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 02-13-2001, 01:10 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PhysicsGuy:
Rew, your challenge does not conform to the 'rules' of this forum. If there are powerful and convincing arguments on another website, then learn them and bring them here.
Challenge us by presenting them to us. That way you are forced to do some thinking as well and we all learn something.

It's too easy to assume that some smart person somewhere has dealt with all the opposition's arguments adequately. I'm sure you could find a website designed by a 'smart' person that argues for every side of every issue which may be quite persuasive to someone not as familiar with the arguments.

So I challenge you to think through and present Holding's arguments here.
</font>
Hey Physics Guy.

Yeah, I think you're right, though. (However, I am unfamiliar with the actual "rules" of this board. Can you show me where those are?)

In all honesty, I am what you one would call a "beginning apologist." I'm trying to get familiar with how to present good arguments, evidence, etc. I'm trying to read up a lot too. I might be more familiar with the arguments than you think I am. I had spent a considerable amount of time on Infidels before I discovered J.P.'s Tekton site last month.

Anyway, the reason why I posted this was that Holding has his "Chicken Challenge," where critics who are skeptical of him could step up to the plate and refute his work--but so few have actually tried. So I was only trying to alert more skeptics to this so that they may take a shot at it if they so wished.

Thank you for your constructive criticism, though. It is well noted. Good day.

Rew

 
Old 02-13-2001, 01:26 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

As someone that has studied Hebrew, I see no evidence in the text that the first part of the command has a causitive relationship to the second. It is certainly not conveyed in English and is not conveyed in Hebrew. And Turkel provided no ancient literary customs that would make this passage say anything different, nor have I come across any. It seems as though from my recollection, this has always been the interpretation until fairly recently.

Take Josephus in this very famous statement for instance:
Now Pilate, the procurator of Judaea, when he brought his army from Caesarea and removed it to winter quarters in Jerusalem, took a bold step in subversion of the Jewish practices, by introducing into the city the busts of the emperor that were attached to the military standards, for our law forbids the making of images.

According to Josephus, this action outraged the Jews, so we know that HE understood it this way, and it is at least an indication that the Jews understood this to be a prohibition as well. I will check Talmudic and Mishnaic tradition.

[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 13, 2001).]
 
Old 02-13-2001, 01:46 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Rew:
Anyway, the reason why I posted this was that Holding has his "Chicken Challenge," where critics who are skeptical of him could step up to the plate and refute his work--but so few have actually tried. So I was only trying to alert more skeptics to this so that they may take a shot at it if they so wished.
</font>
Gene Ray at timecube.comhas a challenge, too, and he's willing to give anyone $1000 to anyone who can disprove there are 4 days in one Earth rotation. However, you don't see many people taking him on, either.

 
Old 02-13-2001, 01:53 PM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post


[/QUOTE]Gene Ray at timecube.comhas a challenge, too, and he's willing to give anyone $1000 to anyone who can disprove there are 4 days in one Earth rotation. However, you don't see many people taking him on, either.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Oh come on. I won't defend inerrancy, but surely you have to admit that there is much more interest in attacking the inerrancy of the Bible and the historicity of Christianity than there is in defeating Ray's 4-day rotation theory. Otherwise, why this website? Why Cygnus' website? Why so many skeptics on Christian websites?

 
Old 02-13-2001, 01:55 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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

The reason that skeptics don't bother much with Holding/Turkel is that he has been dealt with and quite effectively. McKinnsey has a set of rebuttals to his rebuttals on the _Biblical Errancy_ website.

Other reasons are that the response are themselves so inane that replying seems pointless. For example, here is a Q and A from Glenn Miller:

______________________
On..."three days and night" vs. "on the 3rd day"?

On Mon, 20 Nov 1995 ZZZZZZZZ wrote:

question: This comes from a list of reasons why humanists don't believe the Bible. I picked up their document from America On-Line. It is also a question I've had, but have never had answered. Jesus said he was going to be in the earth (buried) for three days and three nights. If he died on Friday and rose on Sunday morning, how is this three days and three nights.

GM replies:
This is one of the easier ones...the Jews counted PART of a day or night as a WHOLE day or nite, so part of Friday, all of Sat, part of Sun would be 'three days and three nights'--it was a Hebrew idiom of the day...

We do the same thing of course...if I say I worked at the office all day, 'all day' normally doesn't mean 24 hours...it means most of the daylight hours or whatever...
_____________

This passage shows why, REW, nobody pays much attention to Miller. As McKinnsey pointed out in his reponse, you might be able to buy friday to sunday as three days, but Friday and Saturday night, no matter how you cut
it, remain only two nights. So, Miller, actually didn't answer the objection, he just pretended he did, hoping nobody would notice he didn't account for half the question.

