live prior to posting JP's personal information (I heard you also listed his wife's full name and place of employment. Is that true?!) on a website (and in print)? How about the disorderly persons statute?

Perhaps the following might help.

Illinois Compiled Statutes
Criminal Offenses
Harassing and Obscene Communications Act
720 ILCS 135/

720 ILCS 135/1-2)
Sec. 1-2. Harassment through electronic communications.
(a) Harassment through electronic communications is the use of
electronic communication for any of the following purposes:
(1) Making any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which
is obscene with an intent to offend;
(2) Interrupting, with the intent to harass, the telephone
service or the electronic communication service of any person;


I think a good case could be made for #2 above especially in light of you publishing his home phone number in both a written and electronic forum for no other reason than to encourage your "followers" to write and call him (and his family). In addition, you had no "explicit permission" to do so.

(720 ILCS 5/)


ARTICLE 26. DISORDERLY CONDUCT


(720 ILCS 5/26-1)
Sec. 26-1. Elements of the Offense.
(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or
disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace;


Lastly, I have a rhetorical question. Would you print the full names, addresses, phone numbers, and places of employment of your adult children (including their wives and husbands) AGAINST their will? If not, why not?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:

I would like to get this question out of the way... you have been invited and challenged to several specific one on one debates by several people. You have neither acknowledged nor denied those invitations that I have seen (and forgive me if I missed it). Are you going to respond in one fashion or another? It was my impression that you were eager to do a one on one with Holding. We can arrange that here for you, but I am asking you for your intentions and decision. Thank you.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:
I absolutely do not deny dual authorship at all. That does not negate the fact that the text was written at a fixed time, in a fixed cultural section, to a fixed primary audience of whom we are heirs. It is written for men of all time, but that does not mean that it, or even that it is possible to, smooths out all cultural bumps.

Folks have sometimes wondered if an omnipotent God could create a wall so strong He couldn’t breach it. Theists correctly retort that logical impossibilities can’t with fairness be considered limitations on God’s power. But have we discovered here a genuine limitation on His power? Does it turn out God can do anything except produce a book that’s inerrant in both Hellenistic and modern literary contexts?

Unless you can show that this is a logical impossiblity, I’m not sure the argument will hold water, Dee Dee.

Dee Dee Warren:
We are obliged to mine the Bible for what it is worth and take the time to properly understand it. Something that would have been written entirely towards the modern mind would not have carried the same meaning for the ancient mind.

Remember that all we’re talking about is the fact that Matthew’s Resurrection account is logically incompatible with John’s. If both accounts contained only inerrant statements, the two would necessarily be compatible. Do you really want to claim that it was beyond God’s power to inspire inerrant accounts in language Matthew’s contemporaries would have understood?

Dee Dee Warren:
Primary audience relevancy and context is key.

At the expense of inserting errant accounts into His Word? What is there about accurate and harmonious Resurrection accounts that would have proved a stumbling block to Matthew’s primary audience?

Dee Dee Warren:
And the fact that God knew how these works would be used in the future is a red herring here.... is He obligated to cater to every whim of the way humanity will choose to deny His message? No.
Till would probably disagree with you here, but I’m on your side, Dee Dee. If there is a God, there’s no reason He should be obligated to produce an inerrant Bible. The Mary Magdalene problem is only a problem for those who insist that God must have provided us an inerrant Bible.

Note: a minor crisis has broken out where I work. This means I may have to work overtime for a while, starting tomorrow. I don’t know how much this will delay my replies, but if there is a major delay, that will probably be the reason.

Robin

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:
And the issue is not God's capacity.

I agree. The idea that God didn’t have the power to make Matthew’s account square with John’s just won’t wash. He could have easily done this, and although JP doesn’t explicitly admit this in his reply to Chuck, he certainly doesn’t disagree.

Dee Dee Warren:
Who are you to reply against God?
Good point. If God didn't choose to make the Bible inerrant, who are we to complain?

Dee Dee Warren:
The real issue is not about scrolls
Correct. That was just a red herring.

Dee Dee Warren:
or about grammar
Grammar needs to be addressed only when attempts are made to twist the meaning of the text in order to pretend the divergent accounts don’t diverge.

Dee Dee Warren:
or about ancient mindsets
Correct. Another red herring.

Dee Dee Warren:
when we get down to it, the issue is that the light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light. You may take issue with that... in my flesh I take issue with that, but then our argument is not with each other, but with God. His Words, not mine. No matter what God chose to do, sinful man will always find a way to deny if he wants to.
Well, I must take issue with you only here at the end. Inerrants insist that every statement in the Bible is true, and, unless the text clearly indicates a figurative meaning was intended, that all statements are literally true. The Mary Magdalene Problem proves (as do many other parts of the Bible), that inerrants are wrong in making this claim.

Would this have mattered to Matthew’s contemporaries? Only if Matthew’s contemporaries were concerned with inerrancy as an issue. In other words, probably not.

It seems to me that a reasonable inference from all this is that the Bible wasn’t written for an audience concerned about inerrancy, and, as a result, God had no reason to ensure that it was absolutely inerrant.

Robin

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robin:


Does it turn out God can do anything except produce a book that’s inerrant in both Hellenistic and modern literary contexts?

Unless you can show that this is a logical impossiblity, I’m not sure the argument will hold water, Dee Dee.


I have already answer this in principle. Rewording the question does not change my answer. It is not a matter of God's ability, that is not in question, and again is a red herring. If we want to create errors by importing modern presuppositions into an ancient text, that is our problem not God's. He has provided us with the information and the noodle to figure it out, and the free will to find whatever excuse we want to reject it. You are choosing the latter.


Remember that all we’re talking about is the fact that Matthew’s Resurrection account is logically incompatible with John’s. If both accounts contained only inerrant statements, the two would necessarily be compatible. Do you really want to claim that it was beyond God’s power to inspire inerrant accounts in language Matthew’s contemporaries would have understood?


And He did. And the accounts are not incompatible whatsoever as has been demonstrated repeatedly. The accounts are inerrant in the medium (historical, cultural, linguistic) in which there were originally written. God is not obligated to cater to your specific whims. And by your agreement that my totally facetious point about babies having the gospel tatooed on their bellies was a "good point" shows that the demands are specifically that.. God must conform to our creaturely expectations.


At the expense of inserting errant accounts into His Word? What is there about accurate and harmonious Resurrection accounts that would have proved a stumbling block to Matthew’s primary audience?


Again the acconts are inerrant in the historcial, cultural, linguistic context. You want more. God is not obligated to do that. He has given you the information, and you can choose to do with it what you may.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robin:

Though I still doubt we are kindred spirits (do you also like Diet Mountain Dew? if you do, maybe we are)... I have some agreement with this statment:


It seems to me that a reasonable inference from all this is that the Bible wasn’t written for an audience concerned about inerrancy, and, as a result, God had no reason to ensure that it was absolutely inerrant.



I believe that inerrancy is misdefined by many modern fundamentalists, and it is that misdefinition you are attacking and insisting must be true. The fact was it was inerrant in the cultural, historical, and linguistic mileu in which it was written. That is all that inerrancy requires. It does not require that it conform to modern culture, history, and linguistics.

I do not have the KJV-only mindset.

[Robin Goodfellow]

jpholding:
True enough. But if I were a Matthew I would keep in mind that the many people copying my material in the future (all those fellowships around the oikoumene, and individuals) would also have to "special order" an XL scroll to copy my work...and I would prefer using a standard scroll to make it easier on generations to come.
Do I understand you to mean that God allowed into His Word what would today be considered a contradiction (but which didn't matter to folks at the time it was written) in order to make it “easier” on future copyists?

jpholding:
After all Matt knows the gospel is to be spread worldwide...and has no idea that technology is going to improve any.
I don’t suppose God would have been in a position to offer Matthew any guidance on this.

Darn the luck. :argh:

Robin

[Robin Goodfellow]

jpholding:


If you want God interfering in details as minute as the paper supply, you might want to duck. That means to be conistent God will have to take care of business with you anytime you break one of His rules. Or is it that you only want God around when it is convenient for you? (Should He just leave His cell phone number?)

Nothing like the old "God should have kissed my patoot" argument to show up one's immense self-image, eh? :D You asked for a senile Grampa God. Well, you "have" one. Quit complaining!
God couldn’t have arranged for His writers to have adequate paper without interfering with everything on the planet from then on? Is this what you’re claiming?

Robin

[Dee Dee Warren]

And God could have arranged for the Bible to be tatooed on our bellies. So? God is not obligated to do any such thing. He provided His Word, and you are finding ways to reject it. That is your perogative.


Do I understand you to mean that God allowed into His Word what would today be considered a contradiction.....

Only by persons unwilling to read an ancient document within the social, linguistic,and cultural mileau. I live today, and I do not consider it to be a contradiction. You are complaining becauase God has not lived up to your rules. Sorry, He is not obligated to do that.

[Robin Goodfellow]

jpholding:
Would you like to start a thread on the secular references to Jesus so that I may summon Batman to put you in the corner? ;) The arguments you use seem to be more the province of the Joker than of the Dark Knight's sidekick.
:)

jpholding:
If you wish to do so just repost the relevant portions in a new thread and send me the notice of it.
That shouldn’t take a whole thread, JP. If I’m wrong about secular references to Jesus, I want to know about it. By all means, correct me. A single post should do it.

Robin

P.S.

Hi Dee Dee,

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I don't have time for them now, but they'll be first on my list when I can post again.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robin and JP:

I think an additional thread on the secular references to Jesus would be good idea... not because you Robin would require more than one post, but others may want to jump in and this subject would get buried in this very long and meandering thread.

[jpholding]

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** say hey farrell, seeing your insistence on intruding into others lives brought to mind the following point--
i am single, and am pretty good looking. please tell me of any nieces or granddaughters you have between the ages of 18 and 25, and where they live. my father is wealthy (i have a tennis court in my home), hence i may be at liberty to go there when i so desire.
after all, no one should have any rite to privacy.
thus spake farrell till.

Heck, Phantaz. One of the FL inmates who got his TSR newsletter is due to be released pretty soon...he was in on kidnapping, I think, or something just as serious. Maybe he'd like to arrange a date with that guy.

[jpholding]

Robin Godfellow:

Do I understand you to mean that God allowed into His Word what would today be considered a contradiction (but which didn't matter to folks at the time it was written) in order to make it “easier” on future copyists?

I don’t suppose God would have been in a position to offer Matthew any guidance on this.



You understand right. And what's your problem with this? By implication all we have to do to make the Bible (or any text) "wrong" is to redefine terms:

The Bible says that Ezion-geber is on the shore of the Red Sea.

The modern site of Ezion-geber is way inland due to receding of the waters.

Therefore the Bible was in error for not anticipating this change.

This line of reasoning is so dumb stupid that even Till rejected it when Dennis McKinsey used it. :argh: seems to be what you're doing on a daily basis.

[jpholding]

Robin Godfellow:
That shouldn’t take a whole thread, JP. If I’m wrong about secular references to Jesus, I want to know about it. By all means, correct me. A single post should do it.


It will if I do this:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html

If you want to pick a bone on this, let's start a new thread.

[jpholding]

I had forgotten you had expertise in this. By chance is it also true that it is illegal to refuse to identify yourself when making a state--to-state long distance call?

Wow, FT may get to experience what it's like behind the gate after all. :rofl:

[johnransom]

Hey Farrell!

Point 1: Your manners are appalling. Nuff said.

Point 2: Are you going to continue to ignore responses to your arguments? Such as mine at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=4831#post4831 which challenges you on two incredibly simple and distinct grounds. According to you, JPH is the one who avoids objections, so kindly answer.

[TheFiveSolas]

JP,
Merely calling once and not giving your name doesn't constitute a violation of any statute that I'm aware of. However, repeated calls of this nature could possibly constitute a violation of the harassment statute that I quoted (it depends upon the subjective attitude of the prosecutor and judge toward behavior such as this). In addition, the use of electronic medium (the internet) as a means of harassing someone may constitute a violation of the cyberstalking statute in Illinois(in this instance, conspiracy to commit cyberstalking since he could be said to be encouraging people to harass you). I'm currently looking into this for clarification.

I'll let you know what information I come up with after I do a little more research.

[jpholding]

5S,

Thank you for looking into this. To save you some time: The Secular Web did delete the specified information from the online copy of TSR, so that part is much simpler here. The info now only appears in the print version of TSR and in any cached versions of the article from the Sec Web.

[Hugh Slaman]

"Point 1: Your manners are appalling. Nuff said."

So...do you think the systematic campaign of character assassination that Holding launched against Till is an example of GOOD manners?

I used to be a fan of Holding till I started noticing the sheer viciousness of his writings against Till. I have often wondered if Till could sue for libel on those grounds: it IS an attack on his reputation, after all, and is far more extreme than anything that I have seen before on the internet.

[jpholding]

Hmm, maybe I should sue Hugh for libel...just like Clinton sued Jeff MacNelly for all those insulting cartoons that defamed his reputation...what? He didn't? Hmm.

How about some specific examples from my articles, Hugh? Also a comparison to other stuff you say it is worse than. I bet I can find even worse than that. Keep in mind this defintion from the Libel Defense Resource Center:

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel refers to statements in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation encompasses both libel and slander.

In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.
The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In general, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent, that he failed to act with due care in the situation.
A defamation claim will fail if any of these elements are not met.

http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html :cool:

[TheFiveSolas]

JP,
Any information I come up with regarding the legal aspect of this tangential issue will be sent to you in email form since this topic has absolutely nothing to do with the original intent of this thread. :)

[Robyn Banks]

Robin Godfellow:
Till would probably disagree with you here, but I’m on your side, Dee Dee. If there is a God, there’s no reason He should be obligated to produce an inerrant Bible. The Mary Magdalene problem is only a problem for those who insist that God must have provided us an inerrant Bible.
Quite right, Robin.

And there is no logical reason why God could not have inspired a writing with errors in it. As is being discussed on the Inerrancy Poll thread, those who would restrict God to creating an inerrant Bible are falsely limiting the concept of 'inspiration'. However, there remains the possibility, and this is evident in the variety of Biblical genres, that inspiration may allow for human error. And if so, the 'inerrancy syllogism' (God does not lie; God inspired the Bible; therefore the Bible contains no error) fails, because of a faulty assumption concernting the nature of inspiration.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Jaltus is proving the exact opposite on that thread. It will obviously be for the reader to decide.

[jpholding]

Robin Godfellow:

God couldn’t have arranged for His writers to have adequate paper without interfering with everything on the planet from then on? Is this what you’re claiming?

Robin

Didn't forget this one. ;)

That wasn't quite the point. But the general principle remains that if this is followed through, the position would only be conistent if you didn't mind God sticking His nose in your business every time you sinned. Sorry -- he's not your personal fixer-upper or anyone else's.

[Farrell Till]

Hugh Slaman:
"Point 1: Your manners are appalling. Nuff said."

So...do you think the systematic campaign of character assassination that Holding launched against Till is an example of GOOD manners?

I used to be a fan of Holding till I started noticing the sheer viciousness of his writings against Till. I have often wondered if Till could sue for libel on those grounds: it IS an attack on his reputation, after all, and is far more extreme than anything that I have seen before on the internet.

edited's "viciousness" doesn't bother me in the least. I have debated biblicists for decades, so I have a thick hide. The fact is that I am delighted to see edited's constant tirades of insults, sarcasm, and derogation. I have often said that biblical inerrantists are their own worst enemies, and that is certainly true in edited's case. I doubt that he has any idea of the damage that he is doing to a cause that presumably he wants to champion.

If any of you would bother to do research on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I think you will find explanations for why edited relies so much on insults and sarcasm. He calls his style "satire," but that isn't it at all. His "style" is motivated by his narcissism. I used to have a colleague who was just like him. He couldn't talk to anyone in a civil tone, and eventually he didn't have a friend on the campus. He so antagonized students that few would take his classes. The administration dropped his courses and got rid of him. That was the only time I ever recall a teacher being dismissed that didn't have at least some on the staff who tried to defend him.

I'm glad that you have seen edited for what he is, HS, and my mail indicates that you aren't the only one. However, you needn't worry about me. I just hope it continues.

Administration note – Post edited to remove references to jpholding’s real name.

[AVmetro]

If any of you would bother to do research on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I think you will find explanations for why edited relies so much on insults and sarcasm. He calls his style "satire," but that isn't it at all. His "style" is motivated by his narcissism. I used to have a colleague who was just like him. He couldn't talk to anyone in a civil tone, and eventually he didn't have a friend on the campus. He so antagonized students that few would take his classes. The administration dropped his courses and got rid of him. That was the only time I ever recall a teacher being dismissed that didn't have at least some on the staff who tried to defend him.

You correct your opponent's grammar in order to score cheap victories, and yet you state the above?

How about a response to my post regarding your "justification" for placing his personal information on the web? Just a simple statement providing us your reason for doing so will suffice.

[Farrell Till]

Gavin:
Dear Mr. Till:

It is nice to have you on the forums. This thread has developed rapidly and I have not a chance to follow it. I will try and read through things and post if I have some time.

My question for you is simple: has your rejection of innerancy led you to reject of all of Christianity, or just fundamentalist Christianity? IOW, would you still call yourself a Christian (albeit a liberal one).

If you have indeed rejected all of Christianity, what do you think the C. S. Lewis view? He rejected innerancy but was still a Christian.

I am now an atheist. At 18, I went off to a Bible college, transferred to another one that I graduated from, and spent 12 years as a preacher and foreign missionary. In my personal studies of the Bible, I found too much that taxed my credulity to continue in this profession. When I quit the ministry, I was still a believer in "God," but as I continued my biblical studies, I became very agnostic about the existence of this deity and all deities. I now consider myself an atheist in the sense that I see no reason at all to believe in gods. Heck, I don't even see any reason to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

[Farrell Till]

johnransom:

Hogwash. If I were to write the sentence "Farrell Till is an idiot" :thumb:, and later in the same work the sentence "Farrell Till is not an idiot" :huh:, in such a manner and context as to make it manifestly clear that I am literal on both counts, then there is little that could be done to explain the obvious discrepancy away. Besides, the argument was in favor of viable explanations, not possible explanations, between which there is a world of difference.

As an aside, I see you continue on this forum to use JPH's real name rather than his pseudonym, as you have been requested.

You didn't read my post very carefully. I challenged someone to cite an example of an inconsistency or discrepancy in a document whose author isn't still alive to clarify meaning. If you were to write the sentences you mentioned above, you would be able to clarify what you meant. However, if we found ancient documents one of which said that Calipus was an idiot and another one that said Calipus is not an idiot, the methods of biblical inerrantists could be used to show that this is not an error.

Why don't you use your imagination and post a solution? Just imagine that both of these statements were in the Bible. How would you "explain" that they are not contradictory statements?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** yo homey,when ya gonna let me know about the phone numbers and addresses of your nieces/grand-daughters?

[johnransom]

Farrell Till:


You didn't read my post very carefully. I challenged someone to cite an example of an inconsistency or discrepancy in a document whose author isn't still alive to clarify meaning. If you were to write the sentences you mentioned above, you would be able to clarify what you meant. However, if we found ancient documents one of which said that Calipus was an idiot and another one that said Calipus is not an idiot, the methods of biblical inerrantists could be used to show that this is not an error.

Why don't you use your imagination and post a solution? Just imagine that both of these statements were in the Bible. How would you "explain" that they are not contradictory statements?
Who's not reading posts carefully? I said "in such a manner and context as to make it manifestly clear that I am literal on both counts". My continued existence is an irrelevance and your second question is therefore already answered - if these two statements were in the Bible and framed in the contexts cited, then there would indeed be a discrepancy. That was my point. I was countering your absurd claim that "inerrantists" effectively define contradictions out of existence.

And of course you still haven't responded to my comments on the primary issue of your imagined Mary problem. In other words, your post was yet another evasion.

[jpholding]

Farrell Till:

If any of you would bother to do research on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I think you will find

Fair enough.

I think if anyone out there does research on Asperger's Syndrome, you'll find out why Doc Till here has so many problems of his own.

That's my own professional diagnosis. :rofl:

[J. J. Ramsey]

jpholding:
I think if anyone out there does research on Asperger's Syndrome, you'll find out why Doc Till here has so many problems of his own.


Watch it, JPH! :no:

I'm high-functioning autistic myself, and anyone familiar with Asperger's and high-functioning autism knows that they are practically identical.

You want to make fun of Till's exegetical competence, fine, but don't make a jerk of yourself by making fun of the disabled.

BTW, I suspect that if Mr. Till were Asperger's, his argumentation might be a lot more rigorous. :p

[jpholding]

J. J. Ramsey:
I'm high-functioning autistic myself, and anyone familiar with Asperger's and high-functioning autism knows that they are practically identical.


Actually, JJR, I have a brother with Asperger's. No fun being made here. I'm making a clinical observation based on experience. And I know of course from case studies that those with AS function quite well, so much so that they often go unidentified as such by non-professionals.

According to a degreed psychologist I've spoken to, Till's behavior is consistent with someone who has AS and has been undiagnosed and coping for years.

Of course, it may just all be coincidence. And I may know all of this the same way he knows I have a personality disorder. Which was more or less my point. ;)

However, I am probably wrong and you are right, for indeed his arguments would be more cogent if this were so.

I humbly apologize to persons with Asperger's Syndrome.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Farrell Till writes,

edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited edited

:rofl: :yipee: :bonk:
Hi, Farrell :hi: how is the obsession?
;)

from Guy

[Robin Goodfellow]

jpholding:
Didn't forget this one. ;)

That wasn't quite the point. But the general principle remains that if this is followed through, the position would only be conistent if you didn't mind God sticking His nose in your business every time you sinned. Sorry -- he's not your personal fixer-upper or anyone else's.

Are you actually satisfied with this argument, JP? God couldn’t arrange for His writers to have adequate paper without interfering with everything on the planet from then on, because to do otherwise would be "inconsistent"?

Are you sure you have a right to demand your idea of "consistency" from God? I would think that if He wanted to step forward and make whatever paper arrangements, and then step back and continue on with business as usual, that He could jolly well do just that.

Do you accuse Him of inconsistency because He no longer seems to smite folks quite the way He once did?

Robin Goodfellow

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Robin and JP:

I think an additional thread on the secular references to Jesus would be good idea... not because you Robin would require more than one post, but others may want to jump in and this subject would get buried in this very long and meandering thread.
You're wise beyond your years, Dee Dee.

I can see why another thread would be necessary. It's not a simple "correction," but material likely to lead to an extended debate. But this isn't of much interest to me and my time is still short. I doubt if I'll reply to JP's post at all.

Robin Goodfellow

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:
I have already answer this in principle. Rewording the question does not change my answer. It is not a matter of God's ability, that is not in question, and again is a red herring.

Dee Dee, you and I agree that God’s ability is a red herring. But I can see you think I’m the one dragging this herring in. I know this is sincere on you’re part, but all I’m really trying to do is to remove all arguments relating to God’s ability so we can focus on what remains.

It was JP who brought in the problem of scroll length. As John Ramsey put it, “Matthew has limited space in which to write his gospel because the scroll is only so long...To make room for the polemic, Matthew collapses the resurrection account a bit...” While JJR puts this limitation on Matthew, we can’t ignore the fact that God was presumably at his side, ensuring that everything came out exactly as He wanted. According to the doctrine of plenary inspiration, God made sure that every word of the originals passed muster with Him. So when JJR says that Matthew was limited by the length of the scroll, the implication is that God and Matthew together were limited by the length of the scroll. At least in JJR’s condensed version, this would appear to most readers to involve a limitation on God. So when I first mentioned God’s capacity, I was responding to this and not trying to drag a red herring in from outside.

However, JP points out that the relevant scrolls were not Matthew’s but those of later copyists. And it’s not that God couldn’t have allowed them to special order longer scrolls. He just wanted to make it “easier” on them.

But I haven’t yet seen where JP has shown that the insertion of a few words into Matthew to clarify events would have necessitated an extra-long scroll. If he has, perhaps someone will post a link to it, or at least summarize what JP has written about this.

Moreover, if God had just wanted to make things easier for copyists, one suspects He could have thought of a million other ways than leaving an inaccurate and contradictory (by modern standards) story in the Resurrection accounts, of all places. That’s why I at first took JP’s argument to be that inaccuracies in Matthew’s account had to be there because of standard scroll length. That would have meant a limitation on God’s power, and that’s why I felt compelled to address the issue.

Finally, when I said to you, “Unless you can show that this is a logical impossibility, I’m not sure the argument will hold water,” I was responding to your remark that the Bible “ is written for men of all time, but that does not mean that it, or even that it is possible to, smooths out all cultural bumps.” Noting the word “possible,” it sounded to me as if you were saying it wasn’t necessarily possible for even God to smooth out enough cultural bumps to make the Bible perfect for both ancient and modern minds. That, of course, would be a limitation on God’s power.

I happily accept that this is not what you meant. And I’m willing to put the issue of God’s capacity aside unless someone else posts something that I think implies it.

Dee Dee Warren:
If we want to create errors by importing modern presuppositions into an ancient text, that is our problem not God's. He has provided us with the information and the noodle to figure it out, and the free will to find whatever excuse we want to reject it. You are choosing the latter.

Am I? JP himself has admitted that events can’t have happened the way the text in Matthew reads. The other Gospels apparently don’t contain such inaccuracies, but Matthew does. JP’s argument at it’s core is not that the accounts as written are compatible, but that their technical incompatibility doesn’t matter because it wouldn't at the time have been considered an error.

But can’t almost any contradiction be “explained” this way? And can’t scientific errors, too, be so explained? Suppose some OT passage had read, in a context indicating it was meant literally: “For the earth is flat, and the sun revolves ever around it.” By JP’s logic, that would not represent a scientific error, because one could always say: “We shouldn’t anachronize and impose modern sensibilities onto an ancient text. Something that would have been written entirely towards the modern mind would not have carried the same meaning for the ancient mind. Primary audience relevancy and context is key. We must take care not to create errors by importing modern presuppositions into an ancient text.” To paraphrase JJR, “since neither the writer nor the primary readers would be expected to care about it, it does not constitute an error. It was an imprecision allowed by the standards of the time.”

