on Sailhamer - for Socrates

[BrianB]

Socrates,

On page 2 of the "NIV mistranslations: a yes for a no?" thread you say:

---begin quote---
OTOH the NIV does well in Genesis 2:19, rendering wayyitser as the pluperfect "had formed", which removes a favorite biblioskeptical alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. I wish more translations would do this. BTW, Sailhamer disagreed with this because he desires to make the chapters contradictory...
---end quote---
http://tinyurl.com/7hfv

Please provide evidence for your assertion that Sailhamer "desires to make the chapters contradictory." It's my understanding that Sailhamer is solidly evangelical, but if you can show where he expresses this desire, I'm sure the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary would be interested.

Or is this just a conscious misrepresentation of Sailhamer?

Brian

[Socrates]

BrianB whinged:
On page 2 of the "NIV mistranslations: a yes for a no?" thread you say:
OTOH the NIV does well in Genesis 2:19, rendering wayyitser as the pluperfect "had formed", which removes a favorite biblioskeptical alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. I wish more translations would do this. BTW, Sailhamer disagreed with this because he desires to make the chapters contradictory...

Then he demanded:
Please provide evidence for your assertion that Sailhamer "desires to make the chapters contradictory."
It's in Genesis Unbound, pp. 89-90. See this review (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n3genesis_unbound.asp) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n3genesis_unbound.asp
It's my understanding that Sailhamer is solidly evangelical, but if you can show where he expresses this desire, I'm sure the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary would be interested.Why would they be, unless they are different from most theological seminaries and actually believe faithfulness to God's Word is more important than academic qualifications?
Or is this just a conscious misrepresentation of Sailhamer?Watch it, mate!:fight:

[BrianB]

Socrates,

After further investigating the matter I’ve come to the conclusion that you have either

1. Intentionally slandered John Sailhamer or
2. Unintentionally slandered John Sailhamer

I’ll begin with your original claim:
---begin quote---
OTOH the NIV does well in Genesis 2:19, rendering wayyitser as the pluperfect "had formed", which removes a favorite biblioskeptical alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. I wish more translations would do this. BTW, Sailhamer disagreed with this because he desires to make the chapters contradictory...
---end quote---
http://tinyurl.com/7hfv

Here it is obvious that you are purposely trying to make Sailhamer look anti-Scripture by saying that he “desires to make the chapters contradictory” and you appeal to Kulikovsky’s review of Sailhamer’s book to support your contention. The only area in Kulikovsky’s review that has the word ‘contradict’ and discusses this issue lends no support to your assertion that Sailhamer “desires to make the chapters contradictory.” Sailhamer has no such desire and is in fact defending Scripture by saying that the apparent contradiction is due to reading the text with a modern mindset and not taking the context into account. (Kulikovsky even identifies it as apparent) How you go from that to your inane comment about Sailhamer is beyond me. I have consulted with someone who has read (and reread after I contacted him) the relevant material, and he agrees with me that you’re way out of line about Sailhamer’s desire.

John Sailhamer is thoroughly evangelical, even being the President of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2000. Your attempt to slander him and make him look anti-Scripture is sinful and requires repentance on your part. If it was unintentional then you should in addition ask yourself how you could be so uncharitable towards him that you would misread even Kulikovsky’s article and foist your own misguided mindset on it. Perhaps this is an excellent time for you to take a step back and think about why your bias so clouded your thinking here. Your un-Christlike attitude being displayed toward not only the non-Christians on this board (especially in the science section) but also toward men like Sailhamer is unexcusable.

You need to repent of your sinful actions toward a highly respected evangelical, whether intentional or unintentional, and it would be wise to examine thyself and determine why your mind was so clouded.

Brian

[Socrates]

BrianBoy:

You need to repent of your compromise of the Word of God with man-made "science" which is really interpretations of data within a materialistic framework. And you further need to repent of your support for a person who manufactures "contradictions" to deny the plain meaning of the text, so he can compromise with billions of years (and Kulikovsky also agreed that Sailhamer's eisegsis was intolerable). Lastly, you need to repent of your attack against a Christian who exposes compromise teaching.

[BrianB]

Re:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=45974#post45974

Socrates,

Are you serious? You don’t see a problem with the fact that you falsely represented Sailhamer? Dishonesty is ok for you? Regardless of how much you think he’s deceived about what the Bible teaches concerning creation, do you actually think it’s ok to falsely represent his motives?

Brian

[Socrates]

Brianboy writes:Are you serious? You don’t see a problem with the fact that you falsely represented Sailhamer? Dishonesty is ok for you? Regardless of how much you think he’s deceived about what the Bible teaches concerning creation, do you actually think it’s ok to falsely represent his motives?Are you serious? You don’t see a problem with the fact that you falsely represented me? Dishonesty is ok for you? Regardless of how much you think I'm deceived about what the Bible teaches concerning creation, do you actually think it’s ok to falsely represent my motives?

