Another Till Goof? [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

stevencarrwork

May 7th 2003, 03:02 AM

http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1-2.html

'We now get to where I set the example of John 4 as using social context data in interpretation. Not surprisingly, Skeptic X the Great Unwashed has questions, not answers, and it even amazes me that he stoops as low as this one. "How...does [Holding] know that the fact that the woman had come to the well at noon meant that she was a social outcast?" Yo, X, we said it right there: "...for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women." Add to that her bad behavior, and the equation suggests, in big red letters, "outcast". That's not too hard to grasp or read, but incredibly, or maybe not so incredibly, Skeptic X opts for the hayseed method of rebuttal: "How would he know that some special kind of circumstance on that particular day had not brought the woman to the well at noon? How does he know that she didn't come earlier for water but that some need had arisen for her to go back for more?" Hokey smokes!'

Was it really such a goof of Farrell Till to ask how we can know that the woman in John 4 was an outcast?

Sheepdog

May 7th 2003, 11:44 AM

/me goes to make a bag of popcorn, then waits until JP Holding comes so he can watch Steven get the tar pummeled out of him

Bob Jenkins

May 7th 2003, 01:33 PM

* Sheepdog goes to make a bag of popcorn, then waits until JP Holding comes so he can watch Steven get the tar pummeled out of him

While James leaves aside his cap and gown and dons his cape,spiffy tights and brass knuckles of superhero, Christian Thug. He leaves behind the mild mannered disguise of scholar to live out his fanatasy, once again, of bringing truth by insult and injury.

What James never sees is, in the disgust in the eyes of onlookers, is how his spiffy tights fail to hide the lard.

Added:
Rome spoke of James when it was said "Gratuito potius malus atque crudelis erat"

jpholding

May 7th 2003, 01:38 PM

Was it really such a goof of Farrell Till to ask how we can know that the woman in John 4 was an outcast?

Given that he professes to be delivering straight dope on the text, and to know more than scholars in the field, and has been doing so for years, darned straight! :cheers: When you put your level of professed knowledge too high, you're much more likely to get hurt crossing the bar. And don't expect Mommy to Band-Aid you when the audience jeers.

While James leaves aside his cap and gown and dons his cape,spiffy tights and brass knuckles of superhero, Christian Thug. He leaves behind the mild mannered disguise of scholar to live out his fanatasy, once again, of bringing truth by insult and injury.

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

The "hurt puppy" routine has been tried before, Bob Jenkins. It doesn't work. Show where I am in error against Till here. I don't think you will because you're knee-deep in sentimentality and your own emotions. Which is also why you'll never be more than a heckler to me.

stevencarrwork

May 7th 2003, 05:01 PM

Today @ 06:38 PM
jpholding:

Was it really such a goof of Farrell Till to ask how we can know that the woman in John 4 was an outcast?

Given that he professes to be delivering straight dope on the text, and to know more than scholars in the field, and has been doing so for years, darned straight!

Ah, but Till *agrees* with your scholars in the field that the sixth hour in John 4 means noon. It is you who are questioning the ability of your 'scholars in the field' to tell the time properly.

Do you agree with your chosen 'scholars in the field' that the sixth hour in John 4 means noon?

And I have news for Mr. Jenkins. Holding will never admit his error in saying that the time in John 4 (the sixth hour) was noon. Because, for once, Holding is right!

jpholding

May 7th 2003, 06:15 PM

Ah, but Till *agrees* with your scholars in the field that the sixth hour in John 4 means noon.

Sorry, Stevie, not ALL of them agree. Most that say "noon" do not even present any arguments one way or the other. It's called "critical comparison" and that is a foreign concept to you. Righto?

So what's the deal, you no longer speak in third person? Getting bored with it? :brow:

Because, for once, Holding is right!

Sorry, your effort to make me faint failed. :zzz:

stevencarrwork

May 7th 2003, 06:59 PM

Today @ 11:15 PM
jpholding:

Ah, but Till *agrees* with your scholars in the field that the sixth hour in John 4 means noon.

Sorry, Stevie, not ALL of them agree. Most that say "noon" do not even present any arguments one way or the other. It's called "critical comparison" and that is a foreign concept to you. Righto?

Wonderful! JP (Skippy) Holding refuses to say if he agrees with his own articles!

And with his own chosen demi-gods of scholars , Malina and Rohrbaugh.

I asked Holding 'Do you agree with your chosen 'scholars in the field' that the sixth hour in John 4 means noon?' And Holding refused to answer. What a surprise.

Here is a quote from Holding's articles. Does Holding agree with what he wrote? (Watch Holding refuse to answer the question?)