If this logic were valid, literal statements of fact claiming a flat earth and geocentricism would simply not be scientific errors at all. Do I need to spell out the implications of this for other ancient holy books? Wouldn’t they, too, likely be transformed into inerrant texts if we refuse to consider any inaccurate statement an error unless we can show that it would have concerned folks at the time it was penned?

Do you think you know of errors in the Qur’an or the Vedas? Think again. Muslims and Hindus can chant “It didn’t matter at the time, so our Book is still inerrant” as easily as Christians.

If God’s Word doesn’t meet a higher standard than this, how impressed are we supposed to be? Does it seem reasonable that He would have limited His Word to a standard attainable by false ancient religions, when He could easily have made it inerrant by both ancient and modern standards?


Robin Goodfellow:
Remember that all we’re talking about is the fact that Matthew’s Resurrection account is logically incompatible with John’s. If both accounts contained only inerrant statements, the two would necessarily be compatible. Do you really want to claim that it was beyond God’s power to inspire inerrant accounts in language Matthew’s contemporaries would have understood?


Dee Dee Warren:
And He did. And the accounts are not incompatible whatsoever as has been demonstrated repeatedly.

It hasn’t been demonstrated even once that the accounts are “not incompatible whatsoever.” Not even JP is claiming this. We know from Jaltus that Matthew’s text necessarily implies that Mary was among those who met Jesus on the way from the tomb. This is incompatible with John’s account, where Mary thinks the body has been stolen. JP’s defense is that it would have been obvious to Matthew’s readers that he wasn’t presenting a literally accurate account, but rather one that was “contrived.”

But how does JP know this? If there’s something about this specifically in _The Syrian Christ_, let him trot it out. Why couldn’t we as easily claim that the ancient Hebrews knew that the Creation account was “contrived,” and that its technical accuracy “didn’t matter” to them?

I would think that Jaltus would have a better grasp of the Koine Greek mind than JP. Shall we ask him whether anything in the text would make it obvious to Matthew’s contemporaries that he didn’t intend this portion of the story as literally accurate?

But even if JP were correct, the doctrine of dual authorship would dictate that there be something in the passage making its non-literal intent clear to the modern mind as well. We’d all agree that this is within God’s power. Wouldn’t we?

Dee Dee Warren:
The accounts are inerrant in the medium (historical, cultural, linguistic) in which there were originally written.

See my “flat earth” argument above. This sets the bar so low it’s doubtful errors could be found in any ancient holy book. Why in the world would God have given us a Word meeting only this standard when he could so easily have met the higher standard of ancient and modern inerrancy?

Dee Dee Warren:
God is not obligated to cater to your specific whims.

Nor yours, if you’re demanding that He produce an inerrant Bible.

Incidentally, I’m curious whether you (and also JP) subscribe to the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. You can read it here:

http://www.bibleteachingnotes.com/know/ChicagoStatement.asp

It sounds as though you don’t. If that's the case, I flatter myself to think we're at least a bit kindred in spirit. (Although we obviously have profound differences as well.)

Dee Dee Warren:
And by your agreement that my totally facetious point about babies having the gospel tatooed on their bellies was a "good point" shows that the demands are specifically that.. God must conform to our creaturely expectations.

I understood that your comment was facetious, but I thought there was a serious point behind it: if believing the Gospel is critical to our salvation, it seems only reasonable that God would have made evidence for it strong enough that believers wouldn’t have to jettison common sense and critical intelligence.

Dee Dee Warren:
Again the acconts are inerrant in the historcial, cultural, linguistic context.
As I say, this standard is so low it’s hard to see how any ancient book wouldn’t qualify as inerrant. It just doesn’t make sense for God not to have made His Word inerrant by modern standards as well.

Dee Dee Warren:
You want more. God is not obligated to do that. He has given you the information, and you can choose to do with it what you may.
If someone were to tell you, Dee Dee, how crucial to your soul it is to believe in Mithra, would you just take their word for it, or would you request compelling evidence?

Suppose your request were met with the argument, “Oh no, Dee Dee! Mithra provided His Word, and you're just finding ways to reject it. He's under no obligation to cater to your specific whims or creaturely expectations. You’re complaining because Mithra has not lived up to your rules. Sorry, He’s not obligated to do that.”

Would you consider that a persuasive argument?

The truth is, we all need standards for evaluating claims, and I see no reason to exempt from this the claim that so-and-so is the Supreme Being and such-and-such is His agenda. Naturally, the less plausible the claim, the higher these standards need to be. And I would respectfully suggest that the claim that any man is actually the creator of the universe is about as inherently implausible as a claim can be. Characterizing these standards as “whims” that we “demand” must be “catered to” just doesn’t seem appropriate to me, somehow.

But I, of course, respect your right to disagree.

Robin Goodfellow

P.S. I’m going to try Diet Mountain Dew when I get a chance.

[Captain Ochre]

Robin Godfellow:
Moreover, if God just wanted to make it easier on copyists, one suspects He could have thought of a million other ways than leaving an inaccurate and contradictory (by modern standards) story in the Resurrection accounts, of all places.

Robin,
The above makes it sound for all the world as though you're prepared to take a fallacy of anachronism under your wing--or perhaps I should say hatching it outright (that is, "by modern standards").

I wonder why God should make himself responsible for ensuring that we are unable to commit fallacies.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Captain Ochre:
I wonder why God should make himself responsible for ensuring that we are unable to commit fallacies.

:rofl:

[jpholding]

Howdy,

Are you actually satisfied with this argument, JP? God couldn’t arrange for His writers to have adequate paper without interfering with everything on the planet from then on, because to do otherwise would be "inconsistent"?

Quite satsified. Asking a posturing question is not an answer. :) Unless you've been a model citizen since you had sufficient moral awareness, you have no place to claim your personal dissatisfaction as a reason fior God to have done anything differently.

Are you sure you have a right to demand that kind of "consistency" from God? I would think that if He wanted to make the paper arrangements and then continue to operate just as He does now, He could jolly well do that. Do you accuse Him of inconsistency because He no longer seems to smite folks quite the way He once did?

Nope. Such smiting was rare and done only in the service of doing enough for there to be a clear choice. Adding to the paper supply just so you could be satisified and not have to nitpick is not a request for the greater good but for personal, selfish ends. No offense intended.

You may find this useful for understanding my thoughts:

http://www.tektonics.org/godprime.html

we can’t ignore that fact that God was presumably at his side, ensuring that everything came out exactly as He wanted. According to the doctrine of plenary inspiration, God made sure that every word of the originals passed muster with Him.

Black and white optioning. There are spectrums between mechanical dictation and non-inspiration you fail to consider. If God knew Matthew (or whoever) from his life experiences would write an account suitable for his readers, then plenary inspiration need mean no more than that God picked Matthew as one He knew could do the job; or that He just needed to give Matt a nudge now and then to write exactly what He knew He would write...meanwhile, if the account is satisfactory as is -- if my explanation is right -- then your complaints are groundless. Had your suggestion been followed, someone else could trivially complain that God gave them too much reading to do. And your suggestion is indeed trivial to that level.

So when JJR says that Matthew was limited by the length of the scroll, the implication is that God and Matthew together were limited by the length of the scroll. At least in JJR’s condensed version, this would appear to most readers to involve a limitation on God.

Can God make a stone so heavy He can't lift it?

Can God make 2 +2 actually equal 5?

Logically there is absolutely no way to please every nitpick by every person over the course of thousands of years and multiple cultures. Consider that one who comes to the text in humility and is willing to come to it on its own terms is a far better person than one who demands that it should have been written in accordance with their own expectations.

But I haven’t yet seen where JP has shown that the insertion of a few words into Matthew to clarify events would have necessitated an extra-long scroll.

It's not just a "few words" because once you start there, why not accede to everyone else's nitpicks over the years for more information just to satisfy their whims? Not just the rez accounts, but all over the Gospels. Today critics complain because the Gospels are not MODERN bios with detailed information about Jesus' childhood. So now what? Is God expected to anticipate these nitpicks as well?

Moreover, if God just wanted to make it easier on copyists, one suspects He could have thought of a million other ways than leaving an inaccurate and contradictory (by modern standards) story in the Resurrection

Once again, self-centered complaining, as well as ethnocentric -- assuming that "modern standards" are the plumb line by which the text must be judged. As for that hyperbolic million, it's useless as it stands -- and unless you yourself are omniscient, the second-guessing isn't particularly impressive.

May I ask why it is that giving you this answer now, as we are, is not sufficient? Does it occur to you that one of the "million" ways might just be for you to learn about ancient practices as you are now?

to me as if you were saying it wasn’t necessarily possible for even God to smooth out enough cultural bumps to make the Bible perfect for both ancient and modern minds. That would be a limitation on God’s power.

I consider it a limit of logic, not power.

Am I? JP himself has admitted that events can’t have happened the way the text in Matthew reads. The other Gospels apparently don’t contain such inaccuracies, but Matthew does.

Luke does telescope his account as well, so that it appears that there are no 40 days between the rez and the ascension. If it were not for Acts we might assume that Jesus immediately ascended in Luke and then complain about a discrepancy with Matthew.

For that matter, can’t scientific errors be explained that way, as well? Suppose some OT passage had read, in a context indicating it was meant literally: “For the earth is flat, and the sun revolves ever around it.” By JP’s logic, that would not represent a scientific error, because one could always say: “We shouldn’t anachronize and

Actually in that case I find that the Biblical labguage is equivocal -- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html -- but there is a world of difference between reportage of simple scientific datum and having to report a narrative biography from events selected over a period of many years.

” To paraphrase JJR, “since neither the writer nor the primary readers would be expected to care about it, it does not constitute an error. It was an imprecision allowed by the standards of the time.”

Do not confuse scientific imprecision with narrative imprecision. Keep in mind Rihbanhy's distinction: it is small details that are subject to ma besay-il. The shape of the earth is not such a minor detail.

But how does JP know this? If there’s something about this specifically in _The Syrian Christ_, let him trot it out.

I did in the article linked at the very beginning of this thread.

Why couldn’t we as easily claim that the ancient Hebrews knew that the Creation account was “contrived,” and that its technical accuracy “didn’t matter” to them? I would think that Jaltus would have a better grasp of the Koine Greek mind than JP.

Ancient Hebrews? Koine Greek? You're mixing societies here. I don't know where Jaltus' knowledge lies on this but I've been eating social science books on these people for breakfast. I don't see enough info to make such a judgment on the creation account, but there is more than enough to make a judgment about the NT accounts.

But even if JP were correct, the doctrine of dual authorship would dictate that there be something in the passage making its non-literal intent clear to the modern mind as well. We’d all agree that this is within God’s power. Wouldn’t we?

Why does it have to be IN the passage? Why not through the sort of education you are receiving right now?

Incidentally, I’m curious whether you (and also JP) subscribe to the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

CSBI is fine with me but I doubt if many of the signators realized they were opening a can of spaghetti that their Western mindsets (some of them) might have difficulty with.

I understood that your comment was facetious, but I thought there was a serious point behind it: if believing the Gospel is critical to our salvation, it seems only reasonable that God would have made evidence for it strong enough so believers wouldn’t have to jettison common sense and critical intelligence.

Oh. So that's what Dee Dee, Jaltus, and I have done? ;) Be careful. You'll be hard pressed to make such an accusation without becoming insulting. We're still waiting for proof that your "common sense" is anything more than ethnocentric selfishness.

If someone were to tell you, Dee Dee, how crucial to your soul it is to believe in Mithra, would you just take their word for it, or would you ask for compelling evidence?

I myself would not bother since Mithra seems to have vacated the premises, if he was real at all.

Suppose your request was met with the argument, “Oh no, Dee Dee! Mithra is under no obligation to cater to your specific whims or creaturely expectations. You’re complaining because Mithra has not lived up to your rules. Sorry, He’s not obligated to do that.” Would you consider that a persuasive argument?

I would allow it. Unfortunately there are no Mithraic scriptures left for us to argue about.

Characterizing these standards as “whims” that we “demand” must be “catered to” doesn’t seem entirely appropriate to me.

Oh well. :)

[Richard Romano]

Farrell Till:


I am now an atheist. At 18, I went off to a Bible college, transferred to another one that I graduated from, and spent 12 years as a preacher and foreign missionary. In my personal studies of the Bible, I found too much that taxed my credulity to continue in this profession. When I quit the ministry, I was still a believer in "God," but as I continued my biblical studies, I became very agnostic about the existence of this deity and all deities. I now consider myself an atheist in the sense that I see no reason at all to believe in gods. Heck, I don't even see any reason to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

I I I, Me Me Me...It seems to me that everyone here as avoided the real issue behind Mr. Till's beliefs, or lack thereof...he read the Bible with a Me, Myself, and I purview...given the extent of human limitation, it is not surprising he has become so hardened and unsympathetic to matters of faith. It's really tragic actually...I really feel sorry for you Mr. Till.

The most tragic thing of all is that those you evangelized will be wondering where you are when they get to heaven...how ironic that you won't be there to greet them.

God bless you Mr. Till, hopefully in time you'll wake up from your multiple slumbers, that is, your spiritual and intellectual deficiencies. But as I glance at your age, it appears as if time is running out. Spring chickens are the only temporarily "fulfilled" atheists...they at least have time to spew their incessant "arguments from outrage" more prolifically.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Does it occur to you that one of the "million" ways might just be for you to learn about ancient practices as you are now?



Ding, ding, ding. The hammer has hit the head! Perfect.

[Faramir]

Dee Dee Warren:


Ding, ding, ding. The hammer has hit the head! Perfect.

That statement needs a visual aid.

:bonk:

[Farrell Till]

Kris:
Dear Mr Till

I am a history major and I remember reading some contradictory accounts of John Brown's raid against Harper's Ferry. It was written during the time and it was contradictory about the amount of men involved, who was were during the battle and exactly how it ended. So should I assume know the event never happened or its not knowable about what happened? I can still easily glean much important info
A.) John Brown attacked harpers ferry in 1859
B.) he wanted to lead a slave uprising
c.) he attack failed
d.) some of his followers were killed

Thats how I feel about the bible accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth

a.) he lived in the first century AD(from circa 6-4BCE-30-33CE)
b.) he was a radical religious leader/Miracle worker
c.) he faced death and was executed by cruxifiction
d.) his tomb was discovered empty by women( I should note if this was a lie, it would be as logical as using Blacks as witness in a trumpted up trial in Georgia during the 1930s)
e.) Jewish leaders failed to produce the body
f.) The apostles saw something that lead them to believe he had risen from the dead

If you wish to attack the histography of what I just said please explain to me why historians accept at face values documents about the life of Alexander the Great despite the fact they are four hundred past the events described, and why I should not accept bible accounts which in some cases arose less then a decade after the event in question? Lastly please explain why Christianity was ultimatelly success when other Messianic cults failed?

Kris, it would help if you understood what the issue is. The issue is biblical inerrancy. Those who adhere to the inerrancy doctrine claim that there are no errors or discrepancies in the Bible. In order for a biblical errantist to show that there are errors in the Bible, he must compare biblical passages to show that text A says thus and so, but text B says this and that, which is inconsistent with text A. When an errantist does this, he is not saying anything about the historicity of whatever events may be involved in texts A and B. He is simply saying that the record of the events as recorded in text A is inconsistent with the record as recorded in text B.

I certainly don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and I don't believe that Mary Magdalene had an encounter with an angel. Whether any of this happened, however, is not the issue. The issue is whether Matthew's version of the story is internally consistent with John's.

That's the issue. I see that others in the forum understand this, but their attempts to explain it to you seem not to have corrected your misunderstanding. Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand. If I wanted to show that the Book of Mormon contains inconsistencies, I would have to quote the Book of Mormon. If I quoted passage A in the B of M and then quoted passage B to show that what the two texts say are inconsistent, I would not be saying anything about the historical accuracy of the B of M. I would simply be saying that the Book of Mormon is inconsistent.

Do you know of anyway to show that a book contains inconsistencies without examining the text of that book?

[Farrell Till]

Kris:
I want everyone to notice something. Till is ignoring my post because I have basically identified him as a dirty historian.(esp in the Abaithar debate)

Till is willing to accept as historicial that Jesus misqouted 1 sam 21 but he is not willing to accept the same historicial source that says women were witnesses and the tomb was empty. He wants to accept historicial sources only piecemeal, taking the points he agrees with but ignoring the parts he disagrees with.

so I am going to ask

If you consider Mark to be a valid source then why do you deny the empty tomb and women witnesses(very odd if not true)

If you do not consider Mark to be historicial why are you using it to try to prove Jesus misqoutes 1st Sam 21

Kris, you don't even understand what the issue is. Others have tried to explain it to you, but they seem not to have gotten through to you. In a reply to another of your posts, I have explained to you that the issue is whether the biblical text is inconsistent and not whether it is historically reliable. When I quoted Mark, I did so only to show that it is textually inconsistent with 1 Samuel 21.

If you can't see the difference in the two issues, I don't know how else to explain it to you.

[Farrell Till]

Kris:
I will lastly note no decent historian throws out an entire historicial account on the account of a single error

You are so right, Kris. When have I ever said otherwise? My position is that errors in historical accounts undermine confidence in the text. If you find one error in a historical account, you don't "throw out" the entire account, but by the time you have found two, three, four, five, six... 10, 20, 30, etc. mistakes or inconsistencies in a historical account, you begin to wonder about its reliability, don't you?

You are having a hard time understanding what the issue is, aren't you?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Farrell Till:


Kris, you don't even understand what the issue is. Others have tried to explain it to you, but they seem not to have gotten through to you. In a reply to another of your posts, I have explained to you that the issue is whether the biblical text is inconsistent and not whether it is historically reliable. When I quoted Mark, I did so only to show that it is textually inconsistent with 1 Samuel 21.

If you can't see the difference in the two issues, I don't know how else to explain it to you.

Right then, from now on I expect TSR to contain as much on the inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon, as it claims to find in the Bible. Fair?

:hrm:

from Guy

[Farrell Till]

Revolg:


Why wouldn't a Christian say that the KJV is God's inspired word? Every body knows the current translations of the original text are not inspired. Every smart Christian should know it has grammar errors and has picked up things that were not found in the Greek. Well anyhoo, all Christians know the original documents were inspired by God. So technically people like Farrell Till are arguing for the wrong reason.

All Christians know the original documents were inspired of God? What planet are you living on, Revolg? I know many Christians who don't believe this.

At any rate, if I can ever get the members of this forum to focus on the Mary Magdalene problem, I would be very happy to engage you on the issue of biblical inspiration. I assume you would be willing to affirm, "I know that the original documents of the Bible were inspired of God."

I'd be very interested in seeing you show us how you can know that documents that no longer exist, which neither you nor any other person now living has ever read, were "inspired by God."
When you are finished with this proposition, maybe we can find someone who would affirm that the original manuscript of the Iliad was inspired by Zeus.

[johnransom]

Farrell Till:


Kris, it would help if you understood what the issue is. The issue is biblical inerrancy. Those who adhere to the inerrancy doctrine claim that there are no errors or discrepancies in the Bible. In order for a biblical errantist to show that there are errors in the Bible, he must compare biblical passages to show that text A says thus and so, but text B says this and that, which is inconsistent with text A. When an errantist does this, he is not saying anything about the historicity of whatever events may be involved in texts A and B. He is simply saying that the record of the events as recorded in text A is inconsistent with the record as recorded in text B.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Of course the underlying issue is the historical reliability of the texts. If not, then what? Your argument then amounts to A<>B therefore A<>B. The inerrancy of the text itself is not the end point. Some conclusion must be drawn from the inconsistency, e.g., that the text is not reliable. Since in this case we are discussing a report of an event, then that reliability is of a historical nature.

Do you seriously expect us to belive that you have been prattling away all these years merely to show that parts of the Bible don't agree with other parts? What a sorry excuse for a life that would be. Obviously you have some ulterior motive, namely deconversion (and, probably, the heavy maintenance needed on your ego:bonk: ).

Moreover, you still refuse to address the issue of dissimilarity! Or is it that you do not know what this means?

[Farrell Till]

spl_cadet:

It doesn't matter what there is to his psuedonym, you are being rude, boorish, and childish by refusing to honor not only his wishes but the wishes of the local mods in your persistance in using his real name.

So are he and others being rude, boorish, and childish by refusing to use my real name, which is the name under which I registered here?

I don't care if I am called John or Johnny or McTill or Tilly or Tilly Willy or whatever. I am just trying to find out the reason for the double standard. I personally consider such antics as evidence that my arguments and rebuttals cannot be answered, and so those who resort to such immature conduct seek to distract attention from their evasions behind smily faces, dancing bananas, and childish appellations.

[Farrell Till]

Robin Godfellow:


I don't know, Kris. I came away with the impression that all he was trying to do was prove that this Abiathar business involves a contradiction in the Bible. If a historian were to show a contradiction in the epic of Gilgamesh using similar logic, would she be a bad historian as well?

I wonder why Kris can't see this, Robin? My intention was rather obvious.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:

There is no double standard. Our interest is in protecting the private information and lives of people who request it. If you requested that "John" not be used of you, I would willingly and gladly enforce that request of yours. Your comparison to other polemical titles that people are choosing to use is apples and oranges, and I suspect you know that, but are simply using a diversion away from your strange obsession with JP's real name.


At any rate, if I can ever get the members of this forum to focus on the Mary Magdalene problem,

They have. You don't like the answers. That is fine, but is not the same as not addressing it. I would be interested in seeing whether or not you will answer the yes or no to the challenges posed to you in our structured debate sectoin for which I gave you the link a long whiles back. The banannas are not the only thing that is dancing around here.... :yipee:


All Christians know the original documents were inspired of God? What planet are you living on, Revolg? I know many Christians who don't believe this.

Are you confusing inspiration with inerrancy? Robyn Banks may have a thing to say to you :rofl:

[Captain Ochre]

Farrell Till:


So are he and others being rude, boorish, and childish by refusing to use my real name, which is the name under which I registered here?

I don't care if I am called John or Johnny or McTill or Tilly or Tilly Willy or whatever. I am just trying to find out the reason for the double standard. I personally consider such antics as evidence that my arguments and rebuttals cannot be answered, and so those who resort to such immature conduct seek to distract attention from their evasions behind smily faces, dancing bananas, and childish appellations.

Senor Till,
It is not a double standard, afaics, until you *object* to being called something other than Farrell Till.
The board moderators object to you using a name to which another person objects. The reasons in this case happen to be more rational than the hurting of someone's feelings, fwiw.

[edit to add:]
Huh. Dee Dee beat me to the punch by a mile on this one.
:cheers:

[Farrell Till]

Jaltus:
Yes and no. What I offered is now much more commonly accepted than it had been. once there was a thing called &quot;Aktionsart,&quot; which most classicists and NT scholars understood as being the correct method, turning at least part of the way from the old temporal understanding of verbs. However, modern research has shown that there is only general time dependancy in finite forms, and that the real issue is aspect. given that there are such things as &quot;present&quot; morphemes that really are future in time and that there are aorists that really are present in time, it should show Mr. Till that something other than time is what the Greek verbal system is about. Still, 85% of all aorists will be in the past, but 85% is not over 95%, which is what it takes to make it a rule (or so I have been told). Therefore, something else must be going on.

I have already offered him resources to look up. These works are being published by such places as Sheffield, so I am sure that Mr. Till will readily be able to verify what I have said, unless he is only taking to people in backwater institutions. All he needs to do is hop on the B-Greek list and see how much it is a real thing. (B-Greek is a mail list for SBL members and other serious Greek scholars and invited students)

Here is a copy of the basic e-mail message that I sent to various seminary professors. Sometimes it was adapted to fit the particular person it was sent to. In it, I tried to represent what I understood Jaltus's opinion on the Greek aorist to be. Perhaps he can tell me if the inquiry should be worded differently.



As a retired college English teacher who knows how busy a professor can be when classes are in session, I hesitate to impose on your time, but if you can answer a question, I would appreciate it. I read an article that claims that the Greek aorist tense always denoted completed action. I studied Greek as an undergraduate student in the 50s, but this is not what I recall about this tense.

Could you please take the time to tell me if this work is correctly representing the usage of the Greek aorist? I would appreciate your assistance.

By the way, I continue to receive replies to this inquiry. Here is the latest one, which came from a professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.



I am sorry for the delay in replying to your question. The discussion of tenses in Greek has been very detailed over the last decade or so. Almost any "always" statements will be overstatements for which exceptions can be found. Fanning in Verbal Aspect says that the aorist tense "presents an
occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence." Basically the aorist tense simply says that event happened. In that context I guess you would have to say that since it happened the action is completed. However, you could not
press the aorist tense to mean that it will never happen again, or that it does not need to happen again. Of course, sometimes the aorist is used to refer to future events (futuristic or proleptic aorist). In such cases conventional wisdom says that the author was treating a future event as a certainty, as though it had already happened. Other linguistic factors can also complicate the picture, such as the choice of lexeme and the context in which the verb appears. One other note is that time is significant only in
the indicative mood.

Not knowing the context in which the original statement was made, I am not sure what else I can add. I hope that I have helped.

Since this professor seemed willing to offer additional information about this, I want to send him a second inquiry that focuses on Matthew 28:8-9. Hence, I would like for Jaltus to state how the inquiry should be worded so that I cannot be accused of having slanted it to get an answer favorable to my position.

I have received several other answers to the inquiry, and they all are saying that the Greek aorist was imprecise and denoted only that an action had happened. If Jaltus will contact me at jftill@theramp.net, I will forward these replies to him so that he can evaluate what they say.

I will say that I appreciate Jaltus's willingness to discuss this issue in a mature way without resorts to immature smily faces, dancing bananas, and such like.

