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 05-27-2001, 10:56 PM   #41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I did this in both my original post, and the one you are critiquing. I will give you a more extensive list, and suggest that you read some of them.</font>
Thank you for the list. Your refutation appears to be substantive. Perhaps Carrier will comment directly. Still it is at best a side issue.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Carrier said that books for layman on the Bible rarely contain footnotes.</font>
Actually you are substantively misquoting Carrier. The actual quote is, "First, books for laymen rarely have footnotes or endnotes." The addition of "on the Bible" is entirely your own fabrication. Again this is a trivial point. If these are the two most important errors in Carrier's rebuttal, then he has indeed demolished Dever's review.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Stick with what you know SD. You are clearly in over your head here.</font>
I'll stay; the difference in IQ and honesty more than compensates for the difference in education and scholarship.
 
Old 05-28-2001, 03:36 AM   #42
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

SingleDad, it takes more than a little character to accept criticism. I'm impressed. Frankly, I expected to be consigned to Siberia. Pleased to see I was wrong.
 
Old 05-28-2001, 08:53 AM   #43
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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

Thank you for the list. Your refutation appears to be substantive. Perhaps Carrier will comment directly. Still it is at best a side issue.</font>
First, you are welcome. Second, since Carrier appeared to believe it was an important issue, I will let him explain why he said it in the first place. From my own point of view, it merely demonstrates the sloppiness of his methods, and penchant for making broad based, and easily falsified statements. Considering the fact that Carrier was making a point within his own field of expertise, this sloppiness is even more inexcusable. Since demonstrating Carrier's sloppiness was why I offered my comments in the first place, I think it was very relavent.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Brian: Carrier said that books for layman on the Bible rarely contain footnotes.

SingleDad: Actually you are substantively misquoting Carrier. The actual quote is, "First, books for laymen rarely have footnotes or endnotes." The addition of "on the Bible" is entirely your own fabrication.</font>
Considering the fact that he and Dever were both talking specifically about a book about the Bible, and that Carrier's own field of studies is of the ancients, it is very reasonable to assume that he is referring to books for laymen about the Bible.

Further, as it is easily demonstrated that within this broad field of study, footnotes and endnotes are the norm, and not the exception to the rule, Carrier is being very careless in his argument here. If he has never read books written for laymen about the Bible, then this would be more understandable, and your point would be taken. However, given that Carrier's expertise is in ancient studies, and in this review of Dever's review he is commenting directly on a book about the Bible, I am still left to wonder how he arrived at his erroneous statement of fact.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Again this is a trivial point. If these are the two most important errors in Carrier's rebuttal, then he has indeed demolished Dever's review.</font>
No, there are other areas as well.

My point in my post was to show why I believe that Carrier is careless and sloppy in his work. Betraying an ignorance about Biblical studies in these two simple areas is very telling, and extremely troubling in my view. And if he was not ignorant of the facts that I have presented, then he has even less excuse for making these mistakes (actually, he would have none at all).

Given that Carrier would, no doubt, like to be taken seriously as an expert scholar in the field of ancient studies, it is incumbent upon him to show that he can present the facts (including simple ones like the examples listed above) in a clear, honest, and objective manner. His failure to do this will cast a pall on the larger points he will try to make, damaging his credibility with his fellows very seriously.

Brian
 
Old 05-28-2001, 06:13 PM   #44
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad, your diatribe against Carrier is not justified by the facts you cite. For example, Carrier asserted that no book in a specific niche had been published, which you call a lie because there are books on the general topic. Not the same thing.

Likewise, the fuss over footnotes. What you're talking about is your personal preference, which is fine as far as it goes. But, general interest is a recognized publishing segment with different conventions. Ken Davis' Don't Know Much About The Bible and Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties are better examples of bible scholarship aimed at laymen. Neither, of course, has footnotes.

Can't you do any better than constantly slashing at the honesty, intelligence and methods of every scholar with whom you disagree? Not only is it inappropriate, after a while it ceases to be effective. Think of the boy who cried wolf.
 
