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
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
-
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View PostSorry, but it is patently obvious why he make any comment about the Koran, he gave it to us, because he values his life.
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View PostYou 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.
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
-
Originally posted by phank View PostIf 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
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostAs 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
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
-
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostDear 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View PostOne 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.
It was not whatsoever about Forged. At. All.
Here is the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P35zWvmkHBo
Listen to the opening statements if you really care about accurately getting the context.
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.
Silly debate trick Jesse, listen to the clips above, and I am not misrepresenting his arguments.
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.
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'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.
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.
Don't you feel a tiny twinge of conscience claiming someone else is engaged in ad hominem arguments here?
As ever, Jesse
Comment
-
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
-
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.
Comment