[Robyn Banks]

Kris:
I am a history major and I remember reading some contradictory accounts of John Brown's raid against Harper's Ferry. It was written during the time and it was contradictory about the amount of men involved, who was were during the battle and exactly how it ended. So should I assume know the event never happened or its not knowable about what happened? I can still easily glean much important info
A.) John Brown attacked harpers ferry in 1859
B.) he wanted to lead a slave uprising
c.) he attack failed
d.) some of his followers were killed

Thats how I feel about the bible accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth

a.) he lived in the first century AD(from circa 6-4BCE-30-33CE)
b.) he was a radical religious leader/Miracle worker
c.) he faced death and was executed by cruxifiction
d.) his tomb was discovered empty by women( I should note if this was a lie, it would be as logical as using Blacks as witness in a trumpted up trial in Georgia during the 1930s)
e.) Jewish leaders failed to produce the body
f.) The apostles saw something that lead them to believe he had risen from the dead

If you wish to attack the histography of what I just said please explain to me why historians accept at face values documents about the life of Alexander the Great despite the fact they are four hundred past the events described, and why I should not accept bible accounts which in some cases arose less then a decade after the event in question? Lastly please explain why Christianity was ultimatelly success when other Messianic cults failed?

Tilly:
Kris, it would help if you understood what the issue is. The issue is biblical inerrancy. Those who adhere to the inerrancy doctrine claim that there are no errors or discrepancies in the Bible. In order for a biblical errantist to show that there are errors in the Bible, he must compare biblical passages to show that text A says thus and so, but text B says this and that, which is inconsistent with text A. When an errantist does this, he is not saying anything about the historicity of whatever events may be involved in texts A and B. He is simply saying that the record of the events as recorded in text A is inconsistent with the record as recorded in text B.

I certainly don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and I don't believe that Mary Magdalene had an encounter with an angel. Whether any of this happened, however, is not the issue. The issue is whether Matthew's version of the story is internally consistent with John's.

That's the issue. I see that others in the forum understand this, but their attempts to explain it to you seem not to have corrected your misunderstanding. Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand. If I wanted to show that the Book of Mormon contains inconsistencies, I would have to quote the Book of Mormon. If I quoted passage A in the B of M and then quoted passage B to show that what the two texts say are inconsistent, I would not be saying anything about the historical accuracy of the B of M. I would simply be saying that the Book of Mormon is inconsistent.

Do you know of anyway to show that a book contains inconsistencies without examining the text of that book?
It is true that the proving of errors in the Bible does not say anything about the historicity of any underlying events.


johnransom:
Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Of course the underlying issue is the historical reliability of the texts. If not, then what?
It does make sense, even though it is a narrow focus. For the inerrantist typically believes that if one error is found in the Scriptures, then none of it can be believed. For the inerrantist falsely concludes that the finding of errors in the Bible undermines its historicity also. This conclusion is not true, as Tilly has explained.

However, the inerrantist rests his or her conclusions on the 'inerrancy syllogism' (God does not lie; God inspired the Bible word-for-word; The Bible is inerrant). This allows the inerrantist to believe on the basis of logic, rather than faith, or faith working with logic. Logic has become the ultimate ground of belief for the inerrantist. And it is a logic based on a questionable assumption about the nature of 'inspriation'.


johnransom:
Your argument then amounts to A&lt;&gt;B therefore A&lt;&gt;B. The inerrancy of the text itself is not the end point. Some conclusion must be drawn from the inconsistency, e.g., that the text is not reliable. Since in this case we are discussing a report of an event, then that reliability is of a historical nature.
Only the inerrantist believes that an errant text would necessarily disprove the authority of scripture. However, this requires the presuppositions outlined above.


johnransom:
Do you seriously expect us to belive that you have been prattling away all these years merely to show that parts of the Bible don't agree with other parts? What a sorry excuse for a life that would be. Obviously you have some ulterior motive, namely deconversion (and, probably, the heavy maintenance needed on your ego:bonk: ).
Tilly came from a fundamentalist denomination. It is natural that, at least for a time, his rejection of their beliefs would be expressed in the same mode as he affirmed those same beliefs. In other words, because the Church of Christ makes so much out of the inerrancy of Scripture, it is natural that he would make so much out of its errancy. But most people learn that Christianity is not quite as narrow as one's particular denomination, and they can develop a more nuanced response to it. Unfortunately, although Tilly has changed his mind on the issue of inerrancy, he remains as fundamentalist today as he was when he preached in the Church of Christ. True development would have involved a wider appreciation of his previous belief in inerrancy. But he has chosen never to get past the first shock of realising his Bible was errant.

As a result, Tilly's 'ministry' is a prolonged catharsis - driven by the fear of the uncertain that his original break with fundamentalist Christianity produced in him. And being driven by fear is a fundamentalist characteristic - whether it is of the inerrantist or errantist persuasion.


johnransom:
Moreover, you still refuse to address the issue of dissimilarity! Or is it that you do not know what this means?
Tilly has no formal training in the things he teaches. This is again what was conceived as 'virtue' in the Church of Christ, and what Tilly has never challenged. Church of Christ fundamentalists seem to think that they can interpret the Bible themselves, and that (although insular seminaries run by their own kind may assist), no further study is required to understand it. So the Fundamentalist Errantist Tilly has never bothered to learn to study the Bible. Sure, he has studied the Bible himself. But, because of his continuous fundamentalism, he has never bothered to acquire the basic tools that would allow others to take him seriously. The man doesn't even know how to read the Greek!

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:

Wiill you answer the challenges posed to you in our structured debate section. It only requires a simply yes or no. Dancing banannas are always optional :yipee:

[Farrell Till]

Kris:
sounds fair.

I am mainly arguing from implication.

Mohammed Claimed that the Koran was written directly by Allah(or was it Gabriel??). Regardless of who wrote it(ArchAngel or God) a single error disproves it and if the Koran can be demonstrated to have pre-Islamic elements within it that further disproves the idea. (after all divine beings cannot make errors)

If the Koran has these problems within it then Mohammed simply was a liar.

A religion based upon two false premises(or even one) cannot be true, no matter how much one might like to believe otherwise.

Do you agree with my logic Hugh

Uh, oh, I think I see that Kris adheres to a double standard. Finding one error in the Bible doesn't disprove the Bible, but finding a single error in the Qur'an disproves the Qur'an.

Am I understanding you correctly, Kris?

[Farrell Till]

Wet Tilly?

Hmm, I think I see another double standard. You know who can call me Wet Tilly, but I mustn't call him by his actual name.

I see.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I tend to believe that you are bright enough to know the difference Farrell. I give you that much credit. The polemical or satirical creations within debate are allowed within reasonable limits. They do not infringe upon anyone's privacy. If you cannot understand this distinction, that may explain some of the problems you are having in understanding the points being made with all due respect.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Now Farrell: Will you answer the challenges posed to you in our structured debate section?

[Sheepdog]

Robyn Banks:

It does make sense, even though it is a narrow focus. For the inerrantist typically believes that if one error is found in the Scriptures, then none of it can be believed. For the inerrantist falsely concludes that the finding of errors in the Bible undermines its historicity also. This conclusion is not true, as Tilly has explained.

However, the inerrantist rests his or her conclusions on the 'inerrancy syllogism' (God does not lie; God inspired the Bible word-for-word; The Bible is inerrant). This allows the inerrantist to believe on the basis of logic, rather than faith, or faith working with logic. Logic has become the ultimate ground of belief for the inerrantist. And it is a logic based on a questionable assumption about the nature of 'inspriation'.

of course, there are exceptions. i am an inerrantist, but only because i have read and studied various discrepancies and alledged errors in the Bible, and concluded that there is no real contradiction or error, except from apparent copyist errors, in the Bible. That is, of course, when one seeks have the contemporary understanding of the writers (i.e., the OT classification of a bat as a bird is acceptable, since the Hebrew word for bird is inclusive of any flying creature, and modern species classification methods didn't exist back then).

however, i would agree that the syllogism is false. even if an error is found, so long as it doesn't affect a major issue, it doesn't compromise the primary Bible message. Till, i sincerely hope you do not expect us to throw out the baby with the bathwater. :argh:

[Farrell Till]

Jaltus:

The fun part about this is we know the action of running and telling the disciples was completed because it is in the aorist tense, meaning the action is completed. If it was imperfect, then it would mean Jesus interrupted them on their way, but it is in fact not imperfect.


charis humin:

Is it really saying all that much? I confess I have not read Porter but the grammars I have studied give a plethora of examples that demonstrate how the aorist says basically nothing apart from the context in which it is used. And looking at Matt 28:8 I conclude nothing except that these women left the tomb in great fear and ran to tell the disciples what the angel told them.

The information I am receiving from the professors of Greek I contacted is telling me the same thing, CH. I noticed that Dee Dee Warren said elsewhere that the Mary Magdalene problem had been answered but that I just don't like the answers. Well, the only attempt I have seen to answer it has been Jaltus's "aroist" explanation, but so far all I have seen is an assertion that he supported with only an isolated quotation from Porter. Information I am receiving from various professors of Greek don't support Jaltus's position, or else I don't understand what he is claiming.

Maybe there are other answers that I haven't gotten to. I'm still on page 15 of this thread trying to catch up after having had to take the week off for reasons that I explained when the emergencies arose. I haven't been on "vaction" as someone else said. I can do without the kind of "vacation" I have been on.

[Jaltus]

I will say that I appreciate Jaltus's willingness to discuss this issue in a mature way without resorts to immature smily faces, dancing bananas, and such like. But I LIKE dancing bananas!

Anyway, I also found something else that is quite interesting. I was reading Bock's commentary on Luke (doing research, not reading for fun, hehe) and I found that the idiom "KAI IDOU" is a temporal break in Luke. I will need to do a little research in Matthew to see if he uses it the same way, but I'll get back to this soon.

Mr. Till, I'll probably e-mail you this weekend or sometime after Tuesday next week. I have a presentation to get ready for and some grading to do.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I noticed that Dee Dee Warren said elsewhere that the Mary Magdalene problem had been answered but that I just don't like the answers.

Farrell, the whole reason this thread was started was because Holding had in fact provided an answer which is in the link in the very first post in this thread, and Holding, and myself, and others have defended and expanded that explanation for pages. You sometimes have problems following things I see, such as believing that Holding wanted you to pay for 90% of his website, or insisting that I threatened you with banishment when I never did any such thing and in fact went out of my way to assure you that would not happen.

[Dee Dee Warren]

But I LIKE dancing bananas!



That is a requirement to be a Moderator here.

[Renegade Drow]

F Till


So are he and others being rude, boorish, and childish by refusing to use my real name, which is the name under which I registered here?

The excuse he started it didn’t work in kindergarten, why do you suppose it will work now?



I hear all the time that to be a Christian is an ignorant position, but from what I see, it is an arrogant position to not be one. Is civility that much out of style that no one can step up and be the bigger person?

Where are we going, and why are we in this hand-basket ??



RD

[Jaltus]

KAI IDOU is used 29 times in Matthew. 3 probably do not make a temporal break. 3 are questionable. 23 times it is a clear temporal break.

Obviously, I left our case in the "questionable" section. I would wager, taken with the aorist verb, that this is indeed a temporal break. Given that my defense of this interpretation has gone from possibly to now probably, I think I will rest my case.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Jaltus:

It would be interesting for you to write something up on that to possibly publish on Tektonics.

[Jaltus]

Remind me of this on Tuesday. I'll need to do some research before I'd want it in "publishable" form.

[AVmetro]

Right then, from now on I expect TSR to contain as much on the inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon, as it claims to find in the Bible. Fair?

Matthew 12:25. Now why would the "S" man downstairs want to do such a thing? :) It [TSR/LDS] is all his house afterall. :D

[AVmetro]

It would be interesting for you to write something up on that to possibly publish on Tektonics.

I second that notion. ;)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Farrell:

Are you going to answer any of the challenges posed to you in the structured debate section?

[Farrell Till]

Jaltus:

Mr. Till, I'll probably e-mail you this weekend or sometime after Tuesday next week. I have a presentation to get ready for and some grading to do.

Please do. I would like to send a specific request about Matthew 28:8-9 to the professors of Greek who have indicated a willingness to discuss specific issues related to the use of the aorist.

I understand your obligations. I am drowning in a sea of e-mail that backlogged when I had to spend so much time out of town this week.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And the answer to my question is???

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:


Farrell, the whole reason this thread was started was because Holding had in fact provided an answer which is in the link in the very first post in this thread, and Holding, and myself, and others have defended and expanded that explanation for pages. You sometimes have problems following things I see, such as believing that Holding wanted you to pay for 90% of his website, or insisting that I threatened you with banishment when I never did any such thing and in fact went out of my way to assure you that would not happen.

Ms. Warren, this forum is very new to me, and I don't find it easy to navigate. If you were looking 70 in the face and had never sat down at a computer until you were in your mid-50s, perhaps you would understand.

I have seen the "link in the first first post in this thread," and if you think that You Know Who (YKW) explained it, I must say that your understanding of what "explained" means differs substantially from mine. I have read that link, and YKW danced all around the problem and never explained why the grammatical structure of Matthew's narrative does not necessitate the presence of Mary M during the angel's announcement of the resurrection and the subsequent encounter of Jesus. If there was any explanation of this in that link, we must be talking about different links. The only serious attempt that I have seen to explain the problem came from Jaltus.

In viewing whole threads, I have noticed that you have asked if I intend to accept the challenges that have been posted in some other forum. I appreciate the fact that you seem to think that I am Superman, but I hate to tell you that I own an internet list that generates 200 to 300 messages per day, many of them directed to me. I give that priority. I am one person, so there is just so much that I can do. Furthermore, I have two health problems that force me to limit my time in my office. One of them is chronic, which isn't life-threatening but still debilitating whenever it recurs. All of the stress of the past week's problems has caused a recurrence that I am presently dealing with. Rest is the best treatment for it. In addition to this, as I have explained on my website, I have the early stages of macular degeneration (the untreatable kind), and my ophthalmologist has advised me to put an end to the 12- to 14-hour days that I used to put into staring at a computer screen. He has advised two hours on and two hours off, and I try to follow that advice. My vision is too important to me to take unnecessary risks with it in order to answer the "challenges" of those who seem to be very uninformed in biblical matters.

My time, in other words, is now limited, so I have to choose my priorities. Some of the so-called challenges that I have seen in this forum have a very low priority for me, especially those that seem to come from college students and high-school students, who think that their smily faces and dancing bananas communicate anything worthwhile and that ridicule and sarcasm will substitute for logical argumentation. I came here to debate one issue at a time. The Mary Magdalene problem was the one that I introduced, so I intend to focus my attention on it and not on the straw men that others are trying to kick around. This is why I try to keep up with the posts from Jaltus. He seems to understand the problem and is trying to address it.

[Kris]

Mr Till

Yes I can see what your saying. You are simply trying to disprove inerrancy( No argument from me I am an evolutionist) I certainly came down harder then I should have. My apologies

[Dee Dee Warren]

Farrell Till:


Ms. Warren, this forum is very new to me, and I don't find it easy to navigate.

It's Dee Dee. And if you need assistance in navigating the forum I would be glad to help.


I have seen the &quot;link in the first first post in this thread,&quot; and if you think that You Know Who (YKW) explained it, I must say that your understanding of what &quot;explained&quot; means differs substantially from mine.

And as I said, an explanation has been given, and you don't like it. That is fine. But that is not the same as one not having been given and expounded upon and expanded as this thread went on. JP did explain it, and I find it more than satisfactory. Your provincialism has gotten the better of you.


The only serious attempt that I have seen to explain the problem came from Jaltus.

And I find Jaltus' addition very interesting as well, but icing on the cake that Holding already baked for you replete with 70 candles in your honor.


In viewing whole threads, I have noticed that you have asked if I intend to accept the challenges that have been posted in some other forum. I appreciate the fact that you seem to think that I am Superman....

Do you always just look for a way to.. nevermind, what's the use. A simple no does not require herculian strength. You instead chose to ignore the various mentions of the challenge. You were free to decline them for whatever reason. I just wanted to know your answer. Thank you for finally giving it. Was that so difficult?

And my sympathies to you for your health conditions.

[jpholding]

Farrell Till:


Ms. Warren, this forum is very new to me, and I don't find it easy to navigate. If you were looking 70 in the face and had never sat down at a computer until you were in your mid-50s, perhaps you would understand.

In viewing whole threads, I have noticed that you have asked if I intend to accept the challenges that have been posted in some other forum. I appreciate the fact that you seem to think that I am Superman, but I hate to tell you that I own an internet list that generates 200 to 300 messages per day, many of them directed to me. I give that priority

This from the guy who challenged me to 12 debates and keeps opening up new topics without finishing the old ones? We're up to, what, 20 now? Have a banana. :yipee: We know how much you like potassium.

Superman, no. I was thinking more of that guy from the recent superhero movie, played by Paul Rubens, whose only power was to exude large clouds of flatulence. :rofl:

[AVmetro]

:yipee:

[Socrates]

Feral McTill cried: :bawl:

"In viewing whole threads, I have noticed that you have asked if I intend to accept the challenges that have been posted in some other forum. I appreciate the fact that you seem to think that I am Superman, but I hate to tell you that I own an internet list that generates 200 to 300 messages per day, many of them directed to me. I give that priority. I am one person, so there is just so much that I can do. Furthermore, I have two health problems that force me to limit my time in my office. One of them is chronic, which isn't life-threatening but still debilitating whenever it recurs. All of the stress of the past week's problems has caused a recurrence that I am presently dealing with. Rest is the best treatment for it. In addition to this, as I have explained on my website, I have the early stages of macular degeneration (the untreatable kind), and my ophthalmologist has advised me to put an end to the 12- to 14-hour days that I used to put into staring at a computer screen. He has advised two hours on and two hours off, and I try to follow that advice. My vision is too important to me to take unnecessary risks with it in order to answer the "challenges" of those who seem to be very uninformed in biblical matters."

Oh, you're such a martyr. Frankly, I've hardly seen anyone obsessed with such a single minded purpose in trying to prove that there is no ultimate purpose! But why, UNDER YOUR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM, should you strain yourself? Why not eat, drink and be merry in the few years you have left?

And under your belief system, why should we have any compassion for you? After all, according to you, we are just rearranged pond scum, the result of survival of the fittest (hence the nickname "Feral" suits you under your own philosophy :p)?

No, you just want all the benefits of Christianity, such as compassion, such as what Dee Dee showed. Nor am I lacking, since I wouldn't wish health problems on anyone. But at the same time you do everything in your power to undermine its basis. Under evolutionary thought, "Compassion" is just the result of strange chemical changes in the brain that may have had survival advantages for our ape-like ancestors. But why should we help our evolutionary competitors?

Strangely, you sometimes even put "Christian" in quotes to describe an opponent you don't like, but on what basis can a misotheist like you judge?

Bad luck matey. It looks like your favorite trophycase of someone you've persuaded of purposelessness has had some second thoughts. This is bound to continue -- JPH is half as old and twice as intelligent as you, old chap. :bonk:

[J. J. Ramsey]

Farrell Till:
Uh, oh, I think I see that Kris adheres to a double standard. Finding one error in the Bible doesn't disprove the Bible, but finding a single error in the Qur'an disproves the Qur'an.

That's not a double standard for a very simple reason: the Qur'an purports to be direct verbal revelation from God dictated to Mohammed. The God of Islam can't make a mistake, so an error in the Qur'an shows that it is not what it purports to be. In contrast, the Bible does not purport to be any sort of dictation from God at all. It is a compilation of documents written by humans for humans about God. Humans can easily write documents with incidental errors that are still by and large correct, so even if the Bible does have errors, it can still be for the most part true.

In short, the credibility of the Qur'an is very brittle; if it is not infallible, then it is nothing at all. The credibility of the Bible is far less fragile.

[Kris]

Wont give you this one Mr Till

Both Islam and Christianity are religions thats are built around alleged miracles.

The Miracle of Christianity is obviously the resurrection of Christ.

The Miracle of Islam is the writing of the Koran by the Angel Gabriel.

Christians believe that the bible was divine inspired but written by men. Muslims simply believe the the Koran was divinely written. There can be plenty of room for error in the Bible, a Christian simply needs to assert that God allowed the humaness of the vehicles of his message to show through. Be exact many Christians do take this view.

A Muslim has no such choice. Being directly divinely written means it must be perfect. If the Koran is demonstrated not be perfect then this means three conclusions follow.

a) There was no Miraclous writing of the Koran.
b.) Mohammed was a liar
c.) Islam is a false religion.

Fortunatelly for Christianity is is not built upon so a weak foundation. You can show all the contradictions, all the alleged errors but if you do not disprove the resurrection Christianity stands firm.

Your side hasnt done this in 1980 years Till. Not exactly a track record I would be proud of.

[Kris]

yes Mr Till you are understanding me correctly, now let me ask are you understanding me correctly. No double standard. To disprove christianity disproves its miracle. To disprove Islam disprove its miracle. Seems simple enough to me

[J. J. Ramsey]

Hey, Kris, is there an echo in here? :p

[Kris]

Think so.

[Revolg]

It isn't really a miracle but rather what God had in plan for the salvation of humanity.

[Robin Goodfellow]

I’m hoping to have my reply to JP ready in another day or two. I’m having to do the required reading now, because I was only superficially familiar with the issue before I began posting.

I didn’t actually intend to enter the debate on the MM problem. I joined the forum only to answer Kris’s side point about being a “bad historian.” Now that I’ve been drawn into the main debate, I very much want to proceed. But I still have a shortage of time, I’m a slow typist, and I often need to think for a long time before finding the best approach to make my point as simply and clearly as possible. Others here seem to be able to do this right away.

In the meantime, I thought I’d reply to just one of JP’s points. Hopefully, this will show that I am working on it when I can, and not just watching Cable and enjoying restaurants with views with my wife.
-------


Robin Goodfellow:
I understood that your comment was facetious, but I thought there was a serious point behind it: If believing the Gospel is critical to our salvation, it seems only reasonable that God would have made evidence for it strong enough so believers wouldn’t have to jettison common sense and critical intelligence.


jpholding:
Oh. So that's what Dee Dee, Jaltus, and I have done? Be careful. You'll be hard pressed to make such an accusation without becoming insulting.

This may be an allusion to my remark to Dee Dee that I prefer respectful disagreement. Maybe we’d better talk about this. Here’s what she posted:


Dee Dee Warren:
I am sorry but your objections are inane. I might as well object that God could have written the Gospel in the sky and done away with scrolls alogether or have babies born with it tatooed on their bellies. If you want to anachronize and force what you perceive to our obviously superior modern sensibilities unto an ancient text, I suppose that is your business. However, that is not proper interpretation or evaluation of any ancient text.

First, there’s nothing really wrong with this. In fact, by Internet standards it’s restrained. However, I did feel that the word “inane” was unnecessarily insulting, and that she could have made her point without it.

I also suggested that the phrase “not proper interpretation or evaluation” went too far. But I was wrong, and I retract that. I’d just been overly sensitized by “inane.” It’s well within the bounds of friendly discussion to express her opinion that what I was doing wasn’t proper evaluation.

As I said, my preference is friendly discussion rather than rough-and-tumble debate. I try not to post anything I wouldn’t say to an acquaintance that I liked and respected despite his inerrantist convictions. I frankly think it’s a more effective way to persuade. Often, this is simply a matter of tact.

I chose a melodramatic way of making clear to everyone that I don’t like unnecessary insults, I try not to use them, and I don’t respond in kind when subjected to them. I don’t expect that to immunize me, but I’m hoping that when those tactics are used against me, no one will think I asked for it, and my adversary will have to pay whatever price that entails in the individual judgments of readers.

Does that mean I think all points that could in any way be construed as implying a shortcoming in forum members are off-limits? Of course not. Here are some of the comments I’ve tolerated since I made my point to Dee Dee:


“Modern minds that are completely capable of understanding ancient cultural norms if they chose to? Sure.”

This implies that I’m choosing not to understand ancient cultural norms. I could easily find that insulting because it’s attributing my position to a base motive.


“If we seek Him on His terms (not ours despite our creaturely temper tantrums)...”

Here she’s implying that what I think is common sense is really nothing more than a temper tantrum.


“Or is it that you only want God around when it is convenient for you?”

This could be construed as implying a base motive.


“If we want to create errors by importing modern presuppositions into an ancient text, that is our problem not God's. He has provided us with the information and the noodle to figure it out, and the free will to find whatever excuse we want to reject it. You are choosing the latter.”

This could also be construed as implying a base motive.

So I think I am giving folks latitude, and not being too unreasonable.

Here’s one from you, JP:

jpholding:
“This line of reasoning is so dumb stupid that even Till rejected it when Dennis McKinsey used it. seems to be what you're doing on a daily basis.”

This is unnecessarily insulting. But because I’d seen so much of it on Tektonics and I expected it from you, and because I’d already made my point, I let it pass. I don’t think you’ll find me responding in kind, however.

Let me contrast these examples with my comment: “If believing the Gospel is critical to our salvation, it seems only reasonable that God would have made evidence for it strong enough so believers wouldn’t have to jettison common sense and critical intelligence.”

This does imply a shortcoming in Christians. And you were smart to mention Jaltus, because the last thing I would want to do is insult someone who’s not only very nice, but also by far my intellectual superior -- literally a gentleman and a scholar. But I think my statement was reasonably tactful, and I hope it’s understood that I meant common sense and critical intelligence only with regard to the Christian claim. You, Dee Dee, and Jaltus could easily have more common sense and critical intelligence in general than I do. Farrell Till seems to me to have exceptional common sense (based on his writings) and he was a fundamentalist Christian. It wasn’t that he suddenly gained common sense and deconverted. I’m sure he’s had it in abundance all his adult life. He’d simply been conditioned not to apply it to the Christian claim.

