Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

[Sparko]

I'm no scholar

captain-obvious.jpg

[Tassman]

The bolded appears to be a direct, unattributed quote from here: http://mythikismos.gr/?cat=4

Well, you're wrong as usual.

just after the section break.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

A shining example of intellectual honesty and rigour, Tassman.

My source was not Carrier, although he's a well qualified scholar, but Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work. He said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from. "For people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it's not the literal meaning which is important, it's how it's read allegorically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ight-earliest/

[Tassman]

Sailhammer's point rests on the meaning of the Hebrew, something which you very obviously want to avoid discussing, because you have no idea.

As a biblical inerrantist Sailhamer’s theology is inevitably going to be coloured by his literal view of the creation narratives, which have been shown by science to be false.

This is the point being made, not the meaning of the Hebrew. It's the unsubstantiated premise of his arguments that I’m questioning.

[Tassman]

Yeah, but at least we actually engage with the arguments instead of simply attacking the source as non-credible.

Why engage in an argument if the premise of the argument is demonstrably false? We know that the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives is wrong, so any argument based on this interpretation will be wrong. All that is left is to view these narratives as poetry or allegory.

[Sparko]

Well, you're wrong as usual.



My source was not Carrier, although he's a well qualified scholar, but Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work. He said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from. "For people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it's not the literal meaning which is important, it's how it's read allegorically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ight-earliest/

So you admit you plagiarized the words but not from Carrier?



You know plagiarism is against our rules right? If it were more than a few words you would probably have gotten dinged.

[MaxVel]

As a biblical inerrantist Sailhamer’s theology is inevitably going to be coloured by his literal view of the creation narratives, which have been shown by science to be false.

This is the point being made, not the meaning of the Hebrew. It's the unsubstantiated premise of his arguments that I’m questioning.

You're an ass. You' re still proving my point. Sailhammer's argument was about what precisely the text means to say, with reference to the Hebrew. Your moaning about inerrancy is a red herring. You might as well argue that noone can know the actual intended meaning of a passage in the Koran if they are a Muslim.

Show us why what he said is wrong, with quotes and counter arguments about the points he actually makes. Bet you can't. I'm already up 1-0.

[MaxVel]

Well, you're wrong as usual.



My source was not Carrier, although he's a well qualified scholar, but Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work. He said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from. "For people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it's not the literal meaning which is important, it's how it's read allegorically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ight-earliest/

What a goose!

Tassman: Your Honour, I'm not guilty of breaking the speed limit as I was going 25 over it, not 30 like the officer said.

Judge: Thanks for admitting you broke the law. Case closed, the verdict is guilty.

[Tassman]

You're an ass. You' re still proving my point. Sailhammer's argument was about what precisely the text means to say, with reference to the Hebrew. Your moaning about inerrancy is a red herring. You might as well argue that noone can know the actual intended meaning of a passage in the Koran if they are a Muslim.

The text is in the context of the literal seven day Creation narrative of Genesis...as per the OP. If you are suggesting that the “actual intended meaning” being expounded by Sailhamer (not Sailhammer BTW, you keep getting it wrong) is that Genesis is only intended as allegory or poetry rather than literally true then there’s no problem. But is he, as a member of a Baptist faculty which is committed to biblical inerrancy, really arguing that say, Adam and Eve are merely allegorical figures etc, etc etc?

Show us why what he said is wrong, with quotes and counter arguments about the points he actually makes. Bet you can't. I'm already up 1-0.

Sigh! Vintage MaxVel!

[Adrift]

The text is in the context of the literal seven day Creation narrative of Genesis...as per the OP. If you are suggesting that the “actual intended meaning” being expounded by Sailhamer (not Sailhammer BTW, you keep getting it wrong) is that Genesis is only intended as allegory or poetry rather than literally true then there’s no problem. But is he, as a member of a Baptist faculty which is committed to biblical inerrancy, really[I] arguing that say, Adam and Eve are merely allegorical figures etc, etc etc?