'But we may also now deliver a coup de grace based on a major difference between our world and the ancient world. Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [16ff] that the NT was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society. In such societies people "presume a broadly shared, well-understood, or 'high' knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing." Readers were required and expected to "fill in the gap" because their background knowledge was a given. Extended explanations were unnecessary. As an example, they note the story of the woman at the well in John 4. This story is full of background templates that John does not explain, but that make the story meaningful: For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is.'

Bob Jenkins

May 8th 2003, 01:13 AM

From James

While James leaves aside his cap and gown and dons his cape,spiffy tights and brass knuckles of superhero, Christian Thug. He leaves behind the mild mannered disguise of scholar to live out his fanatasy, once again, of bringing truth by insult and injury.

The "hurt puppy" routine has been tried before, Bob Jenkins. It doesn't work. Show where I am in error against Till here. I don't think you will because you're knee-deep in sentimentality and your own emotions. Which is also why you'll never be more than a heckler to me.

#1 I agree there is little effectiveness in the 'hurt puppy routine", which is why I don't use it..

#2 Till is not quoted in this thread and your rant applies to only Skeptic X.. How can I show you are in error although I'm sure you are in error or at least disingenuous

#3 Of course I have emotions. but I can not understand why you would think me sentimental Care to enlighten us?

#4 Heckler? To you, I suppose you could say I am - I reply in kind

I believe I've answerd all of your points so I'll expect answers to #2 and #3..

Sher

May 8th 2003, 01:19 AM

/me bogarts some of Sheepdog's popcorn when he is distracted by laughing

Jezz

May 8th 2003, 02:03 AM

Bob Jenkins:
#2 Till is not quoted in this thread and your rant applies to only Skeptic X.. How can I show you are in error although I'm sure you are in error or at least disingenuous
"Skeptic X" is a nickname (one of many) JP gave to Farrell Till. Steven understood that they referred to the same person - didn't you think it odd that Steven started this thread, with the title "Another Till Goof?", and then in his opening post proceeded to equate Till with Skeptic X?

I believe I've answerd all of your points so I'll expect answers to #2 and #3..
Well, you have your answer to 2.

jpholding

May 8th 2003, 11:09 AM

Stevie Weevie: Gee. So I can't use M and R's example even if I disagree with minor points? That sure would put a damper on scholarship. You will find nowhere that I say I agree with their "noon" assessment and they make no arguments for or against it. In fact somewhere I say I do disagree with that view.

Bob Tearjenkins:

#1 I agree there is little effectiveness in the 'hurt puppy routine", which is why I don't use it..

I guess the "bald faced fib" is another useful tactic... :brow:

#2 Till is not quoted in this thread and your rant applies to only Skeptic X..

You have already been corrected for this episode in poor reading. Which does suggest poor reading elsewhere as well.

#3 Of course I have emotions. but I can not understand why you would think me sentimental Care to enlighten us?

Because you think love means sentimentality.

#4 Heckler? To you, I suppose you could say I am - I reply in kind

Who were you first replying in kind TO? :rofl:

I believe I've answerd all of your points so I'll expect answers to #2 and #3.. [/QUOTE]

Bob Jenkins

May 8th 2003, 11:19 AM

From Jezz
(post#10 )

“ Bob Jenkins:
#2 Till is not quoted in this thread and your rant applies to only Skeptic X.. How can I show you are in error although I'm sure you are in error or at least disingenuous ”

"Skeptic X" is a nickname (one of many) JP gave to Farrell Till. Steven understood that they referred to the same person - didn't you think it odd that Steven started this thread, with the title "Another Till Goof?", and then in his opening post proceeded to equate Till with Skeptic X?

“ I believe I've answerd all of your points so I'll expect answers to #2 and #3.. ”

Well, you have your answer to 2.[/quote]

Har;dly even brushed upon the answer. All you've done is equate Sketpic X with Till. The question was "How can I show you are in error " (when I don't have Till's messagae.

jpholding

May 8th 2003, 11:28 AM

Bob Jerkins:

Blame Stevie for that. He's one of FTill's most ardent fans.

Bob Jenkins

May 8th 2003, 12:03 PM

* Bob Jenkins offers carmel coating to SherBear and Sheepdog to increase the enjoyment.

Bob Jenkins

May 8th 2003, 12:34 PM

Bob #1 I agree there is little effectiveness in the 'hurt puppy routine", which is why I don't use it..

James I guess the "bald faced fib" is another useful tactic...

[b]Bob{/b] #2 Till is not quoted in this thread and your rant applies to only Skeptic X..

James You have already been corrected for this episode in poor reading. Which does suggest poor reading elsewhere as well.

Bob #3 Of course I have emotions. but I can not understand why you would think me sentimental Care to enlighten us?

James Because you think love means sentimentality.

Bob #4 Heckler? To you, I suppose you could say I am - I reply in kind

James Who were you first replying in kind TO?

#1 Yep another ineffectual tactic not in my bag of tricks. But I am reminded of the pot calling the kettle black..

