FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-16-2001, 08:52 AM   #81
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by John the Atheist:
Asking questions is one thing, but you’ve done far more than that by stating Morton Smith is bullshitting. How well do you remember your “Redating of the 7Q5 piece? I wanted to archive it, but it doesn’t appear to be accessed because I sure would love to put you in quotes right now. I do remember quite a bit of howling, screaming, raising nine kinds of hell going on, I swear I thought you dropped your bar of soap in some prison shower, because I got some quotes off of the internet, and I didn’t have the book of an author critiquing the 7Q5 piece, instead choosing to quote scholars I found on the internet. Also I remember you asking me many times have I read Thiede’s book, trying to make that a qualifier before you considered any merit to any scholar’s criticism that I brought in. The reason I didn’t think it necessary to get the book, is because of the few arguments that you tried to pass of as fact wasn’t that at all, and I figured if this was your best arguments for it, then it would be a waste of money and time. You took the minority view of a few scholars there too, and even though you were stating certain things as “fact” and when questioned about calling it a “fact” you said you never said that. But yet it was in your opening post and subsequent posts.

In this thread you are saying Morton Smith is a bullshitter. In another post you say that bullshit was perhaps too strong a word, but it didn’t take long to go back to saying he was a bullshitter once again. In an earlier post you have said that Morton Smith is basically an honest man. You said something was suspect because the document is gone, but you also stated that Smith certainly didn’t have anything to do with it. When are you going to get to the bullshit that you said Morton Smith is guilty of? Be more specific.

John

</font>
John, it appears Nomad is not always sure of what he thinks. He continually contradicts himself.

rodahi
 
Old 03-16-2001, 09:05 AM   #82
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Okay, Ron is in full scale rant mode now, and in all that I didn't see him refute any of my points, so I will let him have the last word.

Now, I wish to address John the Atheist again, because he has obviously not gotten over some issues when I first roasted him way back in the "BIG QUESTION" thread.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by John the Atheist:

Asking questions is one thing, but you’ve done far more than that by stating Morton Smith is bullshitting. How well do you remember your “Redating of the 7Q5 piece? I wanted to archive it, but it doesn’t appear to be accessed because I sure would love to put you in quotes right now.</font>
Let me help you John.

The thread is still active, and is called:

7Q5 and Redating the Gospel of Mark

Offer anything you like here or there.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I do remember quite a bit of howling, screaming, raising nine kinds of hell going on, I swear I thought you dropped your bar of soap in some prison shower, because I got some quotes off of the internet, and I didn’t have the book of an author critiquing the 7Q5 piece, instead choosing to quote scholars I found on the internet.</font>
This dropping of a bar of soap in a prison shower was an issue you had raised once before John. Now, I do understand how I hurt your feelings a long time back, and how Baalthazaq and I actually managed to have an informative and useful conversation on one of your threads. Of course, we had to ignore you until you finally quit the field in order to do it, but none the less, I am grateful for the opportunity we had to exchange our ideas.

That thread was called Big Question

That particular thread is very long (6 pages). It started rather badly, John made a complete ass of himself, and then Baalthazaq and I had what was for me a very enlightening discussion about Islam and Christiantity. I would invite any who wish to pursue it to please do so.

In the meantime, I will ask John to explain his reference to the bar of soap and the prison shower. No doubt it will help us to better understand his mind and how it works.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Also I remember you asking me many times have I read Thiede’s book, trying to make that a qualifier before you considered any merit to any scholar’s criticism that I brought in. The reason I didn’t think it necessary to get the book, is because of the few arguments that you tried to pass of as fact wasn’t that at all, and I figured if this was your best arguments for it, then it would be a waste of money and time.</font>
Hmm... we seem to have different recollections of the conversation. As I recall, I had not made any final conclusions about 7Q5, but found Thiede's case to be very interesting. The sites that you offered admitted that the subject was still very much up in the air, and a final conclusion on the matter would require much more study.