Deciding what’s unnecessarily insulting will always be a subjective call. But let me put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose I were trying to persuade a theist to become an agnostic, and after advancing some arguments I asked why she wasn’t convinced. If she were to say, “Look, Robin, with all the beauty and order and fine-tuning we see in the world, asking me to deny there’s a God is asking me to stop using my eyes and my brain,” I wouldn’t consider that insulting at all, despite the logical implication that I’m not using my brain. It would be a tactful way of making her point.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Robin Goodfellow

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robin:


First, there’s nothing really wrong with this. In fact, by Internet standards it’s restrained.

By Dee Dee standards it was quite dull. :)


However, I did feel that the word “inane” was unnecessarily insulting, and that she could have made her point without it.

Well, you and I have already agreed to disagree on this. If a point is inane I say so and expect no differently from others. I have yet to say here that I am going to trounce someone until next Tuesday so I would say that I am being pretty well-behaved (you would have to be a futurist opponenet of mine to get that comment).

With all due respect Robin, I think you are a tad bit too sensitive. But hey, that's okay. I readily apologize for any unneeded offense but make no apologies where I said exactly what I mean, such as in inane points.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Dee Dee Warren:
I readily apologize for any unneeded offense but make no apologies where I said exactly what I mean, such as in inane points.
There's no reason for you to apologize, Dee Dee. As I said, there was nothing wrong with what you posted. It wasn't the sort of thing I prefer, but there's no way you or anyone else could have known that, and we handled the whole thing well, I thought. It was long gone between you and I.

I have no hard feelings at all. In part, I was simply using the opportunity to make my preference clear to everyone.

The only reason I brought it up again was that JP seemed to bring it into question (at least I was concerned that he might be), so I wanted to clarify my position. The post was directed at him. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was dredging up an issue with you. I wasn't.

You're very cool in my book.

Robin Goodfellow

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:

And I find Jaltus' addition very interesting as well, but icing on the cake that Holding already baked for you replete with 70 candles in your honor.

You keep saying that YKW has baked me or nailed me or [choose your assertion] on the Mary Magdalene problem, so I will tell you what I have told him many times in my replies to him at The Skeptical Review Online: if he has answered this, why don't you just quote his refutation?

Keep in mind that I am looking for a sensible explanation of the grammatical analysis of Matthew's resurrection narrative, which requires readers to understand that Mary M was present throughout this part of the narrative. I am not interested in seeing any excuses about the scarcity of paper or the it-doesn't-matter dodge.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:

You again are proving what I have said many times.. Holding has given you a [insert proper strong assertion] explanation many times, but you refuse to accept it. That is your business and you can choose to be Ananchronism Man, but that is your folly, not his. As we say in my field, asked and answered. You simply do not like the answer.

I ask you again, since this thread has slowed down, will you care to make a specific challenge and debate Holding one on one in our structured debate section. It would actually be easier on your time and health than in here since you would only have one person to answer. Now I am somewhat speaking out of turn, since I cannot presume to speak for Holding as to whether there is a narrowed field of topics to choose from or if the sky is limite, but would you do it in the first place?

You have been remarkably evasive on that question.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:


It's Dee Dee. And if you need assistance in navigating the forum I would be glad to help.

Okay, Ms. Warren, I am going to accept your offer. Would you contact me at jftill@theramp.net. I have a lot of questions. I'll begin with the most pressing one. I receive notices that So-and-So has replied to the thread that I am subscribed to, but when I click the URL, I am not taken to that reply. I have to spend a lot of time, which I don't have, to try to find it. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sure Farrell I will email you and I am very sincere in assisting you in navigating our site.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Farrell.. it is Dee Dee, unless you are nasty.

[Farrell Till]

jpholding:
Phantaz,

FT may be on vacation. But I'll take the interlude to make a few points.

First, he has ignored a heck of a lot of questions directed to him. Primarily from Kris I think, but also from Guy, you, and me. And more.

Second -- please note in his last reply to Jaltus (way back) that he is calling on scholars of Greek. That's a rare step when he does research, BUT he remains oblivious as he usually does to the point that his single comment from a scholar like that does not invalidate Jaltus' complex argument involving VAT, etc. It his same trick: he thinks if his argument A is refuted by detailed counter B, he only needs re-repeat A to rebut B. (Jaltus, I am sure you know this -- this is for others not familiar with FT's methodology.) His scholar would have to pointedly refute what Jaltus offered, not just quote him as a &quot;nuh uh&quot; and that's that. But don't hold your breath.

Oh, new smileys. Here is Till arguing: :argh:

Here is me giving Till his medicene: :bonk:

Here is what scholars think of Till's work: :rofl:

And all of this does what to explain the Mary Magdalene problem? Will someone point out to me where YKW has explained how the grammatical structure of Matthew's narrative would allow for Mary M's absence at any point from verse 1 through verse 9?

Dee Dee Warren has asked if I will do a one-on-one debate with YKW. I've been trying for years to do just that, and when YKW finally gave an indication that he would, I found that I was replying point by point to him while he was up to his old tricks of hopping, skipping, and jumping over arguments and rebuttals that he couldn't answer and didn't link his readers to.

Dee Dee Warren asked if I would debate her on preterism. Well, when YKW unilaterally began a debate on preterism, I pointed out that this is a doctrinal matter and not really an issue related to biblical inerrancy; however, I would agree to accept DDW's challenge if she would agree that after we have done a debate on preterism, she will allow me to choose a proposition more directly related to inerrancy.

I would first appreciate her assistance in explaining how to navigate this forum. I am being told that So-and-So has answered me, but I can't always find those posts. When I do, I invariably find that they didn't even attempt to explain the only errancy claim I have made in this forum. I find a lot of straw men and personal opinions of me, but, with the exception of Jaltus', I don't find any attempts to explain the MM problem.

Why am I not surprised? After all, I have been debating biblical inerrantists probably longer than most of you have been alive.

[johnransom]

Hey Farrell!!!

I'm STILL waiting for your response on the issue of dissimilarity. At this point I am assuming that your failure to rebut this well-established critical proof means that you recognize its general validity against your errancy windmill-tilt?

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Farrell:

You again are proving what I have said many times.. Holding has given you a [insert proper strong assertion] explanation many times, but you refuse to accept it. That is your business and you can choose to be Ananchronism Man, but that is your folly, not his. As we say in my field, asked and answered. You simply do not like the answer.

Well, Dee Dee, I am forced to repeat myself. If YKW has explained many times how the grammatical structure of Matthew's resurrection narrative permits the absence of Mary M during the encounters with the angel and Jesus, why don't you or he just quote that explanation? Even I know how to cut and paste.



I ask you again, since this thread has slowed down, will you care to make a specific challenge and debate Holding one on one in our structured debate section. It would actually be easier on your time and health than in here since you would only have one person to answer. Now I am somewhat speaking out of turn, since I cannot presume to speak for Holding as to whether there is a narrowed field of topics to choose from or if the sky is limite, but would you do it in the first place?

You have been remarkably evasive on that question.

A structured debate section? Does this mean that it would be just ****** and I? If so, the answer is you bet. My only requirement would be that we agree to a set of guidelines before the debate begins. As a beginning point in the negotiations, I propose the following quidelines:

1. Each participant agrees to refrain from argumentation by unsupported assertion, special pleading, or question begging.

2. Each participant agrees to reply to each of his opponent's points or else admit that he can't.

3. If a participant overlooks an argument or rebuttal by his opponent, he will answer it when the oversight is called to his attention.

4. If a participant claims that he has answered a particular argument or rebuttal of his opponent, he will quote his previous answer to show that he has indeed answered it.

I have others to propose, but these are sufficient to begin the negotiations. YKW, of course, is entitled to present his counterproposals.

By the way, where is this structured debate section?

[charis humin]

Farrell Till:

I find a lot of straw men and personal opinions of me, but, with the exception of Jaltus', I don't find any attempts to explain the MM problem.

There was a lengthy discussion early about the antecedant for the "women" in verse 8. I'm still not convinced myself how Mary Magdelene and the other Mary could NOT be included among these "women" based on the immediate literary context.

I am also still digesting Jaltus's assertion that the aorists indicate perfected action, and researching his point about KAI IDOU in 9 not indicating a break in the narrative flow but merely communicates surprise. So far I find this to be a bit tendentious but am willing to bend if the data accord to his points.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:
And Farrell.. it is Dee Dee, unless you are nasty.

Well, if I am nasty, I'll fit in quite well with the Christians here, won't I?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Chris:

I am planning on summarizing the points again, but I would say briefly that it is not a matter of bare naked antecedents in interpreting compressed narratives of the NT type. Till wants to make it an issue of brute grammar and in so doing is being hopelessly and rigidly anachronistic. It does not matter if it seems forced to us, would it be forced to them??? That is the issue here. And very reasonably the answer is no.

But before I do that, I want to firm up some agreements that I have going here between myself, Farrel, and JP before this slifes away from us.. and I am hoping that JP drops in to tell us his thoughts.... be back later. Until then, toodle-do!

[Captain Ochre]

Farrell Till:


Well, if I am nasty, I'll fit in quite well with the Christians here, won't I?

That seems like a nasty thing to say . . .
:angel:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Farrell I was joking with you. You remember how to laugh right? It is a pun on a Janet Jackson song.. nevermind. It was a joke. Ha-ha. But you can call me Dee Dee. I know I am not old enough to be your mother, so Ms Warren seems a bit stilted.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Farrell, my email is DeeDWarren@aol.com. Email me anytime you need technical assistance.

[Farrell Till]

cirisme:


Here. (http://theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&amp;forumid=26)

Or, you can get there by clicking &quot;TheologyWeb&quot; at the top left, of this page, and scrolling all the way down to the &quot;Gym&quot;.

Okay, so I found it. I am ready to negotiate a formal proposition and guidelines that will give the debate structure.

Will the moderator enforce guidelines?

[Jaltus]

I may be wrong about KAI IDOU. I am researching it at the moment (some claim it is a Hebraism, except that it is found in Homer and Luke!).

I'll get back to that later this week. I still need to find some articles, and I do not think my library has them.

[Farrell Till]

charis humin:


There was a lengthy discussion early about the antecedant for the &quot;women&quot; in verse 8. I'm still not convinced myself how Mary Magdelene and the other Mary could NOT be included among these &quot;women&quot; based on the immediate literary context.

I am also still digesting Jaltus's assertion that the aorists indicate perfected action, and researching his point about KAI IDOU in 9 not indicating a break in the narrative flow but merely communicates surprise. So far I find this to be a bit tendentious but am willing to bend if the data accord to his points.

As you know, I have many times expressed my appreciation of Jaltus's attempt, which seems sincere to me, to explain the Mary M problem. He has indicated that he will return to this thread after he has completed a project that he had to work on this week. I would like to get an agreement from him on how the specific problem could be presented to the professors of Greek whom I have contacted. If the experts state that Jaltus's "aorist explanation" is correct, I won't have any problem recognizing that the problem has been solved. That would simply eliminate just one of dozens of biblical discrepancies in the Bible.

I wonder what Jaltus's position would be if the experts say that the aorist tense in Matthew 28:8 does not support what he is claiming. Would I then be entitled to expect someone in this forum to explain why Mary Magdalene, who had encountered both the angel and Jesus, would have told Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Farrell it has been answered numerous times. You do not like the answer. That is your perogative. I personally have explained it, and JP has explained it in the article that is linked in Carr's first post in this thread. I will summarize the arguments once again when I get a chance. It is not a matter of brute grammar in compressed historical narratives. You do not want to accept that. And again that is your right...... but to say that Jaltus is the only who has answered is inaccurate.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Chris:

I am planning on summarizing the points again, but I would say briefly that it is not a matter of bare naked antecedents in interpreting compressed narratives of the NT type. Till wants to make it an issue of brute grammar and in so doing is being hopelessly and rigidly anachronistic. It does not matter if it seems forced to us, would it be forced to them??? That is the issue here. And very reasonably the answer is no.

Oh, come now, Ms. Warren, the books of the Bible are documents that were written in languages of the time. If we can't expect these documents to follow the principles of grammar that make language comprehensible, then how can we possibly know what the writers intended to communicate? Just how far should we extend this it-doesn't-matter theory that is becoming so popular with biblicists who have apparently tired of trying to reconcile discrepancies in the Bible?

I suspect you are taking this position because you are able to recognize that the grammatical structure of Matthew's resurrection narrative presents a huge problem when his depiction of Mary Magdalene is compared to John's. I also suspect that if you found a problem like this in the Hindu Vedas, the Zoroastrian Avesta, the Muslim Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, you would have no problem recognizing that it is a serious inconsistency.

[Farrell Till]

Farrell Till:

Well, if I am nasty, I'll fit in quite well with the Christians here, won't I?


Captain Ochre:

That seems like a nasty thing to say . . .
:angel:

So I'm fitting in quite well, am I not?

I'll make everyone an offer. I have been rather mild in my sarcasm in this forum, but if others will agree to cut out the sarcasm and insults, I'll show you how civil I can be.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:
Farrell I was joking with you. You remember how to laugh right? It is a pun on a Janet Jackson song.. nevermind. It was a joke. Ha-ha. But you can call me Dee Dee. I know I am not old enough to be your mother, so Ms Warren seems a bit stilted.

Well, okay, if you aren't going to take personal offense at "Ms. Warren," there's no need to call you that anymore. I'll call you Dee Dee, Dee Dee.

You can call me Mr. Till.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The comment to you Farrell I believe was rhetorical satire. You really need to take a deep breath and not take yourself so seriously.

And second, you would be wrong about me anachronizing other works in order to find nonexistent inconsistencies. In fact, you will find that I have a reputation for bending over backwards to give opposing religious claims the benefit of the doubt in things such as that, and that often I am arguing with those with whom I am in agreement with about fairly representing the opposition. This has already happened several times on this very forum. So Farrell you picked the wrong tree to bark up... that does not describe me.

And yes Farrell the Bible was written in the language of its time. I am glad you finally recognize that, and hopefully you recognize that language involved more than mere rote grammatical rules but includes genre and context and idiom, and sorry, those all shoot you in the foot here. This is compressed historical, and as Holding originally said, "contrived" narrative. Your shoehorn will not fit that honking size ten shoe into Cindarella's slipper no matter how many times you may holler and stomp. It just ain't happening. Bzzt.

[J. J. Ramsey]

Farrell Till:
Just how far should we extend this it-doesn't-matter theory



It's not a matter of how far the theory can be applied, but to what it can be applied. It has been noted many times in this thread that it-doesn't-matter only applies to incidental details, not to the main gist.



I also suspect that if you found a problem like this in the Hindu Vedas, the Zoroastrian Avesta, the Muslim Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, you would have no problem recognizing that it is a serious inconsistency.

You can suspect all you like. It doesn't make it so.:)

[Farrell Till]

Jaltus:
I may be wrong about KAI IDOU. I am researching it at the moment (some claim it is a Hebraism, except that it is found in Homer and Luke!).

I'll get back to that later this week. I still need to find some articles, and I do not think my library has them.

Would you send me what you think would be an appropriate question that would present the specific problem to the professors of Greek to be contacted? I have one worked out that I think presents the problem. Since some negotiation will probably be necessary in working this out, you should contact me at jftill@theramp.net so that unnecessary space won't be taken up in this forum. After we agree, we can post the question and then wait for the information to come in.

[charis humin]

Dee Dee Warren:

Till wants to make it an issue of brute grammar and in so doing is being hopelessly and rigidly anachronistic. It does not matter if it seems forced to us, would it be forced to them???

determining authorial intent is a challenge here, particularly because of the gulf in culture and time between our world and that of the ancients. Good exegesis is as much of an art as a science, so we have to tread through the data with a fair amount of imagination (but never in a way that contradicts the extant data). The only thing that makes me wary about the above statement is the assumption that in the case of Matt 28:8, the details don't tell the story, i.e. that the Marys don't have to be the women. But I think that is an assumption that needs to be demonstrated rather than merely stated.

Therefore,


Dee Dee Warren:

I will summarize the arguments once again when I get a chance.

I think this would be a great help to all of us.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:
The comment to you Farrell I believe was rhetorical satire. You really need to take a deep breath and not take yourself so seriously.

And second, you would be wrong about me anachronizing other works in order to find nonexistent inconsistencies. In fact, you will find that I have a reputation for bending over backwards to give opposing religious claims the benefit of the doubt in things such as that, and that often I am arguing with those with whom I am in agreement with about fairly representing the opposition. This has already happened several times on this very forum. So Farrell you picked the wrong tree to bark up... that does not describe me.

Good, I will be alert to watch for that quality in you. By the way, your favorite poster spends a lot of time comparing me to Dennis McKinsey, but biblical skeptics who know me also know that I deplore his look-for-an-error-in-every-verse approach to biblical discrepancies. We aren't at all on good terms. Furthermore, the members of alt.bible.errancy also know that I have opposed a fellow who was cut from the same mold as McKinsey. In other words, I am not a bats-are-not-birds biblical inerrantist, and those in this forum who continue to try to paint me with that brush will simply be showing that they don't know what they are talking about.




And yes Farrell the Bible was written in the language of its time. I am glad you finally recognize that, and hopefully you recognize that language involved more than mere rote grammatical rules but includes genre and context and idiom, and sorry, those all shoot you in the foot here. This is compressed historical, and as Holding originally said, &quot;contrived&quot; narrative. Your shoehorn will not fit that honking size ten shoe into Cindarella's slipper no matter how many times you may holler and stomp. It just ain't happening. Bzzt.

I'm sorry, Dee Dee, but I have to pull rank on you here. I taught college writing for 30 years, which entailed doing postgraduate work in the subject and reading more textbooks on writing than I could even estimate, so I think that I have the qualifications to say that your paragraph above is a maze of abstractions that does not communicate anything concrete. In other words, you are making assertions that you need to prove.

You may begin by explaining to us how compressed narrative A can describe a literary character in one way and compressed narrative B can describe the same character in another way that is incompatible with A's depiction and that not be an inconsistency. In other words, please explain why inconsistency is not inconsistency if it is found in "compressed narratives."

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:

Till wants to make it an issue of brute grammar and in so doing is being hopelessly and rigidly anachronistic. It does not matter if it seems forced to us, would it be forced to them???


charis humin:


determining authorial intent is a challenge here, particularly because of the gulf in culture and time between our world and that of the ancients. Good exegesis is as much of an art as a science, so we have to tread through the data with a fair amount of imagination (but never in a way that contradicts the extant data). The only thing that makes me wary about the above statement is the assumption that in the case of Matt 28:8, the details don't tell the story, i.e. that the Marys don't have to be the women. But I think that is an assumption that needs to be demonstrated rather than merely stated.

Therefore,



I think this would be a great help to all of us.


You hit the nail squarely on the head, CH. If readers can't believe Matthew when he said that Mary Magdalene encountered an angel who told her that Jesus had risen and that she encountered the risen Jesus when she was running from the tomb, then how can we believe that there was even a resurrection and empty tomb? How can we believe Matthew when he said that Jesus was born of a virgin?

Must we practice smorgasbord exegesis by picking and chosing what did and what did not happen in biblical narratives.

[Revolg]

Well Farrell Till is seems that the religiously ignorant people have proven you wrong just about every where you go. Do you remember RevNeal? Actually I think Kevin Harris from Chicago's Christian Radio Station actually wants to debate you on live radio ;)

[Captain Ochre]

Farrell Till:


So I'm fitting in quite well, am I not?

I'll make everyone an offer. I have been rather mild in my sarcasm in this forum, but if others will agree to cut out the sarcasm and insults, I'll show you how civil I can be.

You seem ruder than average to me, but maybe I'm just biased. In particular your replies to DDW have seemed harsher than her communications with you would warrant.
All imh(umble)o, of course.

OTOH, I'm accustomed to the alt.atheism NG, where it's not uncommon for disgruntled participants to hurl f-bombs and references to people's mothers & the like, so maybe I'm not so biased after all.

[Sheepdog]

haha, i was a newsgroup-head myself a couple of years back. i think alt.religion.christianity and alt.atheism were where i made my debut in apologetics debate :D

(in case you are wondering, i used to post under either ninja_squirrel, or ferret or whakamoe -- i couldn't settle on a screen name for quite some time)

[Captain Ochre]

Sheepdog:
haha, i was a newsgroup-head myself a couple of years back. i think alt.religion.christianity and alt.atheism were where i made my debut in apologetics debate :D

(in case you are wondering, i used to post under either ninja_squirrel, or ferret or whakamoe -- i couldn't settle on a screen name for quite some time)

I logged over 1,000 posts, and our paths never crossed, afaics.
It's a busy ng.
:thumb:
:fight:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:


Farrell Till:
Good, I will be alert to watch for that quality in you. By the way, your favorite poster spends a lot of time comparing me to Dennis McKinsey, but biblical skeptics who know me also know that I deplore his look-for-an-error-in-every-verse approach to biblical discrepancies. We aren't at all on good terms. Furthermore, the members of alt.bible.errancy also know that I have opposed a fellow who was cut from the same mold as McKinsey. In other words, I am not a bats-are-not-birds biblical inerrantist, and those in this forum who continue to try to paint me with that brush will simply be showing that they don't know what they are talking about.

I have read your pieces on ostrichs and ants (ugh!), and have to say that I disagree with your assessment of yourself at least in part (though admittedly you do part ways from McK in some signficant areas, but JP has more than demonstrated where your analysis style dovetails with his).


I'm sorry, Dee Dee, but I have to pull rank on you here. I taught college writing for 30 years, which entailed doing postgraduate work in the subject and reading more textbooks on writing than I could even estimate, so I think that I have the qualifications to say that your paragraph above is a maze of abstractions that does not communicate anything concrete. In other words, you are making assertions that you need to prove.


And JP has proven and cited not English professors but persons familair with the context and usage of the time... the only maze here is the one that anachronizations have led you into which sadly enough have caused you to lose sight of the cheese.


You may begin by explaining to us how compressed narrative A can describe a literary character in one way and compressed narrative B can describe the same character in another way that is incompatible with A's depiction and that not be an inconsistency. In other words, please explain why inconsistency is not inconsistency if it is found in &quot;compressed narratives.&quot;

Pzzt. Raspberry. The same character is not necessarily being described which has been the whole point (this is excluding the information that Jaltus has given as he is exploring another avenue). And with all due respect, this has been stated clearly numerous times... do you really have that little of reading retention? I am not saying that to be a smart aleck... but your continued posturing that things have not been answered is what has kep this discussion going on a hamster wheel (no offense Hamster) for over two dozen pages. All of this has been answered, you don't like the answer, but the answer has been given nonetheless in droves.

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?

Sheesh.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:

I hope you got my email this morning… I will make every attempt to assist you in any way with this forum.

Now to the issues at hand. I am awaiting your response to do the one on one debate with JP Holding on either of the two subjects he proposed.

Second, I had also challenged you to a debate a preterism to which you had replied….


Dee Dee Warren asked if I would debate her on preterism. Well, when YKW unilaterally began a debate on preterism, I pointed out that this is a doctrinal matter and not really an issue related to biblical inerrancy; however, I would agree to accept DDW's challenge if she would agree that after we have done a debate on preterism, she will allow me to choose a proposition more directly related to inerrancy.

Farrell get real here. I am not the one who first brought up the subject but in one of your first posts here at Tweb with great flair, you gunned for me and said,


Farrell Till:
If you are an &quot;orthodox preterist,&quot; then you may want to go to &lt;www.theskepticalreview.com/articles-idx.html&gt; to read the dismantling of Holding’s [edited out real name] attempt to &quot;prove&quot; preterism. Go to the &quot;Humpty Dumpty Takes Another Fall&quot; series.


That is what prompted my challenge to you. If you do not believe it is an errancy issue than why in the world did you write about it, and ask me to see your “disproof” of it. Your words ring hollow here and seem more the words of a man who may have realized that you challenged the wrong chick on the wrong subject. Also, if this is not an errancy issue than can I assume that next time I go to the Secular Web that all references to this alleged error that Jesus made in predicting the time of His return will be removed from the Bible error lists? If so, then I withdraw my challenge.

But… first things first… I am the new kid in this discussion, and I only offered myself in the event that you beg off of a debate with JP. If you are going to accept a debate with JP I withdraw my challenge for the time being.

[Socrates]

Farrell Till:


Good, I will be alert to watch for that quality in you. By the way, your favorite poster spends a lot of time comparing me to Dennis McKinsey, but biblical skeptics who know me also know that I deplore his look-for-an-error-in-every-verse approach to biblical discrepancies. We aren't at all on good terms.


Hmm, or else the narrow world of atheistic fundamentalism just hasn't enough room for two heads that big :P



Furthermore, the members of alt.bible.errancy also know that I have opposed a fellow who was cut from the same mold as McKinsey. In other words, I am not a bats-are-not-birds biblical inerrantist, and those in this forum who continue to try to paint me with that brush will simply be showing that they don't know what they are talking about.


Hey Feral, not bad. Getting rid of the bats-are-not-birds would put paid to most biblioskepticals sites on the Web. Crikey, even Australia's own answer to McKinsey, Ian Plimer (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/hot/plimer.asp), tried that one. Hey, are you perhaps a Bible-sez-pi=3 (http://www.tektonics.org/piwrong.html) errantist? Yes, Plimer tried that on too!

[Farrell Till]

Revolg:
Well Farrell Till is seems that the religiously ignorant people have proven you wrong just about every where you go.

Since this is an unsupported assertion, there is nothing here for me to reply to. I am noticing that people in this forum seem to have a hard time distinguishing between abstract and concrete writing. I would have enjoyed having you in my college writing classes.



Do you remember RevNeal?

No, I don't.



Actually I think Kevin Harris from Chicago's Christian Radio Station actually wants to debate you on live radio.

I have had no contact with him. Tell him that he can contact me at jftill@theramp.net.

[Farrell Till]

Captain Ochre:


You seem ruder than average to me, but maybe I'm just biased. In particular your replies to DDW have seemed harsher than her communications with you would warrant.
All imh(umble)o, of course.

OTOH, I'm accustomed to the alt.atheism NG, where it's not uncommon for disgruntled participants to hurl f-bombs and references to people's mothers &amp; the like, so maybe I'm not so biased after all.