[BrianB]

Socrates,

How should I even respond to you? Your actions are completely at odds with one who would call himself a follower of Jesus Christ. Not only have you slandered a leader in the evangelical world spreading a lie, but it now appears that you did so intentionally with no desire to retract your misrepresentation and repent of your actions after it has been demonstrated that you are in serious error. Your persistence in promoting lies is telling of your character. It is because of uncharitable and irrational dogmatists such as yourself that God’s name is blasphemed among the gentiles. If I were a nonbeliever and judged Christian theism by your actions, I’d dismiss it in an instant. You do a great disservice not only to the name of Christ, but even to those who would promote a young-earth interpretation of the biblical texts. It is entirely possible to be a critical-thinking Young Earth Creationist, but no one would ever know it judging from your actions.

Why should anyone take you seriously when you manifest such a blindness and venomous spirit that causes you to lie and slander honorable men like Sailhamer?

I will, for one, attempt to distance myself from you as much as possible because you do more harm than good in the name of the one you claim to follow. I can only hope that the nonbelievers who witness your actions rightly dismiss you as just another dogmatist not representative of the Christian worldview.

Brian

[Sher]

Socrates supported his assertion that Sailhamer "desires to make the chapters contradictory" with Kulikovsky’s review of Sailhamer’s book: However, despite admitting ... Sailhamer claims Sailhamer essentially holds to a kind of modified gap theory. He argues ... and thus provides no support at all for Sailhamer’s claim. According to Sailhamer ... But this is a very dubious conclusion indeed Despite his plea to allow the text of Genesis to speak for itself, Sailhamer fails to take his own advice Sailhamer’s interpretation involves many other fanciful ideas ... Sailhamer considers ... But such a belief is surely absurd ... Sailhamer seems to assume ... He doesn’t even consider In a surprising statement ... Sailhamer also claims ... This is completely untrue Indeed, it seems rather dishonest for Sailhamer to label his view as ‘Historic’ when nothing could be further from the truthIf Sailhamer did not "desire to make the chapters contradictory," what explanation do you give, Bryan, for these comments by Kulikovsky and the facts that he presented against Sailhamer? I've chopped them up in this way (and actually didn't include all the comments like these), so that we can get to the meat of the matter regarding this particular point ... that Kulikovsky had serious concerns about how Sailhamer presented his points.

Which brings me to observation number two: I noticed that you didn't attempt to disprove Kulikovsky's comments, but rather called Socrates out for pointing them out and berated him about his need for repentance. If you do not prove that Socrates' statement is indeed false, how can you prove that he needs to repent? Up to this point in this section (unless it is posted elsewhere), I have only seen your assertions against Socrates, no refutation. You then proceed to create two threads (this and another, that I have seen) to publically denounce Socrates ... still with no proof that he is wrong. IMHO, you are far more in the wrong by not exhibiting Christian behavior ... than Socrates who is speaking plainly, just as Jesus spoke plainly to the Pharasees, calling them fools and asking these "learned" men if they had not read something ... a grave insult to them, indeed. I, for one, appreciate Socrates bluntness and his posts full of facts, rather than assertions of ill-willed intentions ... with no evidences to back them up.

[wienerdog]

John Sailhamer is an evangelical Christian who is devoted to the inerrancy of the Bible (as he would have to be, having been president of the Evangelical Theological Society). His scholarship and character are simply beyond dispute. If Kulikovsky’s article suggested or implied that he was intentionally trying to find contradictions in the Bible, then he was incorrect and needs to apologize to Sailhamer and to God. It appears that it wasn't just Socrates "misreading" Kulikovsky, since SherBear apprently got the same impression.

[BrianB]

SherBear,

---quote---
If Sailhamer did not "desire to make the chapters contradictory," what explanation do you give, Bryan, for these comments by Kulikovsky and the facts that he presented against Sailhamer?
---endquote---

Explanation? Nothing that you quoted/summarized has anything to do with some supposed desire by Sailhamer to ‘make the chapters contradictory.’ Kulikovsky simply disagrees (strongly) with Sailhamer’s exegesis and conclusions. He says nothing that is relevant to this warped idea that Sailhamer desires to manufacture contradictions. Sailhamer is attempting to explain away apparent contradictions that arise when the text is read from a 20th-century mindset, without proper context.

And of course I don’t try to disprove Kulikovsky. Why would I? That’s completely irrelevant. I could heartily agree with Kulikovsky that Sailhamer’s exegesis is unsound. Whether I do or not wouldn’t make me claim that Sailhamer “desires to make the chapters contradictory.”

And, of course, your implied association of Sailhamer with the Pharisees by your appeal to how Jesus spoke to them is disgusting.

If Socrates had come out and acknowledged a misreading of Kulikovsky after I explained how he was wrong, that would have been understandable. However, his actions were the opposite of that.