#2 Till's message is not quoted or linked. A non-answer from a lack of comprehension.

#3 ..... and yet another lack of comprehension. Sentimentality may have an element of love but love encompasses more than sentimantalty and is more complex. I refer you to Webster's New World Dictionary to aid your comprehension..

#4 I first replied "in kind" in earlier posts and other threads specifically saying I will reply in kind.

I'm sorry James, you have not answered #2 and you have #3 wrong. Try again..

jpholding

May 8th 2003, 03:01 PM

In rides Bob Jenkins, Bob bob bobbin' along --

#1 Yep another ineffectual tactic not in my bag of tricks. But I am reminded of the pot calling the kettle black..

It's on your driver's license, after all. :rofl: Keep trying. You'll never outlast me.

#2 Till's message is not quoted or linked. A non-answer from a lack of comprehension.

Like I said, blame his son Stevie.

#3 ..... and yet another lack of comprehension. Sentimentality may have an element of love but love encompasses more than sentimantalty and is more complex. I refer you to Webster's New World Dictionary to aid your comprehension..

I refer you to the Greco-Roman definition of the word agape which shows that Webster is in error when it comes to the way the word is used in the Biblical text. Not that it's their fault. Webster just reflects our own definitions and prejudices.

#4 I first replied "in kind" in earlier posts and other threads specifically saying I will reply in kind.

That made no sense at all. It boils down to that you were the first to don the weasel suit.

I'm sorry James, you have not answered #2 and you have #3 wrong. Try again..

You can knock on Stevie's door for #2 and you are so decontextualized on #3 that it requires a heap of band aids to fix. :rofl: Maybe you need to "try" something different. Like learning about "personal responsibility"....

stevencarrwork

May 8th 2003, 04:14 PM

Today @ 04:09 PM
jpholding:

Stevie Weevie: Gee. So I can't use M and R's example even if I disagree with minor points? That sure would put a damper on scholarship. You will find nowhere that I say I agree with their "noon" assessment and they make no arguments for or against it. In fact somewhere I say I do disagree with that view.

Incredible! Holding thinks his favourite scholars have spent years and years publishing books on the social background, studying the context etc etc, and he thinks they can't tell the time.

Holding slammed Till for asking why the woman was an outcast.

Holding wrote that she was an outcast because of the time - noon - and now he claims that this time of noon is the one thing he disagrees with. So he slammed Till for questioning something that Holding now claims was an inference based on a totally false premise.

HOLDING wrote 'For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is.'

Even JP (IIM) Holding would be hard pressed to sell to his readers that his words mean that the woman really was an outcast, although he now says the time was NOT noon, and that he disagrees with his own sentences saying the time was noon.

And he now claims that the time 'noon' was 'a minor point' in his argument that Till goofed. The man is utterly brazen, because he knows his readers will swallow anything he says.....

So Holding's position is - Till goofed by questioning why the woman was an outcast, she was an outcast because the time was noon, and the time was not noon, after all.

But as I have already pointed out, I would be lying if I said Holding was consistent. He will change what he says to suit him.

If he wants to attack Till, he will write articles saying the sixth hour was noon.

If he wants to debate Alward, he will write postings saying the sixth hour was 6 AM.

Here are Holding's words from
http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1-2.html

Notice how Holding carefully explains that the time was not noon, and the time of noon is really just a minor point, one that he personally disagrees with.

'As the product of a "high context" society, it already is, by nature, a high context document, and a low context reader like Skeptic X would never detect the implications without homework, like the homework needed to determine that the woman at the well was an outcast because she came to the well, alone, at noon'

NB, Holding is not quoting M and R here - these are his own words.

Holding then goes on to recommend a book where his readers can learn more about the background of John 4 (such as the time being noon) 'For those with an actual interest in learning about these things, we recommend Malina and Rorhbaugh's Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John....'

Notice how Holding never explains that he thinks Malina and Rohrbaugh were wrong on the very point Holding took from their book when attacking Till!

johnransom

May 8th 2003, 04:48 PM

Today @ 03:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91299#post91299)
stevencarrwork:
HOLDING wrote 'For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is.'

NB, Holding is not quoting M and R here - these are his own words.
Behold the power of selective quoting. Stevie the Mental Pretzel has untangled himself enough to make a fairly straightforward spurious argument rather than building one with his mental contortionist act. JP actually said:

"As an example, they note the story of the woman at the well in John 4. This story is full of background templates that John does not explain, but that make the story meaningful: For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is."

Emphasis courtesy of moi. So, even if JP is not quoting M&R verbatim, is it not evident that he is here using their examples and their analysis? IOW, he paraphrases them.