To be honest, I appreciated your contribution on that thread and told you so. Perhaps you had missed it though.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You took the minority view of a few scholars there too, and even though you were stating certain things as “fact” and when questioned about calling it a “fact” you said you never said that. But yet it was in your opening post and subsequent posts.</font>
The thread is still there John. Anyone who wants to read it or ask questions is free to do so. Just don't quote me out of context, and try not to be a total idiot please. Your insulting manner is quite unbecoming.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In this thread you are saying Morton Smith is a bullshitter. In another post you say that bullshit was perhaps too strong a word, but it didn’t take long to go back to saying he was a bullshitter once again. In an earlier post you have said that Morton Smith is basically an honest man.</font>
Oh dear, and you cannot read either. I have said that Morton Smith may well have been the most honest man that ever lived, but his methodology in this question, and the supporting evidence available to him was so bad as to amount to his spreading bullshit. If the word somehow offends you, then perhaps I chose one that is too strong for your delicate sensibilities, and I apologize. But the point remains, anyone that buys into Morton Smith's "evidence" for Secret Mark is acting on faith. They have the right to do this, but have yet to offer any supporting evidence for their faith.

Finally, if no one is actually going to address the first post, and actually answer Akenson's charges, then I would say that for all of rodahi's pleading, they stand unanswered and unchallenged.

Considering rodahi has Morton Smith's book and theoretically should be able to use it to actually rebut Akenson, I have found this to be quite curious.

As for what you are doing on this thread John, I am unsure. Right now it appears to be an attempt to smear me in some fashion, but in typical ham handed fashion, it has backfired on your rather badly.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You said something was suspect because the document is gone, but you also stated that Smith certainly didn’t have anything to do with it. When are you going to get to the bullshit that you said Morton Smith is guilty of? Be more specific.</font>
Go back to the very first post on this thread. The charges are from a respected non-Christian textual critic, and they are very devistating. After you have read it, perhaps you could offer a reply to his charges. If you cannot, that is cool, but after this, when you wish to jump into a thread and level charges against me, I suggest that first you read what I have posted.

I find conversations with you to be quite tiresome John. Your need to launch bizarre personal attacks on me clouds your argument, and also your reasoning powers. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, actually offer clear and coherent arguments, and when you want to attack me, offer actual quotations from me with references we can all check. If you do this, then it is more likely that I will take you seriously, and then address your points. As it stands right now, you are a flamer with very little to say. It is time that you improved the quality of your contributions dramatically.

Nomad

 
Old 03-16-2001, 02:44 PM   #83
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Okay, Ron is in full scale rant mode now, and in all that I didn't see him refute any of my points, so I will let him have the last word.

At least ol' Ron isn't afraid of giving his name. Neither is John. I wonder why Nomad is afraid to?

Since Nomad never gave ANY evidence to support his claim that Morton Smith "bullshitted" the scholarly community, I guess he has none. This whole thread was a waste of time.

rodahi

 
Old 03-16-2001, 03:37 PM   #84
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

At least ol' Ron isn't afraid of giving his name. Neither is John. I wonder why Nomad is afraid to?</font>
Hmm... trying to read minds again Ron?

Keep your day job. Last time I checked giving one's name was not a requirement to be a member of this Forum. On the other hand, if you want to know it just ask. My email address is in my profile, and I have always responded to every person who has ever mailed me. At those times I never use a nick name.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Since Nomad never gave ANY evidence to support his claim that Morton Smith "bullshitted" the scholarly community, I guess he has none. This whole thread was a waste of time.</font>
To quote a famous walrus, so long, and thanks for all the fish.