Brian

[BrianB]

Hi weinerdog,

I would have agreed with you before that it might have been just Socrates misreading Kulikovsky, if Socrates came out and admitted it after I showed him that there’s no way Sailhamer “desires to make the chapters contradictory.” However, instead of doing so, he kept up his actions. He had his chance to acknowledge a misreading, if it was a misreading, and he passed. I guess I just see it differently than you do. He can still comment on this thread whether he misread Kulikovsky, or knowingly misrepresented Sailhamer. Hey, he can go on and decry Sailhamer as a liberal if he wants. This is still an open thread.

Socrates?

Regards,
Brian

[Sher]

From my earlier post:If Sailhamer did not "desire to make the chapters contradictory," what explanation do you give, Bryan [sorry for the misspelling of your name ~SB], for these comments by Kulikovsky and the facts that he presented against Sailhamer?BrianB:Explanation? Nothing that you quoted/summarized has anything to do with some supposed desire by Sailhamer to ‘make the chapters contradictory.’ Kulikovsky simply disagrees (strongly) with Sailhamer’s exegesis and conclusions. He says nothing that is relevant to this warped idea that Sailhamer desires to manufacture contradictions. Sailhamer is attempting to explain away apparent contradictions that arise when the text is read from a 20th-century mindset, without proper context. And of course I don’t try to disprove Kulikovsky. Why would I? That’s completely irrelevant. I could heartily agree with Kulikovsky that Sailhamer’s exegesis is unsound. Whether I do or not wouldn’t make me claim that Sailhamer “desires to make the chapters contradictory." And, of course, your implied association of Sailhamer with the Pharisees by your appeal to how Jesus spoke to them is disgusting.IMO, the only thing that is "disgusting" here is your reading comprehension problem. I didn't "impl[y an] association" of Sailhamer to the Pharisees at all. I distinctly said it was "observation number two" indicating that it was not aimed at anything Sailhamer wrote, but at what you wrote that Socrates responded to and how he respondes to those in the the Science area, because you took offense at his wording. That I directed it in this way is evidenced by where I said "IMHO, you are far more in the wrong by not exhibiting Christian behavior ... than Socrates who is speaking plainly, just as Jesus spoke plainly to the Pharasees, calling them fools and asking these "learned" men if they had not read something ... a grave insult to them, indeed. I, for one, appreciate Socrates bluntness and his posts full of facts, rather than assertions of ill-willed intentions ... with no evidences to back them up." {emphasis added} I was very clear that I was speaking about your post, and {by extension regarding Soc's other posts you were complaining about} about the posts by the supposed science geeks in the other area who "know" things like the Pharasees "knew" things ... head knowledge colored by bias interpretation. Jesus plainly called them out for it ... and Socrates often does the same. I think your anger got the best of you and you looked for insult to Sailhamer there that didn't exist.

BrianB:If Socrates had come out and acknowledged a misreading of Kulikovsky after I explained how he was wrong, that would have been understandable. However, his actions were the opposite of that.I agree with Weinerdog that "It appears that it wasn't just Socrates "misreading" Kulikovsky, since SherBear apprently got the same impression." I reread the article a second time to make sure I hadn't erred, but come to the same conclustion that Kulikovsky is very clear in his rebuttal about the manufactured contradiction. This is especially where he says:He [Sailhamer] states that, in Genesis 2, the animals were created after man, making Genesis 1 and 2 contradictory. He then argues that this contradiction is not a problem, but rather helps us to understand the larger meaning and unity between Genesis 1 and 2 (p. 89). So this article states that Sailhamer makes a statement that Gen. 2 is contradictory to Gen. 1 but that it is basically okay ... ??? I'm sorry, but I agree with Socrates' assertion that this article outlines that Sailhamer "desires to make the chapters contradictory", and with Kulikovsky who says "How does the apparent contradiction in the order of Creation help us to understand the larger meaning and unity between the two chapters?"

Anyway, I am leaving this topic at with this final thought ... I believe, Brian, that for some reason you decided to make a mountain out of a molehill. Whether it is from some misplaced hero-worship of Sailhamer that led you to be insulted, or from your objections to Socrates' bluntness, I still stand by my opinion that you were very wrong to call him out publically as a brother to repent for his opinion of the article, one that can be easily shared from a reading of it as I have pointed out. Perhaps it is Kulikovsky you should be aggravated at if you believe he misrepresented Sailhamer. But that is up to you ... I have nothing further to say on this.

[GrayPilgrim]

Let me put a little disclaimer here:


For two years I was a TA to a former student of Silhamer.
I have like the stuff that I have read by Sailhamer
Sailhamer is a person
Sailhamer is a disagreable fellow in person from what I have heard.
My boss told me to read his stuff but don't study under him
I have not read the book in question.
Sailhamer believes in inerrancy
Sailhamer can make mistakes
This Thread is closed as it has turned into a he said she said and no longer serves a constructive puprose.


GP