I am not a member of that forum, so I can't comment on this. I have seen this kind of "profanity" used in other forums, and I disapprove of it. My own position is that language is language, and vulgarity is in the mind of the person who objects to it. However, since there are people who object to it, I confine myself only to "mild" profanity. By the way, I have seen "Christians" use the same language you object to, so skeptics and atheists don't have a monopoly on it.

[Farrell Till]

Till:

You may begin by explaining to us how compressed narrative A can describe a literary character in one way and compressed narrative B can describe the same character in another way that is incompatible with A's depiction and that not be an inconsistency. In other words, please explain why inconsistency is not inconsistency if it is found in "compressed narratives."


Dee Dee Warren:

Pzzt. Raspberry. The same character is not necessarily being described which has been the whole point (this is excluding the information that Jaltus has given as he is exploring another avenue). And with all due respect, this has been stated clearly numerous times... do you really have that little of reading retention? I am not saying that to be a smart aleck... but your continued posturing that things have not been answered is what has kep this discussion going on a hamster wheel (no offense Hamster) for over two dozen pages. All of this has been answered, you don't like the answer, but the answer has been given nonetheless in droves.

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?

Sheesh.


Yeah, sheesh, Dee Dee. This kind of evasion is exactly why I am going to insist on having some input into the guidelines of a structured debate. I asked a specific question, and you won't answer it, so I will ask it again. If the Mary M problem has been explained "numerous times," why don't you or someone else just cut and paste that explanation? The fact is that Jaltus is the only one who has attempted a reply--or else I failed to notice the other posts that explained it--and his explanation is presently under consideration.

I also asked you another question that you are evading. Why would an inconsistency in two "compressed narratives" not be an inconsistency because the narratives were compressed? If compressed narrative A said that Farrell Till was 54 years on April 26, 2002, and compressed narrative B said that Farrell Till was 67 years old on April 26, 2002, would the "compression" of the narratives keep this from being an inconsistency? If so, why?

Common sense should tell a rational person that no matter how brief the narratives were, they could not both be true. They could both be wrong, but they could not both be true. In this case, they would both be wrong, because Farrell Till was 69 on April 26, 2002.

Now please tell us how "compression" in narratives can make inconsistencies not be inconsistencies. If you tell me that you have already explained this, I will assume that you know that your position cannot be logically defended.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Farrell you can assume whatever you like..... the explanation as I have said probably twenty times now, is in the very article of Holding's that started this whole thread. This same explanation has been expanded upon and elaborated upon throughout 30 pages now.. with interludes of exploring the the ideas that Jaltus has brougth forward.

With regards to the debate issues.. but I do believe that the two topics Holding proposed are ostrichs and donations. Are either of those acceptable to you? If not, please propose alternatives.

I also do believe if you read Holding's posts here that he has rejected any additional rules other than the ones already in place by this forum. I have explained in my response to Jimbo just earlier today (so you should have no problem finding it) why that is reasonable in the format that we have here. We have guidelines in place, and it is up to your skill as a debator to capitalize on where you believe an opponent has skipped a point. Your posts and Holdings will be one right after another so it will be obvious if anyone if evading points.

The other topic, should you beg out of debating with Holding, was to debate me on whether or not Jesus incorrectly predicted His return in the Olivet Discourse. That is not a solely a doctrinal issue as you are now trying to claim, but an inerrancy one.

I await your responses.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:
Farrell you can assume whatever you like..... the explanation as I have said probably twenty times now, is in the very article of Holding's that started this whole thread. This same explanation has been expanded upon and elaborated upon throughout 30 pages now.. with interludes of exploring the the ideas that Jaltus has brougth forward.

Okay, why don't you just quote the explanation, Dee Dee? I have seen ******'s "explanation," and it didn't even address the grammatical issue on which my argument for inconsistency is based.



With regards to the debate issues.. but I do believe that the two topics Holding proposed are ostrichs and donations. Are either of those acceptable to you? If not, please propose alternatives.

Ah, I should have known. The ostrich matter pertains to a short article that I wrote probably 10 years ago. The topic is so minor that it really wouldn't say much about the issue of biblical inerrancy. My preference is to debate issues that involve central inconsistencies, such as prophecy fulfillment or the resurrection or the virgin birth, and such like. I propose the following propositions.

Resolved: Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt was fulfilled in all of its details.

Resolved: Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre was fulfilled in all of its details.

Resolved: The virgin birth of Jesus is a verifiable historical event.

Resolved: The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a verifiable historical event.

****** told me earlier that he had "insufficient data" to defend prophecy fulfillment, but maybe he has since acquired enough data to defend these topics.

In the matter of "donations," this is not an issue that relates to biblical inerrancy. I realize that the New Testament teaches that the "laborer is worthy of his hire," so this is really a nonissue. I simply posted an article that expressed an opinion about ******'s qualifications to be worthy of full-time support, and that has ruffled his feathers. His proposal that we debate this issue is just more evidence that he wants to evade central issues related to biblical inerrancy.



I also do believe if you read Holding's posts here that he has rejected any additional rules other than the ones already in place by this forum. I have explained in my response to Jimbo just earlier today (so you should have no problem finding it) why that is reasonable in the format that we have here. We have guidelines in place, and it is up to your skill as a debator to capitalize on where you believe an opponent has skipped a point. Your posts and Holdings will be one right after another so it will be obvious if anyone if evading points.

Well, I'm not surprised that ****** refuses to accept these guidelines, which are pretty standard rules in formal debate. Unless he will accept standards that will require him to address all of his opponent's points and to refrain from argumentation by assertion, question begging, and special pleading, I will not debate him. I know from past experiences with him that he will have too much wiggle room unless guidelines like these are enforced. I think that members of the forum should ask themselves why he won't agree to refrain from fundamental logical fallacies and to reply to all of his opponent's arguments and rebuttals. I know why he won't, but those who don't know his evasion tactics should give serious consideration to the reason for his refusal to accept standard, common-sense guidelines.



The other topic, should you beg out of debating with Holding, was to debate me on whether or not Jesus incorrectly predicted His return in the Olivet Discourse. That is not a solely a doctrinal issue as you are now trying to claim, but an inerrancy one.

I await your responses.

If you will accept the guidelines that ****** is refusing to accept, I will debate this issue with you, because it does pertain to a prophecy-fulfillment issue. Would you tell me if you will accept the following criteria of valid prophecy fulfillment?

1. The person claiming prophecy fulfillment must prove that the prophetic statement in question meant exactly what he/she claims that it meant.

2. The person claiming prophecy fulfillment must prove that the alleged fulfillment event actually happened.

3. The person claiming prophecy fulfillment must prove that the prophetic statement was made prior to the event that allegedly fulfilled it.

4. The person claiming prophecy fulfillment must prove that the prophetic statement was made far enough in advance of the fulfillment event to preclude educated guessing.

5. The fulfillment event must be such that "fulfillment" could not have been contrived.

These are standard criteria of valid prophecy fulfillment. I will be glad to elaborate on any of them that you may have questions about. Number five, for example, simply means that a genuine prophecy fulfillment could not be an event that someone purposely caused to happen so that fulfillment could be claimed. If one saw Zechariah 9:9 as a "prophecy," the chances are about 1 in 1 that he could ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and claim that he had fulfilled the prophecy.

Let me have your reaction to these proposals, and to just one more that I think would make the debate more manageable. The affirmant in the debate, which would be you, will limit herself to just one argument in each post, and the negative party, which would be me, would limit each post to the rebutting of the affirmant's one argument.

This would prevent either of us from using the "stacking" ploy that is often used in unstructured debates. I assume you know what "stacking" is.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Because it’s of central importance, I’m going to move one of JP’s retorts into its own separate posting. I’m becoming concerned that forum members might suspect I’m off partying somewhere, so I’ll post it now, before completing the rest of my reply. It’s not written as clearly as I’d like, but I feel the pressure of time.

jpholding:
We're still waiting for proof that your "common sense" is anything more than ethnocentric selfishness.

I don’t know of any way to prove that anything is common sense other than laying it out and letting individuals evaluate it based on their own sense of reasonableness. I’ll repost what I said about this in the post you replied to, JP, because, evidently due to the server problems the forum has been experiencing, this part of my text didn’t appear in your reply:

Robin Goodfellow:
The truth is, we all need standards for evaluating claims, and I see no reason to exempt from this the claim that so-and-so is the Supreme Being and such-and-such is His agenda. Naturally, the less plausible the claim, the higher these standards need to be. And I would respectfully suggest that the claim that any man is actually the creator of the universe is about as inherently implausible as a claim can be. Characterizing these standards as “whims” that we “demand” must be “catered to” just doesn’t seem appropriate to me, somehow.

Do readers think this seems like good common sense, or does it sound more like ethnocentric selfishness?

My experience has been that inerrantists consistently try to block any attempt to judge the Bible by the same reasonable standards we'd apply to anything else: "If Biblical passages aren't clear enough, who are we to demand that much clarity from the Supreme Being? We should be glad that He knows exactly how much clarity we do or do not need." "If prophecies aren't specific enough, who are we to demand x level of specificity from the Creator of the Universe? Whatever He has seen fit to provide in His Word is obviously the precise degree of specificity we should have."

But how reasonable would it be to limit our demands of the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, or Nostradamus, to whatever degree of clarity or specificity they happen to have?

Not reasonable at all, in my opinion. We should instead use intelligence and common sense to decide what standards we'd expect of any book claiming to be the Word of God, and then see whether the Bible, or the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, or any other holy book rises to that level. Each of us must do that for ourselves. That's the answer to the question: "Who are we to apply these standards?"

The same applies to the behavior of beings alleged to have created the universe, and to be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving. In the seventies, it was claimed that a man named Guru Mahara-ji was the Supreme Being. Intelligent, critical thinkers need to decide whether it’s legitimate to consider the apparent behavior of Guru Mahara-ji, or any alleged Supreme Being, and to ask whether it’s reasonable to believe that such a being would actually operate in the way alleged by His faithful.

JP would have us think this is nothing more than ethnocentric selfishness, that God isn’t “obligated” to behave in a way that makes sense to us. But isn’t it more likely that God would understand the importance of using intelligent, common-sense evaluation to distinguish between true religion and competing false religions? Why would He have given us that capacity if He didn’t want us to use it?

If you agree with JP, none of this is legitimate. That means we have no right to make our own assessments of Mithra, Guru Mahara-ji, Sai Baba, Allah, Vishnu, Ahura-Mazda, or any other claimed deities, and decide whether we think they and their holy books appear to rise to the level we’d expect of a Supreme Being and His Word. They, as alleged Supreme Beings, aren’t "obligated” to seem reasonable to us.

But if you agree with me, then every time JP criticizes an attempt to make a reasonable assessment of a claim about how God was operating when He inspired the Bible, put it in perspective. If JP wants to know who I think I am to judge God, remember that I’m judging, not God, but a claim about God that’s being made by a fallible human. If he demands to know who I think I am to judge God’s Word, remember that none of us saw God give us the Bible. Like other holy books, it was written by fallible men and then claimed by fallible men to be from God. Whether any holy book is or is not God’s Word is a conclusion each of us must come to after subjecting it to our standards of evaluation, using the common sense and critical intelligence that God, if He exists, gave us as individuals, and based on what we would consider reasonable behavior for a Supreme Being.

Maybe this is ethnocentric selfishness. But it seems like common sense to me.

Robin Goodfellow

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robin:

Firstly, I didn't think you were partying somewhere, but maybe I did suspect that you were off mountain climbing or something after taking my recommendation to try some Diet Mountian Dew. Zooza!!

And second, I apologize for the server problems. I do believe those have been cleared up.

[mattbballman19]

Till,

Reading from the Christian Thinktank, I came upon an article dealing with the harmonization process. Within this article I found a specific part which dealt with this Mary Mag issue.

I would definitely read the whole article in order to get the whole context in which this little blip is part of, which is located here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ordorise.html. It may not work, because Glenn Miller, the runner of the site, has had a notice at the top of his entrance page informing his readers that the URL'S may have trouble linking properly, because he is changing servers. So, I apologize if it doesn't link right.

Here's the blip, which is, BTW, Miller quoting Wenham, whose credentials I am unaware:




"Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary at the burial and as setting out for the tomb. The angel speaks to "the women," who "ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them."(27:55f.,61;28:1,5,8f.) If we had only Matthew we should take "the women" and "them" to be the Marys. But complicated movements of five women were apparently involved--Mary Magdalene left before the women entered the tomb, and the notifying of disciples required visits both to John's house and to Bethany. Probably only "the other Mary" was present at every point in the story and "the women" and "them" do not refer precisely to the two mentioned by name. Matthew is giving the detail necessary to convey his message, further elaboration would have been pointless distraction. He could of course have avoided any question by saying at verse 1 'certain women', but this would have been unnecessarily vague. His mention of Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas would have been suitable for three reasons: 1. It was they who set out together from Bethany as described at the beginning of his account. 2. Mary Magdalene was of special importance since she was the first person to see Jesus. 3. Mary of Clopas, however, was the one who was present throughout his whole narrative. Although he leaves out many details his is a judicious and accurate statement of what happened."

Then Miller says,


Notice that this account has all the elements of historical inquiry--both conjectural and "imaginary" as well as supportive--e.g.,the "three reasons". It does NOT assume that the authors were under some kind of constraint to provide a list of all the incidental characters in the story--they only needed to marshal the relevant details for their specific literary intent and purpose.

The point should be clear by now: harmonization is a standard, essential part of BOTH historical inquiry AND legal assessment of testimony of witnesses. As such, it is not 'alien' to the biblical students task, nor is it something to be practiced woodenly. The student of ANY history (not just 'biblical' history) is not only sanctioned in the praxis of harmonization, but he or she is literally compelled to do--under the methodological norms of historiography.

Hope this kinda of gets you guys back on the original issue raised and defended :hrm: by Carr and Till.

matt

[mattbballman19]

Here's more from Miller's article on the aorist tense.

The passage the quote is talking about is this one:
Matthew 28.1ff:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: `He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." 8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.



This interpretation depends on the Greek word (ginomai) rendered "There was..." in verse two. The verb is the standard one rendered "at it came to pass..." or "it came to be". The issue is that it is in the aorist tense--a rather undifferentiated verbal structure that pushes attention away from itself. The verb is generally NOT USED by itself to make a point of chronological sequence; the gospel writers depend on other additional words to make sequence clear (as we would use constructions like "and then.." or "subsequently..." or "after this"). The aorist makes NO STATEMENT whatsoever about itself. Indeed, biblical writers use series of aorists as the narrative skeleton, upon which to throw a present tense or future tense to 'stand out' and get our attention. The aorist is simply the "room in which" the events occur.

So, the aorist can be translated "was" and can ALSO be translated by an English pluperfect ("had been"). For example, aorists occur in main clauses (as here) in Matthew 14.3, Mark 8.14, and Lk 8.27b and the NIV reflects this temporal nuance:

At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, "This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him." 3 Now Herod had arrested (aorist tense) John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, (Matt 14.1-3; Note that verse 3--the aorist--is used to explain background and historically PRIOR material.)

Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side. 14 The disciples had forgotten (aorist tense) to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15 "Be careful," Jesus warned them. (Mark 8.13-15; the aorist in vs. 14 is used to explain background and historically PRIOR material.)


When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn (aorist) clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. 28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, (Luke 8.27f; the aorist in vs. 27 is used to explain background and historically PRIOR material.)

What this means is that there is an inherent ambiguity in the Greek construction here. Dr. Price has made an exegetical decision (on unknown grounds) and IT IS HIS DECISION that generates the "most embarrassing divergence". There literally IS no "divergence" or "convergence" until the exegetical decision is made--[hmmm...would this be called a "Schroedinger Contradiction"?...sorry, ;>)]

Wenham, on the other hand, takes this ambiguity under study, asking questions about historical possibility and normal usage (EE:78):

"We have to remember that first century writers had to work without the help of such modern aids as parenthesising brackets, and that, since Greeks care little about relative time, the use of the pluperfect tense was much less favoured by them than by us. Often in the New Testament the aorist tense needs to be rendered by an English pluperfect. So Matthew 28:2 could be inserted in brackets and translated with no impropriety:
(And behold there had been a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and had come and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards had trembled and become like dead men.)
"Such a translation, however, exaggerates the element of relative time in a manner alien to the Greek (or, for that matter, Semitic) mind. W.E. Brown, commenting on Matthew's usage, here makes some interesting remarks about the methods of ancient historiography:
"The great historians of the nineteenth century learned to solve their problems by keeping to a chronological order. Such a practice is strictly speaking impossible unless the narration is confined to one person or to one locality .... Earlier chroniclers had tackled the difficulty in two ways. Sometimes they incorporated in a single story a number of actions and speeches which had a common theme, not indicating at all the time of the occurrence. Sometimes they jumped back and forward between two or more parallel sequences of events, leaving it to the reader to understand that each item is as it were a flash on a cinema screen."
Wenham then applies this "plausible" reconstruction (based on other, known usages and "control data") to the sequence in the passage and comes out here (EE:78):
"We may thus conclude that the earthquake took place before the arrival of any women and that the terrified guards had already left by the time they arrived. It was presumably a recurrence of the earth tremors which had caused the rending of the massive curtain which divided the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies at the time of the crucifixion. That the geological structure is conducive to violent shocks at this point has been brought home vividly to the many visitors who have seen the Church of the Holy Sepulchre shored up because of seismic damage."
Wenham exhibits here the standard practices of historical study--he has integrating narrative, yielding a plausible reconstruction of sequence, argued from (1) grammatical usage; (2) background geological data; and (3) related biblical data (e.g. he used the apostolic statement that "He is risen" was FIRST announced to believers, as evidence that the guards were NOT there at the time the angels announced it to the women--p. 77). His exegesis does not support a position of "most embarrassing divergence."

[jpholding]

I hear the sound of a patoot being kissed...

RG, this is one of the most common sensical posts I have read in this forum. If the clarity of biblical passages, presumably inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, is questioned, Bible believers will almost invariably say something like, "Well, Till is upset because God didn't write the Bible the way he would have liked to have it," or "Till is upset because God didn't kiss his patoot," or some such. All such statements answer absolutely nothing. They simply beg the question of whether the Bible is indeed inspired of God.

Horse bologna, ^&%$#*. Inspiration isn't even part of the equation in the reply. The same can be said of any document from another culture or time. You may as well complain that Tacitus, Josephus, Lao Tzu, Confucius, etc. didn't write to meet your expectations. Such is the way of self-centered freethinking arrogance.

If a Christian questioned the clarity or accuracy of the Qur'an, how impressed would he be if a Muslim opponent said, "Well, your problem is that Allah didn't kiss your patoot"?

Wow, the old "you'd do it too" argument from the 70 year old child. News flash: If I criticized the Qur'an anachronistically, darned straight I'd deserve such a reply. But as someone who thinks you can become an authority just by adding water, that's the expected response.

Apologetics, by the way, carries with it the responsibility of assuming the burden of proof when that burden rightfully falls on the apologist. The dissenting party should likewise be willing to assume that burden when it rightfully falls on him/her.

And who inscribed this law of fantasy on the stone tablets in your yard? Not that it matters. It's just more peacock display from the defeathered squab.

I would like nothing better than to debate ****** in a forum where there are guidelines that will require both sides to refrain from common logical fallacies and to reply to every argument/rebuttal of the other side, but I know that ****** isn't going to agree to any set of guidelines that will hold his feet to the fire.

As if you can't do any foot-holding otherwise. Again: You don't need guidelines. You going to tell us that you aren't able to do any foot-holding on Errancy becuase you haven't agreed to any guidelines with, for example, Jason Gastrich? Uh uh. This is just a dodge and an excuse for you to get out of debating me direct, one that your 150 fans will be happy with, which will make your life happy happy joy joy as well.

I smell a 10,000 foot pile of bulldada somewhere in Central Illinois.

What possible objections could a serious debater have to guidelines that prohibit common logical fallacies and diversionary "stacking" and that require both parties to reply to all of the opposition's arguments/rebuttals?

Gee, as if a guideline would ever stop such things. I guess something's wrong with all those speed limit signs since the cops are still giving out tickets. As for stacking, I don't care if you do -- do that and I'll pile so much on your head in response you'll be digging out until 2130. Way more effective at stopping that gator
from running that some pansy-bucket "guideline".

I'll repeat a challenge. If I post here an argument or rebuttal that you evaded in our "debates," will you reply to it point by point?

Gimme three samples to go, &^*%$. However if I find that these are arguments that I DID address, or that I did not need to (for example, if I did not disagree with your point), then what do I get? Do I get to see you do pushups on the roof of the White House? Do we get to see this guideline added to the list?

15. Defender of the errancy position must wear a clown nose and shoes at all times and may only communicate by honking a bicycle horn.

You'd probably be more coherent anyway.

I am, of course, willing to reciprocate and let you fire the first shot. You can post an argument that you think I have evaded

Evasion isn't really your specialty. What you DO do is play manipulative debate games, repeat yourself endlessly, frontload your articles with metric tonnes of fluff, blather incessantly, insert diversions on other topics, make ridiculous exegetical leaps, and make bonehead errors ("There was guilt in ancient times!" "Pay for 90% of this website!") that would cause men with more shame to hide under their waterbed. Oh, I'll pick some of those all right. Once you explain that "90%" comment we're still waiting for an actual explanation on.

I am not lying about them, and I'm sure you know that I'm not. You evidently forgot about the message you sent to Rob Miles in which you said that you would put links in your articles to my articles. You haven't done that, and you know you haven't.

Maybe you're not lying, sure. Maybe your memory is that of an elephant: a dead one! I told Miles and you that links in articles would go in anything I did NOT agree to debate but which you pulled up on your own accord -- which has been most of it so far (men with David, Abiathar, etc). Things I *did* agree to -- so far, just Land Promise and Olivet -- would be linked on http://www.tektonics.org/tilldebate.html Blazes, man, you even refer to that page in your article!

Quote the emails? I already do in my response: http://www.tektonics.org/tillstink.html -- you're either a liar or a confused and forgetful schlep artist. Given the 90% comment I may just vote for more of the latter than the former. The lying usually doesn't start until after you've been caught in one of these sorts of errors with your pantalones down.

If he is the apologetic wizard that he thinks he is, why would he object to such guidelines?

I don't need 'em and you don't either. I notice you won't address the point, made repeatedly now, that you don't need guidelines to debate and discuss with people on Errancy. There's a good example of evasion.

Okay, I will make a deal with you. I will defend that position if you will agree to debate the following proposition after we have finished the ostrich matter.

Want to hear my debate on that one? "Insufficient evidence to decide." That's it. You can go ahead and blow your nose all you want after that and that is all I'll say in reply for the duration.

As I pointed out to you before, you claim that the Bible is inerrant, yet you don't know whether Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt was fulfilled in all of its details or if Jesus was born of a virgin. That's a bit inconsistent, isn't it?

Only if you have a panic-button view of the matter, which I don't. It's just too bad that your life in CoC conditioned you to have a constant case of paranoia if something was left indeterminate, but that's the way it is -- the people here grew up, and you didn't.

I'll be keeping "Drooling for Dollars" on line, because it was an appropriate response to your attempt to compare your one-man "organization" to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is a nationwide organization

So WHAT if it's "nationwide"??? Excuse me, &^*%$, but the only point of comparison was that both orgs ask for solicitations. Size, scope, type of work done, etc are irrelevant to the comparison. Now answer this: wasn't FFRF once a small organization too? How did they support themselves back then? Bank robbery? And what about Infidel Guy, who has more solicitations on his site than even I do, and is only one man? Hello? You skipped right over that point. So we're up to evasion #2 already and the sun isn't even down here.

Any jerk can have a website at a nominal cost. To see that, all that one has to do is browse the internet.

Yep. Set your browser to http://www.skepticalreviewonline.com...

formed this organization and operated it for 11 years without once ever soliciting contributions. It was a one-man organization, just as yours is. When I formed it, I didn't quit my job and beg people to send me $70 to $80 per year so that I could have a stay-at-home income.

Infidel Guy is one man and he begs off $60 per year from people so he CAN eventually quit his job and stay at home doing what he loves. Well? Hello? It ran down to this, ^&%$#: Your only reason for saying I can't solicit support is, You disagree with my point of view. Now that's a fine, American reason.

Why should I want to remove "Drooling for Dollars"? It hit you in the pit of your stomach, and you are still smarting from it.

You are correct, Dr. Freud. I really do smart from that split gut after seeing your apples and oranges effort. I replied to your article BTW at http://www.tektonics.org/barkbucks_CC1.html and maybe you'll reply to that by 2010. Hey, why don't we just go debate this on another thread? :rofl: Gotcha.

21 hours by now. I guess it'll run out with you with your finger still in your nose and your socks still off.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Till:
Any jerk can have a website at a nominal cost. To see that, all that one has to do is browse the internet.

Dee Dee
Ahh the irony of it all.....

Yes, the irony of it. Just look at this website.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Farrell... it is two jerks running this site. Okay?? Get your facts straight. :yipee: Gotta have the bananna. I told you I am irresistable.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Matt did valiantly try to get this thread back on track... I am going to move these back and forth posts on trying to hash out debate terms to a different thread, and I will email the new thread link to you Mr. Till. You will need to subscribe to the new thread, but I will explain in the email how to do that. I may not have time to do it tonight, but I will get it taken care of.

[Farrell Till]

jpholding:
I hear the sound of a patoot being kissed...

Till:
RG, this is one of the most common sensical posts I have read in this forum. If the clarity of biblical passages, presumably inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, is questioned, Bible believers will almost invariably say something like, &quot;Well, Till is upset because God didn't write the Bible the way he would have liked to have it,&quot; or &quot;Till is upset because God didn't kiss his patoot,&quot; or some such. All such statements answer absolutely nothing. They simply beg the question of whether the Bible is indeed inspired of God.