Turkel also rewrites the Bible at will to make his point. See his Golden Duh award
for who killed Saul. This is a simple contradiction. The Amalekite comes to David and says he killed Saul(SA 1 31:4-6) Another story elsewhere says Saul offed himself. Turkel solves this problem by saying "Duh!"
The Amalekite was lying, hoping to get a reward!" He places the word "LYING" in a giant font all by itself on the page, as if rubbing us poor benighted skeptics in how dumb we are.

Of course, the little problem is, how does Turkel make that judgement? Nowhere in there does it say the Amalekite is lying. Actually, it is just as possible that Chronicles is lying about Saul's suicide, in order to prevent it from being known that the Amalekites had a hand in Saul's death. Imagine if skeptics could play this game:

"When Jesus says "I am the Savior," he is LYING.

Save us a lot of trouble in actually reading the Bible, we could just say "It's LYING."

You see, whenever Bible-worshippers are confronted with a genuine contradiction, they just make their own rules about how it is to be interpreted. They add whatever they want to the text, or take it away, or make up special rules about interpreting particular words, etc, etc, etc. Another example of this occurs in his response to the old impossiblity of the striped sticks and goat breeding in Genesis. In Turkel's reponse
(http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html#gen3039) he reads into Genesis 31:10-13 ideas that aren't actually present in the text.

Wish I could play that game!

Here, why don't you look up Holding's response to the contradiction between God's promise not to kill sons for father's crimes, and his actual murder of David's child for David's sins? I can't find it in either Biblical Errancy or the Tekton site, but I remember seeing it somewhere, and it is pretty sick, as I recall. Maybe I've confused my apologists. There are so many,
and they all sound the same.

Michael
turton@ev1.net

</font>
While skeptics have certainly dealt with Miller and Turkel, I don't know if the term "effectively" is the most optimal one. It seems like Holding always manages to get the last word in online "debates" with skeptics--not that that always guarantees victory, but it also doesn't mean the skeptic has dealt "effectively" with him.

The points you made about Glenn Miller ignoring the "three nights" part and Holding supposedly adding the "lying" part out of nowhere are good points, and I will look into those.

You also mentioned McKinsey. Have you read Holding's introductory essays on dealing with contradictions, his articles on "Selling Snake Oil," his rebuttal to EBE's answers, "Inerrancy and Human Ignorance," and most importantly, his four-part essay on "Harmonization," including his Abraham Lincoln challenge? They're all located on his "Contradictions Refuted" page: http://www.tektonics.org/contrad.html. Also, as hard as I searched, I couldn't locate anywhere on McKinsey's "Biblical Errancy" site where he had rebutted J.P. Holding. Not that he didn't. Could you point me to the link where McKinsey deals with Holding?

The main thing about Bible contradictions is that while they look like discrepancies in our modern English versions, when we go back and examine the original Greek, Hebrew, whatever language, as well as the social/literary/cultural context, and so on, these difficulties normally smooth out rather nicely.

Since you seem rather confident, would you like to try your hand on taking J.P.'s "Lincoln Challenge" at http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_HICA_01.html?

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, however. Good day.

Rew
 
Old 02-13-2001, 02:11 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Oh come on. I won't defend inerrancy, but surely you have to admit that there is much more interest in attacking the inerrancy of the Bible and the historicity of Christianity than there is in defeating Ray's 4-day rotation theory. Otherwise, why this website? Why Cygnus' website? Why so many skeptics on Christian websites?[/B]</font>
Oh, certainly, there's more interest, and that was meant to be a bit of a joke. The point is that no one has the time to address everyone who opposes their views; to even attempt half would ceratinly take all your time. So people pick and choose, and some, unlike myself, may actually be able to hold a lengthy debate or two. I know I certainly don't have the time to read all of what Robert Turkel and Glenn Miller have written. What I've read seems factual, well researched, and deserving of far better critiques than I can provide at this time.
 
Old 02-13-2001, 02:22 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by daemon23:
The point is that no one has the time to address everyone who opposes their views; to even attempt half would ceratinly take all your time. So people pick and choose, and some, unlike myself, may actually be able to hold a lengthy debate or two. I know I certainly don't have the time to read all of what Robert Turkel and Glenn Miller have written. What I've read seems factual, well researched, and deserving of far better critiques than I can provide at this time.</font>
Thank you, Daemon, for that honest answer. I know those are my same sentiments concerning the works of many atheists on the Net. It is good to every now and then find good, honest responses like this on message boards.