And quit stuffing that popcorn into your mouths, Sheep and Sher. It makes a nasty mess on the floor when you spray it everywhere laughing so hard.:lol:

Sher

May 8th 2003, 06:22 PM

:lol:

/me brought a roll of Bounty ... the quicker, picker-upper :smile:

stevencarrwork

May 8th 2003, 06:54 PM

Holding is trying to sell his new claim that the time in John 4 (the sixth hour) is only a small detail.

Holding wrote the following in

http://www.tektonics.org/divorce2.html

'For example, the time of the meeting (noon, as they read it) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is.'

Compare with

http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1.html

'For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain why the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it
is just by that he says it is noon.'

Notice that he removed the qualifier (as they read it) when replying to Till, because Holding is now debating somebody asking why the time made such a vital difference to Holdings's speculation. He removed the qualifier in his replies to Till, because Holding wanted to stress the importance of the time of noon.

Hard to stress the importance of it being noon, if he had left the qualifier in.

So he just removed it, because he wanted his readers to think he was whopping Till over the issue of the woman being an outcast because it was noon.

And just to make sure his readers (even Sherbear!) got the message that it was really was noon, he added the phrase 'just by that he says it is noon.'

And Holding is now claiming that the time is just a small detail, he doesn't agree that it was noon, he never said it, he was just quoting scholars who said it was noon was etc etc, when any idiot can see that he changed his words to emphasise the noon-ness of the time, and to remove any idea that there might be qualifications.

jpholding

May 8th 2003, 07:28 PM

Stevie (PWS) Carr rants:

Incredible! Holding thinks his favourite scholars have spent years and years publishing books on the social background, studying the context etc etc, and he thinks they can't tell the time.

Gosh. So social background is relevant to knowledge of various uses of time. :hrm: I'll have to file that in the Stevie Screw-Up file.

Holding wrote that she was an outcast because of the time - noon - and now he claims that this time of noon is the one thing he disagrees with.

Er, the time was just ONE reason, Stevie. All the rest still are the same and FTill is still just as ignorant of that. Hello?

utcast, although he now says the time was NOT noon, and that he disagrees with his own sentences saying the time was noon.

MR's sentences, as noted. Even as unimaginative as you are, you can see that all the articles contain the same copied and pasted material. Is that inference too hard for you? :rofl:

And he now claims that the time 'noon' was 'a minor point' in his argument that Till goofed. The man is utterly brazen, because he knows his readers will swallow anything he says.....

So you have proven that it is NOT a minor point? How? We missed it.

Skeptic X would never detect the implications without homework, like the homework needed to determine that the woman at the well was an outcast because she came to the well, alone, at noon'

Psst! What do you think of FTill's excuse in Gaffe Thread 1 about speaking "accomodatively"?

NB, Holding is not quoting M and R here - these are his own words.

Er, what am I alluding to when I say that, Stevie?

Notice how Holding never explains that he thinks Malina and Rohrbaugh were wrong on the very point Holding took from their book when attacking Till!

I noted my disatisfaction with this sort of thing in my review of the Synoptic book by M and R:

This work also has minor problems not found in other Context Group works. The authors appeal for example to the Mark 7:31 objection.

And on John:

This one does contain fewer theses I found objectionable...

But asking you to make the connection is probably too much. :rofl:

Notice that he removed the qualifier (as they read it) when replying to Till

How do you know I didn't ADD it to my response to Krueger? Hello? My last add-on to the Krueger item was Oct. 2002. My last add-on to the other was Spet. 2002. :rofl:

Poor Stevie. He has to keep his eyes on the peripherals to keep from seeing the beating he and his friends get on the big issues.

Farrell Till

May 8th 2003, 07:34 PM

Yesterday @ 11:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91408#post91408)
stevencarrwork:

Holding is trying to sell his new claim that the time in John 4 (the sixth hour) is only a small detail.

Holding wrote the following in

http://www.tektonics.org/divorce2.html

'For example, the time of the meeting (noon, as they read it) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is.'

Compare with

http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1.html

'For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain why the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it
is just by that he says it is noon.'

Notice that he removed the qualifier (as they read it) when replying to Till, because Holding is now debating somebody asking why the time made such a vital difference to Holdings's speculation. He removed the qualifier in his replies to Till, because Holding wanted to stress the importance of the time of noon.

Hard to stress the importance of it being noon, if he had left the qualifier in.

So he just removed it, because he wanted his readers to think he was whopping Till over the issue of the woman being an outcast because it was noon.

And just to make sure his readers (even Sherbear!) got the message that it was really was noon, he added the phrase 'just by that he says it is noon.'

And Holding is now claiming that the time is just a small detail, he doesn't agree that it was noon, he never said it, he was just quoting scholars who said it was noon was etc etc, when any idiot can see that he changed his words to emphasise the noon-ness of the time, and to remove any idea that there might be qualifications.

