Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Dee Dee and Lao discuss Bart Ehrman and the Koran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    In listening further, about 2:27 Ehrman talks more about why he won't speak about the Koran, but he is contradictory. First, he makes a blanket statement that it is his belief that if God inspired His words, He would have given us His words (in context, he means originals with no variations), but since there are textual variations, He hasn't given us His words. He should be able to say with all his scholarly caveats that IF it is the case that there are variants in the textual tradition of the Koran, AND the Koran is claiming to be inspired in a similar way to the Bible, THEN the same conclusion can follow. This DOES NOT require some Koran-specific great knowledge. And when it comes to non-inspired works, he has no problem with saying that if we don't have the originals, we don't know what the original said… and he isn't an expert in those books. It somewhat requires actually listening to this whole debate to see how organic this is.

    Sorry, but it is patently obvious why he make any comment about the Koran, he gave it to us, because he values his life.
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

    sigpic

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
      Sorry, but it is patently obvious why he make any comment about the Koran, he gave it to us, because he values his life.
      Just as it's patently obvious that if a historian disagrees with you, he must be a coward and some way must be found to discredit him, however far-fetched.

      The Koran is not Ehrman's specialty. He admits to being insufficiently informed to render a scholarly opinion. Why isn't that good enough for you? To me, it sounds like integrity.

      Comment


      • #18
        You obviously didn't read my post as you simply restated what was addressed without dealing with the response and obviously didn't listen to the clips. Why should I waste my time? And obviously you didn't read my prior comments where I greatly clarified my cowardice comment. Usually this is called trolling.
        The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

        sigpic

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
          You obviously didn't read my post as you simply restated what was addressed without dealing with the response and obviously didn't listen to the clips. Why should I waste my time? And obviously you didn't read my prior comments where I greatly clarified my cowardice comment. Usually this is called trolling.
          If you are going to claim that Ehrman is actually refusing to wander afield from his speciality out of fear for his life, then we aren't going to agree. If I (and you as well, I hope) wish a scholarly and detailed analysis of the Koran and the circumstances under which it was written, Ehrman wouldn't be the authority we would go to.

          Even within his own narrow specialty, Ehrman is not the ONLY authority I would go to, either. Quite a few specialists in the same area disagree with Ehrman, and also disagree with one another.

          Comment


          • #20
            Still didnt address the counterpoint. Done.
            The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

            sigpic

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by phank View Post
              If you are going to claim that Ehrman is actually refusing to wander afield from his speciality out of fear for his life, then we aren't going to agree. If I (and you as well, I hope) wish a scholarly and detailed analysis of the Koran and the circumstances under which it was written, Ehrman wouldn't be the authority we would go to.

              Even within his own narrow specialty, Ehrman is not the ONLY authority I would go to, either. Quite a few specialists in the same area disagree with Ehrman, and also disagree with one another.

              Psst! She quoted Erhman stating exactly that - and provided the citation so you can check it yourself. Erhman stated he wouldn't attack Islam because he valued his life - why then shouldn't we take him at his word?
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                As a side note, there's a growing trend in scholarship that's moving away from the view of deceptive forgery in canonical works like 1 and 2 Peter, and towards a view of communal authorship based on apostolic schools. See for instance, Pseudepigraphy and the Petrine school: Spirit and tradition in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Counet 2006) http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/...ewFile/367/265
                Dear OingoBoingo,

                It's neither recent, nor a trend, nor scholarship. It's an old apologetic, created ad hoc and unevidenced. The historical examples often used, e.g., Pythagoras and the Pythagorean school, don't check out. This particular article attempts to show evidence of common authorship via common themes, but entirely avoids the principle objection ... the styles in Greek are as profoundly different as the lexicons. Assuming both were written communally, the textual evidence shows they were written by different communities.