******:
Horse bologna, ^&amp;%$#*. Inspiration isn't even part of the equation in the reply. The same can be said of any document from another culture or time. You may as well complain that Tacitus, Josephus, Lao Tzu, Confucius, etc. didn't write to meet your expectations. Such is the way of self-centered freethinking arrogance.

We aren't talking about just any document. We are talking about documents that you and your cohorts allege to be the inspired, inerrant word of God. If this is the case, then we should reasonably expect an omniscient, omnipotent deity to guide his chosen ones to write with a clarity and accuracy far above what would be expected of Tacitus, Josephus, Lao Tse, etc. Otherwise, what would have been the purpose of the divine guidance that was allegedly given to those who wrote the Bible? If their finished product was to be no better than what an uninspired writer could have produced, then why go to the trouble to "inspire" them?

Also, if the inspiration of this omniscient, omnipotent deity did not protect the chosen writers from errors, then how can you or anyone else tell truth from error in the Bible?

******'s brand of "inspiration" reduces the Bible to a work that is of no more value than what Josephus or any other uninspired author wrote.

[Farrell Till]

jpholding:
I hear the sound of a patoot being kissed...

Till:

If a Christian questioned the clarity or accuracy of the Qur'an, how impressed would he be if a Muslim opponent said, &quot;Well, your problem is that Allah didn't kiss your patoot&quot;?

******:
Wow, the old &quot;you'd do it too&quot; argument from the 70 year old child. News flash: If I criticized the Qur'an anachronistically, darned straight I'd deserve such a reply. But as someone who thinks you can become an authority just by adding water, that's the expected response.

Did you notice the word accuracy? What if the Christian simply said that a specific passage in the Qur'an was inconsistent with another specific passage? (You have done that before with the Book of Mormon, haven't you?) What kind of explanation of the inconsistency would it be if the Muslim said, "Well, your problem is that Allah didn't kiss your patoot"? When an inconsistency is presented to an apologist, one worth his salt would try to show why the inconsistency is not an inconsistency.

Is anyone beginning to see why in a structured debate, I would want guidelines that would require ****** to answer all arguments/rebuttals? He is good at nonanswers but not too good at answers.



Till:

Apologetics, by the way, carries with it the responsibility of assuming the burden of proof when that burden rightfully falls on the apologist. The dissenting party should likewise be willing to assume that burden when it rightfully falls on him/her.

******:
And who inscribed this law of fantasy on the stone tablets in your yard? Not that it matters. It's just more peacock display from the defeathered squab.

Oh, you have never heard of the logical axiom that says he who asserts must prove? Why am I not surprised that you haven't?



Till:

I would like nothing better than to debate ****** in a forum where there are guidelines that will require both sides to refrain from common logical fallacies and to reply to every argument/rebuttal of the other side, but I know that ****** isn't going to agree to any set of guidelines that will hold his feet to the fire.

******:
As if you can't do any foot-holding otherwise. Again: You don't need guidelines.

One thing I have learned in a previous attempt to get you to agree to guidelines prior to beginning a debate with you is that if there are no guidelines, you will quickly turn the debate into a farce. I don't intend to let it happen again.

Why don't you tell us why you object to guidelines that (1) prohibit common fallacies, (2) prohibit stacking, and (3) require both parties to answer all of the other's arguments/rebuttals?



You going to tell us that you aren't able to do any foot-holding on Errancy becuase [sic] you haven't agreed to any guidelines with, for example, Jason Gastrich?

The archives of II-Errancy show that I have consistently demanded of my opponents before a formal debate began that they negotiate guidelines. Like you, most of them refuse to do so. As for Jason Gastrich, the archives will also show that I not only demanded guidelines of him but ordered him to reply to all of my arguments/rebuttals if he wanted to remain on the list. When my arguments were reposted and reposted with the demand that he reply to them, he disappeared. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, probably because those on the list who report to you didn't tell you about his vanishing act.

By the way, you surely don't consider Jason Gastrich to be a competent apologist.



Uh uh. This is just a dodge and an excuse for you to get out of debating me direct, one that your 150 fans will be happy with, which will make your life happy happy joy joy as well.

I have records that will show that I have always insisted on negotiating guidelines with those whom I opposed in formal debates. As I said above, you don't know what you are talking about.

I will ask you again to tell us why you would object to guidelines that (1) prohibited common fallacies, (2) prohibited stacking, and (3) required both participants to answer all of the opposition's arguments/rebuttals.

The only reason I can think of for your refusal would be that you want to have room for quibbling, fallacious reasoning, and evasion.



I smell a 10,000 foot pile of bulldada somewhere in Central Illinois.

The only odor I smell is coming from Central Florida. Could you clean it up within the next two weeks? I'll be passing through then.

[Socrates]

Feral McTill:
Oh, you have never heard of the logical axiom that says he who asserts must prove?
OK, since you assert this proposition, you must prove this one! I love it when misotheistic bigots refute themselves :bonk: :yipee:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay I have split the debate negotiations into another thread... it is located here...

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=839

I have emailed this link to both Mr. Till and JP as well.

[Farrell Till]

jpholding:
I hear the sound of a patoot being kissed...

Till:

What possible objections could a serious debater have to guidelines that prohibit common logical fallacies and diversionary &quot;stacking&quot; and that require both parties to reply to all of the opposition's arguments/rebuttals?

******:

Gee, as if a guideline would ever stop such things.

Of course, guidelines wouldn't stop such things. I have had opponents who agreed to such guidelines and then constantly engaged in argumentation by assertion, question begging, and special pleading, and who evaded argument after argument. The guidelines, however, give the participants the advantage of pointing out to the audience violations of the guidelines. If, for example, I should engage in argumentation by assertion or evade one of your arguments, you could have a field day by pointing this out to the members of the forum. In a formal debate, the moderator is also obligated to remind the participants that rules and guidelines should be respected.



I guess something's wrong with all those speed limit signs since the cops are still giving out tickets.

In a debate structured by guidelines, the participants can issue "tickets" for violations of the rules. When a participant evades enough arguments, for example, his opponent's reminders of the evasions will soon make the audience aware that the violator is not respecting the guidelines. That might make some in the audience wonder why, and that is exactly what you don't want, isn't it?



******:
As for stacking, I don't care if you do -- do that and I'll pile so much on your head in response you'll be digging out until 2130. Way more effective at stopping that gator
from running that some pansy-bucket &quot;guideline&quot;.

Yes, I've noticed that you are good at stacking as a means of diverting attention from your evasions. You have just shown why such a guideline is needed in a structured debate.



Till:

I'll repeat a challenge. If I post here an argument or rebuttal that you evaded in our &quot;debates,&quot; will you reply to it point by point?

******:
Gimme three samples to go, &amp;^*%$.

How about taking them just one at a time? I have offered you the chance to go first. You have claimed that I didn't answer some of your arguments, so why don't you post one that you think I have evaded? I'll answer it, and after we have discussed it, I'll post one that you have evaded and so on. This will give the debate focus on just one argument at a time.

Do we have a deal?



However if I find that these are arguments that I DID address, or that I did not need to (for example, if I did not disagree with your point), then what do I get?

Oh, I wouldn't post any that you agreed with. I would choose those that you obviously evaded. If you showed that you did address the argument, then I would admit that I missed your answer. The matter is that simple. I think you know, however, that there are arguments and rebuttals that you hopped, skipped, and jumped over and that I would be posting these.

Do we have a deal?



Do I get to see you do pushups on the roof of the White House?

No, you would get to see me admit that you had posted a reply that I missed seeing.



Do we get to see this guideline added to the list?

15. Defender of the errancy position must wear a clown nose and shoes at all times and may only communicate by honking a bicycle horn.

You'd probably be more coherent anyway.

Here, folks, is an example of the type of silliness that has characterized much of ******'s debating. I am trying to negotiate guidelines that are widely recognized as legitimate debating rules, and he is trying to hide his refusal to accept them behind a pathetic attempt to be funny. Have any of you noticed that when he is in a bind, he resorts to this type of antic?



Till:

I am, of course, willing to reciprocate and let you fire the first shot. You can post an argument that you think I have evaded

******:
Evasion isn't really your specialty. What you DO do is play manipulative debate games, repeat yourself endlessly, frontload your articles with metric tonnes of fluff, blather incessantly, insert diversions on other topics, make ridiculous exegetical leaps, and make bonehead errors (&quot;There was guilt in ancient times! Pay for 90% of this website!&quot;) that would cause men with more shame to hide under their waterbed.

Gee, thanks, for admitting that I don't evade arguments. Anyone who has read my replies to your articles can clearly see that I don't evade but do a point-by-point reply so that when I have finished with an article, I have replied to everything in it.

Do you deny this?

As for repetition, you know as well as I that I do repeat and that I have repeatedly explained why. I repeat arguments that you don't answer. If you would answer them, I wouldn't repeat them.



Oh, I'll pick some of those all right. Once you explain that &quot;90%&quot; comment we're still waiting for an actual explanation on.

I am nearing completion of my two-hour stint at my computer, which will require me to take two hours off, so I want to hold your statement above in reserve and begin with it when I come back. That will have to be tomorrow, because it is now after 10:00 PM.

It took you a long time to explain yourself, but you finally made clear what you meant in your 90% condition. What I will do is give you a lesson in written communications and show you how a skilled writer could have made his meaning clear the first time.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Farrell:

I moved the debate negotiations into another thread... can you please post those comments there?? I emailed you the link.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Here is the link again to post all comments on the debate negotiations so that this thread can stay on the Gospel issues...

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=14594#post14594

[jpholding]

In marches ^*&%$#*, still dragging that same jackass he brought in...

We aren't talking about just any document. We are talking about documents that you and your cohorts allege to be the inspired, inerrant word of God. If this is the case, then we should reasonably expect an omniscient, omnipotent deity to guide his chosen ones to write with a clarity and accuracy far above what would be expected of Tacitus, Josephus, Lao Tse, etc.

Still running in circles and getting dizzy, I see. There is only a certain level of logically possible clarity that can be achieved. As far as I am concerned, the Bible, Tacitus, Lao Tzu, etc are ALL 100% clear within their contexts and it is just uneducated, I'm-the-center-of-the-universe provinicialists like you that are the problem.

Also, if the inspiration of this omniscient, omnipotent deity did not protect the chosen writers from errors, then how can you or anyone else tell truth from error in the Bible?

D'oh! How does anyone tell truth from error in ANY situation, ^&%$*? Quit pressing the panic button, you're getting it dirty.

Did you notice the word accuracy? What if the Christian simply said that a specific passage in the Qur'an was inconsistent with another specific passage?

Same difference. Changing your seat won't make you look any more fashionable.

(You have done that before with the Book of Mormon, haven't you?)

Shows how much you know. I haven't even addressed internal Mormon claims for the BoM and other related docs.

What kind of explanation of the inconsistency would it be if the Muslim said, "Well, your problem is that Allah didn't kiss your patoot"?

A good one, if I am blatantly decontextualizing the way you do.

When an inconsistency is presented to an apologist, one worth his salt would try to show why the inconsistency is not an inconsistency.

When a sound recontextualization is presented to a critic, one that didn't have his ego inflated to 1250 psi would either try to find an answer, or stop his complaining.

Oh, you have never heard of the logical axiom that says he who asserts must prove?

As Socrates said above, then, prove that this is so. Asserter. :rofl: How's that foot taste? Moldy?

One thing I have learned in a previous attempt to get you to agree to guidelines prior to beginning a debate with you is that if there are no guidelines, you will quickly turn the debate into a farce. I don't intend to let it happen again.

Your own participation already guarantees that will happen, at least academically, and the guidelines again will not stop it even if they are in place, as you admit. You (or I) can "point out" such violations (i.e., give out tickets) with or without such an agreement, so all this hemming and hawing is an obvious dodge. \

Respecting Dee Dee's request I will say no more of this here and continue if needed on the thread you were given the link to. I note that you continue to argue with Gastrich in spite of the purported refusal, so you're only proving my point. Gastrich's competence as an apologist is an irrelevancy in this context in line with your usual penchant to hoist such irrelevancies.

The only odor I smell is coming from Central Florida. Could you clean it up within the next two weeks? I'll be passing through then.

The FL Dept. of Agriculture advises that you check your upper lip for the source of the smell. They have also requested that you make sure you are completely free of vermin before you enter. Your last trip nearly ruined the citrus industry.

How about taking them just one at a time? I have offered you the chance to go first.

Fine. Give us one and go, then we can start a new thread with it. I already pointed out two evasions in this very thread so it's now your turn. I'll pick one in particular: I have asked you 2-3 times now about Infidel Guy raising money even more blatantly than I do, so what's your answer? So no excuse for buying time, ^%$#*@.

Have any of you noticed that when he is in a bind, he resorts to this type of antic?

What most have noticed is that you have a bug in your patoot. :rofl:

Gee, thanks, for admitting that I don't evade arguments.

I didn't say you don't -- I said it wasn't your specialty. IOW you do it and aren't very good at it.

As for repetition, you know as well as I that I do repeat and that I have repeatedly explained why.

Pfft! Ha. That was an amusing thing to read...you repeat for effect, ^&%$#*, and use "he didn't answer" as an excuse.

It took you a long time to explain yourself, but you finally made clear what you meant in your 90% condition. What I will do is give you a lesson in written communications and show you how a skilled writer could have made his meaning clear the first time.

When you do that you can also give the lesson to the person with a Masters' degree in Enlgish I showed my statement to, who agreed that it was crystal clear and said you were out of your gourd. So far you are the only person who has been confused by that statement. Sounds more like a lie -- er, a "skilled rationalization" -- to me, ^%$#*@.

You have less than 12 hours. Give us your answer on the new thread.

[Farrell Till]

Socrates:

Hey, are you perhaps a Bible-sez-pi=3 (http://www.tektonics.org/piwrong.html) errantist? Yes, Plimer tried that on too!

No, I'm not. There are too many examples of discrepancies in the Bible on major themes and doctrines to waste time on such stuff as this.

[Farrell Till]

jpholding:
In marches ^*&amp;%$#*, still dragging that same jackass he brought in...

Till:

We aren't talking about just any document. We are talking about documents that you and your cohorts allege to be the inspired, inerrant word of God. If this is the case, then we should reasonably expect an omniscient, omnipotent deity to guide his chosen ones to write with a clarity and accuracy far above what would be expected of Tacitus, Josephus, Lao Tse, etc.

******:
Still running in circles and getting dizzy, I see. There is only a certain level of logically possible clarity that can be achieved. As far as I am concerned, the Bible, Tacitus, Lao Tzu, etc are ALL 100% clear within their contexts and it is just uneducated, I'm-the-center-of-the-universe provinicialists like you that are the problem.

I see. So an omniscient, omnipotent deity was unable to "inspire" clarity, and that accounts for all of the confusion and disputation that exists in Christendom? Is that what you are saying?

Quote to me any controversial biblical passage that has resulted in sectarian disagreements, tell me what you think its intended meaning was, and I will rewrite it so that this meaning will be evident to those who read it. Of course, you won't do this, because you have seen me do this before, so you know that I can do it. Little ol' "uninspired" Till can communicate more clearly in writing than could the inspired biblical writers.



Till:

Also, if the inspiration of this omniscient, omnipotent deity did not protect the chosen writers from errors, then how can you or anyone else tell truth from error in the Bible?

******:
D'oh! How does anyone tell truth from error in ANY situation, ^&amp;%$*? Quit pressing the panic button, you're getting it dirty.

Would anyone else care to answer the question? ****** obviously didn't answer it.

If the inspiration of an omniscient, omnipotent deity did not protect the inspired writers from errors, then how can you or anyone else tell truth from error in the Bible?

The question, of course, pertains to biblical information for which there is no corroborating evidence.



Did you notice the word accuracy? What if the Christian simply said that a specific passage in the Qur'an was inconsistent with another specific passage?

******:
Same difference. Changing your seat won't make you look any more fashionable.

Would anyone else care to answer the question? ****** is obviously dodging it. My nickname for him is Duck-and-Dodge-Bob-and-Weave.



Till:

(You have done that before with the Book of Mormon, haven't you?)

******:
Shows how much you know. I haven't even addressed internal Mormon claims for the BoM and other related docs.

Okay, my mistake. I have noticed that you wrote a book on Mormonism, so I incorrectly assumed that at least part of it pertained to this.

Would it be appropriate to take passage A from the Book of Mormon and show that it is inconsistent with passage B? If so, what would you say if a Mormon then said to you, "Well, your problem is that God didn't kiss your patoot"?

Notice to others: Look for another evasion of this question.



Till:

What kind of explanation of the inconsistency would it be if the Muslim said, &quot;Well, your problem is that Allah didn't kiss your patoot&quot;?

******:
A good one, if I am blatantly decontextualizing the way you do.

What if you hadn't "decontextualized"? Would you accept the Muslim's answer as a suitable reply to your example of inconsistency?

Anyway, you are up to your old tricks again, i. e., argumentation by "assertion." If I am doing what you claim, you need to show that I am. Keep in mind that your mere claim that I am doesn't make it so.



Till:

When an inconsistency is presented to an apologist, one worth his salt would try to show why the inconsistency is not an inconsistency.

******:

When a sound recontextualization is presented to a critic, one that didn't have his ego inflated to 1250 psi would either try to find an answer, or stop his complaining.

Does anyone see any kind of sensible answer here? He is again arguing by assertion by claiming, without showing, that I am "decontexualizing" or that he is "recontextualizing."

By the way, why should it even be necessary to "recontextualize" documents that were inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity?

Watch ****** duck and dodge and bob and weave again.



Till:

Oh, you have never heard of the logical axiom that says he who asserts must prove?

******:
As Socrates said above, then, prove that this is so. Asserter.

If I quote authorities in the field of logic, will you give them as much credence as you give to, say, a modern-day sociologist who claims to know that 3,000 years ago feelings of guilt didn't exist?



******:

How's that foot taste? Moldy?

I wouldn't know. I would have to have a foot in my mouth before I could know how it tastes.



Till:

One thing I have learned in a previous attempt to get you to agree to guidelines prior to beginning a debate with you is that if there are no guidelines, you will quickly turn the debate into a farce. I don't intend to let it happen again.

******:

Your own participation already guarantees that will happen, at least academically, and the guidelines again will not stop it even if they are in place, as you admit. You (or I) can &quot;point out&quot; such violations (i.e., give out tickets) with or without such an agreement, so all this hemming and hawing is an obvious dodge.[\quote]

According to your logic, there should be no laws against murder or theft or rape, etc., because people are going to do these things anyway.

How does your foot taste?

[QUOTE]
******:

Respecting Dee Dee's request I will say no more of this here and continue if needed on the thread you were given the link to.

I will be getting to that link later, but it may be after my two-hours off from my computer, because I am nearing my first two-hour limit of the day. I can tell you here and now, however, that unless an opponent agrees to reasonable guidelines before the debate begins, I will not waste time trying to nail Jello to the wall. The guidelines I have proposed are more than reasonable. I have simply asked for an agreement that would (1) prohibit both of us from engaging in fallacious reasoning like argumentation by assertion (which you demonstrated above), question begging, and special pleading, (2) prohibit stacking, and (3) require both participants to answer all opposition arguments.

Anyone who would not agree to these guidelines, which are standard procedures in most formal debates, must want to engage in fallacious reasoning, stacking, and evasion. What else is there to conclude?



I note that you continue to argue with Gastrich in spite of the purported refusal, so you're only proving my point. Gastrich's competence as an apologist is an irrelevancy in this context in line with your usual penchant to hoist such irrelevancies.

I don't see how you have noted that I "continue to argue with Gastrich," since Gastrich removed me from his forum for saying that he was "intellectually dishonest" after he had flung the same accusation at me. I have kept him on the II_Errancy list, but after I had posted and reposted and reposted arguments he had repeatedly evaded, he vanished. I haven't seen anything from him for days now.



Till:

The only odor I smell is coming from Central Florida. Could you clean it up within the next two weeks? I'll be passing through then.

******:
The FL Dept. of Agriculture advises that you check your upper lip for the source of the smell. They have also requested that you make sure you are completely free of vermin before you enter. Your last trip nearly ruined the citrus industry.

Good news! I just found out that Bradley University's baseball games will be played this year in Bradenton instead of Homestead, so I won't be passing through Orlando to smell the odor coming from Ocoee.



Till:

How about taking them just one at a time? I have offered you the chance to go first.

******:
Fine. Give us one and go, then we can start a new thread with it.

Do you agree to reply to the argument point by point if I take the time to copy it to this forum?



I already pointed out two evasions in this very thread so it's now your turn. I'll pick one in particular: I have asked you 2-3 times now about Infidel Guy raising money even more blatantly than I do, so what's your answer? So no excuse for buying time, ^%$#*@.

You haven't seen my answer to that? Where have you been? First of all, this issue does not in any way relate to biblical inerrancy. Second, whatever Dan Barker may do would not in any way prove that what you are doing is appropriate.

Have you ever heard of the tu quoque fallacy? I'm here to debate biblical inerrancy and not waste time discussing matters related to your wounded pride.

I assume that the other "evasion" you are referring to is the ostrich issue. If you have been reading my posts, you should know that I have agreed to debate this very minor issue if you will agree that after we have finished it, you will affirm that Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt was fulfilled in all of its details.

The ball is in your court and has been there for several days.



Till:

Have any of you noticed that when he is in a bind, he resorts to this type of antic?

******:
What most have noticed is that you have a bug in your patoot.

Maybe it would go away if your omniscient, omnipotent deity would kiss it.



Till:

Gee, thanks, for admitting that I don't evade arguments.

******:
I didn't say you don't -- I said it wasn't your specialty. IOW you do it and aren't very good at it.

You know what my challenge is. Post an example of something I have evaded, and I will reply to it point by point if you will reciprocate and agree to answer an argument that you have evaded.



Till:

As for repetition, you know as well as I that I do repeat and that I have repeatedly explained why.

******:
Pfft! Ha. That was an amusing thing to read...you repeat for effect, ^&amp;%$#*, and use &quot;he didn't answer&quot; as an excuse.

Well, post your example, and I will answer if you will agree to reciprocate.



Till:

It took you a long time to explain yourself, but you finally made clear what you meant in your 90% condition. What I will do is give you a lesson in written communications and show you how a skilled writer could have made his meaning clear the first time.

When you do that you can also give the lesson to the person with a Masters' degree in Enlgish I showed my statement to, who agreed that it was crystal clear and said you were out of your gourd. So far you are the only person who has been confused by that statement. Sounds more like a lie -- er, a &quot;skilled rationalization&quot; -- to me, ^%$#*@.

You have less than 12 hours. Give us your answer on the new thread.

I have reached the 12,000 limit. I have a prewritten reply to this that I will post later today.

Your source with an "Enlgish" degree--was this a person who has a background in websites? That would make a big difference you know. I have a retired colleague, who is just a year younger than I, and if I showed it to her, I'm sure she would agree that you didn't communicate very clearly.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Mr. Till:

Did you find that link understandable?? (I am not being a wise aleck the question is genuine)... I am asking because I have not seen your response there... because remember if for some reason you and JP cannot work it out, then you and I will be dancing.

[Farrell Till]

J. J. Ramsey:

[quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farrell Till:
Just how far should we extend this it-doesn't-matter theory

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JJ:

It's not a matter of how far the theory can be applied, but to what it can be applied. It has been noted many times in this thread that it-doesn't-matter only applies to incidental details, not to the main gist.

Okay, let's see if I have this right. If document A, inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, has Mary Magdalene hearing an angel announce the resurrection of Jesus and then actually seeing and touching the resurrected Jesus and if document B, also inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, has this same woman running to Peter and telling him that the body of Jesus had been stolen and she didn't know where it was, that would be only an "incidental detail"? Do I have it right?

If so, would you give me an example of what kind of discrepancy would have to be found in the Bible before it could be considered serious enough to warrant explanation?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Till:

I also suspect that if you found a problem like this in the Hindu Vedas, the Zoroastrian Avesta, the Muslim Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, you would have no problem recognizing that it is a serious inconsistency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JJ:
You can suspect all you like. It doesn't make it so.

Ah, J. J., I see that you also have a talent for evasion. Would anyone else care to comment on my statement above? If you found a situation like the Mary Magdalene problem in the Vedas, the Avesta, the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, would you have no problem recognizing that it is a serious inconsistency?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Till, Till, Till... I am concerned that an English professor has such either such a poor memory retention for points already answered or such a poor reading comprehension level.

Again from my field.... asked and answered ad nauseam, ad infinitum.....

[jpholding]

In comes FTill Mc^&%*$, still blowing the same smoke and looking in the same mirrors as before...

I see. So an omniscient, omnipotent deity was unable to "inspire" clarity, and that accounts for all of the confusion and disputation that exists in Christendom? Is that what you are saying?

If it were, I would have said it. Try your reading courses again. I said they are perfectly clear; the problem is in your mirror and in everyone else's.

Quote to me any controversial biblical passage that has resulted in sectarian disagreements, tell me what you think its intended meaning was, and I will rewrite it so that this meaning will be evident to those who read it.

D'oh, are you paying attention? The meaning was evident when it was written; later rampant stupidity and egotism, not loss of clarity in the text, was the problem! We're back to the same old point on the circular argument you keep spinning in the air: You want God to kiss your patoot so that it was clear to YOU and to cover all of your possible gaffes and idiocies, so you can sit back on your lazy rear end, munch Pringles and burp in your undershirt. Why not join McKinsey in saying that God should also have anticipated geographic as well as cultural, literary, and other changes? That's why you deserve the epithet "McTill" -- you're no different than McKinsey, except you drop the aspect of the "God should have kissed my patoot" argument that makes you look most foolish.

Would anyone else care to answer the question? ****** obviously didn't answer it.

I did answer it. Once again, you just don't like the answer.

The question, of course, pertains to biblical information for which there is no corroborating evidence.

D'oh again -- how do we work with non-Biblical info for which there is no corroborating evidence? Hello? The answer fell on your head and made you into a member of the hammerhead club, so I guess you missed it while unconscious.