I have known for a long time that my opponent will take whatever position will best suit whatever predicament he is trying to argue his way out of. In this case, he took the position that the woman in John 4 came to the well at noon, because he wanted to stretch this into some kind of point that would suit his claim that the woman was an outcast. However, when the 6th hour = noon is disadvantageous to his position, he argues that the sixth hour was not noon.

I don't fault him for this, because it is just typical apologetics of those who seek to find inerrancy in the Bible. I fault those who refuse to see the dishonesty in the tactics of those who switch horses according to whatever positions they are trying to defend.

If my opponent wants to talk about gaffes, he should talk about how he said months ago that the sixth hour in John was noon but has just recently declared the sixth hour in John not to be noon. Pardon the expression, but this is an example of a P and ~P contradiction.

How could one who presents himself as a first-rate apologist, who, along with Glenn Miller, may be fulfilling biblical prophecy, make a mistake like this? I suspect the answer is simple. He cranks out so much hackwork that he can't remember today what he said four or five months ago, so caught in a situation where he needed to explain the problem in John 19:14 about the sixth hour, he, like most "apologists," wanted just any kind of explanation that would explain the problem, and so he grabbed one that flatly contradicted what he had said about the sixth hour a few months ago.

Now watch him try to wiggle out of this "gaffe"? After he was caught in the anistemi gaffe, he said it wasn't his fault; it was the fault of his software. Now he is arguing that the sixth-hour gaffe isn't his fault; it was the fault of a commentary he was citing.

jpholding

May 8th 2003, 07:43 PM

Too late, Farrell. Late, as usual. :rofl:

Farrell Till

May 8th 2003, 07:50 PM

Today @ 12:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91449#post91449)
jpholding:

Too late, Farrell. Late, as usual.

And this does what to explain my opponent's contradiction of an earlier position he had taken?

Whatever horse is best for the occasion is the one that he will ride.

jpholding

May 8th 2003, 08:07 PM

Try reading. Reading Is Fundamental.

Don't use up all your poor sportsmanship. Gaffe Thread 3 goes up tomorrow. :smile:

Farrell Till

May 8th 2003, 08:09 PM

Yesterday @ 09:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91336#post91336)
johnransom:

Behold the power of selective quoting.

Yes, indeed, do behold the power of selective quoting. My opponent has fooled Ransom and a whole slew of others in this forum by selectively quoting his opponents and depending on his readers not to have the patience to read what he didn't quote.

RANsom
Stevie the Mental Pretzel has untangled himself enough to make a fairly straightforward spurious argument rather than building one with his mental contortionist act. JP actually said:

"As an example, they note the story of the woman at the well in John 4. This story is full of background templates that John does not explain, but that make the story meaningful: For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is."

Emphasis courtesy of moi. So, even if JP is not quoting M&R verbatim, is it not evident that he is here using their examples and their analysis? IOW, he paraphrases them.

And why did he paraphrase them, Ransom? He did so to try to prove that a so-called "high-context" society would have understood that the woman in John 4 was an outcast, because she had come to the well at noon, i. e., the sixth hour, rather than the normal time when women socialized at the well. However, if the sixth hour was not noon but about 6:00 in the morning, then this would shoot down my opponent's attempt to find a "social outcast" by nothing more than the meaning of the sixth hour. If the woman had not come to the well at noon, as my opponent's "scholars" argued, then his "high-context" quibble falls flatter than a cow patty, because the woman, by his own line of reasoning, would not be an outcast who had had to come to the well at noon, well after the time when the other women came for water.

Surely, you can see that Ransom.

jpholding

May 8th 2003, 08:13 PM

:duh:

Reading Is Fundamental, Farrell. This is answered above. Stop wasting Ransom's time or we're going to have to paint you blue and tie you to your chair while stuffing live stoats in your pockets.

Hint: IT ISN'T JUST THE TIME THAT MAKES THE CASE. :lol:

Farrell Till

May 8th 2003, 08:19 PM

Today @ 01:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91466#post91466)
jpholding:

Try reading. Reading Is Fundamental.

Point me to your explanations for (1) why, if you said from the beginning that the land promise was unconditional, you later said that Abraham understood that conditions were attached to the land promise, (2) why the book of Joshua said P [the Israelites had possessed and dwelt in all the land Yahweh had promised them, and ~P [the Israelites did not receive all the land Yahweh had promised them], and (3) when the Israelites had ever possessed the western coastal regions and northern Lebanon all the way to the Euphrates River, and I will gladly read them.

So far, I haven't read your explanations of these problems, because you have not given any.

My Opponent:
Don't use up all your poor sportsmanship. Gaffe Thread 3 goes up tomorrow.

I will gladly answer both 2 and 3 when you reply to my arguments/rebuttals that you have evaded. I will be glad to repost any or all of them.