                As ever, Jesse

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                  Dear OingoBoingo,

                  It's neither recent, nor a trend, nor scholarship. It's an old apologetic, created ad hoc and unevidenced.
                  Did you actually read the paper? No, its not an apologetic. The paper is by Chatelion Counet of the University of Amsterdam. Among its scholars it cites as proponents Ernest Best of the University of Glasgow, John Elliott of the University of San Francisco, and Richard Bauckham of the University of St Andrews.

                  The historical examples often used, e.g., Pythagoras and the Pythagorean school, don't check out.
                  He cites Wolfgang Speyer (Religiöse Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung, 1977) Lewis Donelson (Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles, 1986), and Armin D. Baum (Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum: mit ausgewählten Quellentexten samt deutscher Übersetzung, 2001). Are you saying they didn't check their work, or that new evidence has come to light?

                  This particular article attempts to show evidence of common authorship via common themes, but entirely avoids the principle objection ... the styles in Greek are as profoundly different as the lexicons. Assuming both were written communally, the textual evidence shows they were written by different communities.
                  No, he doesn't avoid that. See pages 407-408 and 414.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
                    One thing is obvious. You have no idea of the debate I am talking about. You never tried to find it or listen to it. If you did, you would realize that the topic was not about that argument of Ehrman so asking what that has to do with White's question about the Koran is completely irrelevant. The debate was on certain arguments in Misquoting Jesus.
                    Proving you didn't read my post. Command-F, type "Misquoting." Did you see it this time?

                    It was not whatsoever about Forged. At. All.
                    Your first reference was about Forged.

                    Here is the debate.
                    Good grief, woman, don't post your browsing history, post a link:

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P35zWvmkHBo

                    Listen to the opening statements if you really care about accurately getting the context.
                    Been there, long ago, and done that.

                    For reference of this discussion I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE ANY READER to listen to these clips, and sorry Jesse, it will show how completely off base you are here: 2:00-2:02 and 2:07-2:13, it is in the cross-examination section. I have thirty minutes more to listen to as I believe there is another relevant section, but this is enough to prove my point here.
                    Relevant because this debate was about the Qur'an misquoting Jesus, I presume.

                    Silly debate trick Jesse, listen to the clips above, and I am not misrepresenting his arguments.
                    Yes you are.

                    The second clip is where he makes the "likening to a Muslim" comment, please DO try to defend that comment by Ehrman. It makes NO SENSE. And listening to both clips, he expounds ON ALL KINDS OF MANUSCRIPTS THAT HE IS NOT AN EXPERT ONE SUCH AS SEUTONIUS, TACTITUS ETC. He only clams up when it gets the Koran, won't even answer a hypothetical. When it is painfully obvious that the arguments he just breezily made would apply to the Koran.
                    Insert a timestamp: #t=2h9m15s ... at the end of your link, like this:

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P35zWvmkHBo#t=2h9m15s

                    What you mean is that it makes no sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me. Ehrman objected to the original turn of conversation to divine inspiration at the link above, "I told you long ago this was not going to be a debate about my doctrine of inspiration."

                    Apparently the question breached the ground rules agreed to before the debate. Ehrman goes on to answer anyway by reflecting on his thoughts when he was a Christian, "Why would God not allow the originals to be preserved? I used to ask myself that question ..."

                    Doubling down on the breach, White then asks Ehrman's opinion on the inspiration of the Qur'an, "So if there is any claimed scripture from antiquity that does not have the originals, the Qur'an has textual variation in it, it can't possibly come from God then."

                    I'd have to guess these were set questions, because the question's premise contradicts the statements Ehrman had just made, and repeats the same breach of the debate conditions by asking him about his view of divine inspiration of texts. Ehrman answers, "I'm not drawing that theological conclusion, and I don't really appreciate you likening me to a Muslim."

                    He had just, reluctantly, answered a question about the inspiration of the Bible from his former viewpoint as a Christian. To do the same with the Qur'an, he would have to do so from his viewpoint as a Muslim. Atheists don't believe in divine inspiration, so of course he'd have to answer from the viewpoint of an adherent. How is that hard to understand?