Nomad
 
Old 03-16-2001, 04:31 PM   #85
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Nomad, referring us back to your first post doesn’t get to any specifics of the bullshit. I would equate someone bullshitting as telling a tall tale, lying, using some sort of deceit, so maybe you want to change the meaning of it. If you got the specific quotes of where he did this, I would like to see it. This is what makes for tiresome posts, and going in circles. Okay, let’s get to the other stuff:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This dropping of a bar of soap in a prison shower was an issue you had raised once before John. Now, I do understand how I hurt your feelings a long time back, and how Baalthazaq and I actually managed to have an informative and useful conversation on one of your threads. Of course, we had to ignore you until you finally quit the field in order to do it, but none the less, I am grateful for the opportunity we had to exchange our ideas. </font>
Yep, uh-hum And I can’t believe you’re so naive, and still don’t get the joke concerning dropping a bar of soap. Just a little ANAL humor, Nomad. But it fitted your diatribe on the Big Question perfectly, but you went back and deleted the entire 6-10 page post, but not before I got to quote parts of it. Nyuk nyuk nyuk It was too good not to cut and paste, although I asked you to put the entire thing back up there. But no, you couldn’t even do that. Not sure who got their feelings hurt, did you think when you didn’t get back to me, that was going to hurt my feelings? Ha! I didn’t quit that board. I got a response to just about everybody that I wrote to I believe, with the exception of you not getting back to me on the last one. Was it something I said? Didn't like the tone, eh? What a shame. Unless you waited a couple of weeks or so to post back to me, which I doubt you did. I found you wanting to talk to Baal and anyone else about everything under the sun, but you knew where to find me if you wanted to pick back up where we left off. I also know I didn’t embarrass myself so bad, and make a complete ass out of myself, that I had to apologize, nor did I delete an entire 6-10 page diatribe. Did you? I got the impression that you were not sincere, and sure enough a couple of posts later, you were back in true form. I think you were out looking for the sympathy vote at this stage, and I think at least one asked you to please not leave. Concerning the discussion that you and Baal had going with Christian’s and Muslim‘s, was of no concern or interest to me. You were in need of some spiritual counseling at the time, I suppose, since Jehovah wasn’t showing you any support. If your confidence ever matched your ability, you would be a force to be reckoned with. I’m convinced, that if you got in the ring with Mike Tyson, you would have it told that you kicked his ass from one side of the ring to the next, all the while you were bleeding, just about every bone was broke in your body, and was lying there unconscious, and totally oblivious to your surroundings. I sure wouldn’t want you to be on any jury or be a judge if I was the one on trial. 90% of the Big Question was talking about everything but what I was hoping would get covered concerning what would get people to change their minds, not necessary that they were wrong, but just maybe that might be mistaken about their beliefs.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">John:In this thread you are saying Morton Smith is a bullshitter. In another post you say that bullshit was perhaps too strong a word, but it didn’t take long to go back to saying he was a bullshitter once again. In an earlier post you have said that Morton Smith is basically an honest man.

Nomad: Oh dear, and you cannot read either. I have said that Morton Smith may well have been the most honest man that ever lived, but his methodology in this question, and the supporting evidence available to him was so bad as to amount to his spreading bullshit. </font>
You said more than that pertaining to the bullshit, and also you also said elsewhere that he was basically a honest man. I can go back and get every pertinent quote, if necessary. If you can’t substantiate the bullshit he is supposed to have spread, then that sort of makes it look like you’re the one doing the spreading. Something like this:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Hmm... we seem to have different recollections of the conversation. As I recall, I had not made any final conclusions about 7Q5, but found Thiede's case to be very interesting. The sites that you offered admitted that the subject was still very much up in the air, and a final conclusion on the matter would require much more study.
To be honest, I appreciated your contribution on that thread and told you so. Perhaps you had missed it though. </font>
It wasn’t too bad of a board, actually, and you were not as sloppy and as much of an emotional wreck as you’ve been on other boards. If you hadn‘t started off as presenting parts of it as facts and conclusive, I probably wouldn‘t have bothered with it. I couldn’t access 7Q5 earlier with the computer I was on for some reason, but this one works. But nope, I didn’t miss that. Nor did I miss the header post of 7Q5. All of these is from your header post:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Until recently it was believed that we could not know what ancient work this fragment came from, but now have learned that it is, in fact, a portion of the Gospel of Mark 6:52-53.</font>
It isn’t a fact.

Thiede spends a great deal of time explaining his methodology, and especially in how he applies it in studying 7Q5. The results and his conclusions are both astonishing, and solid.

Not conclusive, nor solid.

The results are conclusive, proving that the letter is in fact a “nu”, and thus keeping the text consistent with what we would expect to find in Mark 6:53 (a diagram of the letter in question compared against the other letter “nu” is found on page 42).

Not conclusive.