Huh? What are you talking about? John Sailhamer didn't suggest a literal seven day creation narrative. I mean, that's the whole reason I brought him up to OBP all the way back in post #68. I figured you knew that, and that's why you decided to jump in with your two cents. What have you been arguing about this whole time?

[Tassman]

Huh? What are you talking about? John Sailhamer didn't suggest a literal seven day creation narrative. I mean, that's the whole reason I brought him up to OBP all the way back in post #68. I figured you knew that, and that's why you decided to jump in with your two cents. What have you been arguing about this whole time?

As a biblical inerrantist Sailhamer’s theology is inevitably going to be coloured by his literal view of the creation narratives and what you quoted in #84 says no more than god-did-it, praise the lord.

[psstein]

More and more Scholars are coming to the conclusion that Jesus is mythological historocity. I'm no scholar, and I came to that conclusion some 30 or so years ago.

Name them. I don't mean some clown with a blog. I mean scholars with PhDs in relevant fields (Classics, NT, Early Christianity, Ancient History).

[tabibito]

More and more scholars are coming up with strange stories that do no more than give atheists less and less to disbelieve.

And that's a paraphrase of what one scholar said.

[JimL]

Name them. I don't mean some clown with a blog. I mean scholars with PhDs in relevant fields (Classics, NT, Early Christianity, Ancient History).

How about we start with Joseph Campbell. Ever hear of him?

[tabibito]

Would that be this Joseph Campbell, or another one?

Campbell's scholarship and understanding of Sanskrit has also been questioned. Masson, a Sanskrit scholar, said that he once met Campbell, and that the two "hated each other at sight". Masson commented that, "When I met Campbell at a public gathering, he was quoting Sanskrit verses. He had no clue as to what he was talking about; he had the most superficial knowledge of India but he could use it for his own aggrandizement. I remember thinking: this man is corrupt. I know that he was simply lying about his understanding".[65] According to Richard Buchen, the editor of the third edition of The Hero With a Thousand Faces, Campbell could not translate Sanskrit well.[66]

Ellwood observes that The Masks of God series "impressed literate laity more than specialists"; he quotes Stephen P. Dunn as remarking that in Occidental Mythology Campbell "writes in a curiously archaic style – full of rhetorical questions, exclamations of wonder and delight, and expostulations directed at the reader, or perhaps at the author's other self – which is charming about a third of the time and rather annoying the rest." Ellwood notes that "Campbell was not really a social scientist, and those in the latter camp could tell" and records a concern about Campbell's "oversimpification of historical matters and tendency to make myth mean whatever he wanted it to mean".[63]

[JimL]

Would that be this Joseph Campbell, or another one?

Campbell's scholarship and understanding of Sanskrit has also been questioned. Masson, a Sanskrit scholar, said that he once met Campbell, and that the two "hated each other at sight". Masson commented that, "When I met Campbell at a public gathering, he was quoting Sanskrit verses. He had no clue as to what he was talking about; he had the most superficial knowledge of India but he could use it for his own aggrandizement. I remember thinking: this man is corrupt. I know that he was simply lying about his understanding".[65] According to Richard Buchen, the editor of the third edition of The Hero With a Thousand Faces, Campbell could not translate Sanskrit well.[66]

Ellwood observes that The Masks of God series "impressed literate laity more than specialists"; he quotes Stephen P. Dunn as remarking that in Occidental Mythology Campbell "writes in a curiously archaic style – full of rhetorical questions, exclamations of wonder and delight, and expostulations directed at the reader, or perhaps at the author's other self – which is charming about a third of the time and rather annoying the rest." Ellwood notes that "Campbell was not really a social scientist, and those in the latter camp could tell" and records a concern about Campbell's "oversimpification of historical matters and tendency to make myth mean whatever he wanted it to mean".[63]

Yes, there are scholars who disagree and criticize each others work. Very good!