Rew
 
Old 02-13-2001, 02:22 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Rew says he will look into them:

Actually, I erred. You COULD get Turkel's response out of Genesis 31:10-13. Don't have to squint very hard either. I am just plain wrong.

However, I stand by McKinnsey's response to Miller. Two nights will never make Three Nights.

Yes, I just skimmed through most of his reponses, and his selling snake oil article. No, I don't find any of it very convincing.
Too often he says -- see Glenn Miller's work -- which is fine, but he doesn't have the link there.

Most of the ways he deals with things are exemplified in:
http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html#ex249
on whether you can see god. (lesson 31)

where he weasels out by saying you can't see him in his FULL GLORY, although the Bible itself makes no distinction like that. He just derives meanings that aren't there. He also makes distinctions between god as Elohim and God as Yahweh.

In any case, the errancy debate is over and the skeptics won. The vast majority of people, Xtians and Skeptics, don't believe the Bible to be inerrant. Only a few fools do. Of course, they do a lot of harm....

Anyway, I searched for Holding's response to the David's son problem, and can't find it, so I think I must have been thinking of Gleason Archer.

Michael
turton@ev1.net

 
Old 02-13-2001, 02:43 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Since you seem rather confident, would you like to try your hand on taking J.P.'s "Lincoln Challenge" at [URL=http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_HICA_01.html?</font>[/quote]

I know this was not addressed to me, but I feel the need to respond to something outrageous on that website.

I will be the first to admit that Time, Newsweek, reporters and historians are WRONG on things. One of those reporters was wrong about the amount of dogs, I openly admit it. There was either one dog or several. But some of my letters to the editor show that I don't believe Newsweek is inerrant. Turkel, on the other hand cannot accept that the Bible writers can be wrong. Secondly, resurrection accounts are supposed to be related by people closely related to the events, not reporters for big weekly newsmagazines who we all know don't get facts straight. If someone from the agency who was actually TRAINING dogs on the plane had gotten the story wrong, he may have a point, but please, there is no comparison.

I do not know enough about the Jesus seminar to comment on whether or not Turkel has oversimplified their position, nor do I know the complex intricacies of biblical scholarship. But I think there is more to it than what Turkel is suggesting.



[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 13, 2001).]
 
Old 02-13-2001, 03:05 PM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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



______________________
On..."three days and night" vs. "on the 3rd day"?

On Mon, 20 Nov 1995 ZZZZZZZZ wrote:

question: This comes from a list of reasons why humanists don't believe the Bible. I picked up their document from America On-Line. It is also a question I've had, but have never had answered. Jesus said he was going to be in the earth (buried) for three days and three nights. If he died on Friday and rose on Sunday morning, how is this three days and three nights.

GM replies:
This is one of the easier ones...the Jews counted PART of a day or night as a WHOLE day or nite, so part of Friday, all of Sat, part of Sun would be 'three days and three nights'--it was a Hebrew idiom of the day...

We do the same thing of course...if I say I worked at the office all day, 'all day' normally doesn't mean 24 hours...it means most of the daylight hours or whatever...
_____________


Turkel also rewrites the Bible at will to make his point. See his Golden Duh award
for who killed Saul. This is a simple contradiction. The Amalekite comes to David and says he killed Saul(SA 1 31:4-6) Another story elsewhere says Saul offed himself. Turkel solves this problem by saying "Duh!"
The Amalekite was lying, hoping to get a reward!" He places the word "LYING" in a giant font all by itself on the page, as if rubbing us poor benighted skeptics in how dumb we are.

</font>
I am a little surprised you still hold this as a contradiction. How does one Amalekite lying reflect anything on Jesus Christ, for whom "no deceit was found in his mouth?" The Bible only records the Amalekite's claim to killing Saul- you would have to contradict this and prove that the Amalkite did not really say this. It is also clear why he would be so motivated to lie about this- you can imagine the reward he'd think he'd get! The Bible is often "non-commital" on such events, so why be shocked that it is not pointed out that the Amalekite lied. David had him killed right off, and the Bible doesn't comment on whether or not that was right either- although David certainly believed it was, we see.

As for the other question, please show me where the Bible ever says "3 days and 2 nights" or "40 days and 39 nights" about any time space. Please. If they used the "x days and x nights" as an idiom for x days, rather then being technically accurate in x days and x-1 nights, or perhaps x days and x+1 nights, then why fault Jesus for using the speech of his day?

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:39 PM.

Top

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