Also just in the first post, you quote Thiede also stating it is conclusive:

The line is not complete-the traces broke off after a few millimeters-but it was long and straight enough to be absolutely conclusive: it must have been the diagonal middle line of a “nu”… and thus the word is “auton” as required by St. Mark 6:53.” (Ibid. pg. 41).


Quoting Thiede didn’t make it “absolutely conclusive” either.

After this was brought to your attention, then some posts down you write:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1. I have not presented Thiede's arguments as conclusive, or facts.</font>
What a piece of work. Maybe I need a machine that interprets apologists differently.

John



[This message has been edited by John the Atheist (edited March 16, 2001).]
 
Old 03-16-2001, 04:36 PM   #86
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Hmm... trying to read minds again Ron?</font>
I would try to read your mind, Nomad, but every time I do, I draw a blank.

John

 
Old 03-16-2001, 04:51 PM   #87
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
At least ol' Ron isn't afraid of giving his name. Neither is John. I wonder why Nomad is afraid to?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm... trying to read minds again Ron?

If you want to call me by a name other than my UserName, then tell me yours. Otherwise, just call me "rodahi."

Keep your day job.

Thanks so much, Nomad. I think I will.

Last time I checked giving one's name was not a requirement to be a member of this Forum.

It isn't a requirement. But if you feel you can call another poster by a name other than his/her UserName, then don't be squeamish about giving a name other than "Nomad."

On the other hand, if you want to know it just ask.

What is your name?

My email address is in my profile, and I have always responded to every person who has ever mailed me. At those times I never use a nick name.

I voluntarily gave my name. You can do the same. Otherwise, call me "rodahi."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Nomad never gave ANY evidence to support his claim that Morton Smith "bullshitted" the scholarly community, I guess he has none. This whole thread was a waste of time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To quote a famous walrus, so long, and thanks for all the fish.

To quote John Lennon, "I AM the walrus,"
and thanks for the magical mystery tour.

rodahi



 
Old 03-19-2001, 08:00 AM   #88
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Unhappy

John

When we had had our discussion on 7Q5 I had actually begun to reevaluate my original impression of you (which, needless to say, was not good). However, your recent posts on this thread have reinforced those earlier conclusions, and once again led me to conclude that you are an extremely odd individual. How you ever came to believe that I live (or lived) in a prison is completely beyond me, and I suppose telling you that I do not is pretty much besides the point. That said, however, I am forced to conclude that you are not really interested in serious discussion (at least with me) and are here only to flame me. Such is your right of course, but from my point of view that makes you too uninteresting to respond to. If you should ever collect yourself together however, and behave responsibly, without feeling the need to slander me, I will still be here.

In the meantime, I must once again bid you adieu.

Nomad
 
Old 03-19-2001, 04:57 PM   #89
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

No, Nomad, it had nothing to do with me thinking you had ever been in prison. Nor have I. And I hope you never have to go there to get the punch line.

Many of your posts seems to be completely oblivious to your surroundings, not just other posters, but to your own posting of what you have wrote. This often leaves to no dialogue being established. And you don’t leave yourself in a very good position to be questioning others behavior saying you‘ve been slandered or that others are out to flame you. It’s slander to say you’ve been slandered. And I’ve seen enough posts from you insulting and patronizing others if things are sometimes not going your way. Often quite a few of them don‘t bother to respond in kind. But don’t expect all to lie down and play wounded by it: I won’t. It’s ironic that a great deal of your posts was stating that Morton Smith was spreading bullshit, and it‘s actually difficult to know just what was the purpose of the board, if there wasn‘t going to be anything to substantiate it, other than you later wanting to try to change the meaning of what you meant by bullshit.

In all fairness, I do think you did quite well with your 7Q5 board. That board actually stayed on topic, which is something rare in itself. And there were many things that did get covered but stayed on the 7Q5 topic. It actually got off the ground. And I think you presented your case well, although I think some things were overstated, but overall, it was probably the best I seen from you. I wish you had more boards where you write like that. Anyway, cheer up.

Take care, and adieu too, John FINIS


 
Old 03-28-2001, 01:30 PM   #90
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.