Farrell Till

May 8th 2003, 08:35 PM

Today @ 01:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91472#post91472)
jpholding:

Reading Is Fundamental, Farrell. This is answered above.

Well, I will just post my rebuttal again, so that we can watch my opponent evade it again.

And why did he paraphrase them, Ransom? He did so to try to prove that a so-called "high-context" society would have understood that the woman in John 4 was an outcast, because she had come to the well at noon, i. e., the sixth hour, rather than the normal time when women socialized at the well. However, if the sixth hour was not noon but about 6:00 in the morning, then this would shoot down my opponent's attempt to find a "social outcast" by nothing more than the meaning of the sixth hour. If the woman had not come to the well at noon, as my opponent's "scholars" argued, then his "high-context" quibble falls flatter than a cow patty, because the woman, by his own line of reasoning, would not be an outcast who had had to come to the well at noon, well after the time when the other women came for water.

Now where was it answered "above"? In the land-promise exchanges, my opponent kept saying, "I have answered this above [below,]" but I never could find those answers above or below. Those of you who give him your praise should be insulted, because he gets away with this only because he know that those he wants to impress will let him get away with it.

My Opponent:
Stop wasting Ransom's time or we're going to have to paint you blue and tie you to your chair while stuffing live stoats in your pockets.

This is another typical example of how my opponent tries to hide his evasion under sarcasm and insults.

My Opponent:
Hint: IT ISN'T JUST THE TIME THAT MAKES THE CASE.

If the time was not the only thing in John 4 that "makes the case," then why did my opponent mention nothing else but the time of the day as the factor that would have enabled a "high-context" society to know that the woman was an outcast.

Here is my opponent's statement cut directly from his own website <http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1.html>.

The charge of "how it could have beening" (which we will hereafter call "hichbing" for brevity) assumes a certain judgment upon a text like the Bible. The Bible was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society, in which people assumed a broadly shared, "high" knowledge of the context of anything referred to in speech or writing. Readers were required and expected to "fill in the gap" because their background knowledge was a given. Extended explanations were unnecessary. For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain why the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is just by that he says it is noon.

So if the time was not the only element in the story that "makes the case," why did he not mention those other things?

My opponent has been caught in a gross inconsistency, but his pride will not let him admit it.

johnransom

May 9th 2003, 12:15 AM

Today @ 07:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91469#post91469)
Farrell Till:
Yes, indeed, do behold the power of selective quoting. My opponent has fooled Ransom and a whole slew of others in this forum by selectively quoting his opponents and depending on his readers not to have the patience to read what he didn't quote.
Ah, tIll is back to that old game again. He seems to think that his competence is maximal. Therefore, every other Internet user must be equally incapable of either tracing back through a thread to se what was said, or, alternatively (when feeling insomniac), visiting his pathetic website to see what it was that has been skipped over in a debate. Yes, tIll, JP does quote you selectively, but there are two kinds of selective quoting: the kind that omits key data in order to deceive (like Stevie), and the kind that weeds out crap. On the latter basis, that anything of yours remains to be discussed by JP is therefore an act of pure mercy on his part.

And why did he paraphrase them, Ransom?...
Surely, you can see that Ransom.
I can see your argument perfectly well, tIll. But since the time was but one of several pointers in the text, it is not a big deal, but would, if correct, have been a red flag to the high-context reader that something was up with this woman. Later we find out she was the village slut, so it's a pretty safe bet that that she was an outcast among the women. On the other hand, she was evidently pretty popular among the men.

Your ad hoc rationalization about the text remains just as dumb as it was before the whole noon non-issue was cooked up by your pet sun-dog.

I'm guessing also that you're using this to argue that John was not using Roman time in discussing the trial of Jesus, thereby fabricating a contradiction. Sorry, pal, no dice.

stevencarrwork

May 9th 2003, 07:46 AM

Today @ 12:28 AM
jpholding:

Notice how Holding never explains that he thinks Malina and Rohrbaugh were wrong on the very point Holding took from their book when attacking Till!

I noted my disatisfaction with this sort of thing in my review of the Synoptic book by M and R:

This work also has minor problems not found in other Context Group works. The authors appeal for example to the Mark 7:31 objection.

And on John:

This one does contain fewer theses I found objectionable...

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

Holding, of course, never writes that Malina and Rohrbaugh can't tell the time despite their years of research into the social background of the Gospels.

Here is the 'fuller context' of what Holding wrote (Holding can't bear sceptics to give the fuller context)

HOLDING
'This one does contain fewer theses I found objectionable (notably an excursus on resurrection appearances as the result of "alternate states of consciousness" without any explanation of how and why they are to be regarded as such); most unique are the beginning analyses which frame John as an "antisociety" piece filled with specialized "antilanguage."

Not a word about John 4.

Notice how Holding's reply in this thread, edited his own words to try to disguise how they do not support his claim.

