--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rodahi: His commentary is on P46, a MS that DOES NOT contain anything from the NT narratives. Surely you know this, Nomad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: I am sure that you can make a connection in the dating of a codex and arguments about dating the Gospels.

The dating of P46 is THE issue, Nomad, not the dating of the NT narratives. Go back and look at what I wrote.

Nomad: If the codex dates to the 1st, as opposed to the commonly believed 2nd Century, then we may well have to redate a number of papyri. These documents are typically dated to the 2nd Century because it is believed that the codex is a 2nd Century invention, but surely you can see that this is ciruclar reasoning.

I have made no comment about any of this. The issue is Kim's dating of P46.

Nomad: I found Kim's arguments interesting, and have yet to see anyone present any counter arguments that are not based on authority alone.

Why do accept HIS conclusions and not those of expert palaeologists?

Nomad: Do you have any such arguments or not?

Again, the issue is Kim's dating of P46.

Nomad: Secondly, are you going to defend your idiotic assertion that no one dates the Gospels to the time period that I have offered?

Where did I say that "no one dates the Gospels to the time period" you have offered?

Nomad: Thus far you have not. I keep reminding you of your failing, and I am left to wonder how long you wish to remain silent on this matter.

What matter? Are we not discussing Young Kyu Kim and his dating of P46?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: As you will note, my argument rests on far more than a single point by Kim regarding the introduction of the codex.
rodahi: Look at my statement again, Nomad. Let's stick to one issue at a time.


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

Nomad: We are. Do any scholars date the Gospels to the period of time I have suggested or not? You have said that no one has done this. Will you withdraw this stupid claim or not?

What claim?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: So, do you have any arguments to present my early dating of the Gospels or not?
rodahi: This is another "bait and switch," Nomad. The issue is about Kim's opinions.


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

Nomad: I did not make you say that no one dates the Gospels at the dates I have offered. You did. Please prove your point, or withdraw it.

Quote me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: If so, please offer them. I seriously would like to debate this topic with someone that believes in the traditional (70-95AD) dates for the Gospels.
rodahi: Again, Kim does not comment on the dating of the NT narratives. Surely you know that, Nomad. He commented on P46. Do you know what this MS contains?


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

Nomad: You did not answer my question.

You are confused, Nomad.

Nomad: Further, since my original post on the topic said that P46 was a codex of the Pauline epistles (less the pastorals), why are you asking this question now?

I ask you this question because I thought we were discussing Kim and his dating of P46.

Nomad: Sure you actually read my posts before you heap scorn on them.

You ARE confused.

rodahi

Hi, James. Nomad has, at various times, characterized me and/or my arguments as "stupid," "idiotic," "bigoted," "fundamentalist," "daft," "dense," "ridiculous," etc. It does no good to point out that name-calling adds nothing to an argument. I have done so many times, and he continues to insult all who disagree with him. Some of us have just gotten used to his behavior.

rodahi

Ya know.

I am all for keeping the personal slams to a dull roar, but when Nomad gets swiped at for characterizing an argument as "stupid," when Koy/critical thinking made EZ/Cute little baby provide post after post using profanity against their opponents, it does make us visiting theists wonder.

Of course if there is a double standard then it is your website and we should just live with it.

Is there?

As rodai was talking specifically about Nomad I don't understand why the subject of double standard should come up. Certainly there should be no double standard and I expect the tactics of those such as Cute Little Baby and others should be just as frowned upon. I have questioned her tactics myself, but she seems to have a very large chip on her shoulder that is difficult if not impossible to reason through.

In any case, the abuses of others would not excuse Nomad's actions if in fact he is quilty of the charge leveled against him.

James Still

There is no double-standard. I just can't control everyone who posts because it's a free speech board. Even so everyone should refrain from name-calling on the Sec Web. I have made that abundantly clear in the past. Even if there were a double-standard why do you seek to remove the splinter from another's eye? It's enough that Nomad or anyone of us should not behave abominably no matter what others say to us. And while I'm off-topic, why is the anger level so high in this forum? The spirit of biblical scholarship, no matter what your level of understanding, requires (perhaps demands) calm reasoned discussions over the sort of ranting and raving I've been reading. Strong words yes, but name-calling absolutely not.

I was not defending Nomad. But I think his use of the terms "stupid" and "idiotic" to describe an argument, not a person, is mild compared to certain other phrases people have used:

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000440.html

But you've answered my question. It should not be tolerated whether committed by theists or skeptics.

Thank you.

Because thus far you have not bothered to offer a single convincing argument against Kim’s dating of P46. Refer to the new thread found at Dating P46 and give us something to look at.

From Review of "The Bible Unearthed" April 25, 20001 at 7:33PM:

BTW, the idea of "Redating the New Testament" is a DEAD issue. It has not been redated by anyone other than yourself.

These are your words rodahi. Do you withdraw them now, or do you wish to defend your assertion?

That no one except me has redated the Gospels to the time period that I have offered on this thread.

I have, more than once, and have just done so again in this post. Now, stop being evasive, and defend (or withdraw) your statement.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 30, 2001).]

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: I found Kim's arguments interesting, and have yet to see anyone present any counter arguments that are not based on authority alone.

rodahi: Why do accept HIS conclusions and not those of expert palaeologists?


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

Nomad: Because thus far you have not bothered to offer a single convincing argument against Kim’s dating of P46. Refer to the new thread found at Dating P46 and give us something to look at.

Again, Nomad, Why do you accept the dating of Kim and not that of paleographers?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Secondly, are you going to defend your idiotic assertion that no one dates the Gospels to the time period that I have offered?
rodahi: Where did I say that "no one dates the Gospels to the time period" you have offered?


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

From Review of "The Bible Unearthed" April 25, 20001 at 7:33PM:

BTW, the idea of "Redating the New Testament" is a DEAD issue. It has not been redated by anyone other than yourself.

Nomad: These are your words rodahi. Do you withdraw them now, or do you wish to defend your assertion?

This was within the context of our discussion of P46. Remember? P46 DOES NOT contain any portion of the NT narratives. Now, point out where I mentioned the "Gospels."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: We are. Do any scholars date the Gospels to the period of time I have suggested or not? You have said that no one has done this. Will you withdraw this stupid claim or not?
rodahi: What claim?


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

Nomad: That no one except me has redated the Gospels to the time period that I have offered on this thread.

Again, our discussion was about P46. Remember? I never mentioned the "Gospels."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: I did not make you say that no one dates the Gospels at the dates I have offered. You did. Please prove your point, or withdraw it.
rodahi: Quote me.


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

Nomad: I have, more than once, and have just done so again in this post. Now, stop being evasive, and defend (or withdraw) your statement.

Please quote me where I said anything about the "Gospels," Nomad. Our WHOLE discussion centered on P46, not the NT narratives.

rodahi

rodahi

From your post I assume that you do not wish to defend the traditional dating of the Gospels. Fair enough.

As for the dating of P46, I will look forward to your post on the thread of that name.

Nomad