I have noticed that you wrote a book on Mormonism, so I incorrectly assumed that at least part of it pertained to this.

Ah. Well, the subtitle tells it all -- "How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible". But at least we got an admission of error from you on one thing today. Must have hurt like bleck.

Would it be appropriate to take passage A from the Book of Mormon and show that it is inconsistent with passage B? If so, what would you say if a Mormon then said to you, "Well, your problem is that God didn't kiss your patoot"?

How many times I gotta answer this? If I was decontextualizing and they could show it, that's fine! Just FYI Mormon studies is involved these days in an effort to show that the BoM does derive from an ancient doc. So this is something that yes, they would try to do. And if I ever bother to deal with internal BoM consistency issues, I must and will deal with such efforts. Yeesh! This is at least the third time I've told you this, don't you have any ability to make cross-applications? No, you don't. It fits in with that inability to grasp and create analogies.

Notice to others: Look for another evasion of this question.

Watch for ^&%$#* to not be able to cross-apply for the 76,547th time.

What if you hadn't "decontextualized"? Would you accept the Muslim's answer as a suitable reply to your example of inconsistency?

Nope. Because then I would have shown that patooty-kissing wasn't at issue. Hello?

Anyway, you are up to your old tricks again, i. e., argumentation by "assertion." If I am doing what you claim, you need to show that I am.

I have been for months, Mr. "Guilt Existed in the Ancient World". :rofl:

Does anyone see any kind of sensible answer here? He is again arguing by assertion by claiming, without showing, that I am "decontexualizing" or that he is "recontextualizing."

That's because we haven't been arguing anything here specifically that involves a decontextualization. Duh! :duh: But your "no guilt in the ancient world" was an excellent example. The best and most laughable, actually.

By the way, why should it even be necessary to "recontextualize" documents that were inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity?

Becuz' not even omniscience can logically cover every possible human act of stupidity, ignorance, willful childishness, and stubbornness.

Watch ****** duck and dodge and bob and weave again.

Just before I plant a big one in the middle of your mush. :bonk: Me Mighty Muhammed Ali. You Glass Joe.

If I quote authorities in the field of logic, will you give them as much credence as you give to, say, a modern-day sociologist who claims to know that 3,000 years ago feelings of guilt didn't exist?

I'll think about it. Manwhile you sure don't have enough wherewithal to question that sociologist, now, do you?

I wouldn't know. I would have to have a foot in my mouth before I could know how it tastes.

You probably missed and stuck it in your ear. :rofl: We'll see later if you get to that link. But you have as of now less than 6 hours left.

I don't see how you have noted that I "continue to argue with Gastrich," since Gastrich removed me from his forum for saying that he was "intellectually dishonest" after he had flung the same accusation at me.

It runs down to that you DID debate him, WITHOUT guidelines, and debate others on there without them. Period. You'll spend the last 6 hours wisely I am sure, still demanding what you don't need and never have needed. Notice you dodged the point about his competence being an irrelevancy in context.

Good news! I just found out that Bradley University's baseball games will be played this year in Bradenton instead of
Homestead, so I won't be passing through Orlando to smell the odor coming from Ocoee.

Praise Zeus! Since you won't be here, I'll tell the Ocoee Chamber of Commerce that they can put away the big fire hose and the 10-ton can of Lysol. But I'll have to warn Bradenton to hide all their valuables and put on their gas masks.

Do you agree to reply to the argument point by point if I take the time to copy it to this forum?

If I did, I'll link to the article and the place whee I did. If I don't, you can point out that I didn't. Not quit buying time, loafer. :zzzzzzzzzz:

You haven't seen my answer to that? Where have you been? First of all, this issue does not in any way relate to biblical inerrancy.

IOW you don't have a direct answer, thank you. IOW you know you've had your patoot kicked on this subject.

Second, whatever Dan Barker may do would not in any way prove that what you are doing is appropriate.

Then you need to give reasons why other than: 1) You agree with Barker and not me; 2) Barker is bigger than me; 3) Barker does more and different things than I do. None of these is of any relevance to the basic principle that anyone is free to start an ideology-based organization and solicit support, which means "Drooling for Dollars" is a bunch of intestinal gas you burped up.

Have you ever heard of the tu quoque fallacy? I'm here to debate biblical inerrancy and not waste time discussing matters related to your wounded pride.

Oh. But you will "waste time" writing articles about it. :rofl: No "you too" here, Brutus. I just want consistent regard. If Barker can ask for dough, if Infidel Guy can ask for dough, if PETA can ask for dough, why can't I? That's the debate: Give a real reason, or admit that Drooling for Dollars was a farce.

Dee Dee, if ^%$#&* gets his socks on we'll take this to another forum. It seems if you prick that ego enough you can always get some hot air to come out of it.

I assume that the other "evasion" you are referring to is the ostrich issue. If you have been reading my posts, you should know that I have agreed to debate this very minor issue if you will agree that after we have finished it, you will affirm that Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt was fulfilled in all of its details.

And I already told you what my answer would be throughout such a debate.

The ball is in your court and has been there for several days.

You can't see or feel it bouncing off the crown of your head, apparently.

Maybe it would go away if your omniscient, omnipotent deity would kiss it.

Don't expect it. If you keep bothering people I intend to send a plague of locusts to that patoot. You won't have much peace in your golden years.

You know what my challenge is. Post an example of something I have evaded, and I will reply to it point by point if you will reciprocate and agree to answer an argument that you have evaded.

Heck, you just evaded an answer on Infidel Guy for the 4th time. Good start there.

Your source with an "Enlgish" degree--was this a person who has a background in websites?

They know just a little about them, not enough to know how they're made, but they still got it clear. So if you're going to admit you made an error because of lack of knowledge of websites, fine -- at least we squeezed some admission of error out of you, albeit with enough squealing to bring the Metrodome down. I still would take that as a case of skilled rationalization, but it's progress. Meanwhile it doesn't make a whit of difference, because I could sub in terms for a newspaper column and it would be the same thing.

You'll save a lot more face at this point if you just admit you bungled in reading the first time. Otherwise you'll hear about this every few paragraphs from me for the rest of your life.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:
Till, Till, Till... I am concerned that an English professor has such either such a poor memory retention for points already answered or such a poor reading comprehension level.

Again from my field.... asked and answered ad nauseam, ad infinitum.....

Warren, Warren, Warren, if points have indeed already been answered, it may be that I didn't see them. Have you ever considered that? You are aware from our private correspondence, are you not, that (1) I have to limit my time at my computer to no more than two hours at a stretch, and (2) I find negotiating this site confusing?

What I don't understand is why either you or ****** or somebody doesn't just quote the answers that you claim have been given? You will excuse me if I don't necessarily believe a biblical inerrantist who says, "I have already answered that." My experience has been that biblical inerrantists don't answer far more than they do answer, and I have had a lot of experience with biblical inerrantists.

It is very strange to me that I consistently find evasions to specific questions and points in the posts that I do access and read but somehow, if I am to believe you and others, those points have been answered ad infinitum in posts that I seem not to have seen.

Yes, that is strange indeed.

[jpholding]

Farrell Till:


Warren, Warren, Warren, if points have indeed already been answered, it may be that I didn't see them. Have you ever considered that? You are aware from our private correspondence, are you not, that (1) I have to limit my time at my computer to no more than two hours at a stretch, and (2) I find negotiating this site confusing?

It is very strange to me that I consistently find evasions to specific questions and points in the posts that I do access and read but somehow, if I am to believe you and others, those points have been answered ad infinitum in posts that I seem not to have seen.



Poor &^%*%$. Always the victim, never ever at fault. :rofl:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Mr Till:

I do understand and empathize in technical difficulties, I have them quite frequently myself as I told you quite candidly privately. But I know that you have read the answers previously given because you have quoted them and interacted with them before and then turn around and a few pages later act like they were never given. They have been given in about every other page of this thread. Seek and ye shall find on your own. I frankly do not have the time to go through and extract out information that I know you did in fact see the first time. If I thought this was a mere matter of you having difficulty with navigation, I would bend over backwards to assist you, as you must honestly admit that I have in fact done and kept my word to you that I would.. but this is not a navigation issue but a comprehension issue, and I just cannot help you there.

[Farrell Till]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Farrell:

That is what prompted my challenge to you. If you do not believe it is an errancy issue than why in the world did you write about it, and ask me to see your “disproof” of it. Your words ring hollow here and seem more the words of a man who may have realized that you challenged the wrong chick on the wrong subject.

Oh, that's easy to answer, Dee Dee. I wrote on the subject because ****** arbitrarily declared that he and I were debating preterism. He made himself such an easy target with the nonsense that he published on the subject that I couldn't resist skinning him alive. My rebuttals at www.theskepticalreview.com, which he did not link his readers to, show that I succeeded. Anyone who reads my replies and then reads his "answers" at tektonics.org will see that he evaded most of my arguments and tried to substitute sarcasm, insults, and derogations for logical argumentation.

If you and I debate this subject, you will suffer the same fate that ****** did, because preterism is one of the most arbitrarily absurd religious doctrines I have ever seen. You will falter right at the starting gate, because you will be unable to prove the first criterion of valid prophecy fulfillment, which you must prove before you can claim an AD 70 fulfillment.

[Dee Dee Warren]

We shall see Mr. Till, we shall see. I am not going to clarify my starting points and problems with some of your deck-stacking until I see if you are at a complete stalemate with JP who is you should be debating. But since you are playing games, I offered myself as an alternative.

And nonsense to what you just said... the fact is that the idea that Jesus was incorrect in His statements in the Olivet Discourse has been a staple of the errancy pack. So to claim that this is solely a doctrinal issue is, as my good friend Dan Trotter would say, horse patookey. JP wrote on it, 'cause you guys fly it up the flagpole as a genuine error.

I will clarify where I am willing to start once we get to that point, and I will do that in the debate negotiation thread, not here.

[Farrell Till]

jpholding:
Till:

Quote to me any controversial biblical passage that has resulted in sectarian disagreements, tell me what you think its intended meaning was, and I will rewrite it so that this meaning will be evident to those who read it.

D'oh, are you paying attention? The meaning was evident when it was written; later rampant stupidity and egotism, not loss of clarity in the text, was the problem! We're back to the same old point on the circular argument you keep spinning in the air:

You have made another unsupported assertion. Let's see you prove that the "meaning was evident when it was written." If you are saying that the meaning of Matthew's text when read independently was clear when it was written, I certainly agree. There is really nothing confusing in it. If you are saying that the meaning of John's text when read independently was clear when it was written, I agree with it too. There is nothing confusing in it either.

Now try to read this very slowly, Turk, and see if you can get a handle on it. It is only when both texts are read and considered together that the problem arises, because the one text has Mary M hearing an angel announce the resurrection of Jesus and then actually seeing the resurrected Jesus as she was going to tell the disciples what the angel had told her, but, but, but, BUT, the other text has Mary M finding an empty tomb and then running to tell Peter and "John" that the body of Jesus had been stolen.

So the problem is that we need an explanation for why a woman who had seen and touched the resurrected Jesus would have told Peter and "John" that his body had been stolen.

If you can't see the problem, Turk, it is, to borrow a phrase from you, because you are stupid.

Now is anyone going to give a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy. Turk talks a lot about oral tradition, so why doesn't someone tell me why it isn't likely that "Matthew" wrote his narrative in accordance with a tradition he had heard, whereas "John" wrote his according to a separate tradition he had heard? To argue that this could not be the reason for the discrepancy because both writers were divinely "inspired" is to beg a question that needs to be proven.

Has anyone ever heard of Occam's razor? If so, which explanation for the discrepancy is more likely, the one being floated by Turk et al or the one just stated above. The two authors were writing from a base of separate traditions.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Mr. Till:

I know that due to your eye condition, you have limited computer time. Please remember to respond here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=839&perpage=15&pagenumber=5

edit: fixed a spelling error that changed the meaning of a sentence

[santa]

jpholding wrote:


D'oh, are you paying attention? The meaning was evident when it was written; later rampant stupidity and egotism, not loss of clarity in the text, was the problem!

Did this 'rampant stupidity' account for the inability of everyone, [including the apostles (until Matthew 17:10-12)], when it came to the matter identifying JBap as the awaited Eli'jah?

[Jaltus]

It is called "the Holy Spirit."

[santa]

jpholding wrote:


Still running in circles and getting dizzy, I see. There is only a certain level of logically possible clarity that can be achieved. As far as I am concerned, the Bible, Tacitus, Lao Tzu, etc are ALL 100% clear within their contexts and it is just uneducated, I'm-the-center-of-the-universe provinicialists like you that are the problem.

If everything was 100% clear in its context, then why did
John 20:8-9 say :

8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the scripture , that he must rise from the dead.

[charis humin]

If everything was 100% clear in its context, then why did
John 20:8-9 say :

8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the scripture , that he must rise from the dead.

:huh:

erm...now I'm certified confused. I thought FT's point was about whether 1st Cent. Christians would be clear on how to reconcile the accounts of Matthew and John, not whether the principles in the story were clear about what they were witnesses to

[santa]

erm...now I'm certified confused. I thought FT's point was about whether 1st Cent. Christians would be clear on how to reconcile the accounts of Matthew and John, not whether the principles in the story were clear about what they were witnesses to

I thought it was about why God couldn't inspire them to express things more clearly.

[charis humin]

how did expressing things clearly come out of a discussion on whether Matt and John's accounts of the Marys can be harmonized?

What do you judge not to be clear in each respective pericope?

[jpholding]

In rides once more &^%$#*, still dragging that same jackass he rode in on,

My rebuttals at www.theskepticalreview.com, which he did not link his readers to

Dear Ray Charles: Please see the links you claim are not there at http://www.tektonics.org/tilldebate.html which is right where you were told they'd be. Management is not responsible for your memory lapses.

show that I succeeded. Anyone who reads my replies and then reads his "answers" at tektonics.org will see that he evaded most of my arguments and tried to substitute sarcasm, insults, and derogations for logical argumentation.

But at least he has that canned line down pat. He can remember THAT, but not where he was told the links would be. :rolleyes:

You have made another unsupported assertion. Let's see you prove that the "meaning was evident when it was written." If you are saying that the meaning of Matthew's text when read independently was clear when it was written, I certainly agree. There is really nothing confusing in it. If you are saying that the meaning of John's text when read independently was clear when it was written, I agree with it too. There is nothing confusing in it either.

Huh, what? You say it is "unsupported" yet you agree with my point (the latter)! Any chance you'll get on those consistency pills sometime soon?

It is only when both texts are read and considered together that the problem arises, because the one text has Mary M hearing an angel announce the resurrection of Jesus and then actually seeing the resurrected Jesus as

We interrupt this blather to remind you that you are beating your head against the wrong wall, AGAIN. I answered this carp in http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html, and answered your lame reply to it ay http://www.tektonics.org/tillmatter.html in which I also included all the comments here which you have ignored. If you can't answer that, it's because you are decontextualized. As usual.

I also formally remind you not to use any part of my real name or any variation thereof. I know you are looking for excuses to get kicked off of here, but that's just too bad. You're hip deep in your own pile of manure now.

why doesn't someone tell me why it isn't likely that "Matthew" wrote his narrative in accordance with a tradition he had heard, whereas "John" wrote his according to a separate tradition he had heard? To argue that this could not be the reason for the discrepancy because both writers were divinely "inspired" is to beg a question that needs to be proven.

Well, duh, &^%^$*. Matthew's account has the character of a contrived narrative, as I explained. You are actually naive enough to think the actual events would have been so pat and simplistic? And you taught literature? I'd demand a refund if I had been in your class.

Has anyone ever heard of Occam's razor? If so, which explanation for the discrepancy is more likely

Mine, because it isn't a load of decontextualized bulldada. Occam's Razor just cut your head off at the neck. :duh:

[jpholding]

Dear Insanity Claus (possibly Brooks Trubee, but who knows):

Did this 'rampant stupidity' account for the inability of everyone, [including the apostles (until Matthew 17:10-12)], when it came to the matter identifying JBap as the awaited Eli'jah?

In a sense, though it's more a matter of options for fulfillement than it is stupidity,and this is not of the same order of things like "faith vs works" or social contexts or narrative techniques that ^%*^* and I are discussing. Rabbis interpreted Malachi as saying that Elijah, who had not actually died (but was taken up in a whirlwind), would himself return. Johnny B was aware that he was the Elijah-to-come predicted in Malachi and was telling the Jews in John 1 something to the effect of "I am not Elijah in the sense that you think of it." I.e., not the Elijah who went up in the whirlwind but a fulfilling type.

If everything was 100% clear in its context, then why did John 20:8-9 say : 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the scripture , that he must rise from the dead.

This is also references to prophetic oracles -- still not of the same order of what I am discussing with &^*%&* with reference to historical narrative. Try finishing the apples before you start on the oranges.

Ho, Ho, Twinkie.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I can't help myself...

[Socrates]

Socrates:
Hey, are you perhaps a Bible-sez-pi=3 errantist? Yes, Plimer tried that on too!

Feral Till:
No, I'm not. There are too many examples of discrepancies in the Bible on major themes and doctrines to waste time on such stuff as thisKewl :yipee:. But it's apparently OK for losers like Dan Bark-breath to solicit donations so he can practice just this sort of time-wasting!! But then you berate JP Holding for his far milder requests for donations, but not of course Infidel Guy.:bonk: :p


Feral:
Oh, you have never heard of the logical axiom that says he who asserts must prove?

JPH:
As Socrates said above, then, prove that this is so. Asserter.

FT "answered":
If I quote authorities in the field of logic, will you give them as much credence as you give to, say, a modern-day sociologist who claims to know that 3,000 years ago feelings of guilt didn't exist?

Resort to Argumentum ad verecundiam all you like, you can't get around the self-refuting nature of your claim!
:help:

[santa]

jpholding wrote:


In a sense, though it's more a matter of options for fulfillement than it is stupidity,and this is not of the same order of things like "faith vs works" or social contexts or narrative techniques that ^%*^* and I are discussing. Rabbis interpreted Malachi as saying that Elijah, who had not actually died (but was taken up in a whirlwind), would himself return. Johnny B was aware that he was the Elijah-to-come predicted in Malachi and was telling the Jews in John 1 something to the effect of "I am not Elijah in the sense that you think of it." I.e., not the Elijah who went up in the whirlwind but a fulfilling type.

Where do you find the text supporting this?
If Jewish exgetes were not able to understand their own scriptures then how do we?

[Farrell Till]

santa:


If everything was 100% clear in its context, then why did
John 20:8-9 say :

8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the scripture , that he must rise from the dead.

And if everything was 100% clear in its context, why is there so much wranging even among Bible believers over what the contexts of passages like this meant? To say that everything was 100% clear in its context is to make a bald assertion for which there is no evidence. However, the reality of mass confusion over what various biblical texts mean is all the evidence anyone needs to show that the Bible is not 100% clear in its context.

For pity's sake, doesn't anyone in this forum ever question what these tin-horn apologists say.

[Captain Ochre]

Farrell Till:


And if everything was 100% clear in its context, why is there so much wranging even among Bible believers over what the contexts of passages like this meant? To say that everything was 100% clear in its context is to make a bald assertion for which there is no evidence. However, the reality of mass confusion over what various biblical texts mean is all the evidence anyone needs to show that the Bible is not 100% clear in its context.

For pity's sake, doesn't anyone in this forum ever question what these tin-horn apologists say.

Sure, Mister Till, but you & santa keep popping up with plain errors that keep us amused & busy, such as your reiteration of your oft-sported anachronistic fallacy (using today's disputes regarding understanding to judge understanding within the original context when the thing was written).
Then there's also the spin you placed on J.P.'s statement regarding a collection of works, going from his "As far as I'm concerned ..." to "To say that everything was 100% clear in its context ..." with your appended charge of bald assertion.
Opinions do not require evidential support, fyi.
Maybe santa led you into that one with *his* spin, or something.
Yeah, blame it on santa.
;)

[jpholding]

santa:
jpholding wrote:



Where do you find the text supporting this?
If Jewish exgetes were not able to understand their own scriptures then how do we?

Pick up a copy of Keener and find out yourself. I'm not servant to every elf who expresses doubts based on no authority but their own lack of education. :p

As for the latter, you still don't differentiate between prophetic oracles (which need to be a little loose -- ever read David Eddings?) and narrative, which is what is under discussion.

[jpholding]

In rides *&^%*$ still tooting that same tin horn and riding the same dead horse:

And if everything was 100% clear in its context, why is there so much wranging even among Bible believers over what the contexts of passages like this meant?

Say it all at once now:

]"Beee-cause, they're all uneducated, decontextualized, and ethnocentric!"

The source of confusion is in your own mirror, &^%$*#. To say that the confusion shows that the text isn't clear is typical of your "blame the victim" approach but amounts to saying that it's Cessna's fault if some goober takes up one of their planes and crashes just because he decided he had the freethinking ability to pilot a plane if he thought he could.

Cry me a river and spare us the pity party.

For pity's sake, doesn't anyone in this forum ever question what these tin-horn apologists say.

Only tin-pants freethinkers with a chip on their shoulders. :rofl:

[santa]

jpholding wrote:


Pick up a copy of Keener and find out yourself. I'm not servant to every elf who expresses doubts based on no authority but their own lack of education.

I was requesting a citation from the Bible that would support what you said about JBap. Please accept my apology if my questions were rude or offensive.

jpholding wrote:


As for the latter, you still don't differentiate between prophetic oracles (which need to be a little loose -- ever read David Eddings?) and narrative, which is what is under discussion.

God could make both types clearer. So if Jewish exegetes did not understand the prophetic oracles in their own scriptures, how do we?

[charis humin]

God could make both types clearer.

Again, taking each respective account on its own terms, what isn't clear?

[jpholding]

OIC.

I was requesting a citation from the Bible that would support what you said about JBap. Please accept my apology if my questions were rude or offensive.

No worries. The same from me. There wouldn't be a Bible cite because the sources are rabbinix that help us determine the context of what is written in the Bible. Are you open to the idea that outside sources help us determine meaning? For of course we need knowledge of Greek for example to capture meanings of words used in the NT.

God could make both types clearer. So if Jewish exegetes did not understand the prophetic oracles in their own scriptures, how do we?

I'll have to ask you again if you read David Eddings. If not I'll explain, but remember again that narrative, not oracles, were the topic at issue. If this is taken further it may require a new thread.

[santa]

jpholding:
OIC.

I was requesting a citation from the Bible that would support what you said about JBap. Please accept my apology if my questions were rude or offensive.

No worries. The same from me. There wouldn't be a Bible cite because the sources are rabbinix that help us determine the context of what is written in the Bible. Are you open to the idea that outside sources help us determine meaning? For of course we need knowledge of Greek for example to capture meanings of words used in the NT.

Yes I am open to that idea. If you are speaking of Craig S. Keener, then I am ignorant of his work, and he does have many books. Which one should I read?:read:


jpholding said:

I'll have to ask you again if you read David Eddings. If not I'll explain, but remember again that narrative, not oracles, were the topic at issue. If this is taken further it may require a new thread.

The only David Eddings I found on amazon.com was a fantasy/fiction writer. I have not read anything by him. I have not read any other David Eddings either. :o

[santa]

charis humin:


Again, taking each respective account on its own terms, what isn't clear?

I was talking about the whole Bible and not just the accounts. I was asking if everything was clear in its context.

[charis humin]

I was talking about the whole Bible and not just the accounts. I was asking if everything was clear in its context.

hmmm...since I assume that the original authors of the texts wrote with the purpose of being understood, I would so at least most of what is in the biblical record was clear to those to whom the texts were written.

This does not mean that I deny the existence of some ambiguities that have caused interpretive difficulties over time. But our two texts in question, Matthew 28 and John 20, do not present such difficulties IMO.

And again, with respect to understanding of prophecies, that issue really belongs to a separate thread from this.

[jpholding]

Ho Ho Hello,

Yes I am open to that idea. If you are speaking of Craig S. Keener, then I am ignorant of his work, and he does have many books. Which one should I read?

The one I am using is his Matthew commentary, but if you have a studious interest I wouldn't recommend picking up something that heavy -- financially and contextually as well as physically. I would dtart out with Longenecker's book Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. It will give you an idea how the ancients viewed and used the text -- which would be a prelim to accepting and fully understanding what Keener is saying.

The only David Eddings I found on amazon.com was a fantasy/fiction writer. I have not read anything by him.

That's him. :) Now you may ask yourself, "Why is he asking about that?" Well, Eddings illustrates my point about oracles. (Bearing in mind again that my original argument was about narrative.) Unlike narrative, oracles NEED to be vague to a degree. Why? Eddings' primary charcater is a sorceror named Belgarath who complains that the prophecies he has to follow are sometimes to vague for his tastes. The deity of that world replies that the vagueness was necessary to keep Belgarath from knowing too much and trying to interfere more than he needed to. I think the same principle appleies to Biblical oracles to a good extent.

If you want more on this another thread might be a good idea. The mods here are real beasts. :erm:

[Dee Dee Warren]

If you want more on this another thread might be a good idea. The mods here are real beasts. :erm:

Don't mind Jaltus... he is just cranky because he receives 1098 email notifications from this Board each day.

[Robin Goodfellow]

JP, I appreciate your patience and understanding about my tardy replies. Please continue to expect delays in the days ahead.


jpholding:
ROBIN GOODFELLOW
My experience has been that inerrantists consistently try to block any attempt to judge the Bible by the same reasonable standards we'd apply to anything else:

JP HOLDING
"Anything else"? How about just, "anything written in the same time and culture"? I would say it is out of line to apply the standards of the 21st century to Tacitus.

We should certainly understand Tacitus and Homer in historical and cultural context. But does that mean we should accept Homer’s claims about Zeus, as this article suggests?

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/1/981price.html

Farrell Till here outlines other claims we’d have to believe if proper contextualization means that all our twenty-first century standards of reasonableness must be discarded:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/3/3claim95.html

jpholding:
ROBIN GOODFELLOW
But how reasonable would it be to limit our demands of the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, or Nostradamus, to whatever degree of clarity or specificity they happen to have?