Today @ 12:28 AM

[i]Notice that he removed the qualifier (as they read it) when replying to Till

How do you know I didn't ADD it to my response to Krueger? Hello? My last add-on to the Krueger item was Oct. 2002. My last add-on to the other was Spet. 2002. :

So Holding's defense is that he has altered his articles so many times, sceptics can't prove what was written when. The defense of a truly innocent man!

Holding's update on Sept 2002 was for a different article to the one I gave.

http://www.tektonics.org/divorce2.html - Last update, according to your search page, Thursday 13 Feb, 2003.

http://www.tektonics.org/markmen_CC1.html - Last update, according to your search page, Saturday 1st March 2003.

Your response to Krueger was witten last year.

You have recently added this section 'BONUS SECTION: DOUG KREUGER ACCIDENTALLY PROVES THAT KINDNESS IS BAD!'

Wasn't that the October update? (Don't bother lying in your reply)

Nothing to do with anything in John 4.....

jpholding

May 9th 2003, 12:13 PM

FTill: Ransom has my answer right. And you still seem to forget that Gaffe Thread 2 is the start of my answer to your Land Promise distractions...er, questions.

Stevie Weevie:

So gee, I was obligated to lay out my every point of disagreement in a book review? Is that normal process for Kirkus Reviews as well? Poor sport, are we?

I ask again: What does social science and anthro research have to do with knowing about time systems?

Here is the 'fuller context' of what Holding wrote (Holding can't bear sceptics to give the fuller context)

:duh: You say, "Not a word about John 4." Again, so where is anyone obligated to lay out every piddling point of difference? Hello? You can't think multi-dimensionally?

Notice how Holding's reply in this thread, edited his own words to try to disguise how they do not support his claim.

My claim was no more than that I had said I had disagreements with minor issues. John 4 would be an example even if I did NOT give it. That supports my claim. Hello?

So Holding's defense is that he has altered his articles so many times, sceptics can't prove what was written when. The defense of a truly innocent man!

:zzz: Yes, Stevie, you are always the victim.

We are all out to get you.

Hide under your bed. :rofl:

http://www.tektonics.org/divorce2.html - Last update, according to your search page, Thursday 13 Feb, 2003.

Like heck. I changed nothing that date. Ditto on March 1 -- nothing in that article was changed. If you mean Pico, that's full of dates that have no bearing on when anything was done to those articles. Good grief, man -- I checked it against the Raelian guest article and it doesn't match at all. It's one day off. Probably the dates mean "last crawled" by the robot. But if you have evidence of a change, present it. I know you are obsessed with me, so have a go.

You have recently added this section 'BONUS SECTION: DOUG KREUGER ACCIDENTALLY PROVES THAT KINDNESS IS BAD!'

That was part of the original article, Stevie.

It runs down to this -- FTill and Son want to waste time on this peripheral, which is a cover for the main point, which is FTill's honking magnificent ignorance on social issues, high and low context, etc. They can't win on the big issues, so they obsess on the minors being too un-talented for the majors.

Joseph Alward

May 9th 2003, 01:27 PM

JOHN RANSOM
I'm guessing also that you're using this to argue that John was not using Roman time in discussing the trial of Jesus, thereby fabricating a contradiction.

JOE ALWARD
John, I thought that the issue about "Roman time" had been settled.

The Romans never used the midnight reference system to reckon time, as far as I can tell. Their daylight hours were measured from sunrise, and the nighttime hours were measured relative to sunset. Few things about ancient Roman history are clearer than this, in my opinion.

The evidence which I believe supports this view is found in the article, "Time Reckoning in Ancient Rome," at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm

johnransom

May 9th 2003, 02:12 PM

Today @ 12:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92181#post92181)
Joseph Alward:
JOE ALWARD
John, I thought that the issue about "Roman time" had been settled.

The Romans never used the midnight reference system to reckon time, as far as I can tell. Their daylight hours were measured from sunrise, and the nighttime hours were measured relative to sunset. Few things about ancient Roman history are clearer than this, in my opinion.

The evidence which I believe supports this view is found in the article, "Time Reckoning in Ancient Rome," at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm
Well, in fact, that had always been my understanding, but I have seen numerous references stating otherwise. In any event, there is still no contradiction.

stevencarrwork

May 9th 2003, 02:59 PM

Today @ 05:13 PM
jpholding:

http://www.tektonics.org/divorce2.html - Last update, according to your search page, Thursday 13 Feb, 2003.

Like heck. I changed nothing that date. Ditto on March 1 -- nothing in that article was changed. If you mean Pico, that's full of dates that have no bearing on when anything was done to those articles. Good grief, man -- I checked it against the Raelian guest article and it doesn't match at all. It's one day off. Probably the dates mean "last crawled" by the robot.