                    I am sorry you idolize committees, but that is not by problem. I am sure you can present errors that show he is an ignorant buffoon rather than someone you just disagree with, though on this topic, it is apparent to me that the standard is one and the same. I challenge ANYONE to listen to that debate and argue that White is an ignorant man with no training or knowledge in the field, even if you think Ehrman won. This is just silly.
                    I don't idolize committees. That's hyperbole, as is nearly all of your posting on this subject. Nor have I suggested, or even thought, that White is "an ignorant buffoon" "with no training or knowledge in the field."

                    I'm saying that he has committed academic fraud sufficient to be terminated by any regionally accredited college or university in the country. And I'm saying this is an easily verified fact, based on a standard held by every institution from the smallest cow-town community college to the most prestigious research university.

                    Lying about your academic credentials will get you fired.

                    Believe me, don't believe me. It makes no difference. It remains true.

                    Derp. Sure… that is why he has over a hundred formal moderated debates that are open to public scrutiny and numerous published works. Please do tell me the gross errors in his published works that aren't simply your blanket critique of people who dare to believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant…. which then of course shows your argument against White is a smokescreen.

                    Ehrman quite happily talked about the classics, not knowing what they originally said… is he an expert on the Classics? No? He was willing to make a general application to his comment THAT UNLESS WE HAVE THE ORIGINALS OR PERFECT COPIES WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY SAID!
                    You're hyperventilating again. As to the classics, he does have an advantage in speaking of them over any he might have in speaking of the Qur'an. What do you know about his wife?

                    Smokescreen, and you are actually claiming that people who would make such a claim wouldn't have a price on their head? Well then, you are saying Ehrman made a bigoted joke. I do not care to spend the time doing the research for you on fatwas against people who make such claims against the Koran.
                    An academic writing books for the popular press on flaws in the Qur'an would be putting her life in danger. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Conversely, had Ehrman restricted himself to academic journals, he wouldn't have academic frauds like White calling him hyperskeptical, leading parrots to repeat that rubbish blithely unaware that Ehrman's position is hardly even skeptical, in fact is the majority position, while the claim to hyperskepticism is coming from White, who is himself firmly entrenched in the fringe.

                    Don't you feel a tiny twinge of conscience claiming someone else is engaged in ad hominem arguments here?

                    As ever, Jesse

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Read, and believe my prior response is sufficient. I do note your accusation of fraud is merely, oh go check. No thank you. And White has not lied about his credentials, he has always publicly acknowledged and posted the history. You have given quite a slew of accusations of deceit with no proof.

                      Oh I do note, that in one post you "defend" Ehrman by stating that he "joked" about irrational violence of Islam (not funny if not true) and then in this one, you state that unlike Ehrman's time as a Christian which he would think about without getting offended, if he should think someone is asking him to think as a Muslim (what a colorful apologetic, but I don't buy it), he should not be "appreciative" in a very annoyed time. Why? What is so disgusting about that? He annoyance and the "not appreciative" aspect put paid to your apologetic. It is irrational unless there is good reason.

                      AND irony of irony, you admitted that academics who would write popular works on errors on the Koran could expect to have a price on their head. WHICH IS ALL I WAS SAYING EHRRMAN SAID BEFORE WHEN YOU JUMPED IN TO "SCOLD" ME. Methinks this was just an end-run to vent your spleen about White. Your unsupported spleen.
                      Last edited by Darth Xena; 03-12-2014, 06:18 AM.
                      The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Dear Cannibal,

                        At one time, you expressed an interest in continuing your formal education toward an advanced degree in theology. In view of your continued denial of universal academic standards, allow me to strongly recommend against following the paths of Jorge, Hovind, and White. I guarantee you'll learn better during the process, though likely enough too late.

                        Other than that, feel free to continue in your ignorance. It's no skin off me.

                        As ever, Jesse

                        Comment

                        widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                        Working...
                        X