JP HOLDING
Very reasonable, provided those degrees come from appropriate contextual study.

We agree on the importance of appropriate contextual study. But are you saying we can’t reasonably question whether a greater degree of clarity or specificity should be expected of such works than whatever they happen to have?

jpholding:
Why do you ask?

Oh, no reason. :-)

jpholding:
ROBIN GOODFELLOW
Not reasonable at all, in my opinion. We should instead use intelligence and common sense to decide what standards we'd expect of any book claiming to be the Word of God, and then see whether the Bible, or the

JP HOLDING
"Intelligence" and "common sense" will get you nowhere when approaching a text with foreign conceptions of language, culture, and thought. To do this is to decontextualize illicitly. This is the mistake that "freethinkers" consistently make in their arrogance.

I agree that it’s necessary to understand a document’s language and culture in order to understand what the text means. And that does often involve setting aside preconceptions embedded in modern Western language and culture. But it’s a serious mistake to jump from that to the conclusion that intelligence and common sense should be entirely abandoned when evaluating the truth of claims in the text.

For your convenience, I’ll repost my answer to Kris when he touched on this earlier in the thread:

Robin Godfellow:
Kris, historical methodology is exactly what would cause us to conclude it’s some sort of legend or fabrication. Many miraculous legends have grown up around historical figures such as Roman emperors and even Alexander the Great. Historians use common sense and critical thinking to discount these in the same way that most Christians discount Joseph Smith’s claim about the angel Moroni and his golden plates, and reports that mass numbers of Americans are being abducted and given anal probes by space aliens.

Any claim wildly inconsistent with what we’ve been able to verify about the world is inherently unlikely and would need extraordinarily strong evidence to warrant belief. Think how strong the evidence would need to be for you to believe that a twelve-year-old girl jumped up fifteen feet onto a rooftop. And yet the unlikelihood of that is nothing compared to the claim that a man arose after three days of absolute death because that particular man is actually the creator of the universe. You’d understand this principle instantly if the same absurdly unlikely claim were made of anyone but Jesus.

The fact that legends and fabrications do arise has been verified many times over, and so is a much more likely explanation for the existence of miraculous stories. That historians recognize this is the reason we aren’t taught in school that Zeus and Apollo exist and actually participated in ancient Greek wars.

This is explained much more comprehensively in Till’s article here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/2/2claim97.html


jpholding:
ROBIN GOODFELLOW
JP would have us think this is nothing more than ethnocentric selfishness, that God isn’t “obligated” to behave in a way that makes sense to us. But isn’t it more likely that God would understand the importance of using intelligent, common-sense evaluation to distinguish between true religion and competing false religions?

JP HOLDING
No. Why should it be more likely, other than that you have an expressed preference for your own methodology?

Is it reasonable to consider any one thing more likely for a Supreme Being to do than any other thing? This is a core issue on which you and I disagree, and I want readers to see it clearly. I suspect many evangelicals and perhaps even some inerrantists may find it hard to agree with you on this.

The 1973 book Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? asked, “Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?” Rennie Davis, defendant in the notorious Chicago Seven trial, “had an aura of clarity about him,” according to an article in the 1974 Texas Monthly. “He was considered one of the most solid and sane [anti-war] movement leaders.” Davis wrote in his introduction to Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? , “When a devotee makes the outrageous statement that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe, it's cause enough for a chuckle. But it also happens to be true. Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe and anyone can find out who sincerely wants to know.”

The same Texas Monthly article, God Goes to the Astrodome, profiled architect Larry Bernstein, who was almost, but not quite, skeptical.

God Goes to the Astrodome:
Bernstein studied industrial engineering and architecture at M.I.T., spent a year with Frank Lloyd Wright and several years as an industrial design consultant. His achievements in architecture and related fields have won him awards and respect. He took the Knowledge and became a follower of Guru Maharaj Ji early last year.

[...]

We can understand why a visionary architect would want to build a city, but why for a 15-year-old chubby kid from India?

[...]

"I think he appears as a fat little kid just to confuse us. You know, after I took the Knowledge, I freaked out over the outlandish things Maharaj Ji would do. I kept saying to myself, you know, this is a hell of a way for a God to act. I mean, this guy must be a fraud...".

There's a Hindi concept called lila which is sort of like Divine play. Larry Bernstein figures that the kid God knows very well what he's up to.

"All I know is that Maharaj Ji is not from around this neighborhood. He is a power that you and I don't know how to handle, yet. And he has his own way of doing things. He's going to do things for the good of his overall plan. And it's not going to jibe with anything we consider realistic."

So Bernstein noticed that Maharaj Ji sometimes behaved in “a hell of a way for a God to act.” But, in the end, he brushed these observations aside by thinking, “He's going to do things for the good of his overall plan. And it's not going to jibe with anything we consider realistic.” Bernstein also "contextualized" by recognizing that “God” had manifested in a country with a different language and culture; one with a Hindu concept "called lila which is sort of like Divine play.”

To readers who agree with JP, it would appear that Bernstein was correct in putting aside his skepticism, because there seems to be no room in JP’s approach for such questions as, “How reasonable is it to believe this?” But readers who agree with me will consider that, even when dealing with another language and culture, common-sense judgments about what could reasonably be expected of a Supreme Being remain relevant.

jpholding:
ROBIN GOODFELLOW
Why would He have given us that capacity if He didn’t want us to use it?

JP HOLDING
You can use it -- to recontextualize the texts.

It is important to let scholars help us understand ancient documents in context, and to use our intelligence in that service. But this can be done without disposing of our critical thinking skills. If God exists and wants us to know about Him, it seems likely to me that He’d want us to use intelligent, common-sense evaluation, not only to understand documents in context, but also to distinguish truth from falsity. That’s what Larry Bernstein failed to do, and it seems likely that God, if He exists, would have wanted Bernstein to make some common-sense judgments somewhere along the way.

Unless they’re willing to do this, it will be extremely hard for believers of false religions to see the error of their ways. This is probably why so many Hindu-born people remain Hindu, Muslim-born people remain Muslim, and so on. Readers should consider whether they think God would want us to use our critical intelligence this way to help free ourselves from false belief.

This is a pivotal issue -- the very legitimacy of using our sense of reasonableness to ask "How likely is this?" JP and Larry Bernstein are on one side, Farrell Till and I are on the other.

jpholding:
ROBIN GOODFELLOW
That means we have no right to make our own assessments of Mithra, Guru Mahara-ji, Sai Baba, Allah, Vishnu, Ahura-Mazda, or any other claimed deities, and decide whether we think they and their holy books appear to rise to the level we’d expect of a Supreme Being and His Word. They, as alleged Supreme Beings, aren’t “obligated” to seem reasonable to us.

JP HOLDING
In terms of evaluating them in their contexts, that is correct. And if you check in on the work I do, you will see that I made assessments of Mithra only after doing appropriate digging. As for the rest, I'm waiting for good reasons to consider them...one at a time.

Claims that so-and-so is God and such-and-such is His agenda should certainly be evaluated in context. Everything should be evaluated in context. But it's my position that this can be done without the gullibility shown by Larry Bernstein and so many others -- without, as I said above, dispensing with common sense and critical thinking.

Robin Goodfellow

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robin:

Done!!

[jpholding]

Howdy.

We should certainly understand Tacitus and Homer in historical and cultural context. But does that mean we should accept Homer’s claims about Zeus, as this article suggests?

I wrote a response to that -- my basic answer was that I really don't see a need to care about that one way or the other, since it's obvious that if Zeus really did all that, he sure isn't around now, so he was either body-slammed out of contention or else Homer was just being creative. I can live with either idea.

Farrell Till here outlines other claims we’d have to believe if proper contextualization means that all our twenty-first century standards of reasonableness must be discarded:

Accepting FTill as an authority on such ideas is never a good idea. :)

But are you saying we can’t reasonably question whether a greater degree of clarity or specificity should be expected of such works than whatever they happen to have?

You can, but one had best have a thorough enough knowledge before making such critiques. One can speak of making things more "clear" but it's also a good idea to remember that it's not just a matter of "clarity" to people across generations but also of effectiveness to the primary audience. I was at the Wycliffe translators' office this weekend and there was a display about a Central American language where there are 26 different words for "carry" depending on how you carry something -- on the shoulder, over the shoulder, by fingertips, holding an item vertically, by a corner, etc. We use one word for all 26 ideas, "carry". If some alleged problem turned on something like this, it would be absurd to complain, i.e, that God didn't make things "clear" to us.

But it’s a serious mistake to jump from that to the conclusion that intelligence and common sense should be entirely abandoned when evaluating the truth of claims in the text.

And who said that, pray tell? :)

For your convenience, I’ll repost my answer to Kris when he touched on this earlier in the thread:

It all seemed rather vague. Which one can we discuss specifically?

Is it reasonable to consider any one thing more likely for a Supreme Being to do than any other thing?

Yes. Why?

The Maharaj Ji stuff is interesting, but since that movement is essentially dead I'm not sure what the relevance is here. I also don't see much of a parallel in terms of contextualization. There were not texts involved and from the looks of it Bernstein was just relating the matter to a core premise of Hinduism (pantheism).

is important to let scholars help us understand ancient documents in context, and to use our intelligence in that service. But this can be done without disposing of our critical thinking skills.

And again, who told you to do this, and where? What I say is that you can't arrogantly assume that you can just rumble into the text with "common sense" and "critical thinking" as though that's all you need. Which is again, the error of a predominant number of "freethinkers".

As an aside, I'm trying to decide who that is in your avatar. I have three guesses:

1) James Randi.
2) Andrew Weil.
3) A guy named Dan who used to work for the local seminary library.

[J. J. Ramsey]

jpholding:
Howdy.

We should certainly understand Tacitus and Homer in historical and cultural context. But does that mean we should accept Homer’s claims about Zeus, as this article suggests?

I wrote a response to that -- my basic answer was that I really don't see a need to care about that one way or the other, since it's obvious that if Zeus really did all that, he sure isn't around now, so he was either body-slammed out of contention or else Homer was just being creative. I can live with either idea.


Also, as Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank (www.christian-thinktank.com) has pointed out, poetry was not meant to be taken literally.

[charis humin]

JP:

As an aside, I'm trying to decide who that is in your avatar. I have three guesses:
1) James Randi.
2) Andrew Weil.
3) A guy named Dan who used to work for the local seminary library.



My vote goes to Andrew Weil.

[Dee Dee Warren]

My vote goes for Dan.

[Joseph Alward]

STEVENCARRWORK
"Is it the general view that some Gospel stories are contrived?"


JOE ALWARD
I would be surprised to find that that is the "general view," but speaking for myself, I can say that I'm virtually certain that many--if not all--of the gospel stories are fictional, and are patterned after Old Testament events. You can use the word "contrived," if you want.

What seems to have happened is that over decades, oral traditional tales based on events in the lives of certain Old Testament heroes--including Yahweh, but with Jesus as the hero, evolved into the stories about Jesus eventually recorded by the gospel writers. There are many examples of such stories, so I'll just mention a few here.

Elisha's miraculous feeding of the one hundred with a handful of bread, with food left over, became Mark's Jesus' miraculous feeding of the five thousand with a handful of bread, with food left over.

David's betrayal by one close to him, and his subsequent journey up Mount Olives, where he prayerfully noted that God will with him would be done, became Jesus' betrayal by one close to him, and his subsequent journed up Mount Olives, where he prayerfully noted that God's will with him would be done.

The Lord passing by Moses became Jesus' intention to "pass by" his disciples in the boat on the Sea of Galilee.

Interested readers will find articles on the many parallels between gospel stories and their antecedents in the Old Testament in the "Gospels" section of the directory on the web page given in the signature below.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Of course any parallels can also just easily be God's typological fulfillment of Israel's history which was always intended to be prophetic.

[jpholding]

Hey again Mr A,

What seems to have happened is that over decades, oral traditional tales based on events in the lives of certain Old Testament heroes--including Yahweh, but with Jesus as the hero, evolved into the stories about Jesus eventually recorded by the gospel writers

Well, as I noted in the other thread, of course I recognize this as one of your, um, key themes: "imitation = fiction". The problem is (again) that you never explain how the leap is made from one to the other. It's merely assumed in your paradigm. You's also be hard pressed to explain how oral traditions became so modified. That would be unique in the history of oral tradition and unparalleled in any of the literature on the subject of oral transmission.

Elisha's miraculous feeding of the one hundred with a handful of bread, with food left over, became Mark's Jesus' miraculous feeding of the five thousand with a handful of bread, with food left over.

Tut tut. Your paradigm at work again. Two things here. First, you are clearly viewing this through a Western lens. The ancients were of a mind that Jesus would purposely re-enact a similar miracle to that of a great prophet (like Elisha), in order to invoke certain conceptions. Second, you're playing the game of "lowest common denominator". I'll plagiarize Glenn Miller here. (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qotripoff.html) First, you point out similarities, but don't forget differences:


1. In Kings, the prophet feeds the disciples ("sons of the prophets"); in the NT the Prophet feeds the people through the agency of the disciples.

2. In the OT, they have bread and corn; in the NT, bread and fish. (notice that Matthew does not make the 'barley' connection, like the later John does.)

3. In the OT, the donor was a man; in the NT, a lad.

4. In the OT, the donor had just come from a trip; in the NT, the lad was with them.

5. In the OT, the loaves/ears were a religious sacrifice (first fruits); in the NT, it was the kid's family's lunch (probably).

6. In the OT, there is no indication that E. handled the food, nor blessed it; in the NT, Jesus was explicit in both.

Overall, the nature of the miracle looks the same (expansion of food supply), but the actual plot differs. Although Jesus takes care of the needs of the people (but of his "audience", instead of his disciples, differing from 2 Kings), the 'plot' seems more to be the teaching of the disciples, than the simple feeding of hungry folk. Verse 6 in John's account makes this 'testing' motif clear. Jesus even uses this feeding (along with the feeding of the 4,000) in a teaching lesson with them later (Matt 16.8ff).

We need also to remember that 'feeding miracles' were not altogether uncommon at the time:

"Miracles of multiplying food appear in the Old Testament (cf., e.g., 1 Kings 17:16; 19:8) and occasionally in Jewish tradition (cf. the oil in late traditions about the Maccabees) and Greco-Roman texts; the background here is 2 Kings 4 and especially the manna of Exodus 16..." (BBC: in loc. John 6.11)

One such 'food appearing' miracle shows up in the Jewish lit:

"His (Hanina ben Dosa's) wife used to heat the oven every sabbath eve and used to throw fuel in to make smoke because of the shame (that is, because she was ashamed before her neighbors of having no food). She had this spiteful neighbor. She (the neighbor) said, 'This is odd, when I know they have nothing, nothing at all. What does all this mean?' She (the neighbor) went and knocked on the door (of Hanina's house). She (Hanina's wife) was ashamed and went into the room. Then a miracle took place for her (Hanina's wife): she saw the oven full of bread and the trough full of dough. Then she (the neighbor) said to her, 'Bring a shovel. Your loaves are beginning to burn.' And she (Hanina's wife) said to her, 'That's why I went in'" (b. Taanit. 24bf]

We might also point out that others have noted similar connections with the OT passage:

"The 'barley' loaves are reminiscent of 2 Kings 4:42-44, where Elisha multiplies such loaves. Philip's and Andrew's skepticism also mirrors that of Elisha's prophet disciples (2 Kings 4:43)" [BBC: in loc. John 6.8-9]

And against your "rewite" scenario -- the first point mirroring my own:

...all the data we have about Jesus of Nazareth suggests that he thought himself to be the messiah. And as such, he was to be the Second Moses and prophet of prophets. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he could not have deliberately structured this miracle after the miracle of one of his predecessors. He was consistently putting himself in the line of succession of the OT prophets (e.g., Luke 13.33; Luke 11.50; Matt 13.57; Matt 21.11). He was certainly familiar with the stories of Elijah and Elisha (Luke 4.25ff), and was deliberate in his efforts to fulfill his destiny as he saw it written in the OT/Tanaakh. The entire Jewish culture expected the messianic age to be filled with "echoes" of the OT history. There is all the reason in the world for Him to deliberately emulate OT stories, when the appropriate occasion arose, and this would certainly be no exception.

...although there are elements in continuity with the Elisha story, the stronger link is that with Moses and the manna (as noted above). Jesus as the "new Moses" (cf. Deut 18.15) is a theme in John, and in this passage the people respond in this way, as opposed to anything relative to Elisha....

...there are enough strong discontinuities (noted above) between the two passages to discount literary borrowing at such a radical level.

....we run into all the difficulties with ethics of fabrication, the difficulty of escaping detection in a closed literary circle (the apostolic church) <http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat2.html>, and the logistics challenge of making it up and trying to 'edit it into' an existing gospel! The sheer difficulties of doing this successfully count against the plausibility of such a theory...

We're discussing David and Judas in that other thread. The "passing by" of course would be an easy literary allusion without sacrificing historicity.

As an aside, are you no longer "into" MacDonald's Homeric explanations of these passages? Or were you not convinced by those particulars before?

[Joseph Alward]

DEE DEE WARREN
Of course any parallels can also just [as] easily be God's typological fulfillment of Israel's history which was always intended to be prophetic.

JOE ALWARD
When I present evidence that gospel stories are fictional adaptations of scriptural stories, with Jesus as the hero, it is for the purpose of showing that perhaps the god described by the Bible is fictional, too. Now, if the believer counters evidence that the gospels are fictional by saying that the antecedents were orchestrated by God in order that Jesus' first coming be foreshadowed, then that is the same as saying that the god of the Bible exists because the Bible has no error because God made sure it had no error. This is circular reasoning, sometimes called "begging the question."

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
As an aside, are you no longer "into" MacDonald's Homeric explanations of these passages? Or were you not convinced by those particulars before?

JOE ALWARD
I was initially impressed with Dennis MacDonald's theory and "evidence" that Mark based his stories about Jesus on Odysseus. You may have noticed that in three or four of my articles on the gospel origins, I try to show that MacDonald's theory of a Homeric connection is nonsensical. In fact, I think much of the "evidence" of Homeric antecedence existed largely in his imagination.

The best part of MacDonald's book is the first chapter. There, he explains the practice of "mimesis," which is what I believe was probably going on with the construction of the gospels. In my opinion, oral tradition, perhaps, or just highschoolers practicing their Greek, led to the creation of stories about Jesus in which he was made to emulate scriptural heroes. Astonishingly, MacDonald believes that the Markan stories were a product of emulation of events in the life of Odysseus as described in Iliad and Odyssey, and largely ignores the much more direct and straightforward connection to scripture (though he acknowledge the similarities of the Markan stories to scriptural ones). He believes that Mark had his Jesus emulate Odysseus, rather than Elisha, Elijah, David, and Yahweh. In my articles, I argue that this unbelievable.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Joseph Alward:


JOE ALWARD
When I present evidence that gospel stories are fictional adaptations of scriptural stories, with Jesus as the hero, it is for the purpose of showing that perhaps the god described by the Bible is fictional, too. Now, if the believer counters evidence that the gospels are fictional by saying that the antecedents were orchestrated by God in order that Jesus' first coming be foreshadowed, then that is the same as saying that the god of the Bible exists because the Bible has no error because God made sure it had no error. This is circular reasoning, sometimes called &quot;begging the question.&quot;

LOL!! No more than what you are doing!! Ironic ain't it?

[Joseph Alward]

DEE DEE WARREN
Of course any parallels can also just [as] easily be God's typological fulfillment of Israel's history which was always intended to be prophetic.


JOE ALWARD
When I present evidence that gospel stories are fictional adaptations of scriptural stories, with Jesus as the hero, it is for the purpose of showing that perhaps the god described by the Bible is fictional, too. Now, if the believer counters evidence that the gospels are fictional by saying that the antecedents were orchestrated by God in order that Jesus' first coming be foreshadowed, then that is the same as saying that the god of the Bible exists because the Bible has no error because God made sure it had no error. This is circular reasoning, sometimes called "begging the question."

DEE DEE WARREN

LOL!! No more than what you are doing!! Ironic ain't it?

JOE ALWARD
I don't think so. You're essentially arguing that God exists because God's prophecies were fulfilled, and that's begging the question. In other words, God exists because God exists.

In order for my argument to have been circular, I would have to have been arguing that the gospels are fictional because the gospels are fictional. I didn't do that, did I?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Actually you did. I was not arguing for the existence of God, it was presumed in my answer as an alternative paradigm that is all. You are presuming the existence of no god and arguing a certain paradigm. It is no different, and is the substance of presuppositional apologetics.

[Captain Ochre]

J. Alward had emitted the following:

"Now, if the believer counters evidence that the gospels are fictional by saying that the antecedents were orchestrated by God in order that Jesus' first coming be foreshadowed, then that is the same as saying that the god of the Bible exists because the Bible has no error because God made sure it had no error. This is circular reasoning, sometimes called "begging the question."

Seems to me that your perception of question-begging may be simply misguided.
If evidence is presented toward a certain end, which Joe had previously granted (fictional Bible material=> fictional god), then it is simply a practice of logic to look for counterexamples that agree with the premisses but disagree with the conclusion (this is called argument via counterexample).
Seems to me that intentional imitation of the prophets in the life of Christ is not only a reasonable counterexample, but it is also probabilistically strong owing to the increased understanding of ANE literary genres.

We now return to the regularly scheduled war of words.

:smile:

[Blake Reas]

In my opinion, oral tradition, perhaps, or just highschoolers practicing their Greek, led to the creation of stories about Jesus in which he was made to emulate scriptural heroes.

Joseph tell me you are not serious! It takes a very high degree of Hyper skepticism to say that the stories about Jesus where made up! Even Critical scholars are saying that in the earliest "layers" of tradition that the miracle stories are historical!
The thing about High Schoolers practicing Greek was a joke right? You also must give evidence that the stories where complete fabrication, which I do not think you can do!

In Christ,
Blake
P.S. See no annoying Smiley faces!

Frustrated Skeptic:

[Joseph Alward]

DEE DEE WARREN
You are presuming the existence of no god and arguing a certain paradigm. It is no different, and is the substance of presuppositional apologetics.

JOE ALWARD
The actual difference between me and those who presuppose the existence of a supernatural being is that I insist on seeing extraordinary evidence before I will believe that an extraordinary event has occurred.

[Captain Ochre]

Joseph Alward:


JOE ALWARD
The actual difference between me and those who presuppose the existence of a supernatural being is that I insist on seeing extraordinary evidence before I will believe that an extraordinary event has occurred.

That's assuming that your worldview perspective is comparably self-consistent and explanatory, isn't it?

I don't see you getting Dee Dee's point, at the moment.

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,


Seems to me that intentional imitation of the prophets in the life of Christ is not only a reasonable counterexample, but it is also probabilistically strong owing to the increased understanding of ANE literary genres.

This assumes that the stories in both the OT and the NT that deal with "prohecies" are true. Why should people believe they are true?

Jimbo

[jpholding]

Holding my nose here against Jimbo's latest fart...

I was initially impressed with Dennis MacDonald's theory and "evidence" that Mark based his stories about Jesus on Odysseus. You may have noticed that in three or four of my articles on the gospel origins, I try to show that MacDonald's theory of a Homeric connection is nonsensical.

I was aware of a mixed set of views by you. Just couldn't remember which ones you thought good and which ones not.

The best part of MacDonald's book is the first chapter. There, he explains the practice of "mimesis," which is what I believe was probably going on with the construction of the gospels.

I think you are right to an extent, but MacD made a base assumption -- which I noted previously, but you may have missed -- that mimesis automatically shows an account to be fiction. From what I read of mimesis -- including sources that MacD used himself, but only as much as he wanted -- that's not the case. A very clumsy mimetic effort could result in "fictionalizing" but a very skilled effort did not, and historicity is not determined by the bare presence of mimesis. Thus for example as I showed at http://www.tektonics.org/abehomer.html it would be very easy to render an account of Lincoln's assassination as "fiction" by comparing it to Kennedy's. Thousands of years of distance and a freedom to psychoanalyze don't hurt either.

In my opinion, oral tradition, perhaps, or just highschoolers practicing their Greek, led to the creation of stories about Jesus in which he was made to emulate scriptural heroes.

Oral tradition was too secure in the ancient world to cause such things to happen. As for highschoolers, that sounds like Mack's thesis, but he didn't show us any examples of such school exercises trying -- much less suceeding -- to be passed off as actual history. Mack also doesn't have much of a grip on the social science aspects that would make such fabrication impossible. I can relate more on this if you like but it would go a little off topic.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
Oral tradition was too secure in the ancient world to cause such things to happen. As for highschoolers, that sounds like Mack's thesis, but he didn't show us any examples of such school exercises trying -- much less suceeding -- to be passed off as actual history.

JOE ALWARD
Actually, Dennis doesn't suggest that students were responsible for the gospel stories in Mark, though it surely must have crossed his mind. I found most intriguing his evidence that students and teachers of Greek in the first century made heavy use of mimesis/emulation in Greek writing classes. He didn't suggest it, but I thought, What better way to practice Greek than to imitate the heroes of Scripture?

You are absolutely right that MacDonald didn't show any examples of students employing mimesis, and I imagine that's because no examples of it have been found, else he surely would have shown them. If one accepts that Mark's Greek is generally regarded by Greek scholars as primitive--about as bad as one would expect from a beginner, and further accepts that the Markan stories are generally unimaginative adaptations of scriptural stories, then it is not hard to imagine that sophomores in high school are responsible for the Gospel of Mark. And based on that gospel, decades later perhaps, came Luke and Matthew largely plagiarized gospels.

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,



This assumes that the stories in both the OT and the NT that deal with &quot;prohecies&quot; are true.


No, it doesn't asssume anything to be true. It simply makes a case for how they could be reasonably true, and in the case of probabilistic argument, why they should be likely to be true.




Why should people believe they are true?

Jimbo

Because it is reasonable to do so.

See above (perhaps for the first time?).