Wow. One day off, yet Holding claims Pico was months off on when it thinks articles were added or changed.

It's all the software's fault - again, or Holding is simply quoting scholars he doesn't agree with, or the fabrications came from somebody he was told he could trust...

http://www.picosearch.com/faqs/faq_datesetting.html

'PicoSearch has gone to great lengths to make file URL, date, and size information accurate and flexible for you.'

'Now, where do the file date and size come from? It is standard for your hoster's server to set a last modified date (GMT) along with file size everytime you update a file on your website.'

Strange that the makers of the software say that they are displaying last modified date.....

Just keep on banging out the lies, Holding.

Today @ 05:13 PM

[i]You have recently added this section 'BONUS SECTION: DOUG KREUGER ACCIDENTALLY PROVES THAT KINDNESS IS BAD!'

That was part of the original article, Stevie.

http://exposed.faithweb.com/divorce9.html

'However, as if he hadn't shown enough poor reasoning, Holding has added this:
BONUS SECTION: DOUG KREUGER (sic) ACCIDENTALLY PROVES THAT KINDNESS IS BAD!'

So this section was added, yet Holding claims it was part of the original article!

He just keeps on lying, and lying. He must be full of contempt for John Ransom if he thinks Ransom will believe anything Holding dangles in front of his nose.

jpholding

May 9th 2003, 04:18 PM

Wow. One day off, yet Holding claims Pico was months off on when it thinks articles were added or changed.

Apparently they are, Stevie. If that info is true I am updating files constantly, which I am not. Sorry, though I beat you to a pulp like Superman, not even I can stay awake that long.

I do have an assistant who helps with code and has the authority to make technical improvements, and heaven knows what my server (vianetworks) might be doing. But too bad -- it's no sub for an actual, documented change with "before and after" comparison. Which you obviously do not have, which is why you resort to crybaby tactics.

So this section was added, yet Holding claims it was part of the original article!

Uh, does Krueger mean I added it "new" or I added it to the DEBATE as a different subject? :rofl: Try again.

Bob Jenkins

May 11th 2003, 12:28 AM

Why is there a discussion about Roman time.. Wouldn't the author of John, who wrote in Greek (didn't he?) have used the Greek measure of time? How was the Greek time reckoned?

added:
Just showing my ignorance

johnransom

May 11th 2003, 02:04 AM

Yesterday @ 11:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93302#post93302)
Bob Jenkins:

Why is there a discussion about Roman time.. Wouldn't the author of John, who wrote in Greek (didn't he?) have used the Greek measure of time? How was the Greek time reckoned?

added:
Just showing my ignorance
We already knew about that. Greek (specifically koine Greek) was pretty much the common language of the Roman Empire. Speaking or writing Greek implies no commitment to Greek culture.

Bob Jenkins

May 11th 2003, 03:43 AM

Greek (specifically koine Greek) was pretty much the common language of the Roman Empire. Speaking or writing Greek implies no commitment to Greek culture.

Thank you

stevencarrwork

May 11th 2003, 06:13 AM

Today @ 07:04 AM
johnransom:

We already knew about that. Greek (specifically koine Greek) was pretty much the common language of the Roman Empire. Speaking or writing Greek implies no commitment to Greek culture.

Wasn't Latin an important language in the Roman Empire?

Bob Jenkins

May 13th 2003, 08:49 AM

From johnransom

We already knew about that. Greek (specifically koine Greek) was pretty much the common language of the Roman Empire. Speaking or writing Greek implies no commitment to Greek culture.

Then I guess my question should have been where was the verse in question written? Was it in Rome?

johnransom

May 13th 2003, 09:27 AM

Today @ 07:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95145#post95145)
Bob Jenkins:
Then I guess my question should have been where was the verse in question written? Was it in Rome?
A better question would be "To whom was it written?" Consider: how many classics of the English language have been written elsewhere than in English-speaking countries?

Unfortunately, this is not easily answered, as there are conflicting views. Both Gentiles and Greek-speaking Jews have been suggested, which really doesn't help.

Bob Jenkins

May 13th 2003, 02:21 PM

From johnransom

[post#42 ]

“ Today @ 07:49 AM post located here
Bob Jenkins:
Then I guess my question should have been where was the verse in question written? Was it in Rome? ”

A better question would be "To whom was it written?" Consider: how many classics of the English language have been written elsewhere than in English-speaking countries?

Unfortunately, this is not easily answered, as there are conflicting views. Both Gentiles and Greek-speaking Jews have been suggested, which really doesn't help.

It's a good question! It certainly broadens a base for questioning whether "Roman time" should be assumed for the meaning of the verse.

Picking one interpretation of the hour, the social context of Rome, certianly neglets the social context of the writer or reader unless they are ancient Romans..

Perhaps some future versions of the bible will have footnotes.