Old 05-28-2001, 08:06 PM   #45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Earl:
In my opinion there was little actual engagement in the debate, but certainly Nomad did not "plaster" Doherty. Nomad was more evasive, misrepresentative and abusive, and less detailed in his responses.

However, I would very much like to see you, Metacrock, debate Doherty. From what I've read of your posts you would be much more substantive regarding Doherty's arguments and less likely to drown your opponent in bare assertions and hostile remarks. That's not to say I don't think Nomad made any good points in the debate. But Nomad avoided rather than debated Doherty's arguments head-on.

I doubt, though, that Doherty will return. If he does, the moderators simply MUST take control at the outset and issue guidelines. For starters, there must by a limit to the number of posts, as in all formal debates. That way the participants are pressured to be more on-topic. And certainly there MUST be a proposition set up at the outset to be affirmed or denied, so that the debaters know EXACTLY what they must concentrate on. Nomad took advantage of the lack of moderation and wasted the opportunity to take on Doherty's arguments themselves. Metacrock seems eager to do what Nomad didn't do.
</font>
I dont want to create the impression that I think Nomad did a crumy job. I think he did very good and I very much respect his knowledge. but I wanted to see him attack the Paul stuff more directly and I want to do that.

I guess I have to go ask D. to come right? Can I ask you to do that? I promise honest honest and swear on a stack of silver age Comics that I will debate the Paul thing!
 
Old 05-28-2001, 08:08 PM   #46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JubalH:
Talk about from the frying pan into the fire. Does anyone but Meta think he's suitable?

More importantly, in the unlikely event ED wants to restart the debate, I suggest a nontheist would make a much more useful and illuminating antagonist. IMHO, one of the problems with Nomad was that he had so much invested in other issues that he couldn't face historicity detachedly. And this is, after all, the Secular Web.
</font>
What would be the point? I would be unsuitable casue I'd kick his ass, maybe he should debate his grandmother.
 
Old 05-28-2001, 08:10 PM   #47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JubalH:
Layman, my remarks were directed to ED. I'm sure he understood the point.

Still, out of curiosity, are you really supporting Meta for the role?
</font>
What the hell is wrong with "Meta?" I have a Masters degree in Theology and I know more about textual criticism than all of you put together. O see, that is the problem.
 
Old 05-28-2001, 08:12 PM   #48
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JubalH:
Layman, my remarks were directed to ED. I'm sure he understood the point.

Still, out of curiosity, are you really supporting Meta for the role?
</font>
OK&lt; I challenge you! You and I 1x1 in the speicial debate thingy. We'll see if you know you rass from a hole in the ground when it comes to textual matters!

come on!
 
Old 05-28-2001, 08:16 PM   #49
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:
Mr. Carriers credentials:

Carrier:
B.A. History (minor in Classical Civilization), UC Berkeley (1997)

Metacrock: BA: Sociology University of Texas

M.A. Ancient History, Columbia University (1998)


Meta =

M.A. Theoloigcal Studies and history of Christian Thought, Perkins School of Theology (major liberal seminary) Southern Methodist University.

Carrier:
M.Phil. Ancient History, Columbia University (2000)


Meta= Ph.D. History of Ideas, University of Texas.(hook 'em horns)

hmm looks like I outrank him.

Perhaps you don't like or agree with his positions, but suggesting that he's not a "serious" historian is simply rude and disrespectful. If this is all you can do to berate his arguments (and he has many articles available on the web) then he doesn't have much to fear.
</font>
OK I'll debate Carrier! Come on for God sake let me debate someone!

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited May 28, 2001).]
 
Old 05-28-2001, 08:19 PM   #50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
Thanks madmax but I'm already aware of Carrier's credentials. I don't consider him a serious historian (I wouldn't care if he had a PHd. which he probably will one day) because most of what I've read of his is just sloppy freethinkerism, as I said - much of it completely out of his field...

SecWebLurker
</font>
I agree the stuff he does for the sec web is rooted in enlightenment thinking and went out of fashion about 60 years ago. But I have a hunch he puts his real time in on his school work. He's probably pretty good when he's in corner so I"m not going to say anything derogatory about his work. But It does have an odd datedness about it. But than so do a lot my ideas.

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:09 PM.

Top

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